Six Years Later: March 19 - Shock & Awe (aka The Beginning of the End)

[bigron]

Iraq snapshot - June 23, 2011



The Common Ills



Thursday, June 23, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, Baghdad is slammed with bombings, Nouri wants to stop the Electoral Commission, Nouri wants to complain about Parliament, Osama al-Nujaifi meets with the White House, a US civilian dies in Iraq today, the  War Hawk Barack's bad speech, talks between the US and Iraq on the US military staying continue, and more.


http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2011/06/iraq-snapshot_23.html




 

[bigron]

Permanent US Iraq and Afghanistan Occupations Planned

by Stephen Lendman


June 24, 2011

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m78924&hd=&size=1&l=e

Nothing reveals Washington's imperial agenda better than its global empire of bases. Sixty-six years post-WW II, America maintains dozens in Germany, Japan, Italy, and South Korea alone.

In total, known Pentagon bases way exceed 1,000, as well as perhaps hundreds of other shared and secret ones in about 150 countries on every continent despite no enemies anywhere justifying them.

In his 2006 book, "Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic," Chalmers Johnson discussed the known numbers at the time by size and branch of service. He also highlighted the fallout, including oppressive noise, pollution, environmental destruction, expropriation of valuable public and private land, and drunken, disorderly, abusive soldiers committing rape, murder, and other crimes, often unpunished under provisions of US-imposed Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs).

Currently, Pentagon bases infest Middle East/North African/Central Asian countries. In fact, at least 88 dot Iraq alone, including:

-- permanent, city-sized Main Operating Bases (MOBs); for example, Balad Air Base in northern Iraq covers 16 square miles plus another 12-mile security perimeter; these are large and permanent, have extensive infrastructure, command and control headquarters, accommodations for families in combat-free areas, hospitals, schools, recreational facilities, and nearly everything found in US cities; similar MOBs include Camp Adder in southern Iraq, Al-Asad Air Base in the west, and Victory Base Complex, compromising nine bases, including Camp Victory around Baghdad's International Airport;

-- Forward Operating Sites (FOSs), also major but smaller than MOBs; and

-- Cooperative Security Locations (CLSs) - smaller facilities to preposition weapons, munitions, and modest troop numbers.

These type bases span Afghanistan, besides ongoing expansion and construction of major facilities for permanent occupation.

Known major sites include Bagram, Kandahar, and Mazar-e-Sharif air bases. Frontline airfields include Herat, Jalalabad, and a dozen or more others, besides hundreds of large and smaller Pentagon facilities according to Tomdispatch.com writer Nick Turse in his February 10, 2010 article titled, "Totally Occupied: 700 Military Bases Spread Across Afghanistan."

Citing "official sources," he said a "base-building boom" began in 2009 for US and Afghan forces. It's ongoing for permanent occupation, including a new Camp Leatherneck and Camp Bastion 11,500 foot all-weather concrete/asphalt runway and air traffic control tower, as well as a Shindand Air Field 9,000 foot runway completed last December. Moreover, spare parts and other supplies have been stockpiled for permanency, not departure, Obama's withdrawal duplicity notwithstanding. More about it below.

Washington, in fact, came to Iraq and Afghanistan to stay. Doing so confirms a hostile presence occupied populations detest, including angry South Koreans and Japanese against continued US occupation. In less developed countries, social movements want America pushed back or expelled altogether to regain their sovereign independence, free from US imperial wars, injustice, fallout, and shame when their own nations participate.

Last February, puppet president Karzai confirmed Washington's demand for permanent bases, claiming they're in Afghanistan's interest. In fact, US and other NATO leaders agreed on a "transition strategy" last year in Lisbon to hand over control to Afghan forces by 2014. At the time, vice president Biden called it a "drop dead date." He lied. So did Obama like he did earlier, saying withdrawing US forces would begin in July 2011.

In December 2009, Obama announced 30,000 more troops for Afghanistan to enable withdrawals beginning in 18 months, insisting at the time America has no permanent occupation plans. He lied again like he's repeatedly done throughout his tenure, knowing America came to Iraq and Afghanistan to stay.

Moreover, when he took office in January 2009, 34,000 troops were in Afghanistan. By December, he tripled the number to 100,000. Cutting back incrementally by a third if, in fact, done, will still leave double the force in place from when his tenure began.

Nonetheless, on June 22, he addressed the nation, saying:

"(S)tarting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 by next summer (to let) Afghan security forces (take) the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete...."

False! A large US presence will remain permanently. Drone and other air attacks will continue, killing civilians called militants. Obama's duplicity is politically motivated with November 2012 in mind to assure enough support for reelection despite falling approval ratings.

War-weary Americans, in fact, are increasingly burdened during economic hard times. As a result, polls show growing opposition to conflicts. Congressman Dennis Kucinich said "Things are falling apart at home while we (keep) searching the world looking for dragons to slay."

Pollster Peter Brown added:

"I do not think there is any doubt (that) Afghanistan, the involvement in Iraq, and now (in) Libya has for many Americans raised questions about the wisdom of these policies."

The Brookings Institution's Stephen Hess explained that "(a) trio of wars is not exactly what Americans are interested in at this time when they have a very full platter of problems at home," harming them gravely.

In fact, when unpopular wars take precedence over pocket book issues, people react angrily, perhaps enough to deny Obama a second term if conditions deteriorate more between now and November 2012.

Obama also bogusly claimed significant Afghanistan gains, saying "we've inflicted serious losses on the Taliban and taken a number of its strongholds....(T)he tide of war is receding (and) the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance" when it's nowhere in sight in an endless cauldron of death and destruction, affecting US forces like Afghans.

In fact, according to a US Army colonel wishing to remain anonymous, telling Time magazine:

"The mendacity is getting so egregious that I am fast losing the ability to remain quiet. These yarns of 'significant progress' are being covered up by the blood and limbs of hundreds - HUNDREDS - of American uniformed service members each and every month, and you know that the rest of this summer is going to see the peak of that bloodshed."

He added that America's ability to achieve a secure handover to Afghan forces is "sheer madness, and so far as I can tell, in the mainstream media and reputable publications, it is going almost entirely without challenge." Moreover, the same holds for Pakistan where drone kills enrage people to resist, perpetuating endless conflict.

After a decade of war and occupation, in fact, America won't admit it lost and leave. Instead, massive bloodshed continues to create the illusion of progress Obama hopes will help reelect him, mindless that what matters most are pocket book issues, especially when during hard times they go begging.

June 7 - 9 Zogby International polling numbers reflect growing voter disapproval, showing 43% approve Obama's performance. Only 38% say he deserves reelection. Besides domestic issues, it reflects growing disenchantment with endless wars, including against Libya that most Americans oppose.

Once closer to November 2012, force-fed austerity to finance them may cost sitting politicians their jobs, even Obama if voters think he spurned them when they most need help. For beleaguered Iraqis and Afghans, however, it hardly matters if America came to stay.

A Final Comment

Controlling Eurasia's vast oil and gas reserves explains why America plans permanent Iraq and Afghanistan occupations, terror bombs Libya, and heads toward possible general war by threatening Syria, Iran, and perhaps other states to fuel its insatiable military-industrial appetite.

Washington's strategy also includes encroaching close to Russian and Chinese borders to diminish their military and economic challenge, as well as potential greater dominance by establishing closer ties, thereby weakening America.

The policy is fraught with dangers, the same ones Barbara Tuchman explained in her 1962 book, "The Guns of August," on how WW I began and its early weeks. Once started, things spun out of control with cataclysmic consequences, including over 20 million dead, many millions wounded, and a generation of young men lost before it ended.

As a result, igniting another global conflict should give everyone pause, including militarists and war profiteers sacrificing sanity, security, and prosperity for inconsequential ephemeral gains by comparison.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.


http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m78924&hd=&size=1&l=e


 

[bigron]

Iraq snapshot - June 24, 2011



The Common Ills


Friday, June 24, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, Katty Kay confesses the education system failed her, more reactions to Barack's bad speech, Scott Horton and Patrick Cockburn talk Iraq, Iraq War veteran Aaron Hughes talks about the disconnect ("And when service members get home and they realize that there's no one in this entire country that understands that and understands what they've gone through and wants to listen to them, when the media is continually talking about American Idol or some other pop issue instead of dealing with the actual issues -- that we are conducting two occupations currently, that we are conducting operations in Pakistan, that we are conducting operations in Libya and Yemen.  We have service members on the ground in all of these countries and those service members are experiencing things and they are doing it as they believe on behalf of their country and their country doesn't even know it.  The country doesn't even know what we do.  And then we get home. And then there's nothing.  There's no way to connect that.  And that disconnect, that's the crime and that's the PTSD. That's-that's all of the trauma right there -- is the inability to understand what happened and why no one else understands."), Iraqis take to the street to protest, and more.

 
http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2011/06/iraq-snapshot_24.html

[bigron]

Basra Council Bars US Troops From Province

Resolution Also Demands US Compensation for Damages Done in War

by Jason Ditz, June 24, 2011



MORE

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/06/24/basra-council-bars-us-troops-from-province/

[bigron]

Sadr supporters ready for attacks on US troops


Sat Jun 25, 7:28 am ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110625/wl_mideast_afp/iraqusunrestsadr

Moqtada al-Sadr
Supporters of Shiite radical leader Moqtada al-Sadr, seen here in January,
have offered to carry out suicide attacks against US troops in Iraq,
his office said, as a year-end deadline for a US pullout looms

NAJAF, Iraq (AFP) – Supporters of Shiite radical leader Moqtada al-Sadr have offered to carry out suicide attacks against US troops in Iraq, his office said Saturday, as a year-end deadline for a US pullout looms.

"Thank you, my dear friends, and God bless you," Sadr wrote in reply to the offer from loyalists of his disbanded Mahdi Army militia, a statement from his office in the central shrine city of Najaf said.

The message came from "a group from the Mahdi Army who say they are ready to place themselves under his command to carry out suicide attacks to defend Islam and Iraq, targeting the occupying infidels without hitting civilians or public institutions," Sadr's office said.

In April, Sadr threatened to reactivate the Mahdi Army, which he formally disbanded in 2008, if US forces do not withdraw at the end of the year as scheduled under the terms of a bilateral security pact.

Nearly 50,000 American troops are still in Iraq, down from a peak of more than 170,000 after the invasion of 2003.

US officials have repeatedly asked Baghdad if it wants some troops to stay beyond 2011, but threats and pressure from Sadr have made calling for an extension a difficult decision for Iraqi leaders.

The once powerful Mahdi Army, which fought repeatedly against Iraqi and US-led coalition forces between 2004 and 2007, has been identified by the Pentagon as the main threat to stability in Iraq.

Before it was disbanded, the militia numbered some 60,000 fighters with fierce loyalty to Sadr.

The anti-US cleric, who has been pursuing off-and-on religious studies in the Iranian clerical centre of Qom, is the son of revered Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, who was assassinated by the regime of now executed dictator Saddam Hussein in 1999.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110625/wl_mideast_afp/iraqusunrestsadr

[bigron]

Jalal Talabani gets caught in a lie and probably a doorway as well

The Common Ills

In this photo released by the official website of the Iranian supreme leader's office, Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, right, and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, talk, during a meeting in Tehran, Iran, Saturday, June 25, 2011.

June 26, 2011

The Great Iraqi Revolution announces, "On the occasion of the 91st Annivesary of the 1920 Rebellion, that was called The Great, and whose annivesary comes up on Thursday, it has been decided to call the coming Friday, GRANDCHILDREN OF THE 1920 REBELS FRIDAY." Yesterday's protests were Firm Roots Friday. Among those who turn out in Baghdad (and elsewhere in Iraq) at the protests are women whose sons, husbands, fathers or brothers have gone missing in the Iraqi 'justice' system. The Great Iraqi Revolution reports of yesterday's protest in Baghdad, "One of Iraq's Free Matrons recounting what Qassim Atta told her when she met him to ask about her 'disappeared' sons. He told her: 'Consider them dead and if you want any money, we will give you money..'!!!!" Qassim Atta is the Baghdad Operations Command spokesperson.

Meanwhile Al Mada reports that Jalal Talabani, president of Iraq, just finished presiding over a terrorism conference. At the conference -- the paper says it's the first calling for a boycott on terrorism in the entire world -- Jalal insisted that, "We in Iraq have suffered the most terorrism." Apparently, Talabani's never heard of Gaza, Pinochet's Chile or assorted other examples. He spoke of the People's Mujahedeen Organization (Iranian dissidents in Iraq at Camp Ashraf) and stupidly claimed they were trying to destabilize Iraq. Even the Iranian government hasn't made that ridiculous claim. But it's part of Talabani's efforts to close the camp. Apparently Talabani's looking for an internal enemy to blame for Iraq's problems in an attempt to divert the Iraqi people? If so, Camp Ashraf is closely guarded and the approximately 3,000 residents are confined to that area.

How seriously a conference on terrorism will be taken around the world is further thrown into doubt when the conference takes place in Iran. It's cute too that the PKK didn't come up in Jala's speech. The PKK is a group that advocates -- with violence -- for a Kurdish state. Some say the Kurds are said to be the only people in the world without their own homeland. (Again, have these people never heard of the Palestinians?) They regularly attack Turkey from the northern mountains of Iraq where they set up bases -- and have allowed many reporters to tour and report on those bases -- from which to launch their attacks. Northern Iraq is the KRG -- Kurdish Regional Government. Jalal Talabani is a Kurd. Possibly calling out a Kurdish group labeled as a "terrorist" group by not just Turkey and the US but also by the Iraqi govenrment is too much? Along with being a hypocrite or a coward (or both), Jalal's been exposed as a liar. Bloomberg News reports:

Talabani's e-mailed statement said the International Committee of the Red Cross was part of a "tripartite committee" with Iran and Iraq that agreed to close the camp. Red Cross spokeswoman Claire Kaplun said her organization Iraq declined to participate in the committee when approached by Iraq.
"We will not take part in this committee," she said by telephone from Baghdad.

Al Sabaah adds that his flowery speech included talk of fighting terrorism "in all its forms: economic, social, political, religious and intellectual." You know the people of Iraq would probably be pleased just to see Jalal and the rulers focus on reducing physical violence.

And, for the record, I have nothing for or against the PKK. I'm not calling for them to be imprisoned. But if Jalal Talabani wants to stand up at a terrorism conference and accuse less than 3,000 people who are unarmed (the US military disarmed them early on in the war) and confined to Camp Ashraf, surrounded by Iraqi troops, then he's a damn hypocrite if he doesn't mention the PKK which is labeled a terrorist group by the government of the country he is president of. The PKK has bases throughout northern Iraq and they're no secret. In fact, Nouri al-Maliki had a fit when the Times of London was visiting the bases. Not a fit about the bases being there, but a fit about tours being given to the press and photographs taken and publicity of the bases. That's when he issued his decree that no reporters would be allowed in Iraq if they visited the PKK bases. Though Iran and Iraq can't point to one attack that Camp Ashraf residents have been responsible for in the last 8 years, the Turkish government can provide a lenghty list of their dead and fallen who were killed by PKK fighters based in Iraq.

In other news, Al Sabaah reports Iraq's Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi has declared that there will be no extension of the Status Of Forces Agreement due to the fact that there is "a national consensus" opposed to renewing it. But for those that might throw their hats in the air and exclaim, don't go all Mary Tyler Moore just yet. Instead, al-Hashemi supposedly said, there will be a memorandum of understanding that they will ratify and will allow for US forces to remain to continue to arm and train Iraqi forces.

al-Hashemi also notes that Talabani has not accepted Adel Abdul al-Mahdi's resignation (he is one of Iraq's three vice presidents).

Okay, here's what's going on. There were a ton of paragraphs that followed the above -- all on one article. One bad New York Times article. I've critiqued the Times repeatedly and am really not interested in doing so here for the reason that I'm not interested in doing repeats. I am aware that a number of people miss the critiques of the Times. I'm also aware they generate great interest online (within the paper and outside of it). But I've done it. For years, here, we took on the Times every morning. You move forward or you fall back into the past. We're trying to move forward here. That's not to say we don't slam the Times still. It's just we have de-emphasized our focus on it. (And we've always had praise for the Times when it deserved it.)

But as the bad article required more and more comments from me, it became obvious it needed to be its own entry. So all of you community members and visitors who feel that something is lost by not daily taking on the paper of (mis)record can rejoice over the next entry that will go up shortly.

We'll close with the latest at Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox, a transcript of her interview with the Foreign Vice Minister of Venezuela, Temir Porra (for those who would like to listen to the interview, click here).


CS: The reason I wanted to have you on the show and on the documentary (book) is to really expose the differences of the foreign policies of the empire, which is the United States of course, and Venezuela. My first question to you will be very easy, How many wars of aggression is Venezuela currently in, in the Middle East?

TP: None!

CS: Okay, and how many wars of aggression is Venezuela currently in anywhere?

TP: None!

CS: And how many wars is Venezuela currently in?

TP: Zero.

CS: Zero. Okay, that was very easy.

TP: Well, probably one.

CS: One?

TP: The war of aggression on poverty.

CS: Well, we don’t like to call that a war In the United States because that is something that never ends and the resources are just privatized, like the war on drugs which is a similar case down here in South America. Especially that, I know you are not the Charge for South America but there is border skirmishes along the Columbian border are there not?

TP: No, well we don’t have skirmishes between the Venezuelan Army and the Colombian Army. What we have is a very large border, which is about 2,000 kilometers long, and as you know in the United States, Colombia has gone through an internal war for about 60 years. War between the Government, the Guerilla movement and the Paramilitary who have been struggling in an internal conflict for 60 years, and of course Venezuela is a neighboring country has been suffering of the consequences of that war.


http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2011/06/jalal-gets-caught-in-lie-and-probably.html

 

[bigron]

Memo reveals intelligence chief's bid to fuel fears of Iraqi WMDs

Sir John Scarlett wanted dossier to strengthen case for war


by Chris Ames

Sir John Scarlett was chairman of the joint intelligence committee before
 serving as head of MI6 from 2004 to 2009. Photograph: Martin Godwin

June 26, 2011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/26/intelligence-chief-iraqi-wmds

The senior intelligence official responsible for Tony Blair's notorious dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction proposed using the document to mislead the public about the significance of Iraq's banned weapons.

