Wednesday, September 7, 2011

1 and 1

Today on The Diane Rehm Show (NPR), the first hour was Sheila Blair and the second hour was


Sunday at Third, we finally did our follow up on the gender imbalance on Diane's show, "Our Miss Priss (Ann, Ava and C.I.)."

The results were not pretty.

From the start of May until the end of August, she had 607 guests.

How many were women?

Before you guess, remember that we make up 51% of the population. Males are 49%.

So how many women were in Diane's 607 guests?

205. Is that not ridiculous?

Is that not offensive?



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

Wednesday, September 7, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, more talk of the US extending the military presence in Iraq beyond 2011, Iraq gets good news with regards to phosphates, the KRG prime minister states Nouri's acting like a dicator, as does a member of the Iraqi Parliament, and more.
Thomas E. Ricks used to be a journalist. Then he became a COINista and went to work for a think tank and tried to continue passing himself off as journalist. Overseas, they were the first to catch on to the charade. Campuses in this country have caught in even if some outlets haven't. Today Tommy turns in a piece so shoddy it's difficult to believe he was ever a journalist. His blog is "Best Defense" and we're not linking because he's engaged with his usual circle jerk (including CIA contractor Juan Cole) and we don't need any diseases from Tommy's whoring. With the help of a guardrail, he mounts his high horse to declare (his now standard) "Suppose we gave a war in Iraq and nobody here cared?" You mean yourself, Thomas? This is only the second time he's written about Iraq since July 27th. We'll come back to Tommy.
Today Eric Schmitt and Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) cover the news Fox broke yesterday but forget to give credit to those who broke that news. They do point out that keeping 3,000 troops in Iraq after December 31st could cause problems:

It also reflected the tension between Mr. Obama's promise to bring all American forces home and the widely held view among commanders that Iraq is not yet able to provide for its own security. And it reflected the mounting pressures to reduce the costs of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, both wars that have become increasingly unpopular as the 10th anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, approaches.

Felecia Sonmez (Washington Post) notes Fox News broke the story and that the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein, states she will do her part to block any effort to drop the number of US troops to 3,000. She expresses her belief that the US needs to remain in Iraq to ensure what she sees as gains. Mackenzie Weinger (POLITICO) notes that Fox News broke the story and notes, "The other proposal, presented at the Pentagon recently by the senior U.S. commander in Iraq Gen. Lloyd Austin, would keep 14,000 to 18,000 troops there." David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) observes, "As the deadline nears, some senior U.S. and Iraqi officials warn that Iraq's army and police, despite billions of dollars in aid from Washington and its allies, will be unable to contain sectarian violence or prevent neighboring Iran from expanding its operations if U.S. forces are drawn down too far."
Back to Thomas E. Ricks, when not pushing his sins off on others, he reveals just what a dullard he is. Does no one read? We gave Fox News credit for breaking the story about one option the White House has. One. But we also noted in yesterday's snapshot:
On the issue Fox News reported on and that Norah O'Donnel asked about, Lolita C. Baldor, Rebecca Santana, Lara Jakes and Robert Burns (AP) report that the White House "is reviewing a number of options" but that a request needs to be made before Barack can decide which option to go with.
I'm all for giving credit where it's due but Fox News was not the only one reporting and certainly Baldor, Santana, Jakes and Burns are a formidable team with a strong track record to point to. So why is everyone ignoring their report?
Today Dan Murphy (Christian Science Monitor) zooms in on the Fox News report and asks, "One thing much of the media commentary has neglected so far?" The AP story. (No, he doesn't say that, but that is the answer.) David Jackson (USA Today) also manages to ignore the AP story.
Today Jakes, Burns and Baldor team up Donna Cassata and Julie Pace (AP) report that the White House is insisting they've made no decision yet with James Jeffrey insisting that 3,000 is not a number tossed around in the "ongoing discussions in Baghdad, where both governments have been weighing whether as many as 10,000 U.S. forces should stay." The AP team also reports that "Iraqi officials" were taken aback by the 3,000 number (apparently they missed AP's report yesterday as well). Sunlen Miller (ABC News) reports Senators Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, John McCain decried the 3,000 to 4,000 number from the Senate floor saying it was too low. In addition, John T. Bennett (The Hill) reports Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin states he's "not concerned" by leaving 3,000 US troops in Iraq while the House Armed Services Chair Buck McKeon states "more American troops must remain in Iraq to preserve what he sees as U.S. victory there." Reuters offers Senator Carl Levin's statements at greater length, "I don't think it's appropriate for us to be pressing the Iraqis to be asking us for troops. We ought to consider a request . . . But for us to be sending a message that 'you need us,' is the wrong message, I believe." Kevin Baron (Stars and Stripes) notes that conservative and centrist think tanks are also in a tizzy feeling the number would be too small. Howard LaFranchi (Christian Science Monitor) adds, "US military commanders, led by Gen. Lloyd Austin III, the senior commander in Iraq, are proposing that up to 18,000 US troops remain in Iraq after the year-end pull-out date." MJ Lee (POLITICO) quotes US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stating, "No decision has been made. [. . .] They have indicated a desire, obviously, for our trainers to be there, and obviously, that would probably be at the core of whatever negotiations take place." Greg Jaffe and Annie Gowen (Washington Post) remind that numbers isn't the only issue, there is also what remaining troops will be doing in Iraq. Their lede is worth noting:
This much is clear: There will likely be some kind of U.S. military presence in Iraq after 2012.
James Kitfield (National Journal) adds, "The Iraqis had indicated that they might have been willing to accept 10,000 residual U.S. forces, a senior U.S. military official with extensive experience in Iraq told National Journal." Whatever the number, they're supposed to be 'trainers.' Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) observes, "Spinning the continued US presence as a (mostly) training mission should please Prime Minister Maliki, who has repeatedly insisted he doesn't need parliamentary approval to keep US trainers in the nation. Parliament was deeply divided over the prospect of a continued occupation, and such a vote was expected to be difficult." In addition, yesterday Julian E. Barnes, Adam Entous and Siobhan Gorman (Wall St. Journal) reported the US military "commanders and intelligence officers" are advocating "for greater authority to conduct covert operations" within Iraq allegedly "to thrwart Iranian influence" and that if the White House signs off on the request, "the authorization for the covert activity in Iraq likely would take the form of a classified presidential 'finding'." How many troops would be left behind for cover operations? That information would, of course, be "classified" and not released to the public.
Staying on the topic but moving over to what's said from Iraq, Al Mada reports that KRG President Massoud Barzani is stating that civil war is likely if US troops withdraw from Iraq at the end of this year. Barzani was speaking yesterday at a conference in Erbil and stressing the KRG position that US forces remain needed in Iraq. He further stated that this was the opinion of all political blocs in Iraq and discussed away from the microphones; however, for public consumption, few are willing to speak honestly. Bazani noted the issue of the Constitution's Article 140 which calls for the resolving on the Kirkuk issue. By end of 2007, a census and referendum were supposed to have taken place to determine the fate of the oil-rich and disputed Kirkuk. However, Nouri al-Maliki refused to follow the Constitution and, all these years later, no referendum has been held, no census taken. He also called out Nouri al-Maliki's refusal to follow the Erbil Agreement.

Background, following the March 7, 2010 parliamentary elections, Iraq entered Political Stalemate I -- a nine month period where nothing was accomplished. The blocs met in Erbil at the start of November 2010 to hammer out an agreement, the Erbil Agreement, which provided the various political blocs with at least one win each. For example, State of Law came in second but their leader Nouri al-Maliki was allowed to retain the position of prime minister. Once the Erbil Agreement was agreed to, Parliament held a session and began moving forward. Iraqiya came in first in the March 2010 elections and at the session of Parliament, a number of their members walked out when it became obvious to them that the Erbil Agreement was tossed into the trash by Nouri once he was named prime minister-designate. Those Iraqiya members were not mistaken about what was happening. By the end of December 2010, Iraq had entered Political Stalemate II as a result of Nouri's inability to follow the Erbil Agreement. September 25th, it will be nine months since the start of Political Stalemate II. Again, the first political stalemate lasted nine months.

In the speech, Barzani raised the issue of the recent draft oil law that Nouri's Cabinet is proposing. Barzani called it out stating that it disregards the Constitution and said that Nouri is behaving like a dictator. It's an observation others are making as well. Aswat al-Iraq quotes Iraqiya MP Khalid Abdullah al-Alwani stating that "the present government, headed by Premier Nouri al-Maliki, is similar to a dictatorship, with one ruler and one party, without real partnership, just in name. There are no consulations in government affairs and non-implementation of Arbil agreement."
And speaking of violence and destruction, Tony Hayward's back in the news. Graeme Wearden (Guardian) reports:

Tony Hayward has sealed a deal to exploit the oil fields of Iraq's Kurdistan region, landing the former BP boss an expected windfall of around £14m.

Hayward's return to the oil industry was finalised on Wednesday as his new investment vehicle, called Vallares, agreed a merger with Genel Energy International of Turkey. The deal will deliver an estimated £176m windfall for Hayward and his fellow backers of Vallares, including Nat Rothschild.


Iraqis need to be asking how these deals were made and who made the decision that Iraqi lives and Iraqi water ways were so unimportant that the man who oversaw the BP Gulf Disaster was just waived on in. Agustino Fontevecchia (Forbes) observes, "Hayward will be once again at the helm of an oil and gas company after the disastrous accident in the Gulf of Mexico in the summer of 2010, when the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded, killing 11 and producing one of the worst natural disasters ever in the region. Hayward, who was replaced by BP's current CEO Bob Dudley, was blamed by many for not doing enough on time to ameliorate the problems."


