Friday, March 27, 2015

It takes a . . . lawsuit

Digital Journal reports:


Judicial Watch accused the Obama administration of stalling and withholding information from a federal court in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and top aide's emails. Last week, Judicial Watch attorneys sought a status conference over the issue of the Hillary Clinton's and other secret email accounts in order to "avoid further undue delays, prejudice and potential spoliation." In response, the Justice Department, on behalf of the State Department, told the federal court handling the matter (U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth) that there was no need for a hearing until at least late April and that, contrary to statements by Mrs. Clinton and various administration spokesmen, it was not aware of the secret email issue until recently. In its response (Reply in Support of a Motion for a Status Conference), Judicial Watch cited Mrs. Clinton's press statement:
"Secretary Clinton was the head of the agency and the State Department cannot claim it was unaware of the State Department's failure to records-manage agency emails from the Office of the Secretary. In fact, the 'Statement from the Office of Former Secretary Clinton' states that '[h]er usage [of non-'state.gov' email for State Department business] was widely known to the over 100 Department and U.S. government colleagues she emailed.'"
 
It is a shame that lawsuits are what the country has to result to in order to receive basic information about what Clinton did or did not do while she was Secretary of State.


This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"



Thursday, March 26, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, US President Barack Obama's Envoy John Allen testifies that there is no exit strategy, some Shi'ite militias leave the Tikrit assault (or were pushed out) and much more.


 "Is it in the United States interest to save what I would call a failing Iranian strategy?  And I worry about Iran's role in Iraqi military operations because what does that portend for the political future of Iraq?" these were straight forward questions from US House Rep Eliot Engel.

Sadly, there were no straight forward answers in reply.



This morning, the House Foreign Affairs Committee heard testimony from the Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL John Allen as well as Brig Gen Michael Fantini and Brig Gen Gregg Olson.


Allen was the one skirting the issues Engel raised.  Engel is the Ranking Member of the Committee, US House Rep Ed Royce is the Committee Chair.  We'll note some of his opening remarks.



Chair Ed Royce:  Adding to the problem, the regional forces on the ground these airstrikes are supposed to be supporting are badly undersupplied.  After seven months of fighting, the Committee is still receiving troubling reports that the Kurdish Peshmerga are outgunned on the front lines.  This morning, Ranking Member Engel and I are re-introducing legislation to allow US arms to be sent directly to the Kurds.  These brave fighters need the better equipment to defeat ISIS.  And the Sunni tribal fighters, who will be central to this fight, are yet to trust Baghdad.  Strong local police and provincial national guard forces are desperately needed to protect Sunnis in Anbar Province and elsewhere.  Into the void on the ground in Iraq have stepped Iranian-backed Shi'ite fighters, the leading force behind the recent Tikrit offensive.  Senior US officials have put this development in positive terms.  And reports indicate that US intelligence and air power will now support this Iranian-backed mission.  The Washington Post wisely cautioned in an editorial this week, "The growing power of the militias, with their brutal tactics, sectarian ideology and allegiance to Iran's most militant faction, has become as large an impediment to the goal of stabilizing Iraq" as ISIS.  Shi'ite militias taking on ISIS may serve the immediate interest of killing jihadis but it is hard to see how empowering Iran's proxies is in the short, medium or long term interests of an inclusive Iraq or a stable Middle East.  The fear that many of us have is that Sunni Iraqis, who have been tortured by ISIS, will get the same brutal treatment by their Shi'ite militia 'liberators.'  That would fuel endless conflict.  Political reconciliation in Baghdad must be central to US policy.  The Committee will be interested to learn what the administration is doing to press Prime Minister [Hadier al-] Abadi to ensure he doesn't become former Prime Minister [Nouri al-] Maliki, a disastrous sectarian.  


Wait.

Didn't the administration just send witnesses to happy talk how supplying the Peshmerga was no longer a problem?


Why, yes, they did.



Wednesday, March 11th, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held an important hearing on Iraq.
We covered it in the  March 11th and March 12th and March 13th snapshots.

Here's a key exchange from that earlier hearing.



Senator Cory Gardner:  . .  . what weight of effort would you say that the Peshmerga or other fighting in the region are pursuing against ISIL?

Gen Martin Dempsey:  The early successes against ISIL were largely through the Peshmerga.  And that will evolve over time but they've been carrying the majority of the effort thus far.

Senator Cory Gardner:  And by majority of effort, is there a weight?  Like they're carrying out a third?   Three-quarters?  Ninety percent?

Gen Martin Dempsey:  No, Senator, I can't actually put

Senator Cory Gardner:  -- the weight of effort on it?

Gen Martin Depmsey:  -- but the early, uh, the early effort to blunt ISIL's momentum were north and therefore with the Peshmerga

Senator Cory Gardner:  And reports in the news and other places have stated the Peshmerga are only getting about 10% of the arms that have routed through -- that have been routed through Baghdad.  Is that correct?

Gen Martin Dempsey:  Uh, again, I don't have the percentage but I can certainly take it for the record.  But there were some friction early on with the willingness of the government of Iraq to provide weapons to the Peshmerga but we think we've-we've managed our way through that.