Sir John Scarlett, who as head of the Joint Intelligence Committee was placed "in charge" of writing the September 2002 dossier, sent a memo to Blair's foreign affairs adviser referring to "the benefit of obscuring the fact that in terms of WMD Iraq is not that exceptional".

The memo, released under the Freedom of Information Act, has been described as one of the most significant documents on the dossier yet published.

The disclosure supports the evidence of the former intelligence official Michael Laurie, who told the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war that it was widely understood that the dossier was intended to make a case for war and misrepresented intelligence to this particular end.

The role of the Joint Intelligence Committee is to present impartial intelligence-based advice to ministers. Alastair Campbell, Blair's director of communications, told Scarlett that the dossier's credibility depended on it being seen to be the work of Scarlett and his team of experts.

But the 2004 Butler review found that the published dossier had presented a more certain case on Iraq's weapons than was set out in the committee's reports. In spite of this, Scarlett went on to be head of MI6.

Scarlett's memo was sent to Sir David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser, in March 2002 after an early draft of the dossier had been drawn up covering four countries with "WMD programmes of concern": Iraq, Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, had commented that the paper "has to show why there is an exceptional threat from Iraq. It does not quite do this yet." In response, Scarlett suggested that the dossier could make more impact if it only covered Iraq. "This would have the benefit of obscuring the fact that in terms of WMD Iraq is not that exceptional," he wrote.

Clare Short, the Labour cabinet minister who resigned after the war had started, said: "Those words show that John Scarlett was in on the deception from the beginning and was being duplicitous deliberately."

Elfyn Llwyd, parliamentary leader of Plaid Cymru, said: "It is clear to me that John Scarlett was not an objective player in all of this." Llwyd asked why Chilcot had neither published the Scarlett memo nor questioned Scarlett about it. "It again calls into question the credibility of the inquiry," he said.

Following Scarlett's memo, the dossier was limited to Iraq but a week later it was put on hold for six months. Laurie told Chilcot that the dossier had at this time been "rejected because it did not make a strong enough case".

Significantly, Scarlett's memo was copied to Sir Joe French, Laurie's boss at the Defence Intelligence Staff. In his evidence to Chilcot, Laurie attributed his belief that the dossier was intended to make a case for war to what he had been told by French.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/26/intelligence-chief-iraqi-wmds

 

[bigron]

Iraq snapshot - June 28, 2011


The Common Ills


Tuesday, February 28, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, Sahwa and government officials remain targeted, political stagnation is the new term to describe the Iraqi government, the US Senate hears from Vice Adm William McRaven that US forces should stay in Iraq, CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley explores the subject of which families receive condolence letters and which ones don't when a loved one in the military dies, and more.

http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2011/06/iraq-snapshot_28.html




 

[bigron]

Iraq snapshot - June 29, 2011



The Common Ills



Wednesday, June 29, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, talk of Iraq developing a Sunni region is shot down, officials are repeatedly targeted in today's violence, Iraq is discussed in the US at a Senate Subcommittee, and more.

http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2011/06/iraq-snapshot_29.html




 

[bigron]

Iraq snapshot - June 30, 2011



The Common Ills



Thursday, June 30, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, 3 more US soldiers are announced dead in Iraq, the Christian Science Monitor doesn't get a lot of Iraq 'hits' and wonders why (we explain it for them), the Libyan War goes on, Human Rights Watch documents the attacks on peaceful demonstrators and notes that "It's not every day that thugs with clubs flash their police IDs at us," and more


http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m79126&hd=&size=1&l=e

[bigron]

Iraq: Attacks by Government-Backed Thugs Chill Protests

Security Forces Offered No Protection; Joined Assaults


Human Rights Watch

HRW, June 30, 2011

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/06/30/iraq-attacks-government-backed-thugs-chill-protests

(Baghdad) - Iraqi authorities should order a prompt and impartial inquiry into the role of state security forces in attacks by pro-government gangs against peaceful demonstrators in Baghdad on June 10, 2011, Human Rights Watch said today. The groups of mainly young men, armed with wooden planks, knives, iron pipes, and other weapons, beat and stabbed peaceful protesters and sexually molested female demonstrators, witnesses told Human Rights Watch.

In the days following the attack, Human Rights Watch interviewed more than 25 demonstrators who said they were punched, beaten with sticks or other weapons, or stabbed during the June 10 assault. Human Rights Watch observed and witnesses said that security forces stood by and watched in several instances. Several organizers told Human Rights Watch that the attacks have had a severe chilling effect on people exercising their right to peaceful assembly. In the two Friday demonstrations since then, on June 17 and 24, many regular protesters and organizers have stopped attending the demonstration, mainly because of fear of attacks, they said.

"Instead of protecting peaceful demonstrators, Iraqi soldiers appear to be working hand in hand with the thugs attacking them," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The Iraqi government needs to investigate why the security forces stood by and watched as thugs beat and sexually molested protesters - and take action against those who did so."

Two separate Defense Ministry sources told Human Rights Watch that a ministerial order authorized more than 150 plainclothes security forces from both the police and army to infiltrate the June 10 protests. The sources indicated that the government was worried about increased numbers of demonstrators on that date because the 100-day period for improvements that Prime Minister Nuri al-Malaki had promised in February would have ended.

During the attacks, four government supporters, some carrying planks and chasing after demonstrators, identified themselves to Human Rights Watch as members of Iraqi security forces. Two others showed Human Rights Watch concealed Interior Ministry police ID badges.

"It's not every day that thugs with clubs flash their police IDs at us," Stork said. "The government needs to find out who was responsible for the assaults and punish them appropriately."

Protesters told Human Rights Watch that when they arrived at Baghdad's Tahrir Square on June 10 for their regular Friday demonstrations against the government, they found the area already occupied by thousands of government supporters and hundreds of army troops. Human Rights Watch saw the government supporters threaten and then attack unarmed protesters.

The assailants also assaulted at least eight female demonstrators by beating and groping them or attempting to remove their clothing, and taunting them as "whores" and using other sexually degrading terms.

Despite the tight security surrounding the protest site, Human Rights Watch witnessed multiple instances in which government supporters chased and beat protesters as army troops stood by. In some cases, the soldiers laughed as they watched. Uniformed Iraqi soldiers also handed out food and beverages to the government supporters, including frozen bottles of water, some of which were used to beat protesters.

As a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Iraq is obligated to protect the right to life and security of the person, and the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, Human Rights Watch said.

Human Rights Watch received no response from a government spokesman to requests for information about the involvement of security forces in the June 10 attack.

"Prime Minister Maliki's government has an obligation to protect people peacefully exercising their right to free expression and assembly," Stork said. "The US and other governments claiming to support democratic reform and accountability should press the Iraqi government to stop these inexcusable assaults."

Iraq's Widening Crackdown on Peaceful Protests

As they have every Friday since February 25, 2011, hundreds of demonstrators arrived in Baghdad's Tahrir Square in small groups on the morning of June 10 to protest official corruption and the lack of government services. That morning, thousands of government supporters filled the square, many carrying identical 2x4 style wooden planks and shouting slogans in support of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

The government supporters warned the rival protesters to leave or face violence, and then attacked those who refused to leave. Human Rights Watch observed bruises, lacerations, and indications of blunt force trauma on the heads, torsos, and extremities of protesters who were interviewed in the days following the attack.

One protester had a bleeding laceration on the right side of his abdomen when Human Rights Watch spoke with him on June 12:

Someone warned me to leave, that we would be dragged and beaten. All of a sudden, everyone surrounding us was carrying planks and screaming that we were Baathists [Saddam Hussein's former ruling party] and terrorists. They yelled, "All of us are with you, Maliki! All of us with you, State of Law [Maliki's political party]!" They were hitting us, and I was stabbed. Three women thought they would be spared the violence and tried to protect us, but they were cut with the knives, too. On the loudspeaker, they were saying, "If you don't leave, you will be beheaded." We escaped by holding onto each other for support and running away.

A protester who uses crutches because of a medical condition said assailants knocked him to the ground and hit him while he tried to help another protester who was being attacked.

Three demonstrators who had been injured in the attack told Human Rights Watch separately that they avoided seeking medical help for fear of arrest. The protester who had been stabbed in the abdomen said, "We were scared to be taken by an ambulance or to go to the hospital, because now they are using ambulances to arrest people."

In recent weeks, Iraqi authorities have detained, interrogated, and beaten several protest organizers in Baghdad. In one incident, on May 27, men in civilian clothing assisted by uniformed security forces arrested four student protesters, who were then held by the authorities until June 7. All four students and three witnesses to the arrests, told Human Rights Watch that security forces had used an ambulance to detain and remove them from the protest area.

"As they arrested me, they put a bag over my head to blindfold me," one student said. "Once I was put in a vehicle, I could see a little bit under the bag, and was surprised to see an oxygen tank and other medical equipment and realized I was in an ambulance. When they took me out of the ambulance, I saw it was the same kind that had been parked at the protest."

Attacks on Female Demonstrators

Among the female demonstrators who were sexually attacked on June 10, a 19-year-old the following day showed Human Rights Watch swelling in her mouth around a broken tooth and bruises on her abdomen. She told Human Rights Watch that she was groped by several men, who forced their hands into her pants:

I saw that those who were yelling at us started attacking a woman from our group. I tried to get to her, but I was pulled down to the ground and was then being hit, mostly in my stomach. I tried to get up, but I got hit in the face, and my tooth was broken. I fell back to the ground and was still being hit, and they restrained my hands. One of them unzipped my pants and tried to pull them off. I was kicking and trying to free myself. They called me a whore and yelled that they were going to make an example of me, so others wouldn't come to demonstrate. I felt that I was going to be raped, from what they were doing.

Another female protester told Human Rights Watch:

Not long after we arrived, many people surrounded us. Some men behind me were touching me all over, and put their hands under my clothes. I tried to stop someone who was doing this, and he grabbed my wrist and pulled my hands back. While they were holding me, they yelled that I was a whore and asked how much I charged to do sexual acts. I know the army could see us from where we were, because I made eye contact with them.

A protester with bruises on her shoulder, thigh, and back, said, "First, they took away my sign, saying that we were all bitches and whores. After that, I was knocked on the ground, dragged and getting hit all over. I thought they were kidnapping me."

Another woman protester said:

At the security check on the way in, one of the women who was searching females said we should not go into the square today, that it would be very bad for us. We didn't realize how bad it would get, and continued in. After they started to hit us and I was trying to get away, I heard someone say, "This bitch is with them. Hit her."

A 51-year-old female protester told Human Rights Watch that thugs punched her in the chest and took away her sign. Another woman reported being hit in the back with a stick while trying to escape.

Security Forces' Lack of Response

Human Rights Watch observed hundreds of state security personnel surrounding the protest site on June 10, but they failed to intervene to stop attacks or to disarm or arrest the attackers. Human Rights Watch witnessed multiple incidents in which government supporters chased and beat protesters as army troops stood by, and in some cases even laughed.

The protester who was stabbed in the abdomen said,"We were searched many times on the way in by security [army] forces, and they prevented most of us from bringing signs in - even an Iraqi flag, but the crowds of Maliki supporters were walking in without even being searched."

More than 20 protesters told Human Rights Watch they saw government supporters carrying small knives, iron pipes, box cutters, stun guns, and even handguns. The most prevalent weapons used by assailants were 2x4-style wooden planks often used to prop up posters and banners, which the assailants carried in full view of security forces. Several of the planks observed by Human Rights Watch appeared to have no marks from staples or adhesives and may have been brought to the protest site to be used as weapons.

In one instance, Human Rights Watch saw a protester who had been attacked run up to a group of soldiers, pleading for help. The soldiers looked away. The protester fled into an opening between concrete blast walls, into an adjacent market. The soldiers then stepped aside to allow the assailants to chase him, and then moved back in front of the opening, some laughing among themselves.

Other protesters told Human Rights Watch that security forces mocked them when they approached for help. The 19-year-old protester who said she was groped told Human Rights Watch:

One of the men of our group managed to drag me away from [the men attacking her], and we ran away, as the crowd was hitting both of us. When we got out of the crowd, I was upset and I asked the army soldiers why they didn't help us. One of them told me, "We don't interfere - this is between you guys." As we walked away, soldiers surrounding the square taunted us. Some were laughing that I had been hurt, and one said, "Let them come every Friday and get beaten up. I think they will stop coming."

Another protester told Human Rights Watch, "As we walked out of Tahrir Square, many of the aggressive people followed us, threatening us and holding sticks and iron pipes in the air, as we all walked right past Iraqi security forces."

Involvement by Security Forces

In the days before the demonstration, on June 3 and June 6, two Defense Ministry sources, one a high-ranking officer, independently told Human Rights Watch of a ministry order for more than 150 plainclothes security forces from both the police and army to infiltrate the June 10 protests. The officer voiced concern over the safety of the protesters, saying the nature of the infiltration on June 10 would be "different" than in previous weeks, because the 100-day period for making improvements that Maliki had announced after the February 25 demonstration would have ended. The officer said that the government was "very sensitive about protesters coming out in large numbers on June 10 and making Maliki look bad."

During the protest, four men who were with the government supporters separately identified themselves to Human Rights Watch as members of Iraqi security forces, though they were dressed in civilian clothing and two showed Human Rights Watch concealed Interior Ministry (police) ID badges.

Unlike on previous Fridays, uniformed Iraqi soldiers handed out food and beverages, including frozen bottles of water, to the government supporters. Some of the protesters told Human Rights Watch that the government supporters used the frozen water bottles to beat them or as projectiles.

The government supporters included more than 1,000 people brought from outside the city on buses, some of which had government license plates. One protester from Baghdad told Human Rights Watch that as he walked into Tahrir Square, members of his extended family who had come by bus from Nasriyya, 370 kilometers southeast of Baghdad, recognized him and quickly removed a flag he had wrapped around his shirt that identified him as a protester. They forcibly ushered him away from his fellow protesters. "They warned me that I would get hurt by the Maliki supporters if they knew I was one of the regular protesters," he said.

The large pro-government contingent appeared to be well-organized - supporters had access to air-conditioned tents and dozens of large, professionally printed banners, including some with a big red "X" over the face of Firas al-Jabouri, a former human rights activist who had been charged with taking part in a 2006 sectarian attack on a wedding party in the city of Dujail. In the days leading up to June 10, state-sponsored Iraqiya television repeatedly broadcast a videotaped confession by Jabouri and graphic footage of a crime scene, while repeatedly referring to him as a human rights activist. Iraqi human rights advocates told Human Rights Watch that they fear that Jabouri's confession was coerced and that the government is using his alleged involvement in the Dujail attack to portray all opposition activists and demonstrators as terrorists.

On June 10, government supporters in Tahrir Square chanted that Jabouri should be executed and circulated what appeared to be an official statement from Iraq's Human Rights Ministry calling for him and his alleged conspirators to be given "the strictest punishment possible." On June 16, all 15 defendants in the Dujail case, including al-Jabouri, were convicted and sentenced to death by Iraq's Central Criminal Court.

Silencing Critics

On June 20, Baghdad-based daily newspaper al-Mada received notice that Qassim Atta, spokesman for Baghdad Operation Command, had filed four lawsuits against members of the newspaper staff after the leftist opposition newspaper published a series of articles and columns criticizing the treatment of protesters by the security forces and government authorities, according to the newspaper's executive editor, Amer al-Qaisi. Baghdad Operation Command, which coordinates security in Baghdad, reports directly to the prime minister's office. The four lawsuits seek a total of 8 billion Iraqi dinars (US$6.85 million) in damages. On June 11, the al-Mada organization, a registered civil society group to which the newspaper belongs, held a news conference, presenting seven protesters who said they had been injured by government supporters in the previous day's demonstration.

The Organization for Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI) scheduled a Baghdad news conference on June 13 for some of the female victims who were groped and beaten on June 10 to tell their stories. OWFI staff and two journalists who were present said that three men in civilian clothes walked in as the event was about to begin and questioned local journalists in a threatening manner. Most of the journalists left, and the news conference was cancelled.

Afterward, the three men remained in the office for over an hour. Staff members of the women's organization said that when they asked the three men for identification, one of them showed a badge from the army's 6th Division. Journalists and participants said that, as they exited the office gate, they saw a large presence of army personnel and vehicles blocking the street.

Background

Iraqi authorities have taken several steps in recent months to keep protests in Baghdad from public view. On April 13, officials issued new regulations barring street protests and allowing protests only in three soccer stadiums but never enforced the regulation.

In late February, Iraqi police allowed dozens of assailants to beat and stab peaceful protesters in Baghdad. In the early hours of February 21, dozens of men, some wielding knives and clubs, attacked about 50 protesters who had set up two tents in Tahrir Square. During nationwide February 25 protests, security forces killed at least 12 protesters across the country and injured more than 100. On that day, Human Rights Watch observed Baghdad security forces beating unarmed journalists and protesters, smashing cameras, and confiscating memory cards.