In other news, citing Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, the Associated Press reports that Iraq and Kuwait are no longer in conflict over Kuwait's proposed port. Fang Yang (Xinhua) reports, "Iraq may close its main border point with Kuwait to put pressure on its neighboring country to change the location of its controversial huge port on the joint navigation channel to the Gulf, an official newspaper reported Wednesday." Yang cites Iraq's Minister of Transportation Hadi al-Amri as the official. Al Sabaah is the newspaper in question and it runs a very brief item which notes that if the port goes through, Kuwait will no longer need to send items through Iraq and that this would harm Iraq's economy. Zebari apparently didn't read Parliament in on the 'resolved' issue. They're planning to address what Dar Addustour calls "the crisis" and that includes rumors that Iraqi MPs have been paid off by Kuwaiti officials.

In other news, David Blair (Financial Times of London) reports that it's been discovered Iraq has "the second biggest phosphate reserves in the world, after Morocco." In 2010, the Guardian explained, "Phosphorous is an essential nutrient for plant growth, along with nitrogen and potassium. It is a key component in DNA and plays an essential role in plant energy metabolism. Without it, crops would fail, causing the human food chain to collapse.
Phosphate production is predicted to peak around 2030 as the global population expands to a predicted 9.1 billion people by 2050. And unlike oil, where there are renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuels, there is no substitute for phosphorus, according to the US Geological Survey."
Yesterday there were many Iraq issues to address and the biggest one was the issue of the various scenarios for keeping US troops in Iraq beyond the 2011 deadline. So we really weren't too interested in this column by Bill Keller. It could wait and waiting would allow us to see if Greg Mitchell had anything to offer.
He had nothing and that's far more depressing than anything in Bill Keller's column. Bill Keller was a columnist for the New York Times in the lead up to the illegal war. He made the decision to disgrace his reputation, such as it was, by becoming a War Hawk. Though Chris Hedges would be savaged by the paper for a speech he gave against the war, being for it cost you nothing. This was demonstrated when the pro-war Bill Keller was promoted from opinion columnist to executive-editor four months after the start of the Iraq War.
Jill Abramson is now executive editor of the paper, the first woman to hold that post. Bill Keller has returned to being a columnist. It's a weird step-down and I can't think of, for example, any former editors of the Washington Post doing anything similar, but to each their own. This year, Keller was seen, rightly or wrongly, as using his position as executive-editor (that he still held at that time) to grab onto a column at the front of The New York Times Sunday Magazine (he was seen as doing that within the paper -- the minor criticism of those columns from outside the paper were nothing compared to the internal criticism). He's now a columnist for the paper and not the magazine as a result.
As a columnist these days, his genius is for tossing out ideas. He fails to develop these -- whether it be his column on Twitter or the one yesterday -- and they're poorly written. But they do attract a flurry of media attention suggesting that he remains an ideas person if not a writer. Joe Coscarelli (New York Magazine) wrote a strong critique of Keller's Monday column and noted the column weighed in at "nearly 3,500 words." (It has not gone unnoted by Times reporters that Keller is allowed a word count that they could only dream of, even for breaking news. Nor that, as executive-editor, Keller failed to champion long pieces and instead insisted that "Middle America" dictated the paper print more short pieces.) And along came The Nation's Greg Mitchell.
Keller wrote a column of nearly 3,500 words. Monday, Greg wrote a 'critique' that ran over 1,600 with the promise that he'd return to the topic today. Over 1600 words. And he was going to return to the topic today. (He failed to keep that promise. No surprise.)
And yet where's The Nation's coverage of the White House scenarios for keeping US troops in Iraq? When I spoke to a friend with the magazine this morning -- close to this afternoon -- I was asked, "What scenarios?" It was in the news yesterday (see yesterday's snapshot) and it's covered in today's papers. Do they not read at The Nation these days?
Having (falsely) sold Barack as anti-war, you'd think The Nation would be on top of efforts to extend the US military presence in Iraq beyond 2011. Apparently, it's more important that they pretend the world stopped (or at least world problems did) when Bush left office. And that's a bit of Greg Mitchell's problem.
If you're going to take on Bill Keller's column -- for nearly 1700 words -- you should have something worth saying. Mitchell accuses Keller of, basically, serving up reheated mashed potatoes that were cooked several days ago which, for the record, is what Greg Mitchell himself does.
I don't know Bill Keller's motives for writing the column. I will not forget his war cheerleading before the start of the war. I won't excuse it. Nothing in the column suggests he's taken accountablity for it. The topic most likely was chosen because he knew it would garner attention (again, ideas he can come up with, execution is Bill's problem).
If I were going to hold Bill Keller accountable for his actions, I don't know that I'd rely on Judith Miller. Her pre-war reporting is before Keller's executive-editor. Where in Greg Mitchell's nearly 1700 words is that noted? Greg can't shut up about Judith Miller. That field's been plowed several times over. Time to rotate the crops, Greg.
Greg Mitchell has never had objectivity and he's also lacked sense. No where is that more clear than in his attack on Bill Keller for the paper's backing Judith Miller when erstwhile federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was investigating the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. The paper was correct to defend Miller. It would be correct to defend any journalist who refused to name sources. And a case that can't be made without compelling reporters to testify about sources is a case that was weak to begin with. (See the current witchhunt efforts to force James Risen to testify about his source or sources.) Keller's decision to defend Miller was controversial because Judith Miller was controversial. In terms of principals, it was the right thing to do and Keller deserves applause for his decision there.
But Greg Mitchell's beyond the thought required for that. He's not much of a thinker -- he struggles with comprehension, as we've noted at Third. And when he's caught in factual errors, he changes them without noting he's altered them. So it's not surprising to read the 1700 words and hear Greg whine endlessly about the coverage of Colin Powell's speech to the UN and the WMD coverage ahead of the war and all the other things that the paper did . . . when Keller wasn't executive-editor.
It's a bit hard, I guess, to do the real criticism necessary. The real criticism would be calling out the Iraq reporting under Keller. That would be the Burnsie & Dexy Green Zone frolics. By the time Keller becomes executive-editor, the Iraq War has started. His era's problem is not pre-war coverage, it is the stenography that kept the Iraq War going. His problem is 'reporting' that appeared many, many days after it should have. Why does a report on a November 15, 2004 battle appear on the front page of the November 21, 2004 edition of the New York Times? Why the delay? Unless the paper's allowed the military to vet the copy before they published it.
Dexter Filkins is another Judith Miller because, if you buy into the argument that Miller got us into Iraq, or helped to get us into Iraq, it's Dexter Filkins and his lik that keep us there. He wants to reflect on his time in Iraq but not in any meaningful way. For instance, he doesn't want to talk about the limited realities he does see (from the Green Zone) or, for that matter, that his movements are limited. The ultimate embed has promoted the myth that Iraq was a place where he could move freely in article after article. (And the Times has mainly relied on stringers, Iraqis, to explore the areas outside the Green Zone.)
Truth in advertising (because we won't call it "reporting") would have meant a lot more Americans would have grapsed earlier what the reality was.
Bill Keller should be pushed on the issue of the use of white phosphorus used on the residents of Falluja and how Dexter didn't report on it. Bill Keller should especially have to explain how Abeer Qasim Hamza was repeatedly nameless in the paper? Ellen Knickmeyer (Washington Post) filed a major report when the news broke that the military's story -- ran with no questioning or skepticism by the New York Times -- from months prior was false, that 'insurgents' had not attacked a family home, that it was US soldiers and that they gang-raped 14-year-old Iraqi Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, murdered her, murdered her five-year-old sister Hadeel Qassim Hamza and both of her parents Wassim Hamza Raheem and Fakhriya Taha Muhasen. And Ellen Knickmeyer named the victims. The New York Times rendered them invisible over and over again. To read the New York Times coverage was to wonder if the "14-year-old girl" who was raped and killed by US soldiers had a name. She didn't in one report after another. She didn't during the court martials, she didn't have a name.
Ask Bill Keller how that happened? Ask him how the paper 'reported' ahead of the Article 32 hearing? Because what the paper did was present the defense case. Before the defense did. A defense that military law expert Eugene Fidell would state, after it was presented at the Article 32 hearing, "This is not a defense known to the law." But days before, the paper had a 'report' that argued just what the defense did. How did that happen?
Ask Bill Keller why Dexter Filkins did campus appearances in 2006 claiming that he wasn't allowed to print what was really happening in Iraq?
There are many things regarding the Iraq coverage during Bill Keller's reign as executive-editor to complain about (there are many things to praise as well: Sabrina Tavernise, Damien Cave, Alissa J. Rubin, Tim Arango, etc.). I'm not really sure why he's expected to forever answer for the coverage by other people before he was executive-editor. One reason may be that, as usual, Greg Mitchell's unable to do the work required to launch anything but a critique that's been gone over and over and over by every outlet except the New York Times. By the way, while The Nation remains silent over the talk of extensions, long, long ago Elisabeth Bumiller was reporting on that for the New York Times. Don't expect Greg Mitchell to ever note that either.
on No comments:

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

5 men, 2 women


At Third:


I loved Ava and C.I.'s TV piece but I also enjoyed us doing our update on Diane Rehm. I'll write more about that tomorrow night.