Senator Cory Gardner:  And so right now you feel confident that the process by which arms will reach Erbil have now been settled or resolved?

Gen Martin Dempsey:  I am confident that we've broke through the initial friction but it doesn't mean it won't return.


There are other exchanges in other hearings that took place this month where other officials insisted the Peshmerga was being armed.

But they're not.

They're not getting what they need.

And so a bi-partisan bill is being re-introduced by Chair Ed Royce and Ranking Member Eliot Engel to ensure that this problem gets solved.

Today's hearing took place a day after the announcement that the US would begin aiding the Baghdad-Tehran assault on Tikrit by dropping bombs from war planes at the request of Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.

State Dept spokesperson Jeff Rathke was asked about the airstrikes at today's press briefing:

QUESTION:  Thank you.  On the airstrikes in Tikrit, first of all, why did these airstrikes come so late?


MR. RATHKE:  Well, the decision by the United States to conduct airstrikes was a decision we reached after consultation with the Iraqi authorities and in response to an Iraqi request.  These strikes are designed to destroy ISIL strongholds with precision.  And we are trying to minimize damage and enable Iraqi forces, under Iraqi command, to continue their operations – offensive operations against ISIL in the vicinity of Tikrit.  And so that’s – and we’ve gone through a careful process of coordinating those strikes through our Joint Operation Center in Baghdad with Iraqi authorities.


QUESTION:  Are you saying that you haven’t carried out airstrikes for three weeks because the Iraqis didn’t want it themselves so far?


MR. RATHKE:  Well, I’m not going to get into our exchanges –


QUESTION:  But you said (inaudible) just came now.


MR. RATHKE:  Well, no.  I said that we have gone through a careful process of determining targets and determining the capabilities that we could bring to bear and we’ve acted in response to an Iraqi sovereign government request.


QUESTION:  And one more quick question.  There are a lot of concerns that with having so many Shia militias around Tikrit, and as the U.S. officials, including General John Allen have said it, most of the Iraqi forces are also Shias.  So aren’t you worried that your airstrikes could be seen as taking sides with those Shia militias who are mostly backed by Iran?


MR. RATHKE:  Well, no, because again, the – Prime Minister Abadi as well as other authorities in Iraq have been quite clear about their efforts to generate cross-sect and inter-ethnic agreement on the way forward, and they’re acting on that basis and we’re acting in support of the Iraqi authorities.


[. . .]


QUESTION:  And on a separate topic on Tikrit, the State Department has no concerns at all that U.S. will become Iran’s air force in Iraq?  I mean, basically, hasn’t the U.S. become a functional ally of Iran since we’re providing air support?


MR. RATHKE:  Well, no.  That’s the short answer.  We are acting in Tikrit at the response of Iraqi Government request.  We are – we are focused on supporting the Iraqi Central Government.  We’re working with them.  We’re working through our established Joint Operations Center, and this is a step we’ve taken after careful consideration and careful planning with the Iraqi partners.


Mitchell Prothero (McClatchy Newspapers) reports one reaction to the bombings, "Iraqi Shiite Muslim militias, angry that the government of Prime Minister Haider al Abadi has asked for American help in ejecting Islamic State fighters from the central Iraqi city of Tikrit, began Thursday withdrawing their forces from the battle, the first major break between the Iranian-trained militias and Iraq’s military establishment since the Islamic State advance last year."  Noah Rayman (Time magazine) notes that the alleged pull-out accounts for "roughly a third of the 30,000-strong government-led forces."

But did they walk or were they pushed?

Saif Hameed, Ahmed Rasheed, Isabel Coles and Mark Trevelyan (Reuters) report that "a senior U.S. general said Washington had demanded the withdrawal of Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias fighting alongside Iraq's government before agreeing to take part."





While confusion reigns on that aspect, Mark Mazetti and David D, Kirpatrick (New York Times) attempt to explain the White House's many varying positions in the region:


In Yemen, the Obama administration is supporting a Saudi-led military campaign to dislodge Iranian-backed Houthi rebels despite the risks of an escalating regional fight with Iran.
But in Iraq and Syria, the United States is on the same side as Iran in the fight against the Islamic State, contributing airstrikes to an Iranian-supported offensive on Tikrit on Thursday even while jostling with Iran for position in leading the operation.

All that, while the Obama administration is racing to close a deal with Iran to remove economic sanctions in exchange for restraints on its nuclear program, alarming Saudi Arabia and Israel.


While the world tries to make sense of the 'plan' the White House has for the Middle East, US House Rep Alan Grayson attempted to do the same in today's House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing with regards to Barack's 'plan' for Iraq.


US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Gen Olson, trying to piece together information from public sources, it appears to me that we're spending roughly a million dollars for every ISIS fighter that the US military kills.  Does that sound right to you?

Brig Gen Gregg Olson: The figure that we understand for the operation cost per day is about 8.5 million dollars.  

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  But am I right to think that we're spending approximately a million dollars for every single ISIS fighter that US forces kill?

Brig Gen Gregg Olson:  I-I haven't done the math, sir.