Iraq's constitution guarantees "freedom of assembly and peaceful demonstration." As a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Iraq is obligated to protect the right to life and security of the person, and the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly.


http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/06/30/iraq-attacks-government-backed-thugs-chill-protests
 

[bigron]

Protests continue in Iraq (and why they do)


The Common Ills


July 1, 2011

It's Friday, protests continue in Baghdad. Iraqi Revolution offers video of today's protest and the screen snap (below) is from that video.
http://www.facebook.com/Iraqe.Revolution/posts/228898313797441

Protests have continued every Friday despite the attacks on the peaceful protesters. Dan Murphy (Christian Science Monitor) reports:

Human Rights Watch charges today that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appears to have ordered the beating, stabbing, and sexual assault of protesters earlier this month.
"It’s pretty worrying," says Joe Stork, the head of the Middle East department at Human Rights Watch. "There are a few things that we hadn’t seen before, like the sexual molesting, that kind of thing. The pattern of using plain clothes people who to all appearances were working with the connivance of the security people, that’s certainly not new … we saw that when the so-called Arab spring protests started in Baghdad in February. This use of 'thugs' who may or may not be security is itself not unique to Iraq; in fact, it seems to be right out of the Egyptian playbook."

In other news out of Iraq, Alaa Fadel (Dar Addustour) reports that Nouri's spokesperson, Ali al-Dabbagh, announced that the increase in oil prices (meaning more income for Iraq) will be used to increase the payment for wheat and barley to Iraqi farmers. The government is planning to spend trillions of dinars on these crops. While that takes place, Al Mada reports UNICEF is calling on Iraq's government to invest some of the money into a one billion a year fund to assist Iraq's disadvantaged children. There are an estimated 4 million severely disadvantaged children thought the number could be much higher and Iraq's estimated to have 15 million children. 15 million children is a large number by itself but especially when you consider that population estimates for Iraq are generally somewhere between 25 million and 30 million. Iraq is a young country, a country of widows and orphans thanks to the illegal war.

And the protests that take place in Iraq are about these issues, the war, the effects of the war, the occupied government's refusal to provide basic services such as potable water, the lack of jobs and much more. Iaq needs housing and every six months or so Nouri shows up at a newly built housing project for a photo-op. Iraq needs many things. So there should be more than enough jobs to go around. Somehow that's not the case. (Also true, a lot of the government funded projects never see the funds because someone uses the money to line their own pockets.)

Al Mada reports on the Iraqi government's reaction to the US State Dept's annual human rights report on human trafficking which finds being put on the "watchlist" good news. Hassan Rashed explains it's so much better to be on the watchlist than on the blacklist.

The report can be found here. Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, held a briefing earlier this week on the report (link is text and video) and her remarks included:

And I know it’s not just our State Department and not just our Congress, but many of you in this room, many of you from other governments who have taken on this issue, many of you from the NGO community that have been on the frontlines standing up for millions of victims. Last year, I visited in Cambodia a place of healing and support, a shelter for survivors. I met with dozens of girls, most of them very young, who had been sexually exploited and abused. They had been given refuge at the shelter and they were learning valuable skills to help them reenter society. These girls wanted the same thing that every child wants – the opportunity to live, to learn, a safe place, people who cared about them. And not too long ago, a shelter like this would not have been available. The idea of trafficking in persons was as old as time. And it wasn’t particularly high on the list of important international issues. And certainly, speaking for my country until relatively recently, we were not investing the resources or raising the visibility of these issues, of these stories, of these young girls. There were so many attractive children at that shelter; lots of liveliness. There were some very withdrawn and set apart from the others.

And there was one little girl who had the biggest grin on her face, and then when I looked into that face, I saw that one of her eyes was badly disfigured. She had glasses on. And I asked one of the women running the shelters, I said, "What happened to her?" And she said, "Well, when she was sold into a brothel, she was even younger than she is now, and she basically fought back to protect herself against what was expected. So the brothel owner stabbed her in the eye with a large nail." And there was this child whose spirit did not look as though it had been broken, who was determined to interact with people, but whose life had only been saved because of a concerted effort to rescue girls like her from the slavery they were experiencing.

The world began to change a little over 10 years ago, and certainly, I’m grateful for the work that my country has done, but I’m also very grateful for the work that so many of our partners have done as well. When my husband signed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, we did have tools – we had tools to bring traffickers to justice and tools to provide victims with legal services and other support. Today, police officers, activists, and governments are coordinating their efforts so much more effectively. Thousands of victims have been liberated around the world, and thanks to special temporary visas, many of them are able to come to our country to have protection to testify against their perpetrators.


Former US House Rep Cynthia McKinney is attempting to raise awareness of the Libyan War and this is from her "What America Stands For In Libya" (Information Clearing House):

At a time when the American people have been asked to tighten their belts, teachers are receiving pink slips, the vital statistics of the American people reveal a health care crisis in the making, and the U.S. government is in serious threat of default, our President and Congress have decided that a new war, this time against the people of Libya, is appropriate. This comes at a time when the U.S., by one estimate, spends approximately $3 billion per week for war against Iraq and Afghanistan. The President and Congress continue to fund the war against Libya despite the fact that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that the U.S. had no strategic interest in Libya; and despite the fact that the Senate Chairwoman of the Select Committee on Intelligence admits that the U.S. really does not know who the "rebels" are; while the rebels themselves, according to a Telegraph report of 25 March 2011, admit that Al Qaeda elements are among their ranks. So while the apparatus of our government has been used for over ten years to inform the American people and the global community that Al Qaeda is an enemy of freedom-loving people all over the world, our President chooses to ally our military with none other than Al Qaeda elements in Libya and other people whom U.S. intelligence say they do not know.

Additionally, U.S. Admiral Locklear admitted to a Member of Congress that one of NATO’s missions was to assassinate Muammar Qaddafi. And, indeed, NATO bombs have killed Qaddafi’s son and three grandchildren, just as US bombs in 1986 killed his daughter. NATO bombs just recently killed the grandchildren of one of Qaddafi’s associates in a targeted assassination attempt. Targeted assassination is not within the scope of the United Nations Security Council Resolution and targeted assassination is against U.S. law, international law, international humanitarian law, and international human rights law. Targeted assassination is also a crime. We certainly cannot encourage others to abide by the law when we so openly break it.


http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2011/07/protests-continue-in-iraq-and-why-they.html

[bigron]

Iraq takes over billions in oil revenue set aside by U.N.

By the CNN Wire Staff
July 1, 2011 -- Updated 1341 GMT (2141 HKT)
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/07/01/iraq.oil.revenue/index.html

The Iraqi flag flutters at the opening of the second refinery for crude oil in Al-Dora complex in Baghdad on September 16, 2010.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

-Iraq takes control of a fund established by the U.N. following the invasion

-The Development for Iraq fund contains billions of dollars

-The money is to be used to build up the country's economy

-The U.N. resolution that established the fund requires some of the money go to Kuwait

(CNN) -- Iraq took control Friday of billions of dollars in oil revenues set aside by the United Nations following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, money intended to be used build up the country's economy.

The U.N. Security Council hand over of the Development Fund for Iraq is considered a milestone for Iraqi autonomy, which comes as the United States prepares to withdraw its roughly 47,000 troops from the country by the end of the year.

"The members of the Security Council welcomed the Government of Iraq's establishment of a successor arrangement for the transition of the Development Fund for Iraq," the United Nations said in a statement released Thursday.

The fund will be turned over to an Iraqi committee of financial experts that will operate under terms approved by Iraq's Council of Ministers, it said.

In the statement, the Security Council reiterated the commitment by Iraq to "ensure that oil revenue is used in the interests of the Iraqi people, and to ensure that transition arrangements remain consistent with the constitution and with international best practices in respect of transparency, accountability and integrity."

A 2003 Security Council resolution that created the development fund requires 5% of Iraq's oil revenue be used to pay reparations, primarily Kuwaiti claims that arose from the 1991 Gulf War.

In December, the Security Council lifted all but a few sanctions put in place prior to the invasion. Among the issues to still be resolved: war reparations to Kuwait, the demarcation of the Iraqi-Kuwait border and efforts to locate missing Kuwaitis and third-party nationals


http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/07/01/iraq.oil.revenue/index.html

[bigron]

The ghosts of Baghdad: One British woman and the agonising search for the missing millions in Iraq


By Evan Williams


Last updated at 10:22 PM on 2nd July 2011


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2009451/Iraq-The-British-woman-agonising-search-missing-millions.html#ixzz1R9AncuVa

[bigron]

Iraq oil minister says no need for national oil co

July 03, 2011 08:22 PM Reuters

 
BAGHDAD: The creation of a new Iraqi National Oil Company to run the OPEC member's energy sector is not essential and might confuse the work of the oil ministry, Iraq's oil minister said on Sunday.     

Iraq's cabinet approved a draft law setting up a new national oil company in 2009, but the legislation has languished amid political turmoil and a change of government in the war-battered nation.     

"If this law was passed, then I ask 'What would it add to Iraq's oil sector?' I say nothing," Oil Minister Abdul-Kareem Luaibi said in an address to parliament's oil and energy committee. "Our companies are doing the same job. No need for establishing this company."     

The long-awaited creation of the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC), which would revive a state-run firm established in the 1960s and merged into the Iraqi Oil Ministry in 1987, had been a central plank of Iraq's plan to turn around its struggling oil sector to take advantage of its vast mineral wealth.     

A package of legislation including a modern hydrocarbons law, a revenue-sharing law and a law to restructure the oil ministry has sparked fierce debate and disagreement between political parties for years.     

The semi-autonomous northern Kurdish region has been moving aggressively to develop oil and gas reserves in its territory, clashing with the central government over who has the authority to sign oil contracts.     

Amendments to the draft oil law are being reviewed by the cabinet's energy committee before it refers the legislation to parliament.     

Luaibi criticised the duties of INOC described in the draft bill, which include entering into exploration, drilling, development and production contracts, as well as contracts for shipping oil and gas.     

"If we have two organisations with the job of marketing oil, then this will definitely create problems," he said.     

Thamir Ghadhban, the top energy adviser to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, defended the bill and said reviving INOC was vital for the development of the energy sector.     

"The establishment of an independent National Oil Company is very essential to develop Iraq's energy sector, with the oil ministry to ... formulate oil policy," Ghadhban said.

   


Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Business/Middle-East/2011/Jul-03/Iraq-oil-minister-says-no-need-for-national-oil-co.ashx#ixzz1R9BZbebp
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

[bigron]

Iraq embarks on a new ‘execution campaign’


By Ali Latif



Azzaman, July 5, 2011

http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news2011-07-05kurd.htm

The Iraqi government has approved court decisions calling for the execution of 291 more Iraqis found guilty on charges of terrorism.

The ruling to execute so many Iraqis in one batch was signed by Vice-President Khudair al-Khuzai.

Thousands of Iraqis have been executed since 2009. The former human rights minister, Wajdan Michael, estimated that more than 12,000 Iraqis have been executed in the past two years.

The Iraqi judicial system and the powers executing the constitution and legislature might want to win Iraq yet another bad record in disrespect of human life.

The court system in the country is still in its adolescence and the sectarian, factional and ethnic strife gripping the country casts doubt on the legitimacy of thousands of arrests and court decisions.

Stories of confessions taken under torture abound in the Iraqi press and arrests made with no convincing evidence are normal, particularly in restive areas.



http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news2011-07-05kurd.htm

 

[bigron]

Le Monde report on birth defects in Falluja

In Falluja, "monster babies" raise questions over US weapons used in 2004

LEMONDE.FR

July 5, 2011

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m79267&hd=&size=1&l=e

LEMONDE.FR | 10.06.11 | 20h48 • Mis à jour le 10.06.11 | 21h02 
"Did the American army use nuclear weapons in Iraq?" This is the surprising question raised by France Info on Friday June 10. In partnership with Paris-Match, Angélique Férat, radio correspondent for the area, returned to the city of Fallujah, about fifty kilometers from Baghdad. The city, a stronghold of the Sunni insurrection, was attacked and partially destroyed by American forces in April 2004 and again in November the same year. Since then the city has seen a very high number of birth defects - so much so that, according to Angélique Férat, "almost every family has its own 'monster baby'". The Iraqi authorities refuse to consider the subject and there are no official statistics.


Ms. Férat is not the first journalist to consider the fate of the city's children. In May 2008, the British television channel Sky News sounded an alarm about the rate of congenital malformations there. An official of a local human rights organisation spoke of 200 cases of congenital malformations, the majority of which happened after the bombardment of the city. In November 2009 the British daily newspaper The Guardian ran two articles a photo collection and a video report.. The newspaper summarised information collected by a Fallujah hospital paediatrician who saw 37 malformed babies born in less than three weeks. The mother of three children between three and six years old said they were all unable to walk or feed themselves.

This is incomprehensible to the hospital's doctors. For lack of evidence, they refuse to draw a direct link with the combat which touched the city in 2004. According to them, multiple factors can explain these malformations: air pollution, radiation, chemical pollutants, the drugs used during pregnancy, malnutrition or stress in the mother. In March 2010, it was a BBC journalist's turn to go (video and report). After seeing a photograph of a baby with three heads he said "When you are over there, the evidence is ghastly."

In normal circumstances, the probability of such phenomena is zero

The various reports attracted the attention of scientists. Christopher Busby, director of environmental consultancy Green Audit and famous for his denunciation of weapons using depleted uranium, went to the site. With Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi he carried out a population survey based on a questionnaire. The results were published in July 2010 in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (pdf). In the period 2006-2009, infant mortality in Falluja rose to 80 per 1000 births, while the rate in Egypt and Jordan stayed at 19,8 and 17 per 1000 respectively.

In December 2010, a new study carried out by another research team appeared in the same Journal. The results are eloquent: in Falluja, a newborn had eleven times more chance of being born with malformations than in the rest of the world. "It is important to understand that in normal circumstances, the probability of such phenomena is zero" explained Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, one of the authors of the report. For May 2010, 15% of the 547 newborns presented serious deformities, while 11% were born prematurely (before thirty weeks of pregnancy). For the first time, this report clearly mentions the possibility that the genetic damage observed is related to the weapons used by the United States, and in particular depleted uranium.

Less radioactive than natural uranium, depleted uranium is a heavy metal and very dense. It is used in artillery shells to improve their penetrating ability. Like all heavy metals, it presents a toxic risk if it gets into the body or if its radiations penetrate the skin. Its military use is regularly denounced but no link with the children of Falluja has ever been proved.

Enriched Uranium? "It's absurd"

In the most recent study, soon to appear in the British scientific journal The Lancet, British scientist Christopher Busby goes further. He says traces of enriched uranium were found in samples of soil, air, water, and human hair. But Jean-Dominique Merchet, a journalist specializing in military issues and author of the blog Secret defence said that, unlike depleted uranium, enriched uranium is radioactive. "It has military uses in nuclear bombs and in propelling submarines or aircraft carriers. Using it on battle fields where your own soldiers are is absurd. Merchet also points out that there was a time when Saddam Hussein made use of deformities in young children. "He took journalists to visit orphanages where the children suffered from malformations", he remembers. So Merchet calls for caution until The Lancet article is published, and pending possible proof.

Translation by LLRC. 12th June 2011

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m79267&hd=&size=1&l=e

[bigron]

Bomb kills 35 in Iraqi city of Taji


Morning Star Online



July 5, 2011

Unknown assailants killed at least 35 people and wounded 47 today in a combined car bomb and roadside bomb attack on government offices in Taji.

The bombing is the latest in a series of attacks mounted in occupied Iraq as the government and political factions debate whether to ask Washington to maintain a military presence in the country past the withdrawal deadline at the end of the year.

While violence in Iraq has declined significantly since the intense sectarian fighting of 2006-7, recent atrocities have prompted some Iraqi MPs to call for some of the 47,000 US troops currently in the country to remain into 2012.


http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/106702
 

[bigron]

The Silence of Dying Sparrows...


by Layla Anwar


An Arab Woman Blues , July 5, 2011



Iraq - a bad place for children.


Before you accuse me of propaganda, this is not my title, this is the title of a UNICEF report which states : "Decades of war and international sanctions have turned Iraq into one of the worst places for children in the Middle East and North Africa, with around 3.5 million living in poverty, 1.5 million under the age of five undernourished and 100 infants dying every day, the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) warns " (bear in mind that UN data is based on conservative estimates, politics oblige)

The report then goes on to say : " To achieve the MDGs, (millennium development goals) over 400,000 undernourished Iraqi children would have to receive adequate food, while nearly 700,000 would have to be enrolled in schools. Child mortality would also have to be reduced by 100,000, while about three million others need decent sanitation...."

"These are not just statistics, behind every figure there is a child suffering in silence. Achieving these goals is possible if Iraq manages to focus on the over four million most deprived children."

Add to the above, the exploitation of children for war purposes and the report gives as an example the following : " the (Shia) Mahdi Army has recruited and used children as soldiers since the beginning of the conflict. In 2008, some 376 children were killed and 1,594 wounded, while in 2009, 362 children were killed and 1,044 wounded. In 2010, at least 194 children were killed and 232 wounded in the conflict, primarily in Baghdad, Diyala and Ninewa governorates."

And if the above is not enough, the report warns of "another threat to children identified -explosive remnants of war, which claim lives and cause injury long after combat operations. An estimated 2.66 million cluster bomblets and 20 million landmines remain on Iraqi soil, contaminating 1,700sqkm..."


The report however does NOT mention - the effects of US/UK Depleted Uranium on Children, nor does the report make any mention of Industrial and Nuclear contamination produced by toxic waste - dumping of Iranian waste in the South and in the Anbar. Nor does the report mention, 500'000 totally orphaned children living in the streets of Baghdad alone. Nor does it mention the increasing rates of child labor...nor the trafficking and selling of Iraqi children, their kidnappings on a daily basis, nor the big taboo - the sexual trafficking, exploitation, and slavery of Iraqi children...

Most importantly, the report fails to state that in 1980's, that same UN affirmed that Iraq had made a developmental leap, and that in the areas of medical care and education (by eradicating illiteracy and providing free education up to post graduate levels) it managed to reach the indexes of a developed country.

Last but not least, the report omitted to conclude that the Children of Iraq are suffering in silence, caged sparrows, of Freedom and Liberty.