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


Tuesday, September 6, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Norah O'Donnell presses the White House to go on the record about Iraq, politics remains murky in Iraq, a new cable reveals Blackwater guards didn't really leave Iraq, and more.
Danny Schechter (ZNet) notes US President Barack Obama is set to deliver another speech, this one on Thursday and supposedly focusing on jobs:
Attention, collapsing Economy: you finally have the big man's attention. Nearly 70 organizations are pressing the President to take strong action.
Please give him a break. He's been busy tending Empire business -- waging GWOT warfare on IraqAfghanistanLibyaYemenPakistanSomalia et. al . . .
Call it the greatest "long war" in American history: an unending and unbelievably expensive intervention justified as necessary to keep us safe.
But the Iraq War made no one safe. Iraqis aren't safe, and we'll get to that later in the snapshot, but neither is "the west." The former head of British intelligence, MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller just said so in a recent speech.
Eliza Manningham-Buller: War was declared on a rogue state, an easier target than an elusive terrorist group based mainly at that stage in the difficult terrain of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. And, in my view, whatever the merits of putting an end to Saddam Hussein, the war was also a distraction from the pursuit of al Qaeda. It increased the terror threat by convincing more people that Osama bin Laden's claim that Islam was under attack was correct. It provided an arena for the jihad for which he had called so that many of his supporters including British citizens traveled to Iraq to attack western forces. It also showed very clearly that foreign and domestic policies are intertwined, actions overseas have an impact at home and our involvement in Iraq spurred some young British Muslims to turn to terror.
BBC News has video here and notes, "She was speaking during her first 2011 Reith Lecture, which will be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on Tuesday 6 September 2011 at 09:00 BST and repeated on Saturday 10 September at 22:15 BST. You can also listen via the BBC iPlayer or download the programme podcast." In the US, Richard Cohen (New York Daily News) observes:

This is a melancholy season in Washington, much talk about the decline of America and how our vaunted system has broken down. I won't quibble. But the most consequential breakdown of our system is exemplified by waging an unnecessary war and then - history, brace yourself - the reelection of the incompetents who had done it. Is it possible that for all the treacly talk about "the fallen" and all our salutes to the troops, we care so little about them that we casually gave second terms to the very people who wasted their lives?
This lack of accountability is not limited to our ill-conceived military adventures. After all, the financial system collapsed, but afterward there were no metaphorical hangings. People of modest means, suckers fooled into thinking a home of their own was a gift of citizenship, lost it all, but the guys at the top had a couple of bad years and then got the bonuses they were accustomed to. We are a get-over-it nation, always moving on.
Still, Iraq was different. Lives, not homes, were lost - and the Middle East was thrown up into the air.
And the Iraq War continues. Over the weekend, Aswat al-Iraq quoted from a statement by Humam Hammoudi, "head of the Iraqi Parliamentary Foreign Relations Commission," which says of the issue of a US withdrawal: "we are waiting the PrimeMinister to present a new agreement following the U.S. forces withdrawal for the training cadres." Al Mada reports today that Iraqi Gen Anwar Hamad Amin has released a statement stating that Iraq will need "years" to be able to secure their own air space and that, post-2011, they will continue to need US air support. But the big news happens because of Fox News.
Today, they reported, "The Obama administration has decided to drop the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of the year down to 3,000, marking a major downgrade in force strength, multiple sources familiar with the inner workings and decisions on U.S. troop movements in Iraq told Fox News." They reported that US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had agred to it and they quoted Panetta denying that any decision had been made. Some rushed to slam Fox News. Why? Today Norah O'Donnell, CBS News, raised the issue of Iraq.
Norah O'Donnell: And can I turn to Afghanistan and ask whether the President has received a recommendation from Secretary Panetta to reduce the number of troop levels to about 3,000 by year's end?
Jay Carney: I think you mean Iraq.
Norah O'Donnell: Excuse me, Iraq. Thank you. I misspoke.
Jay Carney: No. And the process has -- as you know, we are operating under a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government that was signed by the previous administration to draw down our forces. We are in negotiations, consultations with the Iraqi government about what our relationship with Iraq will look like going forward. We want a normal, productive, healthy relationship with Iraq going forward. We have said in the past that if the security component of that relationship -- if the Iraqi government makes a request of us, we will certainly consider it. That request has not been made. No decisions have been made. And so we are operating as of now under the existing agreements.
Norah O'Donnell: I understand those negotiations are underway. But the question specifically, though, is has Secretary Panetta delivered a recommendation to the President --
Jay Carney: No, I think what I -- This is contingent upon what our relationship looks like with Iraq, and that component of it depends on our negotiations with the Iraqi government.
Wendell Goler: Will budgetary concerns be a part of the President's decision about how many troops to leave in Iraq?
Jay Carney: The President has I think made abundantly clear for a long time now that he will end and has ended our efforts in Iraq, our combat efforts, responsibly. We have been operating on a timetable that has withdrawn over 100,000 U.S. forces since he took office in a way that has been incredibly careful and responsible, and has allowed the Iraqis to further build up their security forces and improve their capacities. And uh, the -- Wh-what our relationship looks like going forward with Iraq will depend upon our negotiations with the Iraqi government.
Wendell Goler: And not concerns about how much it costs?
Jay Carney: I think we live in a world of, uh -- where resources aren't infinite, and that -- that's the case with every consideration we make. But the answer is we will uh-uh make decisions based on what is the best for the United States, best for our national security interests and best for having the most effective relationship with Iraq going forward.
Norah's with CBS News, Wendell Goler is with Fox News. The is the most Jay Carney has spoken of the Iraq War. A war that has no cease fire. A war that has no peace treaty. A war that is ongoing. A war that the White House should be asked of regularly. Today they were forced to address it. They should. The State Dept is forever being asked about Iraq. Why isn't the White House? Is Barack not the commander-in-chief? Was an executive order signed that no one knows of?
If not, the White House needs to be pressed on what is going on with Iraq.Victoria Nuland, State Dept spokesperson, is a better speaker than Jay Carney to begin with. But part of the reason she's not forever stammering and uh-uh-ing her way through Iraq issues is because she's regularly forced to address it. That includes today:
QUESTION: On Iraq?
MS. NULAND: On Iraq. Yeah.
QUESTION: The [Kurd] president, Masoud Barzani, has told the U.S. forces to stay in Iraq, and warning of a civil war if the American forces withdraw. What can you tell them?
MS. NULAND: I think our public position, our private position, hasn't changed, that our plan is to withdraw by the end of the year. Were the Iraqi Government to come forward and make a request for some continued security assistance, we would be prepared to look at it.
QUESTION: Do you consider this call as a request from an Iraqi leader?
MS. NULAND: Well, we have heard many different views from individual Iraqi leaders, but they have a government, and we need to hear a united view from the government.
QUESTION: There was an article, a very lengthy article, by Ayad Allawi last week basically calling for that, so that's the head of a major political Iraqi bloc. Now you have the Kurds calling for that. There are talks of some sort of behind the scene agreements between the Pentagon and the Iraqi Ministry of Defense for a rotation. And so, did you know of that?
MS. NULAND: I mean, it's clear that a lot of Iraqis are thinking about this and talking about it. But obviously, we couldn't get into a discussion on the basis of informal comments by individual Iraqis.
QUESTION: I guess the question is: Is the United States flexible enough to accept such a request when it happens?
MS. NULAND: Again, you're taking me into hypotheticals as to when this might happen. Our view hasn't changed, that if they have something that they would like us to do, we're prepared to look at it.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: Is there any --
MS. NULAND: Oh, sorry. Still on Iraq?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is there any possibility to make a deal with north Iraq regarding the future of the U.S. presence in Iraq instead of waiting for a request from the Iraqi Government?
MS. NULAND: I think we have for many years operated on the basis of a single policy with regard to a unitary Iraq. I don't see that changing.
On the issue Fox News reported on and that Norah O'Donnel asked about, Lolita C. Baldor, Rebecca Santana, Lara Jake and Robert Burns (AP) report that the White House "is reviewing a number of options" but that a request needs to be made before Barack can decide which option to go with.
As noted earlier, the Iraq War didn't make Iraq safer for Iraqis. Lara Jakes (AP) reports on the mood of Iraqis and notes, "Security is a key indicator of Iraq's future -- it drives business investment, government policy decisions and the psyche of the war-torn nation. In interviews across Baghdad, Iraqis cited the random daily bombings and shootings that continue to kill people here. At least under Saddam, they say, they knew they could avoid being targeted by violence by simply staying quiet." Reuters notes a Baghdad sticky bombing left two people injured and a Haditha attack on the military left 8 Iraqi service members dead with one more injured.
Yesterday Al Rafidayn reported on the political intrigue in Iraq. A healthy portion of the National Alliance is the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council headed by Amar al-Hakim and they are calling for pressure on Nouri's government to force it to provide basic services. And there may be an effort to form a majority government -- an effort which would sidestep Nouri and his political slate (State Of Law). Iraqiya's MP Talal Zaobaie states that Iraqiya, parts of the National Alliance, the Kurdistan Alliance and Sadr's bloc can come together to form a majority government which would shut out Nouri. As the article notes, Nouri began floating a threat that they would shut others (sometimes defined as Iraqiya) out of the goverment by tossing aside what currently existed and forming a majority government. Zaobaie insists if such a move was taken, everyone would be welcome provided they weren't part of the effort which harmed advancing the ministries (naming heads to the ministries) or part of the effort interfering with ending corruption. The article notes that the Sadr bloc has already stated that the government's response to the upcoming protests will determine whether or not they (the Sadr bloc) will withdraw confidence from the government. Supposedly this potential alliance would have at least 180 members (therefore 180 votes) and they would be able to push through a measure to withdraw confidence in Nouri's government and then establish a new majority government which, the assertion is, would avoid sectarian strife.


Al Mada also picks up the story and mainly adds input from the Sadr bloc via Jawad al-Jubouri who states that the bloc will suport Nouri or anyone who pushes for a government that serves its citizens. The newspaper also notes that State of Law MP Ammar al-Shibli is declaring that this plan demonstrates that State of Law must move towards forming a majority government. Dar Addustour's coverage emphasizes that such a plan would shut out certain "leaders of their lists" (more than just Nouri) and that this appears to be an effort to punish these leaders for the failures of government.