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Alright let's assume for the sake of the argument that that's correct.  Does it make sense for us to be deploying the most powerful military force that the world has ever seen and spend one million dollars to kill some man standing in the desert, 6,000 miles from the closest American shore, holding a 40-year-old weapon?  Does that make sense?

Brig Gen Gregg Olson: The military strategy as designed provides US support to a coalition that will degrade, dismantle and ultimately defeat ISIL.

US House Rep Alan Grayson: What about you, Gen Fantini? Can you think of ways that we could spend less than a million dollars and still keep America safe for every gentleman standing in a desert, 6,000 miles away, whom we kill?

Brig Gen Michael Fantini:  Congressman, I-I can't address the math that you're presenting.  I don't know whether that's accurate or not.  Uh, from the perspective of continuing with the strategy of developing local forces, to enable those local forces with coalition support to degrade and defeat ISIL, I would submit that is a worthy expenditure of resources. 

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Well let's talk about that.  You of course are very, very familiar with what Gen Powell said about what makes for a good effective war and what doesn't.  Gen Powell said that we need a vital national security interest that's pursued by a clear strategy, we need overwhelming force and we need an exit strategy. So let's start with you on that, Gen Allen, what is our exit strategy?

Envoy John Allen:  The exit strategy is an Iraq that ultimately is territorial secure, sovereign, an ISIL that has been denied safe haven ultimately has been disrupted to the point where it has no capacity to threaten at an existential level the government of Iraq and the nation of the Iraqi people and ulitmatly ends up in a state that does not permit it to threaten the United States or our homeland.

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  General Allen, that doesn't sound like a strategy to me.  That sounds like a wish list.

Envoy John Allen:  You know --

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  You certainly understand the difference between a strategy and a wish list.

Envoy John Allen:   And-and I do.  And this strategy, in fact, has a whole series of lines of effort that converge on Da'ash to prevent it from doing the very things that I just mentioned. 

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  But what is our strategy?

Envoy John Allen:  The strategy is to pursue a series of lines of effort from defense of the homeland to stabilization of the Iraqi government to the countering of the Da'ash message, to the disruption of its finances, to the -- uh -- impediment of the foreign fighters to the empowerment of our allies to the le-leadership of a coalition ultimately aimed to the defeat of Da'ash.  That's a strategy.

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  But none of those are exit strategies, right?


Envoy John Allen:  There is no exit strategy for this.  This is about dealing with Da'ash.  This is about defeating Da'ash.  The success of the strategy is not about exit.  The secees -- success of the strategy is about empowering our partners so that they can ultimately restore the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of a country and deny Da'ash the ability  ultimately to, uh, to do that.  If you're looking for an exit strategy with respect to our presence in Iraq when we have successfully concluded that strategy.  We have said from the beginning that our forces will redeploy.  The coalition has said from the beginning that our forces will redeploy.  So if that's the term that you are seeking in terms of an exit strategy then-then I would say that is the mechanism by which we redeploy our  forces from Iraq.  But the strategy is oriented on an effect that we hope to achieve with respect to Da'ash. 

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Gen Olson, you will agree that we're not using what Colin Powell would have considered to be overwhelming force, correct? 

Brig Gen Gregg Olson:  We're using an appropriate level of force to --

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Which isn't overwhelming force, right?  Not as -- not as Colin Powell would see it, right?

Brig Gen Gregg Olson:   Uh, I don't want to speak for Gen Powell.  I believe that the resources that we're applying to the in our ends -- to achieve our ends through matching ways and means are appropriate for the strategy as designed.

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Gen Fantini, yes or no, are we using what you would consider to be overwhelming military force?

Brig Gen Michael Fantini:  Congressman, uh, I-I would submit that, uh, American air power against an AK47 could be construed as overwhelming.  I, uh, agree with, uh, Gen Olson that the-the use of the resources and the force applied to support our coalition partners to enable these ground operations are appropriate for the strategy and for the strategy and for success in this fight that will take a clear eyed and long term commitment and, we have stated, at least three years. 



There were many key moments in this morning's hearing but that was the most notable.

Not only did Grayson put an understandable dollar amount on the financial cost (paid for by US tax payers) he also got a grand admission from Envoy Barry Allen.


US House Rep Alan Grayson:  But none of those are exit strategies, right?


Envoy John Allen:  There is no exit strategy for this. 


"There is no exit strategy for this."


Barack's begun an action with no exit strategy.


And the way Allen ranted on, it was like an Aaron Sorkin moment.


US House Rep Alan Grayson:  But none of those are exit strategies, right?


Envoy John Allen:  There is no exit strategy for this.  This is about dealing with Da'ash.  This is about defeating Da'ash.  The success of the strategy is not about exit.  


Maybe when you select an envoy, you don't go with some retired general who doesn't grasp diplomacy and thinks sticking to scripted lines makes him sound smart?

Existential?

What is this with the administration's speech writers and the term existential?

It's not like any of them grasp Jean-Paul Sarte but they sure do love to (mis)use the term existential.

They also love "degrade and destroy."

They use these terms far too often.

And, by the way, they and the nonsense of "holistic" all supposedly come from the State Dept's Brett McGurk -- or that's what he's been bragging to others.


There is no exit strategy.