Sorrow of a Child - Iraqi composer Omar Bashir - dedicated to the children of Iraq. 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQZSBx8OraI&feature=player_embedded



http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2011/07/silence-of-dying-sparrows.html




 

[bigron]

.Published on Wednesday, July 6, 2011 by CommonDreams.org


Embedded Art as War Propaganda


When to Fear Art: Artist + Embedded = Oxymoron

by Robert Shetterly
 

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/06-4


Steve Mumford: Embedded: Recent Drawings from Iraq & Afghanistan
At the Center For Maine Contemporary Art ( CMCA), Rockport, Maine, May 26 --- July 10, 2011.

My mother used to tell me, if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all. But, I think she would agree that if to say something nice you have to ignore the truth, it might be better to say something.

Steve Mumford drawing in Tikrit, Iraq - Friday, October 3, 2003 - with the 4th Infantry Division, Task Force Omaha.

First, though, the nice. I am impressed with Steve Mumford’s courage. Since April of 2003 he has traveled repeatedly to dangerous areas in Iraq & Afghanistan as an embedded artist with the US military. “Embedded” means that he takes on many of the same risks, the same deprivations, and same moral complications as the soldiers who protect him. His ink-wash drawings, watercolors, and line drawings made as witness to his experience demonstrate a facile hand, a strong sense of color and composition, and a deft ability to catch significant body language. At times, looking at Mumford’s deep, rich color and contrasting bright highlights, I was reminded of Delacroix’s watercolors of North Africa, or some of John Singer Sargent’s garden paintings. In other sketches, Mumford draws like a graphic novelist, verging on the cartoon, with images that are telling, gritty, and authentic. He does not shy from difficult subjects --- a body lies (dead? alive?) bandaged, the left leg in a tourniquet, the severed left foot in the foreground, literally in your face. Several studies show soldiers with amputated limbs, with & without prostheses, in rehabilitation. Heartbreaking images. Certainly his pictures portray something significant about the cost of war. But what is left out?

In the publicity for the show, the CMCA has said, “In his art, Mumford strives to maintain objectivity about the politics of war, while providing an artist’s humanistic view of the individuals involved.”  I was under the impression that to warrant the claim of objectivity one had to present many sides of an issue, and let the viewer try to make sense of the complexity and live with the uncertainty. If that is the case, the last thing this show is or strives for is objectivity. The actions of the US soldiers are only shown in a favorable light. The only humans injured are Americans, except for one drawing of an Iraqi child. In the information posted with each picture, the word “occupation” is never used. We see no Iraqi amputees --- with or without care.

In one watercolor US soldiers are shown settling a dispute among Iraqis civilians. As we know, very few US soldiers speak Arabic, so how do they do it? There is something incredibly condescending about this picture --- as though the Iraqis are children who needed armed Americans to come from half-way around the world to teach them the maturity to talk with each other. We know that until the Americans invaded, ethnic and religious strife in Iraq was minimal; the US invasion briefly created a sectarian civil war.

Another picture shows US soldiers guarding Iraqi women and children in line waiting to get medical treatment. This is nice. And since we never see an American soldier killing or injuring an Iraqi, one might suppose that the primary reason US forces are in Iraq is to protect women and children at clinics. In fact, somewhere between 225,000 and 1,300,000 Iraqis have been killed during this pre-emptive war. No one has been able to collect reliable data on Iraqi casualties. The US government has not wanted to. Mumford’s objective pictures show no Iraqi or Afghan blood.

Well, sort of. We do see the grisly, bloodied corpse of an Afghan dog lying in front of its owners. The caption says that Afghan soldiers were responsible for shooting the dog in sport, and the Americans told them to cut it out. No one was held responsible. What we do not see are missiles from US drones blowing up Afghani women and children. What we do not see are US soldiers shooting Iraqi civilians at checkpoints, or from helicopters in sport. We have to go to Wikileaks for that objective information.

A curious, homey picture shows some Iraqis and US soldiers sitting in what appears to be the Iraqis’ living room, cozily up against each other, an aquarium bubbling away in the background, having a friendly chat. No weapons are visible. The description says that this is an example of the “knock and talk” program when soldiers “knock” on the doors of Iraqi homes in the middle of the night to gather information about possible insurgents. The fact is that US soldiers frequently kick down the doors, screaming, terrorizing the families, ransacking the homes, even stealing from the Iraqis, dragging out anyone they think is suspicious. I’m not suggesting that Mr. Mumford did not see what is in this watercolor. What I’m suggesting is that to say it is objective is absurd. No, worse than absurd, disingenuous. It makes a parody of objectivity. How can one be “objective” about a crime (promoting a war of aggression with official lies is a crime under our Constitution) and not mention the crime?

We see an Iraqi man blindfolded and being questioned. No one is touching him. The caption says that he was later released for lack of evidence. The impression we are left with is that the US presence is all about justice. Does Mumford think we know nothing about Abu Ghraib and the torture of many Iraqis? Some tortured to death by Americans?

When we look at images like this, we understand what “embedded” means. It is not and cannot be about objectivity. It’s about selling a myth of these wars.

I have only mentioned a few of the pictures. Others show exhausted soldiers, soldiers getting haircuts, soldiers positioned as snipers. Not one questions the morality or reasons for the war. US soldiers are the altruistic, beneficent guardians of Iraqi and Afghan welfare. When “objectivity” becomes this one sided, we might as well call it propaganda. Rather than being objective about the politics of these wars, these pictures sugarcoat and obscure those politics. Frankly, they are a lie. A lie is very political.

What a shame to see proficient art used this way. What’s the difference between this and Soviet art of the 1950s and ‘60s that exalted the glorious proletariat? Or, Nazi art of the 1930s that made heroes of Aryan racists and anti-Semites? I’m not sure.

Downstairs from the Mumford exhibit, the CMCA gift shop is selling black tee-shirts with “Fear No Art” printed in green on the front. I’m also not sure what that means. Illegitimate, abusive governments and exploitative corporations have always feared artists who have the courage to expose them. People who use power to keep secret their injustice and to accumulate unjust profit should fear art.

However, embedded art strikes no fear. Certainly not to the power that hires and protects it. In the dark hearts of the unjustly powerful, embedded art justifies their power. That is the “art” most of us should be fearing, art that obscures the truth, replaces the full truths with self-serving half truths. The tee-shirt should say “Fear Embedded Art.”

I like to leave an art exhibit exhilarated, more alive, even when the subject matter is ambiguous and dark, because I know I’ve been in the presence of an aesthetic struggle to confront the truth. Serious art about tough issues leads us to a place of deep questioning, a place where one has to enlarge one’s soul to know and feel it entirely. These drawings by Steve Mumford lead us to a false place of deep questioning because they show us only part of the picture. They show real suffering but explain it hypocritically. They elicit compassion only for Americans. The compassion is right, but for the wrong reason. We should be feeling compassion for the US soldiers because they were ordered to kill and be killed for lies. Not because they got their legs blown off by IEDs. They were betrayed by their own government. The obscenity of all the suffering --- what’s shown and what isn’t --- was illegal by our laws and treaties. And there is no accountability. The fact of no accountability is what is embedded in our culture today.

When I was in the exhibit, a woman was studying the pictures as closely as I was. I asked her what she thought of them. She said they were troubling but she was glad to see what the major media did not show us, something real. Having been caught up in the drama of the pictures and their undeniable portrayal of reality, she had not asked herself what was left out. It is the “left out” that makes them insidious.

 Robert Shetterly [send him mail] is a writer and artist who lives in Brooksville, Maine. He is the author of Americans Who Tell the Truth. See his website


http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/06-4

[bigron]

The never-ending US presence in Iraq


The Common Ills


http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2011/07/never-ending-us-presence-in-iraq.html

July 6, 2011

The Obama administration has been debating how large a force to propose leaving in Iraq. It made its proposal now in hopes of spurring a request from Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government, and to give the Pentagon time to plan, the officials said.
The troops would be based around Baghdad and in a small number of other strategic locations around the country, the officials said.

The above is from David S. Cloud and Ned Parker's "U.S. willing to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, past year's end" (Los Angeles Times). The article adds more detail to what Lara Jakes reported yesterday. Dar Addustour adds that US Vice President Joe Biden's upcoming trip to Iraq is supposed to include pressuring Iraqis to extend the US military presence and that his scheduled meetings already include Jalal Talabani, Nouri al-Maliki and Osama al-Nujaifi. The Atlantic tries to pretend they're doing that but all they manage is to offer a padded space for Spencer Ackerman to bang his crazy. When you're 'political advice' of 2008 is known and it's 'hang racism around anyone whether they're racist or not to shut them up,' you really shouldn't have an outlet anymore. But Wired isn't a real outlet. Why The Atlantic to do a reach around with Spencer is something Conor Friedersdorf should answer but, try to grasp this, Spencer hurling curse words is about as amusing as a monkey flinging his own feces.

There's a reason Ackerman was fired from The New Republic. It appears he's yet again approaching the Must Seek Medical Help stage. There's no reason for The Atlantic to embrace his sickness. Nor does his rant accurately capture anything. While cursing and condemning the public, Ackerman doesn't know the first damn thing he's talking about. The media lost interest in Iraq. For this week and next, we're basically home. We're not traipsing around the country from one speaking gig to another about the wars. And usually that means one or two speaking gigs four days a week in this general area (Bay Area). That's not the case. I don't do the booking, Dona does and she'd asked if we were okay grabbing as many as she could schedule. We said yes and assumed we'd have maybe ten gigs over five days each week. Wrong. We're wall to wall. I didn't look at yesterday's schedule until I finished working out yesterday morning. We were wall to wall. We're wall to wall today and all week. Spencer Ackerman who stays in one tiny little subsection of a metropolis condemns the people of this country and the reality is that he's not been around the country in some time. By contrast, we're all over the country speaking on the topic of the wars. The interest in the wars is only increasing and Barack can thank his Libyan War for that. Spencer Ackerman's quoted on something he knows nothing about and apparently Conor did that just so he could include some swearing, certainly not to impart any information. And for those who wonder why Ackerman attacks We The People and not The Media, like a good, neutered house pet, he never bites the hand that feeds him.


Yesterday, by a 12 to 1 vote, the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution calling on the White House to end the wars and to spend the money domestically instead. Council member Bill Rosendahl is quoted by Fox 11 News stating, "We're spending $1 trillion over there. We should be investing in education, health care and infrastructure. We need to focus on ourselves and stop playing big shot all over the earth." Council member Janice Hahn, who is running for Jane Harman's old set in the US Congress, states, "This country, I believe, is war-weary. It's time to invade this country with resources. We know that our schools need more resources. We need to spend more money creating jobs. We need to get our economy back up and running."
Ned Parker and Salar Jaff (Los Angeles Times) have an important report on yesterday's double bombing in Taji. Dar Addustour covers it here.

In Australia, the big news continues to be the government document's revealing the Australian military's knowledge of prisoner abuse in Iraq. Today on 7:30 (Australia's ABC -- link has text and video), Geoff Thompson zoomed in on when the Abu Ghraib crimes were known:

GEOFF THOMPSON, REPORTER: An Australian Army lawyer, Major George O'Kane, was working with US in forces from Baghdad from July 2003 until February 2004 and visited Abu Ghraib prison five times.

Major O'Kane never personally witnessed abuse, but first learned of its possibility when his US commander ordered him to respond to an October 2003 international committee of the Red Cross or ICRC working paper.

(Re-enactment)

GEORGE O'KANE, AUSTRALIAN ARMY LAWYER (male voiceover): "There's an allegation of mistreatment in that report. The thing that stuck in my mind was, you know, panties on the head was a source of humiliation and verbal abuse, laying naked in the cell with an MRE packet covering their genitalia."

QUESTIONER (male voiceover): "That's like a little meal pack?"

GEORGE O'KANE (male voiceover): "Yeah."

(End of re-enactment).

GEOFF THOMPSON: Major O'Kane did not refer the October Red Cross allegations to his superiors in Australia until after the photograph scandal broke in April the following year.

JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER (May 31, 2004): The first I, and to my knowledge, ministers knew of the serious abuse allegations was in April, Mr Speaker.

GEOFF THOMPSON: Now, Defence Department documents obtained under Freedom of Information laws reveal the true extent of Major O'Kane's involvement. Not only was he dismissive of the Red Cross working paper allegations, but in 2004, Major O'Kane was directly involved in preventing the ICRC from visiting nine detainees in Abu Graib's cell block 1A where the most disturbing pictures were taken between October and December 2003. A transcript of a Defence Department interview with George O'Kane recorded in June 2004 reveals that he personally told ICRC representatives visiting Abu Ghraib that ...

(Re-enactment)

GEORGE O'KANE (male voiceover): "They'll be prevented from interviewing nine persons in cell block 1A and 1B and the hard cells 'cause they're undergoing active interrogation. You know, we won't be giving you access because of imperative military necessity."

(End of re-enactment).

Now Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in 2003 and 2004 Mike Kelly was Australia's most senior military lawyer in Iraq, advising the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Amy Coopes (AFP) notes, "Now a lieutenant colonel, O'Kane was not alone in reporting the abuse of prisoners -- there were claims from other Australian officers made as early as June 2003 that were 'lost or ignored' by the defence department, it added."

In Iraq, Aswat al-Iraq notes that President Jalal Talabani met with thug and prime minister Nouri al-Maliki yesterday and quotes Kurdish MP Fuad Maasoum insisting it was a success and paves the way for a meet-up next week among all parties. Meanwhile Iraq remains without potable water and Al Rafidayn reports Iraqis are resorting to bottled water which are overpriced. The article estimates it will require $100 million to fix Iraq's water infrastructure alone. Despite the lack of potable drinking water, Iraq is moving forward with plans for an agricultural revival, Al Sabaah reports, including a major investment in livestock.

We'll close with this from Kenneth J. Theisen's "Holder Announces Torture Whitewash" (World Can't Wait):

On Thursday, June 30, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced another of the Obama administration’s cover-ups of the crimes of the U.S. government in regard to torture and death conducted by the Bush regime and now continued by the current administration. Holder stated that the Justice Department (DOJ) is launching a "full criminal investigation" into the deaths of two detainees in U.S. custody. This "investigation" announcement is the result of a "review" as to whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation and murder of detainees in U.S. custody overseas. In August 2009 Holder, in order to quell the outrage at U.S. instituted torture, announced that he had appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney John Durham to review allegations of torture and other crimes.

But the "review" was really part of a wider cover-up effort to whitewash these massive crimes. Now after a nearly two year "review" Holder expects people to believe that justice is being done because DOJ is "investigating" only two of these crimes? Tens of thousands of prisoners have been held by the U.S. and its allies in the U.S. war of terror since 9/11/01. The vast majority was abused and many faced torture by various government agents such as those employed by the CIA or the war department. Many were actually murdered in custody.

And yet Obama and his legal minions have yet to hold any of the top criminal dogs in the Bush regime accountable for these crimes. In fact, the present administration continues many of these same policies and crimes and covers up the past crimes. Extraordinary rendition, torture and abuse, indefinite detention, denial of legal rights, etc, all continue and in many cases have been "legalized" under Obama. Obama’s lawyers were successful this last week in convincing the Supreme Court not to hear a case of 250 civilians tortured and seriously harmed by corporate contractors of the U.S. at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison. These prisoners are now left with out legal redress because of Obama’s actions in their case.


 
http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2011/07/never-ending-us-presence-in-iraq.html

[bigron]

Iraq snapshot - July 7, 2011


The Common Ills


Thursday, July 7, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, more US soldiers are announced dead, Chair of the Joint Chiefs talks US forces in Iraq beyond 2011, Camp Ashraf betrayed?, and more.

 
http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2011/07/iraq-snapshot_07.html

[bigron]

An Urgent Call for Humanitarian Intervention


by Chris Floyd

Empire burlesque, July 8, 2011

http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2146-an-urgent-call-for-humanitarian-intervention.html

Worrying news this week from the Middle East, as Jason Ditz reports:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki today blasted calls for Sunnis to consider a secessionist movement in the nation’s west, insisting that any effort to form an autonomous region or to secede outright would lead to bloodshed. "If it happens, people will fight each other and blood will reach to the knee," insisted Maliki.

Wait a minute! Is this a national leader using extreme rhetoric to threaten condign punishment against those who rebel against his government? Isn’t that what Moamar Gadafy was accused of doing? Wasn’t this indeed the whole casus belli of West’s war on Libya?

Then we must immediately intervene militarily to save the innocent civilians of western Iraq from this threatened bloodbath! We’d better send troops into Iraq right away to stop this raging heinous monster!

For as every heart-sworn humanitarian interventionist knows, the presence of death-dealing Western military power is the best guarantee of a peaceful, stable, happy regime -- especially in those benighted countries where the grubby little darkies can't be trusted to sort out their own affairs.

Forward to Baghdad!

http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2146-an-urgent-call-for-humanitarian-intervention.html

 

[bigron]

AI: Response to legal rulings on UK responsibility on deaths and detentions in Iraq


Amnesty International


AI, July 8, 2011

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=19567

Following two landmark judgments from the European Court of Human Rights yesterday, Amnesty International is once again calling on the UK authorities to act decisively to ensure accountability for actions of UK armed forces and officials in Iraq for alleged human rights violations.

In the first of the two cases, Al-Skeini and Others v the United Kingdom, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK was required by the European Convention on Human Rights to conduct independent and effective investigations into the killing of six civilians during security operations carried out by UK soldiers in Iraq in 2003 and 2004.