That was yesterday. Today UPI reports that Moqtada al-Sar has issued a call for "resistance" over the US "temporarily closing" Baghdad International Airport and Iraq's air space August 30th. Maybe this 'brave' stand will cover up his latest cave. After much bellowing from his bloc and Moqtada himself, Reuters reports his big protest isn't even on, doesn't have a date and that he announced yesterday Nouri al-Maliki had one "last chance" to work on reforms it was supposed to have implemented long ago. Reuters reminds, "Earlier this year Sadr had given Maliki six months to accelerate reforms after protesters took to the streets across the country demanding more electricity and jobs and better government services."

Al Mada also reports on First Lady Moqtada's latest drama and notes there are conflicting views on the political feasibility of it. State of Law's Adnan al-Sarraj insists that the government does not currently have the resources to make the improvements necessary. Readers of the article leave blistering comments that might surprise the western press still so sure Moqtada is a beloved and important 'force' within Iraq. The first comment questions Moqtada's ethics and wants to know exactly what is "your salary? Has the electricity gone out in your home? Are your children sharing hell with us in Iraq or have they been scattered outside of Iraq?" The second comment starts with the premise that he and his bloc are the "scourge" in Iraq and expands from there. The third comment opens with sarcasm before pointing out that Moqtada himself is part of the government. He can take comfort that the fourth comment condemns all in government. Dar Addustour notes that Moqtada's statement sent out yesterday is a refusal to topple Nouri's government and that Baghdad is demanding permits for any protests taking place (this Friday, the youth activists plan to return to Tahrir Square and protest).

Meanwhile Al Rafidayn reports the KRG is stating Nouri is becoming a dictator who disregards political agreements and they are calling for the withdrawal of the draft oil law his Cabinet announced they'd devised last week. The KRG states that the draft conflicts with the Constitution and other laws and they call for it to be withdrawn by the Cabinet or rejected by the Parliament. That outcry comes as Nouri is set to meet with the KRG's prime minister. Al Sabaah notes Barham Salih and Nouri have a previous scheduled meeting.
Yesterday W.G. Dunlop (AFP) reports on a recently leaked State Dept cable which explains that although Blackwater was banned from Iraq in 2010 as a result of the September 16, 2007 slaughter in Baghdad where they shot at and killed Iraqi civilians, the same security guards/mercenaries/contractors who had been working for Blackwater just switched over to other firms (such as DynCorp and Triple Canopy) and continued to work in Iraq. It's not noted in the cable whether or not the information was shared with the Iraqi government but it most likely wasn't due to the fact that the position of the US Embassy in Baghdad was that they needed Triple Canopy to protect their staff. Press TV discussed the latest disclosed cable with Iraqi Democrats Against Occupation's Sabah Jawad:

Press TV: Who are the Americans trying to deceive, why are they using guards who have committed crimes against the people of Iraq?

Jawad: There are two aspects regarding these Blackwater [operations]. Obviously, the Iraqi government knows about these people operating in the country despite the fact they have changed their name from Blackwater to Xe [Services]. They [Iraqi officials] should know better than allow these people to still operate in Iraq. The second thing it shows is the total mentality behind the American occupation of Iraq; they have been killing Iraqi people since 2003, and even before that, since they actually began to get involved in the affairs of Iraq and after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. It is total disregard for the lives of innocent people in Iraq and we have many examples that when they (Blackwater employees] are proven to have committed crimes against the Iraqi people, in fact sometimes they are treat as heroes. We have reports recently in the United States that a couple of guys who used to operate in Iraq are planning for local election and even Congress and they are boating about crimes in Iraq. There is no justice as far as American occupation of Iraq is concerned. The Americans are not subjected international or Iraqi or any law for the matter, even the US's laws. These people get away with murder and they will continue to do so until the Iraqi government does something about them and we see the back of American occupation in Iraq.


Last week, another cable garnered press attention. It addressed the Ishaqi slaughter of 2006, when US forces handcuffed a family and then shot each one dead in the head -- including children. As noted Friday, Matt Schofield reported on it at length in real time. His first report ran March 19, 2006 (Knight Ridder Newspapers, now McClatchy). Saturday Matt Schofield (McClacthy) reported more on the latest developments:


Five years after reporting on what I came to call the Ishaqi Incident, five years after it had largely been forgotten in this country, five years after sleepless nights and bouts of despondency began, I found myself thinking again of five innocent faces, their bodies covered by blankets in the back of a pickup truck in Baghdad.
It came back in an unexpected manner: through WikiLeaks. What happened March 15, 2006, in Ishaqi, Iraq, was the topic of an unclassified diplomatic cable by Philip Alston that came to light in the last few days.
Alston has one of those titles that won't quit: United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.
His job is much simpler: When very bad things happen, he looks into them. Sometimes those things happen in Kenya or the Congo. Sometimes in Afghanistan or Iraq. Rarely, Americans are involved.
What happened in Ishaqi, no matter whom you listen to, was very bad.
PJAK is a rebel Kurdish group engaged in an independence struggle with the Iranian government. PJAK has set up camp in northern Iraq. David Batty (Guardian) reports that Iranian military spokesperson Hamid Ahmadi has declared Iran has killed 40 PJAKs and that PJAK declared a ceasefire but Iran is rejecting it stating they want the PJAK out of certain (Iraqi) areas. And should that happen? Xinhua reports that Hamid Ahmadi stated "that after the withdrawal of PJAK, talks will be held on truce if deemed necessary" -- if PJAK withdraws from Iraqi areas, the Iranian government may or may not go for a truce, they'll decide after. Aswat al-Iraq adds that Ali Akbar Salihy, Foreign Minister of Iran, is due to visit Erbil in the KRG shortly to meet with Kurdish leaders to discuss "border attacks." In addition, Aswat al-Iraq reports that Massoud Barzani, President of the KRG, is due to visit Tehran.

As attacks take place and Iran's dispatched their military, the Iranian government traffics in fantasy. Press TV reports, "The state-funded British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is seeking to encourage the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK) terrorist group to continue militant attacks against Iraq." Back on the planet earth, Aswat al-Iraq reports on the civilian population effected, "The Kurdish local authorities of Soran Qadha, Arbil, declared that the Iranian bombings of border villages continued into today, and covered populated areas in Seedkan, north of Arbil. The shelling resulted in overall panic in the area, likely related to the death of one woman and wounding of two civilians in yesterday's bombing."