Which shouldn't be all that surprising.

The whole point of endless war is that it's . . . endless.


In the hearing, there were attempts like Alan Grayson's to provide perspective.

US House Rep Lois Frankel attempted to do that during part of her questioning round.


US House Rep Lois Frankel:  I have a couple of questions.  First relates to underlying conditions that led to the rise of ISIL.  Would you -- would you agree that ISIL is not the cause of the turmoil in the region but a symptom of a deeper problems?  And I'd like to get your opinion is it unstable governments, poverty, desperation, radical religion, what?  I'd like to get your take on that.  And secondly, I think the American public somehow thinks that you can simply get rid of ISIL by bombs or dropping -- or drones.  Could you just explain the difficulty of -- of their assimilation into the population, and so forth, the terrain.

Envoy John Allen: One of the, I think, real benefits of the counter-ISIL coalition which numbers at 62 entities right now -- countries and entities -- is the recognition that Da'ash is in fact not the disease, it's a symptom of something bigger.  And that broad recognition includes the base societal factors that have given rise to, uh, the attractiveness of an organization like this.  And it's -- there are societal issues, there are political issues, inclusiveness, participation -- uh, social issues associated with economic opportunity, the ability ultimately to have the opportunity to put food on the table for families. And often the result of the absence of all of those or some of those in these countries and among these populations have created the conditions of despair and desperation which has made those populations susceptible to radicalization and then recruitment

US House Rep Lois Frankel:  Excuse me general, I assume there are efforts being done to try to respond to those conditions

Envoy John Allen:  I-I-I think so.  Uh, we've just had this week -- In fact, we ate dinner together the other night, uh, with the president of Afghanistan [. . .]

Bore us some more, Allen.

You just wanted to snooze.

He was either heavily scripted or fumbling for a response -- one or the other throughout the hearing.

Mainly though, he was just unimpressive -- grossly unimpressive.

He appears to believe he's above questioning and he also appears beyond actual thought.

It's hard to believe that he comes alive outside of hearings.

Part of the non-progress towards a political solution in Iraq may be Allen who seems woefully unsuited for the post of diplomatic envoy.



On the issue of ways to address the Islamic State, to counter it, Mercy Corps Kari Diener offers suggestions in a column for The Hill which includes:

Mercy Corps recently released a report, Beyond Humanitarian Relief: Strengthening the Foundation for a More Stable Iraq, highlighting the fact that by relying on programs that only address the symptoms of the conflict there is the real potential to create dependencies and sideline the voices of Iraq’s fledgling civil society, which is trying to address the underlying drivers of this conflict: poor governance and political grievances.
It is US-supported civil society initiatives that are encouraging Sunnis, Shiites and Christians alike to feel they have a real stake in their own future. Initial investments of $4.1 million by the State Department in the Iraqi Center for Negotiation Skills and Conflict Management between 2008-2013 allowed the Center to blossom into an Iraqi-led NGO and network of 350 highly influential men and women, Ala Kamal among them, from a broad swath of sectarian and ethnic backgrounds, including religious leaders, tribal elders as well as seven newly elected members of Iraq’s Parliament. The Center has formally negotiated peaceful solutions to over 1,000 conflicts.
If the US genuinely hopes to responsibly scale back its engagement in Iraq, Congress must work with the Administration to support Iraq’s fledgling civil society to prepare for a more stable future. The president’s FY 2016 budget request rightly called out the need to invest Economic Support Funds (ESF) in areas liberated from ISIL control. But investments should not be limited to those areas alone, as many of the factors driving conflict in Iraq pre-date ISIL’s presence. Congress should fully fund the FY 2016 request of no less than $72.5 million in ESF and broaden its focus to support good governance, conflict resolution and civil society programming in all areas of the country. Congress should also ensure that the FY15 funding allocation of $25 million for conflict response programming in Iraq is fully implemented.



The administration's repeated problems in the Middle East are really beginning to register.  The editorial board of Virginia's Daily Press notes:


The White House is no place for on-the-job training, and the president's growing pains have been troubling to watch.
After withdrawing troops from Iraq, the United States again has boots on the ground to battle the growing menace of the Islamic State. We find ourselves on the same side of the battle as Iran, which is trying to turn Iraq into a proxy state under Tehran's control.



We were talking about the Peshmerga earlier.

Quick, when was the last time a US official -- past or present -- told Congress the truth about the Peshmerga?

February.

And the official was former US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey who noted that Baghdad wasn't overly fond of arming the Peshmerga.


Jeffrey is part of Michael Crowley's examination (for POLITICO) of Barack's efforts in the region:

“We’re in a g**damn free fall here,” said James Jeffrey, who served as Obama’s ambassador to Iraq and was a top national security aide in the George W. Bush White House.
For years, members of the Obama team has grappled with the chaotic aftermath of the Arab Spring. But of late they have been repeatedly caught off-guard, raising new questions about America’s ability to manage the dangerous region.
Obama officials were surprised earlier this month, for instance, when the Iraqi government joined with Iranian-backed militias to mount a sudden offensive aimed at freeing the city of Tikrit from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. Nor did they foresee the swift rise of the Iranian-backed rebels who toppled Yemen’s U.S.-friendly government and disrupted a crucial U.S. counterterrorism mission against Al Qaeda there.