The Court found the UK had failed to ensure such investigations in five of the six cases, in violation of article 2 (right to life) of the Convention. Significantly, the Court rejected arguments by the UK that the Convention did not apply to the UK’s operations because they occurred outside the UK’s ordinary territory. The Court held that the fact the UK was an occupying force over the territory in question and therefore exercised public powers there meant the Convention applied. Such a situation, the Court held, was one among a range of scenarios where the Convention applies outside the ordinary territory of European states. (Another example the Court cited was where a state exercises effective physical power and control over an individual by taking him or her into custody, somewhere else in the world).
In the second of the two cases, Al-Jedda v the United Kingdom, the European Court found that the prolonged internment of Hilal Abdul-Razzaq Ali Al-Jedda, for more than three years in a detention centre in Basra, Iraq, run by British forces, violated his right to liberty and security under the European Convention.

The UK claimed that Al-Jedda was not entitled to the protection of the European Convention at all. It argued that the United Nations alone was legally responsible for the detention, since, it argued, UK forces were acting as part of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, under a specific mandate from the UN Security Council. The UK also argued that, even if it was legally responsible for the detention, the relevant UN Security Council resolutions authorised internment and this would override any contrary obligations the UK had under the Convention.

The Court rejected the UK’s arguments, finding that it was indeed legally responsible for Al-Jedda’s internment by its forces, and that nothing in the UN mandate disentitled him to the protections of the ECHR. The Court therefore found his internment to violate article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention.

Amnesty has long been concerned by the UK’s narrow interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, and its ongoing attempts to deny or limit the applicability of its obligations under international human rights treaties, and domestic laws intended to implement those obligations, to the conduct of the UK’s armed forces overseas. This narrow interpretation has led to the denial of an effective remedy to many individuals whose rights have been, or are alleged to have been, violated by the conduct of UK service personnel. Amnesty has frequently emphasised that the UK’s human rights obligations extended extraterritorially to anybody within its power or effective control and that the UK could not avoid accountability simply by claiming the rights did not apply. These arguments have been further vindicated by yesterday’s rulings from the Court.

Following the judgment of the European Court, Amnesty calls on the UK to ensure that it implements the judgment, including by conducting independent, impartial, thorough and effective investigations into the killings in the Al-Skeini case, as well as with respect to other killings by UK armed forces in Iraq during the same period. The UK must also ensure that victims of serious human rights violations committed by UK armed forces during their operations in Iraq are provided with effective remedy and reparation for those violations.

While Amnesty welcomes the rejection of the UK’s arguments that human rights treaty obligations did not apply at all in these two cases at the European Court, it remains concerned by any implication in the reasons given in the Al-Jedda judgment that a UN Security Council resolution might in theory, if it were clearly enough worded in this regard, allow or even oblige states to act in a manner inconsistent with their obligations under international human rights law. Given the Court’s findings in the case about the specific resolution and actions at issue, the hypothetical question of whether some other resolution might have had a different legal effect did not squarely arise. Amnesty considers that no Security Council resolution purporting to authorise, let alone oblige, states to act in contravention of fundamental principles of human rights could ever in that respect be valid under international law.

Background:
The case of Al-Jedda concerned one of the so-called "security internees" detained without charge or trial by the UK contingent of the Multi-National Force in Iraq. Hilal Al-Jedda was arrested by US soldiers in Iraq on 10 October 2004, apparently acting on information provided by British Intelligence services. He was taken to Sha’aibah Divisional Temporary Detention facility in Basra city, a detention centre run by British forces, and held there, without charge or trial until his release on 30 December 2007 over three years later. This type of detention, sometimes called "internment", is prohibited by the European Convention (except perhaps under a valid derogation in certain types of emergencies - the UK did not seek to rely on any derogation in this case).

The case of Al-Skeini relates to the death of six Iraqi civilians at a time when the UK was recognised as an Occupying Power under international humanitarian law. They were: Hazim Jum’aa Gatteh Al-Skeini, aged 23, shot dead in the street by the commander of a British military patrol; Muhammad Abdul Ridha Salim, a teacher aged 45, shot and fatally wounded by a sergeant in a military unit who forcibly entered his brother-in-law’s house; Hannan Mahaibas Sadde Shmailawi, aged 33, shot and fatally wounded by gunfire during an exchange involving a British military patrol while she was eating a family evening meal in her home; Waleed Sayay Muzban, aged 43, shot and fatally injured by a lance corporal during a military patrol while he was driving a minibus; and Ahmed Jabbar Kareem Ali, aged 15, allegedly beaten and forced into the Shatt Al-Arab river by British soldiers where he drowned.

The sixth death, that of Baha Mousa, a hotel receptionist aged 26, in September 2003, occurred after he was tortured over a period of 36 hours while detained by British troops. A court martial in the UK of seven UK military personnel in relation to the case of Baha Mousa concluded in March 2007. By the end of the proceedings, six of the seven defendants had been acquitted of all charges. One soldier had pleaded guilty to a charge of inhumane treatment - a war crime - and was acquitted of the remaining charges. The court martial confirmed that numerous individuals had been responsible for inflicting unlawful violence on Baha Mousa and other detainees. However, as the judge remarked, many of those responsible were "not charged with any offence simply because there is no evidence against them as a result of a more or less obvious closing of ranks".

In May 2008 a public inquiry was announced into the circumstances of the case, which concluded its oral hearings in October 2010 and is expected to deliver its final report in September 2011. In light of the Inquiry the European Court determined that the father of Baha Mousa, Colonel Daoud Maousa, the sixth applicant in the case of Al-Skeini was no longer of victim of a breach of the procedural obligation to conduct an effective, independent and impartial investigation into the circumstances of his son’s death, under Article 2 (the right to life).


http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=19567



 

[bigron]

Vultures on a Carcass...

by Layla Anwar

An Arab Woman Blues, July 9, 2011

http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2011/07/vultures-on-carcass.html

The carcass is Iraq, the vultures are you.

I will NEVER swallow what you have done to Iraq. NEVER. And it has nothing to do with patriotism, nationalism or any of the concepts you keep regurgitating like idiotic parrots.

What has happened to Iraq, through your contributions; your efforts, your silence, your apathy, your indifference, your political correctness, your...your...your filth...this can never be swallowed. NEVER.

For I know...I know and I have seen, I have witnessed...what was before and what is now. You can't take that away from me. You can't take that truth away from me. And I shall post it, plaster it on every wall...because I will not let go. I will not let go of you and your crimes. I will pursue you, by whatever means available...and I will keep hammering it, as long as it takes...

I will never ever forget that first premonitory dream I had about Iraq and what was going to happen to us, to our children. It was a message from God. A message showing me in full colors what and who you are.

I will go back in time, back to 2003. I dreamt of two American soldiers lifting up a young Iraqi boy to be crucified on a cross, in the middle of the desert. The sun was setting, there was dust everywhere, everything looked blur, covered with sand, they left that crucified Iraqi boy in the middle of that desert and walked away...

You crucified our children and covered up the truth with dust...

There will be no escape for you. None whatsoever. As Bob Marley said it ' you can run but you can't hide.

I am here to make sure that nothing remains hidden...I make it my mission, my vocation, my calling...I am not in a hurry, I have all the time in the world...but demised you shall be...no one crucifies a child and gets away with it...no one.

My ink shall be like drops of water, drops of blood, eating away at the rock lodged between your breasts...

No matter - the insults, the threats, the mockery...no matter. I will not let go.

I was one of the first to write about the rape, trafficking of Iraqi Children. I was one of the first to say - Iraqi children are being sold, I wrote about the trading of organs, I wrote about the sex slavery of Iraqi children, I wrote about pedophile rings, I wrote about marrying off 5 years old girls, by exporting them first into brothels for "training". I wrote about the daily abduction and kidnappings of Iraqi children, I gave you numbers, figures...precise ones. I said there are over 5 Million Orphans in Iraq, 500'000 totally orphaned with no father and mother living in the streets of Baghdad.

I said this is something WE HAD NEVER SEEN BEFORE your liberation. I said and I repeat and I repeat and I repeat....

Today a courageous woman, Ashwak Al-Jaf from Iraq, says it publicly...HERE.

I was mocked, insulted, threatened, with numerous attempts at silencing me...none worked. The message is out, the truth is out.

The truth...I have told you nothing but the tip of the iceberg of the truth...I have all the time in the world...but you don't.

http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2011/07/vultures-on-carcass.html





 

[bigron]

Iraq snapshot - July 11, 2011


The Common Ills



Monday, July 11, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Moqtada has his own big announcement, the Iraqi Air Force may be bringing back former employees, Leon Panetta has a gaffe filled visit to Iraq, and more.
 
http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2011/07/iraq-snapshot_11.html

[bigron]

Does the White House already have a working memo with Iraq on continued occupation?


The Common Ills


July 11, 2011

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m79486&hd=&size=1&l=e

Hossam Acommok and Ines Tariq (Al Mada) report that there is a confidential memo on the "semi-agreement" between the White House and Nouri al-Maliki that would keep US forces present in Iraq until 2016. The memo outlines many things including that the US will paying 1,000 dinars for every consulate, embassy, base, etc it has in Iraq. The memo notes certain things -- such as land use -- end December 31, 2016 but -- pay attention all you bad 'reporters' in November 2008 -- it can be extended with the approval of both parties. Just like the SOFA could. Yesterday Al Mada reported on Jalal Talabani's Saturday statements that the government of Iraq would have an answer in two weeks about where they stood on withdrawal. However, AFP spoke with Ali Mussawi (Nouri's "media advisor") yesterday and he stated, "I believe that political leaders will not reach an agreement during the two-week deadline." Alsumaria TV notes, "Ahrar Bloc MP Rafea Abdul Jabbar expects on the other hand from the Iraqi government to sign understanding memorandums with the United States in order to extend the term of US Forces in Iraq without referring to the Parliament, he said."

Al Rafidayn and Al Sabaah both report that the Ministy of Defense has announced that they are looking for former Iraqi Air Force officers with certain skills who want to return to work for the Iraqi military. One of the biggest holes in Iraq's security right now -- besides no heads for the 3 security ministries -- is the lack of a functioning air force. However, considering the witch hunts that were part of the 2010 elections -- where Ali al-Lami and others tarred opponents as Ba'athists, some former officers may fear this offer is actually an attempt at a round up and not respond.

Dar Addustour notes US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta arrived in Iraq Sunday on an unannounced visit. David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) adds Panetta made remarks emphasizing his belief that Iranian elements are supplying weapons being used against US soldiers in Iraq: "U.S. officials said 15 U.S. troops were killed in June, the most in any month in two years. More than half of the deaths were caused by rockets, known as improvised rocket-assisted mortars, that U.S. officials say are provided to Shiite Muslim militant groups by Iran." Craig Whitlock and Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) report, "Unlike some senior Obama administration officials, who have made clear that they would like the Iraqi government to invite thousands of U.S. troops to stay in the country, Panetta demurred when asked if he favored the idea but said he would press Iraqi leaders to make up their minds."

The latest episode of Law and Disorder Radio begins broadcasting at 9:00 am EST on WBAI this morning and around the country throughout the week. Attorneys and hosts Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) discuss impeachment and other topics at the start of the show and they address the law and natural gas issues with attorney Jordan Yeager and the economic issues and protests going on in Greece with Professor Costas Panayotakis.

Source


http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m79486&hd=&size=1&l=e


 

[bigron]

Washington’s Physics Problem in Iraq


by Chris Toensing, July 12, 2011

http://original.antiwar.com/toensing/2011/07/11/washingtons-physics-problem-in-iraq/



The Joint Chiefs of Staff, says its chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, has a “physics problem.”

According to a 2008 accord between the United States and Iraq, the U.S. military is to be evacuated from Mesopotamia — down to the last tank mechanic and dishwasher — by the close of the calendar year. Lately, there have been hints that Iraq might want a “residual force” of as many as 12,000 troops to stay, but nothing firm.

Hence Mullen’s dilemma: How does the Pentagon plan for withdrawing its personnel and equipment when it doesn’t know for sure how many soldiers will be leaving? There are only so many C-130s to load and so much time in which to load them.

In Iraq, this question is a burning political issue, one that could threaten the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Maliki has invested major political capital promising to end the U.S. occupation in accordance with the 2008 pact, telling The Wall Street Journal in December: “This agreement is not subject to extension, not subject to alteration. It is sealed.” His ruling coalition is fragile, and key partners intend to hold him to that promise.

But there’s precious little debate in Washington on the date for withdrawal. Even though President Barack Obama campaigned on a pledge to leave Iraq, his administration isn’t telling Maliki that the troops are decamping come what may.

To the contrary, the White House puts out regular signals that thousands of soldiers will stay if Iraq “requests” it. The feelers are so frequent that Obama seems to be asking Iraq to request that Washington extend its military sojourn.

In fact, there’s growing bipartisan consensus that a prolonged “residual” occupation of Iraq is a good thing. Republican presidential candidates, eager to attack Obama on Afghanistan and Libya, say next to nothing about Iraq. The unreconstructed neoconservatives quietly advising most of them proclaim in public that departure from Iraq is premature. Most Democrats are content to silently follow the White House.

The Obama administration and the Maliki government, each for its own reasons, are both hedging the bet they made when they signed the withdrawal timetable. Washington wagered that Maliki would widen his coalition to embrace enough political opponents that his government would be stable without an American prop. The Iraqi premier gambled that, with U.S. funding and training, his security forces would grow strong enough to defeat his domestic foes by the end of 2011.

Both bets were foolish, but Washington’s was more so. Maliki and his circle have no serious record of conciliatory politics, and indeed have played upon and exacerbated the country’s sectarian, ethnic, and ideological divides to remain in office. In such partisan maneuvers, they have felt secure in the knowledge that tens of thousands of heavily armed Americans are their formidable first line of defense. Theirs is a high-risk game, however, and they are giving every indication that they still want their praetorian guard.

Ultimately, Obama’s vow notwithstanding, neither Democrats nor Republicans are likely to say no if Iraqi politicians wish to cling to thousands of American protectors or so for years to come. The reason isn’t physics, but geology — the voluminous pools of oil lying underground in Iraq and neighboring countries. American politicians as diverse as Jimmy Carter and Dick Cheney have long believed that the United States must project force in the petroleum-rich Persian Gulf for the sake of the world economy and Washington’s superpower status. The costs have been secondary in their calculations, and the mainstream media does not probe too deeply in areas where both major parties concur.

In Iraq, this ill-advised consensus has thus far cost Americans some $780 billion, taken nearly 4,500 American lives, and severely wounded an additional 22,000 men and women — to say nothing of the greatly higher tallies of killed and maimed Iraqis. In 2011 and 2012, it will be up to ordinary Americans to compel, at long last, an honest national conversation about Iraq.

Reprinted courtesy of Foreign Policy in Focus.


http://original.antiwar.com/toensing/2011/07/11/washingtons-physics-problem-in-iraq/

[bigron]

July 12, 2011
http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick07122011.html

"The Reason You Guys Are Here is Because on 9/11 We Got Attacked"

Panetta: We Need US Troops to Stay in Iraq to Fight Iran


By PATRICK COCKBURN



The United States could take unilateral military action against Shia militias armed by Iran if they continued to attack US troops, Leon Panetta, the new US Defense Secretary, said on a visit to Iraq yesterday. The threat marks an escalation in the long-running battle for influence in Iraq between Washington and Tehran that has gone on since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

The US has long accused Iran of supplying weapons to Shia militia groups, which it holds responsible for attacks in which some 18 US soldiers have died since the beginning of June. Washington would also like to keep between 8,500 and 10,000 troops in Iraq after the end of the year, despite an agreement for all US soldiers to be out by that date.

"We are very concerned about Iran and the weapons they are providing to extremists here in Iraq," Panetta told US troops in Baghdad. "In June we lost a hell of a lot of Americans as a result of these attacks. And we cannot just simply stand back and allow this to continue to happen." The US officially ended involvement in combat in Iraq last August, but Panetta threatened yesterday "to do what we have to do unilaterally".

The American incentive to retain a military presence in Iraq, contrary to a Status of Forces Agreement signed by President George W Bush in his last weeks in power in 2008, has been increased by the weakening of its ability to confront Iran following the Arab Awakening. A senior Iraqi politician said: "The fall of Mubarak means that the US can no longer rely on Egypt as its main ally against Iran, so it has a greater need to be an important player in Iraq."

The US still has 46,000 troops in Iraq, although they are largely inactive. Iraqi politics are deeply divided between ethnic and sectarian communities, political parties and individuals. "Whatever they may say in public, the Iraqi political class wants some US troops to stay to protect their interests," the Iraqi politician said. Other Iraqis believe there will be limits to Iranian opposition to a US troop presence. Kamran Karadaghi, an Iraqi political commentator, said: "I think they will reach an agreement for some US troops to stay. At the end of the day the Iranians are pragmatic and practical."
The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, also appears to want the US to remain as a counter-balance to Iran.

Iranian policy has several strands, and a willingness to countenance some US soldiers remaining in Iraq would not preclude it also using Shia militia groups under its control to inflict casualties on the Americans. Three Katyusha rockets were fired into the Green Zone in Baghdad yesterday.

Saudi Arabia is playing a bigger role in Iraq in recent weeks as the conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims deepens across the Middle East. The Saudis and the Gulf monarchies have paranoid suspicions of Tehran, seeing an Iranian hand orchestrating the takeover of government by the majority Shia in Iraq, and the Shia demand for democracy and an end to discrimination against them in Bahrain.