And a demonstration is planned for Wednesday in Erbil to protest the attacks on northern Iraq by both the Iranian military and the Turkish military.
Turning back to the US. It's an interview that will have you rolling on the floor with laughter and it's not a skit from a Christopher Guest film. The two are actually serious. The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild and CODEPINK's Jodi Evans. But before we get to that. Elaine's begged me for years to share here my first meeting with Jodi Evans and never has it been more appropriate.
I know Jerry Brown. Via his campaigns, I was aware of Jodi who worked on them. (I mainly donated to them.) At some point after he was elected governor, I finally was face to face with Jodi one day when I arrived for a scheduled meeting (non-governmental business, but it was scheduled) and he came out of his office to apologize that he was running late but had I met Jodi (formally I hadn't) and if I needed anything while I waited, she could get it. So Jodi and I said our hellos and I asked for a Tab (this was the seventies). Jodi stopped to answer a phone call. Then she explained just how much pressure she was under. And she certainly sounded as if she was. And this went on for about ten to fifteen minutes before Jerry was done with his meeting at which point I went off to speak with Jerry while puzzling over his in-over-her-head assistant.
And all these years later, Jodi, I'm still waiting on that Tab.
Elaine thinks that story encapsulates Jodi Evans -- and if you know Jodi, you'll may agree. But now for Progressive Radio's effort at Revisionary Theatre:
Jodi Evans: I said to my son recently who was big in the Obama campaign, "Maybe it was good that McGovern lost." Because all of us who had come there with our hearts and souls and the vision of what that campaign stood for had to then carry it forward ourselves. And, you know, it -- We didn't get disappointed by Obama, we-- the kind of -- I've seen a lot of his friends get depressed and really feel lost. Instead we got empowered and it really set the trajectory for our lives.
Matthew Rothschild: I'm speaking with Jodi Evans, the co-founder of CODEPINK, you're listening to Progressive Radio, I'm Matt Rothschild, the editor of The Progressive magazine. Let's talk about Obama a little bit. My daughter, like your son, worked for the campaign, though she was just knocking on doors here in Wisconsin as was my wife for that matter. They were both very, very disappointed in what Obama has done as you say your son was. What's your take on Obama? What happened?
Jodi Evans: I think he's a great, inspiring speaker. [Giggles.] I think it was a perfect storm of a moment. You know, I was for Obama in the beginning because he was the anti-war candidate and was actually speaking out against the war. It wasn't until later that he decided to make Afghanistan the good war which is when I started to get pretty upset and was able to actually say to his face twice during the campaign, "There's no such thing as a good war."
Jodi is highly creative. As co-founder of CODEPINK, she determined who was "bird-dogged" and who wasn't. She made the determination that, for example, Hillary was to be bird-dogged (stalked) by CODEPINK and she made the determination that Barack wasn't. Despite the fact that Barack's voting record was identical to Hillary's. That had an impact. As for her being for Barack "in the beginning because he was the anti-war candidate" -- does she mean the fall of 2002?
I ask because -- as Elaine and I have both long discussed online -- before he was elected to the US Senate, right after he started running for that office in fact, Elaine and I were at a pricey fundraiser for Barack and, during our face time, we raised the issue of the Iraq War -- our big issue and he was the alleged peace candidate -- only to have him declare that "we" were already in Iraq (actually, no, we were in the United States) so it no longer mattered. It was similar to statements he'd later make to the New York Times during the 2004 DNC convention.
So it's a lie when Jodi says he was the anti-war candidate. He presented himself as that and groups like CODEPINK encouraged the lie by refusing to note that if Barack truly was against the Iraq War then voting for continuing it once he was in the Senate was more disgusting than the hawks who voted for it in 2002.
As for "later" on Afghanistan, I don't know what the hell she's talking about. In February 2007, he declared his intent to run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. June 3, 2007 -- in a televised debate -- he declared that, "One of the things that I think is critical, as the next president, is to make absolutely certain that we not only phase out the Iraq but we also focus on the critical battle that we have in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda." Want to go back further? The October 12, 2004 debate when he ran for the US senate, "It is an absolutely hopeful sign for the people of Afghanistan. As I have stated unequivocally, I have always thought that we did the right thing in Afghanistan. My only concerns with respect to Afghanistan was that we diverted our attention from Afghanistan in terms of moving into Iraq [blah, blah, blah]." Or how about his August 1, 2007 speech? CNN's opening sentence in their report on that speech? "Sen. Barack Obama says he would shift the war on terror to Afghanistan and Pakistan in a speech he delivered Wednesday."
So I'm confused as to when Jodi was confused about where Barack stood on Afghanistan since it was pretty much always clear and it certainly was before 2008 rolled around -- the year Jodi did her part to demonize Hillary while building up Barack. I'm confused because I'm not a fan of let-me-lie-my-way-out-of-the-hell-I-created revisionary tactics.
As for Barack being a great speaker, as Ava and I noted February 15, 2009:
We watched Monday in full as Barack uh-uh-uhed and spoke in that robotic manner that allows him to find more unnatural pauses than Estelle Parsons and Kim Stanley combined. "He's our Method president!" we quickly gasped while wishing we could have one president this decade capable of normal speech. If he gets any worse, he'll be Sandy Dennis.
Back to the interview.
Jodi Evans: I think he's a great, inspiring speaker. [Giggles.] I think it was a perfect storm of a moment. You know, I was for Obama in the beginning because he was the anti-war candidate and was actually speaking out against the war. It wasn't until later that he decided to make Afghanistan the good war which is when I started to get pretty upset and was able to actually say to his face twice during the campaign, "There's no such thing as a good war."
Matthew Rothschild: Well how did he respond?
Jodi Evans: He said, "I was thinking the Civil War." And I said, "I really don't think you're that stupid because that was about economics really." But, you know. [Laughs] I said, "Shame on you." So, you know, I had experiences of him when he was a senator. I made a movie called The Ground Truth which is about the wounded soldiers and took it to his office and talked to him about it because Veterans Affairs was one of the Committees he was on. And he was -- You know, when you're in the office with him, he's super-inspiring and personal and "I'm going to do this with" and "We're going to bring these people in" and "We're going to change this." But nothing happened. So I think I kind of knew the 'nothing happens' out of the story personally. But I also know what it's like having been inside a governor's office, what happens when you get power. And unfortunately, watching it from the outside, I've never seen a more closed, you know, presidential community. I mean, it's all really weird. It's never been this bad. And I don't know why that is, what they're afraid of. It seems to be really out of a lot of fear and --
Matthew Rothschild: "Closed"? By that you mean cloistered? All of one mind set?
Jodi Evans: Yes. And elite. Super elite given who he is. Even my friend Van Jones was in the White House for awhile and the stories he would tell me about how they were told to dress and behave is just not kind or relational. I think relational is the important thing. And so you think there must be a lot of fear that creates that. That's what cause people to be that way. You see that in how he is around war and how he is around Wall Street. I think they're all issues that he really doesn't have a grasp of so he gives that power away to others. I've been in that situation. Jerry [Brown] did that a bit with me, he'd be like, "I don't want to deal with that," so he'd give the power away. And so, unfortunately, he's given the power away to, you know, the wrong [laughing] people as far as I'm concerned. Or the people that don't represent what he ran on. His words and actions aren't matching. And they just seem a little lost. They can run a good campaign but they just don't know how to be president.
Matthew Rothschild: At least at the beginning of his presidency, it seems to me, that Obama anesthetized the peace movement. Uh, did you have that same feeling?
Jodi Evans: Well we've had that experience before like in 2006 when it was the peace movement that actually -- it was the anti-war, you know, push that got all those new people in and, you know, really changed the tenor of the election and then they get there and they vote for war. So you know, we've been there before. But, yes, I think it sucked the air out of anything that any organization or movement that had a wet blanket thrown on it You kind of get thrown back and you don't know what to do next and you kind of have to rethink. I mean, that doesn't happen in CODEPINK, we just kind of go, "Yeah, we're used to this," and keep going and we're usually all alone in the street for awhile and people will get back when they get their feet kind of on the ground again.
A.N.S.W.E.R. and World Can't Wait continued protests. CODEPINK alternated between silent mode and cheerleader mode. And if you've forgotten it, click here for Scott Horton's Antiwar Radio piece (transcript) on when CODEPINK supported the Afghanistan War. Short on facts, but almost as entertaining as Corky St. Clair.
on No comments:

Saturday, September 3, 2011

4 men, 2 women

Friday's Diane Rehm Show, the first hour guests were Michael Scherer, Jeanne Cummings and David Welna. The second hour was James Kitfield, Anne Gearan and David Sanger. And we're going to be writing about DR at Third so I'm shutting up on that. On Third, it may post late. Ava, C.I. and I were talking. Their wish (and I'm for it but it's not going to happen) is that since it's Labor Day weekend, they should just work on it Saturday night and Sunday (as usual) but post on Monday and that way no pressure. But it is called The Third Estate Sunday Review so there's some push back on that. But their attitude is that we need to do a Diane Rehm feature (we have two planned, time may mean we fold them into one) and that it needs to be done no matter how long it takes.

And don't you love C.I.?

I love her for many, many reasons. Among them she doesn't take crap, to be sure. But she's also the first one to defend others. When Al Jazeera Arabic published that article this week that was yet another hate piece ('Jews are invading Iraq and stealing the country's treasures, even the US military agrees' -- that's the summary), C.I. didn't hesitate to fire back with a response piece ("'A bunch of damn Jews'") calling out that b.s.

In the snapshot for Wednesday August 31st, C.I. called out Michael S. Schmidt ridiculous New York Times article "Iraq War Marks First Month With No U.S. Military Deaths" which uses the term "milestone" and gushes Operation Happy Talk.

Many have followed. Few have demonstrated the passion or the maturity. And I was going to hold my nose and link to an asshole but I just got a text from C.I. asking if I'd seen it? I have, I think I'll carry that over to Third. So no link to the asshole but do look for a piece at Third on this.

This morning, Mike called. He, Wally and C.I. run every Saturday morning before C.I. and Wally leave Boston. So I asked Mike to call me.

I used to run back in high school and college but there's this thing you may have heard of called "life." Yeah, it does get in the way. But a friend at work is now on a crash diet because her doctor told her she has to lose X pounds. And that got me thinking about how diabetes runs in my family and it's really not smart of me not to be active now. So today was my day back. I didn't run. I just walked. But I stayed on the phone with Mike and walked while they ran (and while they walked -- they ran 55 minutes and then walked 15). So that was an hour and ten minutes of walking for me. It wasn't a problem except my left sneaker must have a problem because the sole of my foot is irritated. (Problem? I mean a worn spot that's not showing up yet but will probably be a whole in the sole shortly.)

Ava and C.I. usually grab 30 to 45 minutes during the writing edition of Third to speed walk and they said they can get on the phone with me if I want to join them on that. And I think I will. I felt so much better today having gotten that exercise in.

So much better that I've babbled through a lenghty post.

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


Friday, September 2, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Troy Yocum completes his Hike for our Heroes tomorrow in Louisville, Human Rights Watch calls out the bombing of northern Iraq, additional info about the 2006 massacre of an Iraqi family by US forces, and more.
Starting in the US, Hike for our Heroes is a non-profit started by Iraq War veteran Troy Yocum who is hiking across the country to raise awareness and money for veterans issues. He began the walk last April. From the Facebook page:

Iraq War Veteran Troy Yocum, his wife Mareike and Emmie the super dog are hiking 7,000 miles across America to help military families in need. They took their first steps of the 16-month cross-country quest on April 17, 2010. Backed by corporate sponsors, many volunteers and support members, Team Hike for our Heroes/Drum Hike are taking on the challenge of raising needed funds by hiking 7000 miles across America. The journey will take 16 months passing through 31 states and 38 large cities. The team will have to average over 20 miles a day while enduring each season. Funds donated go through The Wish Upon A Hero Foundation is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit organization that seeks to supports the community of individuals working online who grant the needs and wants of others making a wish. We believe that no wish is too large, no hero is too small and that everyone can become a hero. The idea for the hike has been evolving since Troy joined the Army in 2001 but it is now when our economy is struggling and military families are in most need that he and his family will put one foot in front of another to connect and help struggling families. Help our mission by making a donation today!

The hike that began in Louisville, Kentucky over a year and a half ago is scheduled to conclude there this Saturday at approximately 1:30 p.m. Ken Neuhauser (Louisville Courier-Journal) notes, "Coincidentally, Louisville native and Iraq war veteran Troy Yocum will complete his 'Hike for Our Heroes' campaign at 1:30 p.m. Saturday across the street at the Louisville Slugger Museum, where he began his 7,000-mile cross-country trek in April 2010. His accomplishment will be recognized as part of the Founder's Day celebration." Devin Katayama (WFPL) reports:


Now he is getting close and he said when he arrives at the finish line at the Louisville Slugger Museum this weekend, he expects a few thousand people to greet him.
"I thought I could finish all 7,880 miles in 15 months and instead we're coming into Louisville around a month and a half late. And that's not a failure in my book. I take from this that perseverance is key to accomplishing any goal and I've been working extra hard this year to make it all the way to the finish line. It's almost surreal to be this close to home. I just passed a sign that said 33 miles and that feels really good," said Yocum.