 

Lastly, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 209 violent deaths today across Iraq.























Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Once more on Allen Gregory

There are a lot of Allen Gregory fans!  Last time, I wrote "Allen Gregory" and I've never gotten so many e-mails.

A number of you noted Ava and C.I.'s review of the show which included:



On Fox, Tom's called Allen Gregory (voiced by Jonah Hill) and stars in the animated show of the same name. In animated and real life, Allen-Tom is desperately unpopular, always pursuing women far out of his league, identifying with abusive personalities, practicing sexism and desperate to be seen as a one of the boys. In both animated and real life, he fails.

The show was a failure, we heard right before Thanksgiving, when speaking to a friend with Fox. That was a surprise to us and only more so when episode six (featuring a guest spot by Lisa Kudrow) would go on to set a season high for the show's ratings.

We could understand the issue of Julie upsetting people, we explained, but were surprised there was objection -- We were cut off. People were objecting to the treatment of Jeremy (voiced by Nat Faxon). That was so typical of a world that embraced Tom Hayden.

Jeremy and Richard De Longpre are Allen Gregory De Longpre's parents. Though some sippers in the Water Cooler Set felt they were defending Jeremy, in our research, we saw a lot of people calling Richard (voiced by French Stewart) Allen's father but referring to Jeremy as Richard's partner (see Robert Bianco, USA Today, for that bias).

Both Jeremy and Richard are adults. Richard has known he was gay for some time. Supposedly, Jeremy was married with kids when he met Richard and had no idea he was gay until then. This led to the Water Cooler Set lodging objections that the show was saying that people could be "turned" gay. Heaven forbid they ever have to watch an actual program before objecting to it. In episode three, Allen Gregory presents that notion at a school dance and Principal Judith Gottlieb (voiced by Renee Taylor) will take to the stage to correct him.

Allen Gregory gets many things wrong -- as episode five's exploration of racism and class makes clear. All the episodes establish that Allen Gregory's bad behavior is learned from Richard.

Richard treats Jeremy like crap. Jeremy is highly indulgent of Richard or else enjoys being treated badly. Comments made -- especially about things stretching when Jeremy said they wouldn't -- appear to indicate that Richard is the top and Jeremy is the bottom. That may be too much for the Water Cooler Set to handle. (They're rather vanilla -- which explains all their panting over sex.) If indeed that is correct, then Richard and Jeremy may be carrying over bedroom behavior outside the bedroom. May. We'll never know because the show got the axe.

But we know a great deal more than the Water Cooler Set.

For starters, Richard most likely is not Allen Gregory's biological father. Look at Richard, Jeremy and Allen Gregory. Two of them have blue eyes while Richard has brown eyes. Did no one study biology? Does no one know the difference between dominant and recessive traits? Does no one notice that Allen Gregory and Jeremy have the same chin? Or that Allen Gregory's nose should grow out, in time, to be like Jeremy's but, with that upward turn, can never grow out to be like Richard's nose?

Like Richard, Allen Gregory is horrible to Jeremy. Imagine the episode when the Richard worshipping Allen Gregory learns that Jeremy is his biological father?

Richard comes from a wealthy family and, until recently, Jeremy stayed home with the kids (Allen Gregory was home schooled). Along with supplying the money, Richard throws tantrums to get his way. Not only does he delude himself about their home life, he also deludes himself about his work life and we see Jeremy know that Richard's given busy work as opposed to actual tasks at work (Richard's father started the company Richard works for) but Jeremy goes along with Richard's lie that he's a very, very important businessman. So why is it that the Water Cooler Set never stopped to think that Richard could force Jeremy into telling a story that was false?

It happens throughout the program. For example, episode six starts with Allen Gregory yet again self-embarrassing in front of his class when he interrupts his teacher (voiced by Leslie Mann) to explain that she's wrong and that men can give birth. He will tell the class that Richard gave birth to him. At home, he will recount his day at school and Jeremy will suggest it's time to tell the truth. Richard will bring out a photo album which only further documents how Jeremy goes along with Richard's lies -- they're pretending that Richard's pregnant in one photo, in another, Richard is on a birthing table supposedly having just given birth to Jeremy.

Did the Water Cooler Set not catch that?


I loved that review because the show made even more sense after I read it.

Of course Jeremy was Allen's father.

The two even looked alike.

And Richard was the one Allen took after.

So this could have made for some really strong episodes and pointedly funny ones -- when Allen figured out he was Jeremy's biological son and not Richard's.

I loved everything about the show.

I loved the principal (whom Allen had the crush on).  I loved Allen's crush on Joel.  I loved Gina (his teacher).

The whole show so well thought out and the characterizations so rich.

And Guillermo's rendition of "The Club Can't Even Handle Me Right Now" remains one of the stand out moments.

To this day, when I think of that song, it's his version I remember.

And Julie and Jeremy were the heart of the show.


This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"



Wednesday, March 25, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the US government authorizes airstrikes on Tikrit, which means the US is now working with a designated terrorist (designated such by the US government), fears emerge that Iranian forces in Iraq may attack US forces, and much more.