In a surprising comment which shows how little real difference there is between the policies of the Obama and Bush administrations when it comes to Iraq,  Panetta told troops: "The reason you guys are here is because on 9/11 the United States got attacked." The implication of this is that Panetta believes the long-exploded myth of American neo-conservatives that Saddam Hussein was in alliance with al-Qa'ida before September 11, 2001, despite much evidence to the contrary.

http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick07122011.html

[bigron]

Iraq snapshot



The Common Ills



Tuesday, July 12, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, Iran and Iraq have 'issues,' withdrawing the withdrawal, caregivers continue to struggle in the VA system, Iraq gets its first new church in 8 years, and more


http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2011/07/iraq-snapshot_12.html

[bigron]

Iraq snapshot - July 13, 2011




The Common Ills



Wednesday, July 13, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, Barack betrays another promise (this time on Iraqi refugees), Nouri continues his war on peaceful protesters, extending the US military presence in Iraq continues to be pushed, and more.
 
http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2011/07/iraq-snapshot_13.html

[bigron]

The Cleansing of Iraq. 1


by Layla Anwar

An Arab Woman Blues , July 13, 2011

http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2011/07/cleansing-of-iraq1.html


When you destroy, when you ravage, when you pillage, when you annihilate, you are in fact cleansing...and Iraq is being cleansed of Itself.

Most people are very stupid. When one talks about the cleansing of Iraq, they immediately think - physical liquidation - as in killings.

Well you must be quite pleased to know that the above is ongoing, since 2003. The bulk of that form of cleansing has already been undertaken. Thousands have been killed, over 200 "fresh" mass graves have been unearthed, ethnic/sectarian cleansing of "minorities" has been achieved.

Another form of cleansing of Iraq is the massive exodus, with thousands of refugees that no one hears about anymore. Add to the above the thousands of maimed, handicapped by the occupation and what ensued. Add the missing in the hundreds and add the psychologically traumatized for life debilitated by memories of torture, rape and loss and also add...yet another form of cleansing -- the ever lasting effect of Depleted Uranium and other toxic waste, both of these have been addressed in this blog on numerous occasions. Long lasting Toxicity and its consequence as in premature birth, genetic deformities, cancer of soft tissues, and the rest -- ensure the cleansing of future generation...

This is the demographic arm of cleansing whose aim, after the tearing apart the Iraqi mosaic was to effect demographic changes that are irreversible. This is not even population control, this is beyond population control. This is erasure.

This is one level of cleansing, the physical as in the body, either eliminating it, or paralyzing i.e rendering it useless.

There are other forms of cleansing taking place in Iraq. Using a little grey cells won't hurt. Looking at things from a social/sociological perspective is not too much to ask is it ? Or maybe it is, in view of the disgraceful level of ignorance one encounters on this circus called the net.

The Intellectual Cleansing of Iraq is another aspect. I shall group under the heading "Intellectual" everything that is related to "Intellectual Property" meaning everything to do with Education, Learning and - the human cadre - also called the Brains of a Society.

Again I have tackled this issue in the past, namely that of the destruction of the Educational system in Iraq, the re-writing of the syllabus, of the history, the growing rates of illiteracy - a thing that was eradicated in the past, the dilapidated state of schools and universities with no proper sanitation or equipment, the no access to education by the newly pauperized class - the child of the occupation, the deliberate and organized assassination of academics, doctors, scientists, teachers, the brain drain of Iraqi society through exile or death.
The new Educational system, having liquidated the brains of Iraqi society, is now based on affiliation by sect/ethnicity regardless of academic competence, based on forged diplomas (this is another topic that touches every aspect of Iraqi society - this business of forged diplomas - from doctors, to lawyers, to teachers, to nurses, to government officials, to diplomats...)
The hiring of personnel with forged diplomas is also another way of maintaining the current level of intellectual mediocrity that characterizes occupied Iraq. The repercussions are enormous for the future.
Also under "Intellectual cleansing" I must add the burning and looting of archives and public libraries, where precious data, records and information are now for ever lost.

Another related aspect to this intellectual cleansing is the value of the printed word -the book. Iraqi society was known for its intellectual curiosity and historically so. During the sanction years when people were forced to sell their books to survive or burn them for fuel, there was still hope that the book' the written word can be redeemed. Today no such hope exists. It does not take a genius to figure out that when a society is too engrossed in daily survival, with matters related to water, electricity and security - it has no inclination to read anymore. Hence the intellectual degradation of Iraqi society. When a society stops reading, it stops thinking, questioning, contemplating...

Which brings me to the second form of cleansing - the historical cleansing of Iraq.
Iraq has been cleansed of its history, both literally and symbolically, not only through the re-writing of the educational syllabus, but directly through the destruction and looting of its ancient artifacts, its museums, the erasure of its past through illegal trading, smuggling, the theft of its heritage (again google my previous posts) where Iraqi history ended up in Tel Aviv, New York, Dubai, Holland, France, Germany...when even the in laws of the puppet PM were caught smuggling it.
The message sent- you no longer have a history. The message sent - is we have broken your ties to your past - the new Iraq has no sense of continuity anymore. You are a new invention. Our new invention. The bastards of History.

This is a monumental task trying to address all the aspects of the cleansing of Iraq, my head is spinning...

The cleansing of institutions, of civil society. Difficult to subdivide and group but am trying. Under this, I will include state institutions like hospitals, the medical field, civil society and its associations for instance gender based associations, journalists, trade unions and the rest.

Let's start with the medical because it is one of the most important ones. Again, I have written at length of the dilapidated state of government hospitals, where so called reconstruction money, which is Iraqi money by the way, ended up in the private bank accounts of the various parties and their militias that are currently ruling Iraq.

This of course has given rise to a huge black market that runs in parallel to the hospitals day to day workings. Medical equipment is stolen and sold on the black market, where that same hospital patient is forced to go to and purchase- be it band aids, syringes or medication. Added to that, a whole new medical mafia has entered the scene in the Iraqi medical services, where not only diplomas are forged, but where also your sect matters. It is a fact that non Shiites are too scared to go to government hospitals because the mafia that rules the polity also rules the medical services. This medical mafia also performs unnecessary surgeries to beef up their end of month revenues, surgeries undertaken in the most insalubrious of conditions, where the patient has literally no hope of recovery. This is no exaggeration. This is the truth.

The Iraqi medical brain drain coupled with the current corruption has effectively cleansed Iraq of any concept of public health prevention and cure. Hence the return of diseases that we thought had been long eradicated, hitting in particular the poorest of the Iraqi society, which for your info constitute the bulk of Iraq under occupation.

The cleansing of civil associations/bodies, such as gender based ones, for which I shall reserve a special paragraph, trade unions that have been infiltrated by party militias, press syndicates that are bribed by the government to report what it wants it to, coupled with the disappearance of journalists who struggled to report the truth making Iraq one of the most dangerous countries for reporters.

Of course I have failed to mention, en passant, the bizarre silencing by the silencer gun that takes place daily in Iraq and ABROAD, notably in Sweden, forcing many Iraqis to return to Iraq because they feel it is "safer".

I shall continue in the following post. I am overwhelmed with this eagle's view. Besides your attention span counts for shit. I need to break it down in small pieces.

To follow (Insh'Allah - if no silencer gun reaches me) :

- the cleansing of the economy - pillaging, missing billions, privatization, reliance on imports/bilateral deals, selling of Iraqi land/property, rise of a service economy, oil, gaz, smuggling, industry/agriculture...

- the Urban cleansing through geographical partition plus demarcation of areas through ideological/religious symbols.

- the Geographical cleansing - ecology, environment, delineation of areas, disparity North South of country, use of visas within country, water, drought, electricity, port in South thwarted by Kuwait, role of Iran, Turkey in the erasing of Iraq.

- the Social cleansing - drugs, trading in forbidden toxic goods, trafficking of children, orphans, widows, pauperization, disappearance of middle class, of technocrats, chronic unemployment, sectarianism - long term repercussions.

- the Gender cleansing - backlash for women, power of religious ideology, retraction of gender laws/rights, rape, domestic violence, prostitution.

- the Religious/Ideological cleansing - ethnic cleansing of non Shiites, non Kurds, imposition of new ideology, sectarianism, destruction of the arts, client/patron/tribal state.

- the Cleansing of dissent/protest/human rights, liberties, freedoms - sect based secret political prisons, no trials, infiltration of courts by sect parties, extensive use of torture, disappearance, kidnapping, abduction, bullying, harassment, silencer gun.

Am sure there are more "bullet" points I need to add in part 2.

- Last but not Least ... The Future of Iraq cleansed of Itself.



http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2011/07/cleansing-of-iraq1.html

 

[bigron]

Middle East
Jul 16, 2011 
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MG16Ak01.html   

 
Muqtada toys with US's Iraq intentions

By Gareth Porter


WASHINGTON - The big question looming over United States-Iraqi negotiations on a US military presence after 2011 is what game Shi'ite leader Muqtada al-Sadr is playing on the issue.

United States officials regard Muqtada as still resisting the US military presence illegally and are demanding that Muqtada call off his Promised Day Brigades completely.

But Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's main point of contact with Muqtada says he is playing a double game and does not intend to obstruct the negotiations on a deal for the stationing of 10,000 or more US troops from 2012 onward.

Muqtada made a crucial move over the weekend toward accepting such an agreement between the Barack Obama administration
and the Maliki government, according to a senior Iraqi intelligence official in the International Liaison Office (ILO). The ILO is an arm of Iraqi military intelligence that is run by a former East German intelligence official who was Muqtada's political adviser during the height of the US war against the Sadrists in 2007-08.

Muqtada agreed in an unpublicized direct exchange of views with Maliki that he would not exploit a request by Maliki to Obama to station US troops in Iraq beyond this year by attacking Maliki politically or threatening his government, the senior Iraqi intelligence official told Inter Press Service (IPS).

The popular Shi'ite leader has maintained a longstanding threat to withdraw support from the government over the US military presence. But when questioned directly by Maliki about his intentions, Muqtada agreed that there would be no repeat of his 2006 withdrawal of Sadrist ministers from Maliki's first government over that issue, according to an account of the exchange provided by the Iraqi intelligence official.

"Maliki called Sadr's bluff," he said.

Muqtada's ambiguous position on the US troop presence is understood by the ILO to be key to his role as kingmaker in Maliki's government, as well as his need to maintain the support of the poor and dispossessed Shi'ite who represent his political power base.

"He has to placate two different constituencies," the official told IPS. That means taking a hard line on the US troop presence in Arabic language public statements meant for his Shi'ite constituency, but taking an accommodating line in private contacts with Maliki.

Muqtada has displayed an uncompromising posture toward the US military presence in recent weeks. The Promised Day Brigade, which Muqtada created in 2008 to fight against US forces, had attacked US bases and troop convoys in June. The establishment of the brigade followed the disbanding of Muqtada's Mahdi Army in June 2008

The brigade issued a statement on June 28 claiming responsibility for 10 mortar and Katyusha rocket attacks against US bases around the country as well as attacks on US military convoys, saying that the attacks had "killed and wounded a number of US soldiers".

Attacks by Shi'ite militias killed 15 US troops in June - the highest monthly total of troops killed in combat since June 2008.

United States officials in Baghdad included the Promised Day Brigade among the three Shi'ite militias they said had been funded and armed by Iran and had killed US troops.

Last weekend, in a statement posted on his website, Muqtada said nothing to disassociate himself from the Promised Day Brigade's operations against US forces or its claim of responsibility for killing US troops. Instead, he announced the brigade would have the "mission" of "resisting" US troops if they are not all gone by December 31 - the deadline for withdrawal under the agreement signed by George W Bush in November 2008.

But the ILO has been telling officials at the White House and the Pentagon that, in order to avoid antagonizing Washington, Muqtada had ordered the brigade to limit its attacks to "hard targets" - installations and armored vehicles - to minimize the likelihood of US casualties, according to the senior Iraqi intelligence official.

The ILO has dismissed the statement by the brigade claiming to have killed and wounded US troops as coming from a hardline faction within the Sadrist movement close to Iran. It says this faction was hoping to force Muqtada's hand on the negotiations on a US troop presence.

The ILO official points to Muqtada's actions over the weekend as evidence that he has made significant accommodations to allow the negotiations to go forward.

The Muqtada statement, posted on the same weekend as his exchange with Maliki, said the Promised Day Brigade would be given the mission of resisting US occupation if and when the US troops were not withdrawn.

A Sadrist legislator, Mushriq Naji, made the same point in an interview with Aswat al-Iraq newspaper on July 11. "The Promised Day Brigade is carrying out the missions of resistance now and in the future," he said, "in the event of non-withdrawal of the Americans".

That message appeared to contradict the June 28 statement from the brigade that said that the attacks would continue.

Muqtada's statement also withdrew a threat he had made in April to "restart the activities of the Mahdi Army" if the US didn't withdraw by the end of the year. The reactivation of the Mahdi Army had been regarded as part of an implicit threat to bring down the government over the issue of US troops.

But US officials aren't buying the idea that Muqtada is playing a double game. Asked if anyone involved in Iraq policy believed Muqtada had signaled that he would tacitly allow the negotiations to go ahead, one official said, "I don't think so."

Major General Jeffrey Buchanan, official spokesman for United States Forces-Iraq, vehemently denied in response to an e-mail query from IPS that Muqtada was restraining the Promised Day Brigade in relation to US forces.

"Last month, PDB [Promised Day Brigades] claimed responsibility for 52 attacks against US forces," Buchanan said, adding that claims that the brigade had not caused any casualties to US forces and that Muqtada would not obstruct negotiations on an agreement "carry no credibility in our eyes whatsoever".

Civilian officials working on Iraq take a more nuanced view of Muqtada, but are not yet convinced that he will acquiesce to a US presence beyond 2011. "It's still unclear what Sadr is doing," said one US official who follows the issue closely. "He doesn't seem to have stable preferences on this issue."

The official added that he is "99% sure" that the Promised Day Brigade had caused some casualties among US troops. He concedes, however, that most of those casualties have come from two much smaller Shi'ite militia groups, neither of which is regarded as responsive to Muqtada's direct command.

The US demand that Muqtada give up the Promised Day Brigades entirely is one that he probably could not meet without risking the loss of his Shi'ite political base. If an agreement were reached in time on stationing US troops beyond this year, Muqtada would have to go through at least the motions of attacking US military installations, according to the ILO official.

If tensions between the US military and Muqtada continue to rise, Muqtada may reverse course and drop the covert inside game he is said to have adopted. Ironically, the US inability or unwillingness to play along with a Muqtada double game on a US troop presence could help Iran stymie the US effort to preserve a rapidly dwindling influence in Iraq.

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in 2006.

(Inter Press Service) 
   
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MG16Ak01.html



 
 

[bigron]

Iraq snapshot - July 14, 2011



The Common Ills


Thursday, July 14, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Tim Arango reveals that Nouri's made clear he wants the US military to remain in Iraq, the US Congress hears about a veteran with a gun in his mouth having to wait and struggle for mental care (after that incident as well as before it), a caregiver explains she gave up her teaching career when her principal told her she could work on getting her husband better or she could teach but she couldn't do both, and more.


http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2011/07/iraq-snapshot_14.html







 

[bigron]

US defense secretary visits Iraq to extract new troop agreement


By James Cogan

July 14, 2011

The Obama administration’s recently installed defense secretary, Leon Panetta, flew unannounced into Iraq on Monday to pressure the Iraqi government to finalise a formal treaty to sanction the continued occupation of the country by American forces.

Panetta, the former head of the CIA, met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, President Jalal Talabani and the president of the autonomous Kurdish region, Massoud Barzani. The key issue discussed was the December 31 expiry of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed between the Bush administration and Maliki’s government in late 2008.

Barely five months before the SOFA ends, no new agreement has been reached to legitimise the US military presence in Iraq.

Last Thursday, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, had confidently told journalists in Washington that talks were underway to finalise a new pact. On Saturday, following a meeting of Iraqi parliamentary leaders, Talabani had declared they would come to a consensus within two weeks to extend the American presence into 2012. This was immediately downplayed by Maliki’s media advisor, however. He complained that the meeting had been dominated by "partisan or religious stances" and no unified position was likely to be achieved any time soon.

After meeting with Iraqi leaders on Monday, Panetta publicly vented the frustration he had clearly conveyed to Maliki and others over the impasse. He told an assembly of US troops in Baghdad: "Do they want us to stay? Don’t they want us to stay? Damn it, make a decision!"

The Obama administration has no intention of removing American troops at the end of the year. After more than eight years of military operations and as much as $3 trillion in war-related spending, Washington is determined to realise the objectives behind the illegal invasion in 2003—dominance over the country’s vast energy resources and the establishment of a compliant puppet state in the heart of the Middle East.

Some 46,000 US military personnel are still occupying 53 bases throughout Iraq, including the strategic Balad air base in the north and the Ali or Tallil air base in the south. American aircraft also continue to use the Al Asad air base in the western province of Anbar.

The immediate US objective is to ensure long-term access to these bases and maintain a garrison of between 10,000 and 30,000 troops. The military force would complement the political operations of the US embassy, which dominates Baghdad’s central "Green Zone." Larger than Vatican City, the embassy has its own power plant and a staff of some 5,500 officials, marines, elite special forces units and intelligence agents. As many as 50 aircraft and helicopters are located within its heavily fortified walls.

US ambassador James Jeffrey earlier this month requested $6.2 billion from Congress to cover the embassy’s operations in 2012. In subsequent comments, he stressed the importance of Iraq to the US, highlighting its energy reserves. He told journalists that Iraq was on a "glide path" to dramatically increase its oil production. He noted that "there’s no other source of millions of new barrels [of oil] in the pipeline anywhere in the world."

Moreover, Jeffrey stated, Iraq was "the only source of enough gas for Europe to become more diversified in energy sources," noting that "Azeri gas is not sufficient, Turkmen gas is many years off." Jeffrey’s comment underscored US concerns over the growing dependence of Western Europe on Russian supplies of gas. The war on Libya has been driven by similar geo-political considerations.

This week, European transnational Royal Dutch Shell announced a $12.5 billion investment in a joint-venture gas production project in southern Iraq.