Late last night, Troy Tweeted, "Feels good to be closing on what has been an incredible journey!" That's tomorrow at approximately 1:30 in the afternoon. His Tweets today include:
Troy Yocum
WalkAcrossUSA The cart is back for the last miles to the finish line! We hope to live stream tomorrow!!! fb.me/El0WEynl
about 2 hours ago
Troy Yocum
WalkAcrossUSA Urgent: If you are coming to walk 9 miles, come prepared with its of water. It will be really hot tomorrow!
about 3 hours ago
Troy Yocum
WalkAcrossUSA This is it my friends, I want to thank you all for the support to get here. To each and every last one of my... fb.me/14dhPzxDQ
about 4 hours ago
Turning to Iraq, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) notes, "A source in Babel province warned that 45 taxi drivers have gone missing in recent months." And Reuters notes 1 corpse was discovered in Kirkuk (stabbed to death) and that 13 of the 35 who broke out of a Mosul prison (see yesterday's snapshot) are still at large while 22 have been captured.
Wednesday's snapshot noted the ridiculous Michael S. Schmidt article entitled "Iraq War Marks First Month With No U.S. Military Deaths" (New York Times) but something was missed (by me) that community member Terrance caught: most months NYT ignores all but combat fatalities when doing their reports. In addition, we'll note this from John Glaser's refutation (Antiwar.com) of the 'milestone' coverage:
Hailed as a victorious milestone, the achievement merely reveals the failure and disgrace of the Iraq War. [. . .] Milestones apparently don't have to consider civilian deaths, which reached 155 in August.
This supposed "milestone" provides comfort the families of service members? On today's Takeaway (PRI), Celeste Headlee addressed the issue with Jack Jacobs and Rossan aCambron. Excerpt:
Celeste Headlee: Also with us is Rossana Cambron whose son Arturo Cambron is serving his third term in Iraq so that's the opinion of a retired army col Rossana, what's your opinion as a mom? Does it make you feel the situation in Iraq is getting safer?
Rossana Cambron: It's a difficult question to answer because if I say "yes" people get the illusion that they can kind of rest, they apply it to their current situation. But as a mother who has a son in the war it only brings it down just a short notch to the concern I feel and the worry I feel. It doesn't really make a significant difference in how much I worry about my son and his safety --
Celeste Headlee: Well --
Rossana Cambron: -- in the overall scheme.
Celeste Headlee: -- have you noticed any change in the past few months in his messages to you when he talks to you? Does he seem to feel like things have gotten improved or safer there?
Rossana Cambron: Well if we compare it to his first deployment which was late '06, definitely there's less combat, there's less mission where he goes out and he doesn't come back and mention maybe a snippet of what he may have experienced. But, again, I don't want to leave the illusion that it's a great relief, that I've stopped worrying or that I can stop not looking out of my window for somebody that's waiting to give me the bad news or walking up my door -- or things like that. It's not like that. It's just a -- shave off a thin layer of the worry that I have every day, the concern I have every day.
Still on violence, Dan Murphy (Christian Science Monitor) reports on a new Lancet study, "The report documented 1,003 suicide attacks in Iraq between 2003-10, which killed 12,284 civilians and injured a further 30,644. The Lancet authors found 108,624 civilian deaths from violence of all kinds in the period. To put that in perspective by adjusting for population, that would be equivalent to 1 million Americans killed in a seven-year period. And the violence has continued. Earlier this week, 28 worshipers were murdered by a suicide bomber at Baghdad's Umm al-Qura mosque."
Reviewing the month's violence and starting with what was reported by the media (and noted in the snapshots). August 1st, 2 dead and four injured; August 2nd, 6 dead and thirty-three injured; August 3rd, 18 dead and eleven wounded; August 4th, 3 dead and fourteen injured; August 5th, 1 dead and fifteen injured; August 6th, 1 dead and three wounded; August 7th, 6 dead and eight injured; August 8th, 8 dead and twenty-four wounded; August 9th, five wounded; August 10th, 1 dead and seventeen injured; August 11th, 5 dead and seventy-one injured; August 12th, five injured; August 13th, 3 dead and thirteen wounded; August 14th, 6 dead and eight injured; August 15th, 75 dead and two-hundred-and-fifty injured; August 16th, 8 dead and thirteen injured; August 17th, 8 dead and twenty-two wounded; August 18th, 10 dead and twenty-one injured; August 19th, 3 dead and six injured; August 20th, four were reported injured; August 21st, 8 dead and twelve injured; August 22nd, 6 dead and eight injured; August 23rd, no reports (the next day will find Reuters dropping back to cover the 23rd) ; August 24th, 8 dead and twenty-four wounded; August 25th, 23 dead and seventy-one injured; August 26th, 3 dead and nine injured; August 27th, 14 dead and twenty-six injured; August 28th, 35 dead and fifty-four injured; August 29th, 6 dead and thirty-eight injured; August 30th, 2 dead and eleven injured; August 31st, 4 dead and thirty-five wounded.
That's 262 dead and 855 injured. Iraqi Body Count counted 395 civilians killed (our 262 count is all killed, not just civilians -- the 262 leaves out Turkish and PKK claims on how many PKK fighters were killed due to the fact that the two sets of number conflict).
AFP notes that the Iraqi Ministry of Health, Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Defense released their figures for the month and are insisting only 239 Iraqis died in August ("155 civilians, 45 people and 39 soldiers"). But they've been undercounting forever. And with the exception of a pushback (from AFP) earlier this summer, the press just spits out the 'official' count -- from two ministries that don't even have Ministers. (Nouri cannot appoint a minister. He can nominate one. Parliament then decides on the nominee. If Parliament doesn't decide, there's no minister for that department.)
I'm not a fan of Alyona Minkovski or The Alyona Show (if needed, Ava and I can go into that at Third) but there's limited coverage of the WikiLeak released State Dept cable about the 2006 slaughter of an Iraqi family. Of the three choices I'm aware of that are radio or TV, her show was the strongest. She spoke with blogger Kevin Gosztola and we'll skip the whole Christopher Columbus claim of discovery of something already in the public sphere. We'll also skip the b.s. that doesn't address the cable. (But we will note when you yack and yack about others defocusing, why don't you yourself focus.) Excerpt:
Alyona Minkovski: Yeah can you give us a few more of the details that have been released in this cable about this raid?
Kevin Gosztola: Right, in this cable it's a communications log to the Mission in Geneva and he basically placed an inquiry, asking a number of questions about information he had received about multinational forces raid going into a home and, as you said in the set-up of your segment, five children were killed and four women were killed. And they were taken outside of the home and they were lined up and they were handcuffed -- they were in handcuffs -- and they were executed. And the autopsies show from the morgue they were able to see that they were shot in the head and that they were handcuffed. And then afterwards, a[n] airstrike came along and demolished the home so there wasn't any evidence left for any investigators to go [. . .]
And that's about all that was wroth it. Of course there was evidence even with the house demolished. That was the best of the three and, yes, that is very sad. John Glazer (Antiwar.com) wrote about the cable earlier this week noting the dead killed in the 2006 raid:
Mr. Faiz Hratt Khalaf, (aged 28), his wife Sumay'ya Abdul Razzaq Khuther (aged 24), their three children Hawra'a (aged 5) Aisha ( aged 3) and Husam (5 months old), Faiz's mother Ms. Turkiya Majeed Ali (aged 74), Faiz's sister (name unknown), Faiz's nieces Asma'a Yousif Ma'arouf (aged 5 years old), and Usama Yousif Ma'arouf (aged 3 years), and a visiting relative Ms. Iqtisad Hameed Mehdi (aged 23) were killed during the raid.
And this is news and should be treated as such but I want to get back to the Christopher Columbus issue. John Glaser has written on the raid this week and done it very well. If he wanted to claim credit, I wouldn't bat an eye, though I doubt Glaser would take credit for doing more than he did. But to hear the blogger quoted above and the infotainment presenter go on and on about his big discovery and how now we know about a raid --now? Click here for Matthew Schofield's March 19, 2006 report for Knight Ridder Newspapers and this is Schofield's opening:

Iraqi police have accused American troops of executing 11 people, including a 75-year-old woman and a 6-month-old infant, in the aftermath of a raid last Wednesday on a house about 60 miles north of Baghdad.

The villagers were killed after American troops herded them into a single room of the house, according to a police document obtained by Knight Ridder Newspapers. The soldiers also burned three vehicles, killed the villagers' animals and blew up the house, the document said.

A U.S. military spokesman, Major Tim Keefe, said that the U.S. military has no information to support the allegations and that he had not heard of them before a reporter brought them to his attention Sunday.