The biggest news out of Iraq today?


Dana Ford (CNN) announces, "Airstrikes started Wednesday in Tikrit, where Iraqi and coalition forces are battling to wrest control from ISIS."  Robert Burns (AP) explains, " The U.S. initially did not provide air support in Tikrit because Baghdad pointedly chose instead to partner with Iran in a battle it predicted would yield a quick victory."  Nasdaq spins, "The U.S. intervention is a blow to Iran, which has played a major role in commanding the Shiite militias and has also supplied weapons."

Also spinning was US State Dept spokesperson Jen Psaki who appeared to believe that she could bomb reality with excessive wordage:



These strikes were designed to destroy ISIL strongholds with precision -- protecting innocent Iraqis by minimizing damage to infrastructure, and enabling Iraqi forces under Iraqi command to continue offensive operations against ISIL in the vicinity of Tikrit. All strikes were coordinated with the Government of Iraq and Iraqi Security Forces through our Joint Operation Center in Baghdad.
Before today, the Coalition has conducted 2,967 airstrikes against ISIL terrorists, 1,678 in Iraq and 1,289 in Syria.  These airstrikes have had a significant impact on ISIL -- taking out thousands of fighters, numerous commanders, nearly 1,500 vehicles and tanks, over 100 artillery and mortar positions, and nearly 3,400 fighting positions, training camps, and bunkers in Iraq and Syria.  Airstrikes have also damaged close to 200 oil and gas facilities -- infrastructure that in part funds ISIL’s terror.  In addition, Coalition trainers have begun training Iraqi Army brigades at four sites in Iraq, and Coalition advisors have helped enable more than two dozen ground operations against ISIL strongholds across Iraq.
The cumulative effect of these actions has been enormous.  ISIL can no longer operate freely in roughly 25 percent of populated areas of Iraqi territory where they once could.  Its momentum has been blunted, its ability to mass and maneuver forces degraded, its leadership cells eliminated or pressured, and its supply lines severed.  ISIL is now on the defensive in Iraq and the lives of innocent Iraqis of all faiths and ethnicity have been saved.  As Iraqi forces increasingly mount offensive operations, they must do so under Iraqi command, with concerted efforts to protect local populations, and secure the human rights of all Iraqi citizens as mandated under the Iraqi constitution and as Prime Minister Abadi and other Iraq leaders have pledged.
 The United States and the Iraqi Government will continue to work together on our shared goal of defeating ISIL and training a professional national security force that can protect all the Iraqi people against extremist threats.




Of course, for a number of Iraqis, the "extremist threats" include Shi'ite militias who terrorize and kill Sunni civilians.  This reality was noted on Tuesday's Democracy Now! (link is text, video and audio):


AARON MATÉ: So, Erin, thank you for joining us. As we talk about your report on the rise of militias in Iraq, we’re joined by Erin Evers, Iraq researcher for Human Rights Watch. She co-wrote the new report, "After Liberation Came Destruction: Iraqi Militias and the Aftermath of Amerli," on the ground in Iraq with HRW since September 2012. Also joined by Matt Aikins, award-winning foreign correspondent. His latest piece for Rolling Stone is "Inside Baghdad’s Brutal Battle Against ISIS." He joins us by video stream from Karachi, Pakistan.
Erin Evers, thank you for joining us, as I said. Talk about what you found in Iraq.


ERIN EVERS: Well, we essentially documented that after U.S. coalition strikes in the town of Amerli, in Salahuddin province, routed ISIS from the town of Amerli, along with—along with militias and security forces fighting on the ground—


AMY GOODMAN: And describe where Amerli is.


ERIN EVERS: Amerli is in Salahuddin, which is north of Baghdad. It’s the same province that Tikrit is in. And the town itself is kind of the northeast of the province. So, ISIS had been laying siege to this town for two months. The ground forces alone were unable to route ISIS from the town, but then, after the U.S. airstrikes on August 31st, they cleared ISIS from the town, then proceeded to spread out throughout Salahuddin province and neighboring Kirkuk province, and attacked the Sunni villages in those provinces. So they essentially laid siege to all of the Sunni villages in a pretty broad area, set homes on fire, looted them, in some cases destroyed them with explosives and earth-moving equipment.
We used satellite imagery. We were on the ground, obviously, and saw some of the destruction with our own eyes, spoke to about 30 persons who were displaced as a result of—as a result of this clearing operation. And then we used satellite imagery in order to determine that the damage that we saw was in fact caused by militias and not in the course of fighting or by ISIS. So we had determined the timeline, essentially, of when what we saw happened, so that we could be clear that those areas were under the control of militias and not under the control of ISIS or not, you know—not engaging in battle at the time.


AMY GOODMAN: Why are the militias doing this? And what is their relationship to the Iraqi army?