Every wing of the Iraqi elite has proven willing to serve these predatory interests. In various ways, they have all accommodated to the US invasion in return for a parasitic existence derived from the oil industry. Iraq is ranked among the four most corrupt countries in the world, with billions in oil revenue plundered every year, while unemployment and underemployment is as high as 50 percent and poverty endemic.

Maliki’s government—an unstable coalition of his Da’wa Party, the Kurdish nationalist parties and the Shiite fundamentalist Sadrist movement led by Moqtada al-Sadr—is nevertheless nervous about signing a new agreement and has delayed it as long as possible.

The Iraqi elites are acutely aware that the majority of Iraqis are bitterly opposed to a continued American military presence. The US occupation destroyed much of the country’s infrastructure, and fomented ethnic and sectarian conflict in order to divide and rule the population. Over one million Iraqis have lost their lives and millions more have been injured or psychologically traumatised. The large scale resistance that followed the invasion was literally drowned in blood.

There are also signs of escalating unrest over living standards and democratic rights. Class and social questions are starting to emerge, undoubtedly inspired in part by the mass upheavals taking place in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria.

Protests in the Kurdish north in February demanding democratic rights were suppressed by the autocratic Kurdish authority. Workers in the southern oilfields threatened strike action in May until they were paid substantial wage rises. Unemployed youth have demonstrated in Basra and Baghdad.

In their comments, Panetta and Mullen both used an upsurge in attacks on US troops to revive long-standing accusations that Iran is supplying missiles and other munitions to Shiite-based militias. Three missiles were fired into the Green Zone as Panetta arrived to hold talks with Maliki. Panetta declared: "We’re very concerned about Iran and the weapons they’re providing to extremists in Iraq. We cannot sit back and simply allow this to continue ... It’s something we’re going to take on head on."

The accusations against Tehran—which it again categorically denied—feed into the central argument that is being fashioned in both Washington and the Iraqi establishment: that American forces must remain to serve as a deterrent to alleged Iranian attempts to dominate the country. Mullen told a press conference that Iraqi security forces would face "clear capability gaps" if the US withdrew and Baghdad would "need help" for years with its air force and intelligence.

Within 24 hours of Panetta’s talks with Maliki on Monday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Iraqi government had reversed a decision made earlier in the year not to purchase US F-16 fighter aircraft. The newspaper claimed Iraq was now moving to purchase between 18 and 36 of the fighters, in a multi-billion dollar deal that would "counter Iranian influences and cement long-term ties with Baghdad after American troops pull out." The deal would include "parts, spares, training and related weaponry"—requiring an ongoing US military presence.

The Wall Street Journal editorial on Wednesday demanded that the Obama administration and the Maliki government rapidly settle the question of a new status of forces agreement, in order to block "Iran’s designs on Iraq."

The editorial declared: "America’s continued troop presence can fill in security gaps and provide a stabilising influence in Iraq and the region. The US has kept troops in South Korea and Japan for six decades after the end of the wars there, and a similar presence in Iraq might be as salutary... A long-term security relationship with Iraq can best ensure that the sacrifices made in the last decade aren’t squandered."

The Journal editorial sums up the designs of the American ruling elite—it intends Iraq to remain a de-facto US colony for decades to come.

Source

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jul2011/iraq-j14.shtml




 

[bigron]

Rights group says draft law on demonstrations would erode the rights of Iraqi citizens


AFP

AFP, July 13, 2011

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/07/14/157558.html


Human Rights Watch called on the Iraqi government Wednesday to revise a draft law it said contained provisions that violate international law.

The New York-based watchdog said it had obtained a copy of the draft law, saying it curtailed freedom of assembly and expression and contravened Iraq s own constitution.

"The draft law would allow authorities to curtail rights to protect the 'public interest’ or for the 'general order or public morals,’ without limiting or defining what those terms encompass," HRW said in a statement.

"The draft law offers no meaningful guidance in how to interpret such broad restrictions and is silent on what penalties protest organizers and demonstrators would face if they gathered without government approval," it added.

It said the draft requires advance permission for protests, but does not specify what criteria would be used to approve or deny such requests.

"This law will undermine Iraqis’ right to demonstrate and express themselves freely," the watchdog’s deputy Middle East director, Joe Stork, said.

"The draft law fails to meet the narrow criteria international law allows for limits on the right to assembly," the group said, adding Baghdad "should revise its draft law on freedom of expression and assembly to remove provisions that restrict those freedoms."

Since the start of the year there have been frequent demonstrations in cities across Iraq, most of them calling for jobs, better services and tougher measures to rein in corruption.

The protests had begun to taper off as temperatures soared with the onset of summer.

But on June 10, hundreds took to the streets to denounce what they said was a lack of progress in improving services despite the expiry of a 100-day deadline set by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for ministers to improve services.

That demonstration was overshadowed by a larger rally of some 3,000 people, apparently organized by the government, and reports that protesters were beaten, intimidated or arrested by plainclothes police and others.

"Rather than creating restrictive laws, the government needs to stop attacks on critics by security forces and their proxies," Mr. Stork said. "The government is pushing for this legislation in a period when physical attacks on peaceful demonstrators and restrictions on journalists have been increasing."








Iraq: Revise Draft Law That Curbs Protests, Speech

Authorities Seek to Limit Rights in Name of 'Public Morals’


by Human Rights Watch

(Baghdad) - Iraq should revise its draft law on freedom of expression and assembly to remove provisions that restrict those freedoms, Human Rights Watch said today. The draft law would allow authorities to curtail rights to protect the "public interest" or for the "general order or public morals," without limiting or defining what those terms encompass.

Human Rights Watch has obtained a copy of the draft law. Those provisions, as well as the proposed criminalization of speech that "insults" a "sacred" symbol or person, clearly violate international law, Human Rights Watch said. The government is pushing for this legislation in a period when physical attacks on peaceful demonstrators and restrictions on journalists have been increasing.

"This law will undermine Iraqis' right to demonstrate and express themselves freely," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "Rather than creating restrictive laws, the government needs to stop attacks on critics by security forces and their proxies."

The Council of Ministers said in a statement dated May 16, 2011, that it had approved the "Law on the Freedom of Expression of Opinion, Assembly, and Peaceful Demonstration," in May and submitted it to the Council of Representatives for parliamentary approval. Human Rights Watch spoke with several members of parliament about the draft law who said it had not yet been circulated or introduced. Human Rights Watch called on parliament not to approve the law without revising it to remove the restrictions on rights.

Free Assembly

The legislation would explicitly recognize the right of Iraqis to "demonstrate peacefully to express their opinions or demand their rights" (article 10), but other provisions would curtail those rights.

Under article 7(1), protest organizers would be required to get permission to hold a demonstration at least five days in advance. The request would have to include the "subject and purpose" of the demonstration and the names of its organizing committee. The draft law fails to state what standards Iraqi authorities would apply in approving or denying demonstration permits, effectively granting the government unfettered power to determine who may hold a demonstration, Human Rights Watch said.

Article 12 would permit authorities to restrict freedom of assembly and expression to protect "the public interest" or in the interest of "general order or public morals" without any qualification. The draft law offers no meaningful guidance in how to interpret such broad restrictions and is silent on what penalties protest organizers and demonstrators would face if they gathered without government approval.

The law as currently drafted would undermine guarantees in the Iraqi constitution of "freedom of assembly and peaceful demonstration" as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Iraq is a state party. The covenant makes clear that restrictions on peaceful demonstrations should be exceptional, and narrowly permitted, only if found to be "necessary in a democratic society" to safeguard "national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." The draft Iraqi law includes some of these restrictions without any of the qualifications.


By granting overly broad approval authority to government agents and allowing them to restrict the right to freedom of assembly under vague concerns for "public morals" and "public interest," and by not limiting those restrictions to those "necessary in a democratic society," the draft law fails to meet the narrow criteria international law allows for limits on the right to assembly, Human Rights Watch said.

Protest organizers in Iraq operate in an extraordinarily unsafe environment. In recent weeks, Iraqi authorities have detained, interrogated, and beaten several protest organizers in Baghdad. That makes the proposed requirement for organizers to submit their names when requesting approval for a demonstration a significant threat to their personal security.

Protest organizers who wish to stay anonymous should be allowed to do so, Human Rights Watch said. At the very least, the government should ensure that the names of applicants would be classified and restricted to the permit office. The law should be modified to revise this requirement.
"How can the authorities expect organizers to come forward when security forces are not only failing to protect them from violence but in some cases targeting them directly," Stork said.

Free Expression

The law also contains provisions that would criminalize speech, with penalties of up to 10 years in prison. Under article 13, anyone who "attacks a belief of any religious sect or shows contempt for its rites" or publicly insults a "symbol, or person who is held sacred, exalted, or venerated by a religious sect" would face up to one year in jail and fines of up to 10 million dinars (US$8,665.52).The law provides no guidance about what might constitute an unlawful insult.


Iraq's constitution guarantees freedom of speech, and the ICCPR holds that "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression ... to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds." International standards only allow content-based restrictions in extremely narrow circumstances, such as cases of slander or libel against private individuals or speech that threatens national security. Restrictions must be clearly defined, specific, necessary, and proportionate to the threat to interest protected.


Background

Iraqi authorities have taken several steps in recent months to keep protests in Baghdad from public view. On April 13, officials issued new regulations barring street protests and allowing protests only in three soccer stadiums, though the regulation has not been enforced.

On February 21, Iraqi police allowed dozens of assailants, some wielding knives and clubs, to beat and stab peaceful protesters in Baghdad. During nationwide February 25 protests, security forces killed at least 12 protesters across the country and injured more than 100. On that day, Human Rights Watch observed Baghdad security forces beating unarmed journalists and protesters, smashing cameras, and confiscating memory cards.

On June 10, government-backed thugs armed with wooden planks, knives, iron pipes, and other weapons, beat and stabbed peaceful protesters and sexually molested female demonstrators in Baghdad. Human Rights Watch observed and witnesses said that security forces stood by and watched in several instances.


http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/07/14/157558.html
 

[bigron]

Children of War

American arms pacified Fallujah—and poisoned a generation


by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

July 13, 2011

http://www.utne.com/Politics/Children-Of-War-Birth-Defects-Iraq-War.aspx?newsletter=1&utm_content=07.13.11+Politics&utm_campaign=UTR_ENEWS&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email&page=4

In this year’s State of the Union address, President Barack Obama declared that "the Iraq war is coming to end"—at least for Americans, leaving "with their heads held high" because our "commitment has been kept."

For millions of Iraqis, however, the war is far from over—in fact, for a growing number of families in cities that were nearly destroyed during the years of insurgency and counterinsurgency, the crisis is only beginning. As one Iraqi American said, "Just because we [Americans] don’t pay attention doesn’t mean the rest of the world isn’t paying attention."

According to studies and eyewitness accounts over the past few years, Fallujah — an Iraqi city that was practically obliterated by U.S. heavy artillery in two major offensives in 2004 — is experiencing a staggering rate of birth defects. The situation echoes similar reports from Basra that began to circulate after the first Gulf War in 1991.

The litany of horrors is gut-wrenching: babies born with one eye in the middle of the face, missing limbs, too many limbs, brain damage, cardiac defects, and missing genitalia.

Upon touring a clinic in Fallujah in March 2010, the BBC’s John Simpson said, "We were given details of dozens upon dozens of cases of children with serious birth defects. . . . One photograph I saw showed a newborn baby with three heads." Later, at the main U.S.-funded hospital in the city, a stream of parents arrived with children who had limb defects, spinal conditions, and other problems. Authorities in Fallujah reportedly warned women to hold off on having babies at all.

Ayman Qais, director of Fallujah’s general hospital, told the Guardian that he was seeing two affected babies a day, compared to four a month in 2003. "Most [deformities] are in the head and spinal cord, but there are also many deficiencies in lower limbs," he said. "There is also a very marked increase in the number of cases of [children] less than 2 years old with brain tumors."

It is widely accepted among scientists, doctors, and aid workers that war is to blame. The presence of so much expended weaponry, waste and rubble, massive burn pits on U.S. bases, and oil fires has left a toxic legacy that is poisoning the air, the water, and the soil in Iraq.

"I think we have destroyed Iraq," says Adil Shamoo, a biochemist at the University of Maryland who specializes in medical ethics and foreign policy. Shamoo, an Iraqi American, believes it’s "just common sense" to link Iraq’s troubled health to the relentless bombing of its towns and cities and the polluted aftermath of fighting and occupation.

The Department of Defense disagrees, rejecting claims that the military is to blame for chronic illnesses, birth defects, and high rates of cancer among the local population and its own service members, who were exposed to the same elements. Defense officials did not return calls and e-mails to comment on issues raised in this story.

The Iraqi government has done little to address the public health crisis in Fallujah and elsewhere. Authorities cannot afford, and seemingly lack the will, to clean up the festering pollution around the country’s population centers, even as many Iraqis still clamor for clean drinking water and basic medical supplies.

A joint study by Iraq’s environment, health, and science ministries in 2010 found 42 sites that are contaminated with high levels of radiation and dioxins—residue, the study claims, from three decades of war. Critics believe there are hundreds of other locations just like these.

Areas around urban centers like Fallujah and Basra accounted for 25 percent of the contaminated sites. The pollution of Basra dates back to at least 1982, when Operation Ramadan, the biggest land battle of the Iran-Iraq war—in which the U.S. was supplying Saddam Hussein with billions of dollars worth of weapons, training, and support—shook the desert. In the 20 years since the first Gulf War, Basra has seen a marked increase in childhood illnesses. According to researchers at the University of Washington School of Public Health, the rate of childhood leukemia more than doubled in Basra between 1993 and 2007.

In December, a report published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health declared that since 2003 "congenital malformations" were observed in 15 percent of all births in Fallujah. Heart defects were the most common, followed by neural tube defects, which cause irreversible and often fatal deformities. By comparison, major birth defects affect only an estimated 3 percent of live births in the United States and an average of 6 percent of all births worldwide.

"The timing of the birth defect occurrences suggests that they may be related to war-associated long-term exposure to contamination," the report states. "Many known war contaminants have the potential to interfere with normal embryonic and fetal development."

Another recent article, "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005–2009," published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health in July 2010, undertook a door-to-door survey of 4,843 Fallujah residents in 711 houses. Acknowledging that such surveys have their limits, the authors highlighted three compelling findings, including an 18 percent reduction in male births after 2004 and a spike in infant mortality.

"The results reported here do not throw any light upon the identity of the agent(s) causing the increased levels of illness and although we have drawn attention to the use of depleted uranium as one potential relevant exposure, there may be other possibilities," wrote the authors.

Indeed, other possible contaminants are manifold—but depleted uranium has long been a prime suspect.

Depleted uranium (DU) is a dense, highly toxic, radioactive heavy metal that the military regularly uses for its shielding and penetrative capabilities. The Army’s Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles have it in their armor and in their ammunition.

In addition to their long-range penetration abilities, DU-tipped weapons cause further damage by instantaneously setting their targets on fire.

After battle, the carcasses of tanks and remains of exploded and unexploded DU munitions produce radiation, while tiny particles of heavy metal get into the dust and can travel long distances in the air. This dust can be deadly when it is inhaled, doctors and environmental scientists say.

The United States left an estimated 320 metric tons of DU on the battlefield after the first Gulf War. DU rounds conferred a distinct advantage over the Iraqis, destroying some 4,000 of their tanks, many of which still pollute the desert landscape. "The invisible particles created when those bullets struck and burned are still 'hot.’ They make Geiger counters sing, and they stick to the tanks, contaminating the soil and blowing in the desert wind, as they will for the 4.5 billion years it will take the DU to lose just half its radioactivity," wrote Scott Peterson in the Christian Science Monitor.

In another article, Peterson documented evidence of DU in Baghdad, checking "hot spots" around battle debris with a Geiger counter. He noted that the Air Force had admitted that its A-10 "Warthog" planes had shot 300,000 rounds during the "shock and awe" phase of the invasion.

"The children haven’t been told not to play with the radioactive debris," Peterson wrote. He saw only one site where U.S. troops had put up handwritten warnings in Arabic for Iraqis to stay away. "There, a 3-foot-long DU dart from a 120 mm tank shell was found producing radiation at more than 1,300 times background levels. It made the [Geiger counter] staccato bursts turn into a steady whine."

Getting an accurate picture of how DU has been used by American forces in Iraq since 2003 has been impossible. At a March 14, 2003, press briefing, less than a week before the invasion, Colonel James Naughton of the U.S. Army Materiel Command boasted that Iraqis "want [DU] to go away because we kicked the crap out of them" in the tank battles of 1991. "Their soldiers can’t be really amused at the idea of going out in basically the same tanks with some slight improvements and taking on Abrams again."

The bragging stopped after "shock and awe." Officials now insist that DU exposure is not responsible for serious health problems in Iraq. Confronted with the evidence of birth defects in Fallujah, Pentagon spokesman Michael Kilpatrick told the BBC last year, "No studies to date have indicated environmental issues resulting in specific health issues."

The exact composition of the munitions expended during the fighting in Fallujah in late 2004 remains unknown. But the scale of the pollution can be gauged by the magnitude of the bombardment. According to Rebecca Grant, writing for Air Force Magazine in 2005, the U.S. conducted relentless air assaults in the first battle of Fallujah from March through September 2004 and launched a second phase that November.

Grant describes a "steady pace of air attacks" in a mostly urban "manhunt" using AC-130 gunships and fixed-wing aircraft, even after commanders were told early on to scale back due to political considerations over collateral damage. F-15 jets would swoop down and strafe insurgents to provide ground cover while marines called in strikes on cornered insurgents from GPS-guided missiles like the new 500-pound GBU-38 JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition), which could "pluck" buildings right "out of the middle of very populated areas."

Grant’s account does not include the use of DU and even white phosphorous, which, when it comes into contact with human flesh sizzles it right off the bone. A year after doctors in Fallujah began reporting the telltale burns, a Pentagon spokesman admitted to the BBC that that white phosphorus was indeed "used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants" in 2004. Initially, the military had insisted it was used only for battlefield illumination.