And we'll drop back to the June 2, 2006 snapshot to note it was covered by the press:
Next, there is Ishaqi which took place in March 15th of this year. For background refer to Democracy Now!'s March report as well as the BBC's report on a tape that has turned up which appears to refute the US military claims. In that incident, the official version is that "four people died during a military operation" when a building that was on fire collapsed on them while the version put foward by Iraqi police is that "US troops had deliberately shot the 11 people." March 23, 2006, Democracy Now! (link is transcript, audio and video) spoke with Matthew Schofield about the story:
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain exactly what you know at this point?
MATTHEW SCHOFIELD: Well, the story, as you and Juan just outlined it, pretty much goes through the basics of the story. We've talked quite a bit further in the last couple days with people surrounding the story. But what we have is a divergence on the story between the two -- there are two accounts. There's a U.S. military account, and then there's an Iraqi police account of what happened. As you know, the U.S. military account is that after showing up and getting into a shootout to get into this house, the house collapsed during the shootout. People were killed either in the shootout or by the collapsing house. They left. They found four bodies and left. They found this suspect. They arrested him. And that's pretty much that story. The other story is that the house was standing when the U.S. troops went in. They were herded into one room -- eleven people herded into one room, executed. U.S. troops then blew up the house and left. We were talking with the police officer who was first on the scene earlier today. He explained the scene of arriving. He said they waited until U.S. troops had left the area and it was safe to go in. When they arrived at the house, it was in rubble. I don't know if you've seen the photos of the remains of the house, but there was very little standing. He said they expected to find bodies under the rubble. Instead, what they found was in one room of the house, in one corner of one room, there was a single man who had been shot in the head. Directly across the room from him against the other wall were ten people, ranging from his 75-year-old mother-in-law to a six-month-old child, also several three-year-olds -- a couple three-year-olds, a couple five-year-olds, and four other -- three other women.
Lined up, they were covered, and they had all been shot. According to the doctor we talked to today, they had all been shot in the head, in the chest. A number of -- you know, generally, some of them were shot several times. The doctor said it's very difficult to determine exactly what kind of caliber gun they were shot with. He said the entry wounds were generally small and round, the exit wounds were generally very large. But they were lined up along one wall. There was a blanket over the top of them, and they were under the rubble, so when the police arrived, and residents came to help them start digging in, they came across the blankets. They came across the blankets. They picked the blankets up. They say, at that point, that the hands were handcuffed in front of the Iraqis. They had been handcuffed and shot. And the Iraqi assumption is that they were shot in front of the man across the room. They came to be facing each other. There is nothing to corroborate that. The U.S. is now investigating this matter, along with the Haditha matter. That's kind of where we stand right now.

And here's how Democracy Now! covered it in their headlines on March 16, 2006:
US Strikes Blamed for Death of Iraqi Family Members
Meanwhile, a US military attack in the Iraqi town of Balad is being blamed for the deaths of at least a dozen members of the same family. The dead include five children and six women. The Associated Press is reporting the family's house was flattened by an airstrike from a US helicopter. The victims were wrapped in blankets and driven to the Tikrit General Hospital. Ahmed Khalaf, the brother of one of the victims, said: "The dead family was not part of the resistance, they were women and children. The Americans have promised us a better life, but we get only death."
What is new is a development emerging today. Lara Jakes and Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) lead with, "Negotiations to keep U.S. troops in Iraq came under new strain Friday in the wake of WikiLeaks' release of a U.N. letter alleging that an Iraqi family was handcuffed and shot in the head in a 2006 raid by American forces -- not accidentally killed in an airstrike." Donald Macintyre and Jerome Taylor (Independent) note, "The incident is raised in a letter from Philip Alston, the UN rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Mr Alston's letter to US officials, which went unanswered, challenges the American military version of events. It says that autopsies carried out in the nearby city of Tikrit showed the victims had been handcuffed and shot in the head. They included a woman in her 70s and a five-month-old. The US military had said that the troops seized an al-Qa'ida suspect from a first floor room after fierce fighting left the house in ruins. US officials originally said five people had been killed, although they later accepted a higher toll of 11." Annie Gowen (Washington Post) adds that Nouri al-Maliki's spokesperson Ali al-Moussawi is stating that the investigation into what happened in Ishaqi will be reopened as a result of the cable. We'll ignore the rhetoric of the spokesperson and note Nouri has some sort of a viral outrage that comes and goes. Now he's outraged. But this slaughter happened a month before he became prime minister-designate (the first time, April 2006) and a month after he was prime minister (May 2006), the US military released their white wash report. In fact, from the June 2nd headlines on Democracy Now!:
Iraqi PM: US Killings of Iraqis "Daily Phenomenon"
Meanwhile, Iraq's Prime Minister has lashed out at the US military over what he has called the "daily phenomenon" of US attacks on Iraqi civilians. In an interview with the New York Times, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki said many troops "do not respect the Iraqi people." Maliki went on to say: "They crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion. This is completely unacceptable."
Again, it must be a kind of viral outrage that comes and goes. Monday's snapshot noted, "Over the weekend, Al Rafidayn reported that the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has refused to meet with Nouri al-Maliki and other politicians. For the last 8 weeks, al-Sistani has refused them. Why? His clerics say that he feels the people's needs are not being addressed and that the government has failed to deliver basic services and to reduce corruption." Aswat al-Iraq reports today Ahmed al-Safi, the Grand Ayatollah's representative, called out today "the absence of trust among political entities" (and it's seen as if the criticism was coming from the Grand Ayatollah). Meanwhile the Great Iraqi Revolution and other youth activists are gearing up for September 9th when they resume protests in Baghdad's Tahrir Square (and elsewhere in Iraq as well). Aswat al-Iraq notes that today Baghdad saw a smaller protest -- "citizens and civil activists" -- calling for US fores to leave, for an end to corruption and for better public services.
Yesim Comert and Ivan Watson (CNN -- link has text and video) reported yesterday afternoon on Kurds protesting in Istanbul. Riot police were sent in, stones and "petrol bombs" were hurled, tear gas was utilized. The reporters note, "The protest in Istanbul Thursday began fairly peacefully. Women in traditional Kurdish costumes led a column of thousands of people, many of them waving BDP flags and carrying banners that said 'peace now immediately' and 'long live the brotherhood of people'." The protests come as these Kurds in Turkey feel the government that has long oppressed them is not following up on the promises of equality and dignity that were made in the last few years. The protests also come as Turkey is in the midst of bombing Kurds in northern Iraq.
Throughout the Iraq War, Turkey has bombed northern Iraq. Starting in 2007, they had approval from Nouri al-Maliki and the US government to conduct the bombings and they also were provided with 'intelligence' by the US military including imagery via US drones flown over the region. As the Turkish press has made clear in the last two weeks, the US continues to provide 'intelligence.' Turkey insists that they are defending themselves from the PKK -- a group of Kurdish people who advocate for and fight for a Kurdish land.

The PKK is one of many Kurdish groups which supports and fights for a Kurdish homeland. Aaron Hess (International Socialist Review) described them in 2008, "The PKK emerged in 1984 as a major force in response to Turkey's oppression of its Kurdish population. Since the late 1970s, Turkey has waged a relentless war of attrition that has killed tens of thousands of Kurds and driven millions from their homes. The Kurds are the world's largest stateless population -- whose main population concentration straddles Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria -- and have been the victims of imperialist wars and manipulation since the colonial period. While Turkey has granted limited rights to the Kurds in recent years in order to accommodate the European Union, which it seeks to join, even these are now at risk." The Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq has been a concern to Turkey because they fear that if it ever moves from semi-autonomous to fully independent -- such as if Iraq was to break up into three regions -- then that would encourage the Kurdish population in Turkey. For that reason, Turkey is overly interested in all things Iraq. So much so that they signed an agreement with the US government in 2007 to share intelligence which the Turkish military has been using when launching bomb raids. However, this has not prevented the loss of civilian life in northern Iraq. Back to Aaron Hess, he noted, "The Turkish establishment sees growing Kurdish power in Iraq as one step down the road to a mass separatist movement of Kurds within Turkey itself, fighting to unify a greater Kurdistan. In late October 2007, Turkey's daily newspaper Hurriyet accused the prime minister of the KRG, Massoud Barzani, of turning the 'Kurdish dream' into a 'Turkish nightmare'."

Nouri's been very good about keeping the press out of the PKK camps. The Times of London, which is no longer in Iraq, repeatedly went to the area to report on what was taking place there and visited the rebel camps. Many other outlets just followed Nouri's dictate. Those who did report from the camps were able to demonstrate that (a) this wasn't taking place in hiding and (b) the mountains had other inhabitants as well.

Nouri's turning those mountains in northern Iraq into a no-press zone was very effective in covering up the toil the bombings were taking on civilians in the region.

This go round, what's really different is that the press paid attention to the fact that farmers and shepherds were being displaced, turned into refugees as they were forced to flee their villages due to the bombings. What's really different is that the deaths of civilians are finally getting attention. And when Turkey issues their ridiculous 'we didn't kill those civilians, that bomb must have been dropped by someone else' claim (see "Mars Attacks Iraq"), it only ensures that the bombings receive even more attention.

As long as Turkey could assert that they were just bombing rebels and it was in response to what rebels had done (and as long as everyone agreed to play stupid and pretend that the PKK sprung from the head of Zeus yesterday and that the Turkish government's actions didn't in fact create the PKK), everyone could just focus on how many bombs dropped and the claims by the Turkish military of killed X number of rebels and the holler back from the PKK of 'no, you didn't.'

The Turkish government seems genuinely baffled that something they've been doing repeatedly for years now is all the suddent a hot issue. At the start of this week, New Sabah did an article on some of the Turkish news coverage of the bombings and noted the Turkish government's stated position that the PKK were terrorists and that Iraq must "clean your land of these terrorists or we will do it for you."

That bully talk used to go over well but now as the bombings create refugees -- forcing hundreds of families to flee -- and as the dead includes not only civilians but small children, the bully talk really isn't being applauded by those who once cheered Turkey on.