ERIN EVERS: So, the militias are not under any formal chain of command. They are leading the fight against ISIS, and they are responsible, essentially, to themselves.
Why they’re doing this, I think, is really anybody’s guess. But from statements that—you know, statements that we’ve heard from militia leaders and from what people on the ground have told us that militia—you know, militia fighters were saying to them when they were on the ground, it seems like they were essentially trying to clear the area of Sunnis.
And after this campaign, several months afterwards, in January, the same militias went through Diyala province, which is a province neighboring Iran, and essentially carried out the same kinds of operations, except at an even more extreme kind of level. So, whereas in this report we documented militias kidnapping people and torturing people, in Diyala we documented the same militias carrying out summary executions of Sunni civilians and even a large massacre of 72 civilians in one town in Diyala in the course of their fighting.


AARON MATÉ: Is there any evidence they’ve been doing this with U.S. weapons?


ERIN EVERS: We’ve seen them with U.S. weapons. We don’t know exactly how they’ve gotten their hands on these weapons, you know, so there’s a lot of speculation as to how they’re getting the weapons. Some people say that they’re getting them through the Iraqi army, which is the official recipient of the weapons. And other people—you know, other people are saying that they’re getting them from ISIS, which obviously is also getting the weapons in the course of their fight on the ground.


AMY GOODMAN: I want to read to you a quote from the former CIA director, David Petraeus, former—he’s also a general. He told The Washington Post, quote, "I would argue that the foremost threat to Iraq’s long-term stability and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State; rather, it is Shiite militias, many backed by—and some guided by—Iran," Petraeus said. He went on to say, quote, "Longer term, Iranian-backed Shia militia could emerge as the preeminent power in the country, one that is outside the control of the government and instead answerable to Tehran." Your response to this, Erin?


ERIN EVERS: I think, unfortunately, that that’s a correct evaluation of where Iraq is headed.


But don't expect those realities from the US government.  And don't expect spokespeople like Jen Psaki to be forthcoming when asked direct questions.  For example, at the State Dept press briefing today, she was far less of a Chatty Cathy than she had been in her written statement.


QUESTION: We heard different, like, responses from Pentagon and then yesterday, I think, from the Iraqi President Masum, he said that the U.S. will help Iraqi Government in the operations – Iraqi army, of course – around Tikrit. What is the latest update on that?


MS. PSAKI: Well, the latest – and I can confirm – is that the Government of Iraq has formally requested, as I think many of you have seen, ISR support for their operations in Tikrit, and the U.S. is now providing ISR support. On airstrikes, as you know, the coalition has continued to provide air support in the fight against ISIL with multiple airstrikes on ISIL targets in various locations. I would note multiple airstrikes in the last several days, but I’m not going to speak more specifically to tactical or strategic operational decisions or actions beyond that.


QUESTION: There are airstrike support for the Iraqi army in Tikrit. That’s what you are --


MS. PSAKI: I’m referring to around Iraq. I can confirm the ISR support. I’m not going to predict additional action.


QUESTION: But I think that so far it hasn’t been done, any, like, effort – airstrikes around Tikrit, so --



MS. PSAKI: Well again, I’m not going to predict, and I think the Department of Defense would be the appropriate agency to speak to that.


The Defense Dept issued their own statement:


March 25, 2015
Release # 20150325.2

At the request of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi,
Coalition Operations commence in Tikrit

SOUTHWEST ASIA – CJTF-OIR operations to support Iraqi Security Forces in Tikrit have commenced after a request from the Iraqi Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi. The Coalition is now providing direct support to Iraqi Security Forces conducting operations to expel ISIL from the city. CJTF-OIR is providing air strikes, airborne intelligence capabilities, and Advise and Assist support to Iraqi Security Force headquarters elements in order to enhance their ability to defeat ISIL.
"These strikes are intended to destroy ISIL strongholds with precision, thereby saving innocent Iraqi lives while minimizing collateral damage to infrastructure,” said Lt. Gen. James L. Terry, CJTF-OIR commanding general. “This will further enable Iraqi forces under Iraqi command to maneuver and defeat ISIL in the vicinity of Tikrit."
Iraqi Security Forces have ISIL in Tikrit encircled. Renewed efforts on the ground, supported by the Coalition are aimed at dislodging ISIL fighting elements from Tikrit and once again placing the town under the Government of Iraq’s control. The CJTF-OIR Coalition will continue to support the Iraqi Security Forces and the GoI to degrade and defeat ISIL.
-30-
For additional information contact:
CJTF-OIRmedia@mail.mil
COM: U.S. 1-803-885-8265 or in Southwest Asia
COM: 00-965-2221-6340, then dial 430-6419# or 430-5129#
https://twitter.com/CJTFOIR
https://www.facebook.com/CJTFOIR



So Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi requested it.  And Haider spoke in Iraq today . . . but 'forgot' -- when speaking of Tikrit -- to note the new US involvement.


Loveday Morris, Karen DeYoung and Missy Ryan (Washington Post) ignore Haider's US admission but do note his public remarks:

Abadi announced the new push for Tikrit in a televised address Wednesday night, saying that the city’s “hour of salvation” had come. He did not specifically mention coalition airstrikes, but he said, “We will liberate each inch of Iraq. The victory of Iraq is being achieved by Iraqis, hero Iraqis . . . with support from friendly countries and the international coalition.”




    1. | Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi in televised speech on US Airstrikes in "Hour of victory has arrived"








  • While ignoring the issue of US airstrikes in his public remarks, Haider did address the issue with the Shi'ite forces.  Salahuddin Province council member Jassem Atiya tells Mark Seibel (McClatchy Newspapers) about how that went:



    In a phone interview, Atiya said Abadi told the militias that he was authorizing the American participation “because the Tikrit battle needed to be completed so that security forces could move on to Anbar and Mosul,” two other Islamic State strongholds.
    The operation to take Tikrit was announced with great fanfare March 2, with an estimated 20,000 Shiite militia fighters advised by Iranian military commanders taking the lead in the fighting. But after initial success in capturing towns outside Tikrit, the effort stalled 10 days ago, hindered by heavy government casualties and a disagreement over what tactics to follow.

    Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2015/03/25/3660237_us-jets-strike-tikrit-to-help.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy


    The battle has underscored how weak Tehran is militarily with the few hundred estimated Islamic State fighters being able to outstrategize Tehran and Baghdad.


     Michael Hess (UK Blasting News) puts it this way:

    The US military is providing aerial intelligence to Iranian forces working against Islamic State (IS) in Tikrit, Iraq in a bid to break the hold on the besieged city. Tikrit was overrun by IS which on June 14th, 2014 committed atrocities, including the massacre of at least 800, on Iraqi Air Force trainees at the former U.S. base Speicher, converted into an air force training college. Tikrit was the site of Saddam Hussein's tomb but it has since been destroyed in the fighting.  


    The Tehran alliance was supposed to provide Baghdad with a decisive victory which could be used to rally the military.  That's why Tikrit was chosen in the first place.  It was to be the red flag waved before the charging bull.  But the 'bull' lumbered towards the city for days and, when it finally got outside the city, the bull took a long, long nap.

    Nancy A. Youssef (Daily Beast) offers, "The Tikrit campaign was launched with a patchwork force of 20,000 Shiite militiamen, 3,000 Iraqi troops, and a bevy of Iranian troops, tanks, weapons and missile strikes. And in the early days of the campaign, Gen. Qassem Suleiman, leader of the Iranian Quds force, was on the ground in Tikrit."

    Pete D'Amato (Daily Mail) offers:

    Iran has provided artillery and other weaponry for the Tikrit battle, and senior Iranian advisers have helped Iraq coordinate the offensive. 
    Iraq pointedly did not request US air support when it launched the offensive in early March and recently, the offensive has lost momentum. 
    Col Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, said Wednesday the Iraqi forces have encircled Tikrit but not yet made significant inroads into the heavily defended city limits.
    'They are stalled,' he said.


    Before today's announcement was made, Michael B. Kelley (Business Insider) noted:



    "There's just no way that the US military can actively support an offensive led by Suleimani," Christopher Harmer, a former aviator in the United States Navy in the Persian Gulf who is now an analyst with the Institute for the Study of War, told Helene Cooper of The New York Times recently. "He's a more stately version of Osama bin Laden."
    Suleimani's Iraqi allies — such as the powerful Badr militia — are known for allegedly burning down Sunni villages and using power drills on enemies.
    "It's a little hard for us to be allied on the battlefield with groups of individuals who are unrepentantly covered in American blood," Ryan Crocker, a career diplomat who served as the US ambassador to Iraq from 2007 to 2009, told US News.

    In addition, Michael Crowley (POLITICO) explains US officials are nervous about two potential scenarios in Iraq which, "[i]n either case, U.S. officials fear, Iran could direct the Iraqi Shiite militias under its control to attack U.S. troops aiding the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant."

    That fear may make Barack Obama's decision even more controversial.  But the decision to drop bombs and assist the  Baghdad-Tehran alliance -- led by Iranian general Qassem Soleimani (identified by the US government as a terrorist) -- was already controversial and questionable due to Soleimani's presence.


    Deep consternation exists in Washington, among both political parties, over the appearance of US warplanes providing close air support for Shia militias and their Iranian sponsors. Some US-trained Iraqi military units and Shia militias are under investigation for committing atrocities, similar to those of Isis. The Iranian general Qassem Suleimani is believed to be playing a leadership role in what has devolved into a grinding fight to recapture Saddam Hussein’s birthplace from Isis.
    “There’s going to be some tightrope-walking in saying this is an Iraqi security forces offensive and not an Iranian militia offensive,” said Christopher Harmer, a retired US navy officer and analyst with the Institute for the Study of War, who said he was “astonished” at the development.



    Since 2001, the US government has identified Suleimani as a terrorist.

    Brookings Institution's Mike Doran Tweets it this way:




  • Michael Weiss Tweets:





  • Some are trying to spin the move as a plus.  Greg Jaffe (Washington Post) offers:



    The U.S. airstrikes, if successful in breaking the bloody stalemate, would make clear to Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and his commanders that they need U.S. military power to defeat Sunni extremists. “We can use the Iraqis’ failure in Tikrit to show what happens if you stiff-arm the U.S. in favor of Iran,” said Stephen Biddle, a frequent adviser to the Pentagon and a professor at George Washington University. “The message is that if you really want a better partner, stick with us and not the Iranians.”





    Finally, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 109 violent deaths across Iraq today.
























    Blog Archive