And it also doesn't help Turkey's case that northern Iraq is also being bombed by the Iranian military who are also targeting Kurdish rebels. So you've got two countries terrorizing the people of Iraq and destroying the land with these bombs -- as in turning into pockmarked fields -- and probably creating long term health issues because these bombs are probably going to effect the environment. [Today the Great Iraqi Revolution notes, "Imagine if we were not bombed with the lethal American weapons, we would not have had hundreds of thousands of malformed and disabled Iraqi children. Again the Iraqi will beat all odds, great voice and performance."] Even without Iran, the bully position that Turkey's government has taken would probably have gotten old by now on its own and people's patience would have worn thin as well. But Turkey truly seemed to believe that they could continue bombing year after year and the international community would never object.

Those days, as the Turkish government is learning, are over. Human Rights Watch issued the following today:

(Beirut) – Iran and Turkey's cross-border attacks in Iraqi Kurdistan have killed at least 10 civilians and displaced hundreds since mid-July 2011, Human Rights Watch said today. Some of the attacks may have been carried out without sufficient attempts to ensure minimal impact on civilians, Human Rights Watch said.

Both Iran and Turkey say that their military operations, including artillery and aerial bombardments, are aimed at armed groups operating out of Iraqi Kurdistan along the northern and eastern borders. When Human Rights Watch visited those areas in August, Iraqi residents and officials said that many of the targeted areas are purely civilian and are not being used by the armed groups.
Evidence suggests that the regular Iranian bombardments may be an attempt to force Iraqi civilians out of some areas near the Iranian border.

"Year after year, civilians in northern Iraq have suffered from these cross-border attacks, but the situation right now is dire," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "Iran and Turkey should do all they can to protect civilians and their property from harm, no matter what the reason for their attacks in Iraqi Kurdistan."

Iran started its cross-border attacks in northern Iraq in mid-July, claiming to be targeting an armed group associated with the Iranian Kurdish Party for Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK) operating in the mountainous border region. Beginning on August 18, Turkey carried out attacks across its border with Iraq, targeting the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), an armed group affiliated with PJAK that is fighting its own decades-long conflict with Turkey.
Shelling by Iran
Since mid-July, Iran's operations against PJAK inside or near villages close to the Iranian border have led to the displacement of hundreds of families, caused the deaths of at least three villagers, and wounded an unknown number of people, according to international humanitarian aid organizations, Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) officials, and media reports. Farmers from the border regions told Human Rights Watch in early August that the shelling had damaged their homes and that they saw Iranian soldiers cross the border into Iraq and kill farmers' livestock. The attacks on civilians and their property that they described were similar to attacks documented by Human Rights Watch in June 2010.
Human Rights Watch visited the Choman and Qalat Diza districts and Qasre, Sangasar, and Zharawa subdistricts between July 26 and August 6 and interviewed more than a dozen displaced villagers as well as others in villages still being shelled. All villagers interviewed said that Kurdish armed groups had never been in their areas and that there were no other military targets in the vicinity at any point before or during the shelling. The affected areas are in the Qandil Mountains, along the eastern borders of Erbil and Sulaimaniyaprovinces, in the region administered by the KRG.
In the crowded Gojar tent camp in Sulaimaniya province, Fatima Mahmoud, 70, told Human Rights Watch she fled there with 11 family members in late July, after two Iranian shells struck her house in the village of Sune, 30 kilometers west of Qalat Diza. She said the village mosque and school were also damaged by shelling.
"It has been more than six years that Iran has been shelling our area, but this year, it was unbelievable," she said. "I don't know why Iran is shelling our village – we have never seen any PJAK members at all. I have never seen any [PJAK] members in our village."
Attacks by Turkey
On August 18, Turkey began a bombing and artillery campaign against the PKK, which it blamed for earlier fatal attacks in Turkey. On August 21, according to Iraqi officials, Turkish warplanes bombed a vehicle carrying civilians. The attack killed seven members of the same extended family according to relatives of those killed, local officials, and media workers. Turkey denied its planes were responsible.

The family group, which included four children, was driving on a highly travelled main roadway in a white 2011 Nissan pickup truck from the village of Bole to Rania to visit relatives. Shamal Hassan told Human Rights Watch on August 29 that the attack instantly killed his wife, Rezan, and his daughters, Solin, two months old, and Sonya, 18 months old. The attack also killed his wife's parents and two other children.
An emotional Hassan told Human Rights Watch, "The attack was so destructive that we couldn't recognize their bodies. I want the international community to hold Turkey accountable. They ruined my life."

Media photos released by multiple Iraqi Kurdish news organizations of the scene corresponded with Hassan's description, and showed charred and disembodied children and adults splayed on the ground near the remnants of a destroyed vehicle. Human Rights Watch could not independently verify the authenticity of the photographs. There has been no evidence of any military target in the vicinity.
While the Turkish military said that it has killed more than 145 suspected PKK militants with artillery fire and airstrikes in northern Iraq since August 17, it has denied that its warplanes killed the family, saying only that news footage of the destroyed vehicle was not consistent with damage caused by Turkish aerial bombardment. However, Turkish officials have stated that Turkish warplanes were bombing multiple military targets, such as anti-aircraft guns and ammunitions caches, in the area at the time.
Iraqi political and military officials have repeatedly blamed Turkish warplanes for the attack. An August 28 statement from the KRG stated that "[KRG] President Barzani strongly condemned Turkish military attacks," which it said were responsible for the seven deaths.
Civilian Displacement
Abdulwahid Gwani, mayor of the Choman district, which has been particularly hard-hit by Iranian shelling, told Human Rights Watch that the attacks by Iran and Turkey had cumulatively killed 9 civilians and displaced 325 families from Choman and 500 families in the Sidakan area.
"They [Iran and Turkey] don't differentiate between civilians and armed groups, and the bombardments are more intense compared with last year," Gwani said. "We notice that the Turkish bombardments are more random this year – they used to target specific locations in previous years but now it is kind of arbitrary."
Earlier in August, Gwani and several displaced villagers told Human Rights Watch, the attacks forced hundreds of poor farmers to leave their crops unattended, destroying much of this year's harvest. A number of farmers told Human Rights Watch that because there has been shelling each year during the short planting and harvesting season, they believed it showed an intentional effort to drive civilians from the area by harming their livelihood.
As in past years, aid organizations and local municipalities have struggled to meet the displaced families' basic needs. The Kurdistan government does not keep an official registry of displaced villagers.
The representative of an international humanitarian aid organization working in the affected areas told Human Rights Watch on August 30 that the attacks have led to the displacement of 450 families, but that this number includes only families who have resettled in tent camps, and not those still moving around, staying with their families, or elsewhere. A delegation of Iraqi civil society organizations from Baghdad visited the areas on August 3 and reported the displacement of "up to 750 families from the areas of Choman, Sidi Khan and Haji Omran."
The International Organization for Migration told Human Rights Watch on August 26 that it has so far distributed aid to approximately 295 families in tent camps – 275 families in Sulaimaniya and 20 in Erbil – but that another roughly 300 families from Erbil have been displaced and may require future aid.
Government Reactions
In August, the Iraqi government summoned both Iran's and Turkey's ambassadors in Baghdad because of concern about the operations, and both the Iraqi and KRG parliaments have strongly condemned the attacks.
On July 27, an Iraqi parliamentary official who declined to be named told Human Rights Watch that, during a meeting with a high-level Iranian diplomat that day, the diplomat stressed the "importance to Iran" of creating a buffer zone along the Iranian border "with no residents." The official said that the diplomat also suggested deploying the Iraqi army to the area, instead of the Kurdistan regional forces who now patrol the border, because the Iraqis are not "as close" to the Kurdish residents.
Officials of both the KRG and the central government in Baghdad have told Human Rights Watch in recent weeks that Iran and Turkey have been defiant and dismissive in their private responses. Publicly, both countries contend that they have a right to attack the armed groups inside northern Iraq and both countries deny targeting civilians.
At an August 21 news conference in Turkey, Deputy Prime Minister Bekir BozdaÄŸ said that the militaryoperations "will continue without hesitation when necessary." The governor of Iran's West Azarbaijan Province, Vahid Jalalzadeh, told Iranian state television on August 6 that, "The operation against the group [PJAK] will continue until all members are killed," but called reports of Iranian soldiers crossing into Iraq "rumors."
The PKK and PJAK both openly admit to multiple guerrilla attacks against Turkish or Iranian soldiers in a self-proclaimed struggle for ethnic equality for Kurds in those countries. Both are considered terrorist organizations by the United States and European Union.
"The evidence suggests that Turkey and Iran are not doing what they need to do to make sure their attacks have a minimum impact on civilians, and in the case of Iran, it is at least quite possibly deliberately targeting civilians," Stork said. "Regardless of their reasons for carrying out attacks, they need to respect international humanitarian law."
Also available in:


There are many changes that the latest wave of bombings didn't anticipate. Sazan M. Mandalawi (niqash) reports:


Just like their neighbours in other countries, young Kurdish people in Iraq are using the Internet and social media to call for political action. A recent protest in Erbil against Turkish bombing in the area saw protests swiftly organised: NIQASH was there from the beginning.
Shko Nawroly knows only too well why he is taking part in a protest against Turkish military ingressions into Iraq. "I was born in Iran because my parents were Peshmergas [Kurdish freedom fighters] and they had to run away from Saddam's bombing," explained Nawroly, referring to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's persecution of the Kurdish people in Iraq's north.
"So I know how it feels when you have to flee to survive bombing and air attacks. And I know how it feels when your family is massacred. And this is why I decided to take part in organizing the protests against the bombing raids carried out by the Turkish warplanes on Kurdish soil," the 23-year-old said passionately. "And as a human being it's a moral responsibility."
But unlike their parents and grandparents who fought on the mountains, today's Kurdish youth are using education, technology, the Internet and social networks as well as peaceful rallies to prevent history repeating itself.
on No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)