"When they went in they basically pulled out all the stops," said investigative journalist Dahr Jamail, who was in Fallujah in 2004.

The problem with trying to identify a primary contributor to birth defects in Iraq is that the country is a cauldron of contamination. Aside from the polluted water, there are the ubiquitous toxic plumes from burning waste on U.S. bases, as well as oil and gas fires dotting the landscape. No fewer than 469 incidents of oil and gas blazes, mostly from insurgents blowing up pipelines, were recorded between 2003 and 2008.

Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people and allegedly directed his men—fleeing the 2003 invasion—to sabotage the old water treatment plant at Qarmat Ali, just north of Basra where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers meet. The working theory is that they used an anti-corrosive powder containing huge amounts of hexavalent chromium, a chemical known to cause cancer.

Some of the Oregon National Guard soldiers who later worked and lived at the plant—assured by defense contractor Kellogg, Brown, and Root that Qarmat Ali was safe—are now so sick they can barely walk. "This is our Agent Orange," veteran Scott Ashby told The Oregonian in 2009, referring to the herbicide sprayed by U.S. forces over huge swaths of the Vietnamese countryside from 1961 to 1971.

The comparison to Agent Orange is an apt one. As in Vietnam a generation earlier, Americans have rushed to the emotional exits in Iraq, chalking the war up to a blunder best resigned to the history books. Ignoring the steady whine of their moral Geiger counters, the U.S. public neatly tucks away photographs of deformed Iraqi babies next to the fading memories of Vietnamese children and American veterans scarred by battle­field chemicals. Collective denial has turned out to be empire’s best friend, as a Southeast Asian foreign policy disaster has given way to a 30-year catastrophe in the Middle East.

Source

http://www.utne.com/Politics/Children-Of-War-Birth-Defects-Iraq-War.aspx?newsletter=1&utm_content=07.13.11+Politics&utm_campaign=UTR_ENEWS&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email&page=4



 

[bigron]

It’s Friday, And Iraq Still Isn’t Asking The Military To Stay

By Spencer Ackerman  July 15, 2011  |  12:53 pm   
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/its-friday-and-iraq-still-isnt-asking-the-military-to-stay/

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has tried everything, including using very mild quasi-profanity. But Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki still isn’t requesting U.S. troops to stay past their scheduled December 2011 withdrawal. And a new, sneakier gambit by the Iraqis to extend their stay isn’t going to work.

The big message Panetta wanted to send to the Iraqis during his first trip to Baghdad was “Damn it, make a decision” on asking the U.S. to prolongue its Iraqi adventure. (It’s the quote that launched a million tiresome articles about Panetta’s “saltiness.”) That was last weekend. The snarled, fraught anti-American Iraqi politics that make it dangerous for Maliki to issue such a request have mysteriously yet to smooth out.

But here’s how Maliki seeks to circumvent them. Now he’s saying that he doesn’t need parliamentary approval for the U.S. to leave behind some unknown number of troops to train their Iraqi counterparts in using all the F-16s and air defense systems the U.S. will sell Iraq. Clever!

Alas, the U.S. says that’s not going to cut it. “We have not gotten a formal request from the Government of Iraq,” Pentagon spokesman Col. David Lapan tells Danger Room.


The dynamics of the U.S.-Iraqi inability to break up are approaching peak dysfunction. A host of U.S. military officials all but beg the Iraqis to let them stay. They claim that in private discussions, the Iraqis assure them that they want a residual U.S. force, but they can’t say it in public.

Worse, the U.S. claims Iran is flooding Iraq with weapons so it’ll looks like their Shiite allies are chasing the Americans into a long-schedule departure. Which just increases the U.S.’ resolve to stay, even as Iraq gets more dangerous for U.S. troops — as if staying longer would somehow reduce the Iranian desire to attack.

Basic lesson in relationships: when the other person doesn’t want to be seen with you in public, that tells you all you need to know. Maliki’s effort is a clever attempt at having it both ways, but the U.S. is holding out for a formal declaration of love. So far, the Iraqis are sending the message that they really can live without U.S. troops.

Photo: U.S. Army

See Also:

Iraq’s ‘Flying Bombs’ Return, Killing 6 G.I.s
http://wired.contextly.com/redirect/?id=KYmduFVFx8

Military to Iraq: Are You Really Gonna Kick Us Out?
http://wired.contextly.com/redirect/?id=lRW1NGimfV

Military Logic MIA in Iraq Troop Levels
http://wired.contextly.com/redirect/?id=lvJZXVBP

White House: Iraq Troops Are Coming Home In 2011. Period.
http://wired.contextly.com/redirect/?id=lsUQxS53P

Source

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/its-friday-and-iraq-still-isnt-asking-the-military-to-stay/

[bigron]

Will the U.S. Really Leave Iraq?

 

By Lawrence Davidson

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28597.htm


Part I - Second Thoughts

July 15, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- The time for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is coming closer. In 2008 the United States and Iraq agreed to a Status of Forces Agreement that set a deadline of the end of 2011 for all American troops to leave the country. However, just like someone who starts to beg off a promise when the time for action approaches, U.S. officials are now expressing second thoughts.

Back on May 24th outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he "favored extending the American presence, noting that the Iraqi military will need help with logistics, intelligence and defending its airspace and that a continued U.S. military presence will send a ‘powerful signal that we’re not leaving, that we will continue to play a part.’" We will continue to pursue "our role in the region." Considering that we have known for some time that the Iraq war was waged for largely contrived reasons and constituted a violation of international law (the waging of illicit and unnecessary war), it is difficult to know just how Gates defines "our role." To date in Iraq, that role has equaled the removal of one dictator (who we once supported) at the price of killing over one and a half million Iraqis (and approximately 4500 Americans), the maiming of an even greater number, the destruction of the nation’s infrastructure, and the creation of conditions for multiple civil wars. Washington has also opened the way for Iran’s influence in Iraq to eventually become predominant. In accomplishing all of this the Americans have nearly bankrupted their country. Given such achievements, one would think the reasonable thing would be to cut one’s losses and get the heck out.

But no, Gates’s attitude has carried over to that of the present Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Panetta recently made his first journey to Iraq to "hold close door meetings with Iraqi officials...to press them for a decision on whether they will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country...." And, by the way, Washington has increased the price for continued assistance. The U.S. wants the Iraqi government to shut down those subgroups that are closest to Iran. Thus, as Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put it "Iran is directly supporting extremist Shi’ite groups that are killing U.S. troops and any agreement to keep American forces there beyond the end of the year would have to address this problem." Of course, such a demand, if actually met by the Iraqi administration, would mean the collapse of their government because those "extremist Shi’ite groups" are part of the present parliamentary coalition. It could also hasten the outbreak of civil war.

Has anyone in the U.S. government thought this through? Well, certainly not Defense Secretary Panetta. He seems to be too taken up with righteous indignation. "In June we lost a hell of a lot of Americans [in Iraq] as a result of those attacks [allegedly by ‘Shi’ite groups]." Panetta said that the anti-American Shi’ites were being supplied with ever more powerful weapons by Iran. He continued, "we cannot just simply stand back and allow this to continue to happen....because, very frankly, they [Iran and the Iraqis they support] need to know that our first responsibility is to protect those that are defending our country. And that is something we are going to do." One hears the words and their meaning appears straightforward. Well, that is if you are the average man or women from Peoria or Spokane. But maybe someone in Washington (or even Peoria and Spokane) ought to ask what Panetta’s words seem to say in Basra or even Baghdad. Here is one interpretation:

1. The United States invades Iraq, massacres its population and destroys its infrastructure, but those who insist America withdraw its troops and physically resist their presence are "extremists."

2. The U.S. can pour billions of dollars worth of weapons into Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, putting them into the hands of select groups who will ally with Washington, but Iran, operating on a much smaller scale, cannot do this without being labeled as a supporter of terrorism and extremism.

3. Although the Iraq invasion was launched under false pretenses, U.S. troops stationed there are "defending our country." Defending it from who? From those Shi’ite extremists? They do not threaten the USA, the USA threatens them and that is why they are being belligerent! From Iran? American troops virtually surround Iran while Washington calls for the overthrow of its government. Come now Mr. Panetta, just who is threatening who?


Part II - The Rational Thing To Do And Why

A rational analysis of the American position in Iraq would demand adherence to the Status of Forces Agreement and the withdrawal of all American troops from the country at the end of 2011. To do so would:

– Put an end to what was and is, after all, an immoral war and a disastrous occupation.

– Prevent the U.S. from possibly being dragged into a new Iraqi civil war. Given what we have done to that country, another round of civil war is quite probable. The Sunni gunmen are still out there, they too are anti-American, and some of them are really extremist (though they are not al-Qaeda operatives and certainly have nothing to do with Iran). So, if we are "in country" when Iraq goes through the next phase of violent upheaval, American troops will be attacked by both Sunni and Shi’ite militias. – Avoid a possible direct confrontation with Iran. Panetta threatened to "go after" those endangering American troops "unilaterally." We have seen where the logic of such statements have taken the U.S. in the past. Will Washington end up attacking "sanctuaries," or "supply trails," or "training bases" in Iran? That is a formula for "mission creep."

– Save a near bankrupt nation (the U.S.) a lot of money.

Part III - Prolonging The Disaster

From the first moment of the American invasion of Iraq, the men and women in Washington did not know what they were doing. When confronted with reality they retreated into fantasy. The result was that their perceptions of what was real in Iraq were so off the mark, so far from what was actually the case, that the subsequent occupation was a gigantic deadly mess. That was the doing of the Bush White House–A bunch of neo-con ideologues and right-wing religious zealots. You would think that the Obama White house could do better. And maybe they will. Perhaps all this talk by Panetta and Mullen is just posturing to serve as a cover for the ultimate retreat. Perhaps the Iraqis will tell us to get out and thus save us from ourselves.

However, some things have not changed from the time of the Bushites to that of the present administration. For instance,

1. The need to avoid finger pointing by the opposition party (in this case the Republicans) is a constant political requirement. Come the 2012 election, President Obama does not want the Republicans telling the American electorate that the Democrats "lost" Iraq, and all those dead soldiers died in vain.

2. The lobbies that pushed for the invasion of Iraq back in 2003 are still their behind the scenes in today’s Washington. Some of the most important ones wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein for the sake of Israel (not for the sake of the Iraqis) and an outcome that turns Iraq over to Iranian influence would be a disaster for them. Therefore, they must be pushing for a continued American presence in that country. Keeping the U.S. in and Iran out of Iraq is probably "our role" as far as those lobbies are concerned.

3. All the politicians in Congress and the White House still breathe the hallucinogenic air of American exceptionalism. In that atmosphere there can be tactical mistakes, but never strategic ones. And defeat is seen as unnatural, somehow against the will of divine providence. Viet Nam must never occur again.

The reader should note that all of these constants reference domestic politics and image. That is, perhaps, a key to the American problem. Foreign policy decisions, especially in the Middle East, most often reference domestic political forces and their desires and needs. They do not necessarily reference the reality of the foreign situation in question. It is like walking a cliff line with your thoughts a thousand miles away. So, the American desire to stay in Iraq is a function of politics configured in Washington and not Baghdad. If the Iraqis concur, the disaster will just be prolonged.

Professor Lawrence Davidson Department of History West Chester University West Chester, Pa
   
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28597.htm

[bigron]

The Cleansing of Iraq. 2

by Layla Anwar

An Arab Woman Blues, July 16, 2011

http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2011/07/cleansing-of-iraq-2.html

I am dreading writing this post. Seriously. Even though I know the whole picture, I don't wish to complete it.
Not that it will make a difference to you, but it does make a difference to me. My secret pathetic attempt to hold on to a peg of an illusion.

Stark facts spoil the picture. That's why romance films have no stark facts- or let's say, the story has a happy ending.
This is what the Western press likes us to believe, in particular the American press. Reporters are all too happy to wire stories of a pink Baghdad - lo and behold, they exclaim - things have improved - weddings are taking place, people walk the streets, it can't be all that bad...we did do a good job after all - is the implicit message.

You see because in the American mind, a wedding taking place or someone walking the street is a favor bestowed upon another country. Like - hey what are you complaining about - you had a wedding in your neighborhood, or we filmed you going to the market, and we aired you live.

So Iraqi sheep and Western liberals can sigh with relief - normal life is back. After all, there are 2 new shopping malls and a MacDonald is about to open. It can't be all that bad.
After all, a couple of Marriott hotels are being built in Najaf and Kerbala, it must be good.
After all, the average Iraqi salary has gone up from 200$ to 500$ with a 150% rate of inflation...things are definitely looking up.

You see, that is the problem with the masses - spring, summer or fall - they can't see beyond their nose, beyond their immediate pocket. The masses can't see the bigger picture. Am here to give it to you - whole.

So let me pick up where I left off, in the ongoing cleansing of Iraq...

In no order - since all is interrelated, interdependent...(do use those grey cells)

- The financial/economic cleansing of Iraq, of its resources :

I can't begin to tell you the amount of information I receive daily of how Iraq is being pillaged by both those in power and by foreign companies.
For example ; since 2008, I have read not less than 10 investment reports claiming that tenders/bids have been won by X and Y foreign company for Electrical power plants. Until this very day, the average Iraqi gets 1 to 2 hours max of electricity per day. Anyone who can afford it, lives off a generator. Those who can't buy a generator, are cooked, literally. We are talking of extreme weather conditions here. Very cold winters and excessively 50C in the shade summers.

The question is where did those millions of $ worth of contracts for electrical power plants go?

Total silence...and another bid is won by another foreign firm, and still no electricity.

This alone is one example. (this has just come in and relates to latest figures in 107Billion $ lost supposedly fixing electrical power plants - a must read HERE)

 http://zerocracy.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-scandal-of-corrupt-iraqi-government.html

Let's look at oil now. You know oil don't you ? the stuff you would love to drink. Again, report after report of the new pipelines, the modernization of drills (not to be confused with the Muqtada Al-Sadr electrical drills), of tenders won by big companies in the South, in the North, oil exploration, oil this, oil that...and what do you get in reality ?

I will tell you what you get.

Each political party/faction, individual, in power will only sign a contract with you if he gets a 200% commission on your project, it can be an unrelated project to oil, it can be in anything else. This is the deal - I get a commission, you get your own pipeline for a limited
time and you can trade in it as much as you like. I am serious, this is what is taking place.

This is how oil smuggling operates. The Iraqi puppets installed by the Americans smuggle the country's resources for their own benefit. Billion of $ worth of revenue disappear yearly. Be it in the North "Kurdistan" (lol) or the South (Iranistan) of the country.

A special paragraph devoted to Iran. Since the puppets are mainly sectarian shiites, the privileged client is of course Iran. Iran has been receiving FREE oil for years, and numerous bilateral deals privileging Iran in all aspects of trade is a fait accompli. Iranian gas, Iranian fruits, Iranian vegetables, Iranian manufactured goods not worth a nickel, and so on and so forth...you want Iran, you got Iran in Iraq.

Billions of dollars of bilateral deals are guaranteed with the Islamic republic of Iran. And since some parts of Iraq have become a province of Iran, whole areas in the South, in Nejaf and Kerbala for example, have been bought by Iranians through land acquisition at preferential rates, for peanuts. To the extent, that Arab shias in this area are slowly waking up to the fact that the rug has been pulled from under their feet in the name of Ahl al Bayt, in the name of Imams al Hassan and al Hussein, ie in the name of Shiite political ideology.

In the North of the country, in so-called Kurdistan, the Kurdish mafia has appropriated not only oil wells, but also land by forcefully driving out non kurds. In the "independent" region of "Kurdistan", separate oil deals are contracted, guaranteeing a non accountable revenue for the Kurdish mafia and its "region", in other words an ILLEGAL APPROPRIATION of both land and natural resources. Last time I read of something similar, it was happening in Israel.

It is difficult to cover every single deal going on...but am just giving you a foretaste of the economic pillaging of Iraq - not that you care. My head is spinning big time at the extent of the theft.

Let me continue by briefly tackling the industrial and agricultural sectors.

Prior to the invasion, and in the period preceding the sanction years, Iraq for a "third world country" that had only been freed of British colonialism not more than 30 years ago had a thriving industry. Not totally self sufficient, but sufficient enough to fly with its own wings.

Of course, the sanction years destroyed that developmental leap, and the Iraqi industry suffered a major backlash due to the draconian prohibitions imposed by the civilized world. The 2003 war of liberation put a final end to anything called an autonomous industrial development. With the bombing of major infrastructure, also came the bombing of major industrial sectors - from textiles, to pharmaceuticals, to food, to cement...not even soap or baby food factories were spared. We were bombed back to the stone age.

That was of course a necessary step by the "coalition of the willing" to ensure the total destruction of Iraqi infrastructure, after they had bombed the electrical power plants, the communication networks, the media TV, Radio, etc, the water sewage and treatment plants, the roads and bridges...

The message was - start anew, from a "clean" slate.

Hence it came as no surprise when big American firms the likes of Halliburton and Co, hosting Iraqi "reconstruction" conferences in the post 2003 period and chaired by Iraqi traitors whose names I am keeping for future reference - admonished an audience of Iraqi engineers, scientists, planners, industrialists, chemists - to start looking into small farming instead. The Texan cowboy said that day - Iraqi Industry is ours.

True to his words, Iraqi industry is no more. Again, hundreds of bids for that or the other are published daily...and won. What is being produced, who is producing it - remains unknown.

A natural repercussion of the above, is the human element. And since you are all so humanitarian let me tell you about the human element :

Thousands of Iraqi workers have been laid off with no compensation, unable to be re-employed, living on less than a 1$ a day. You know why ? Because all those who have bought the industries in Iraq are employing either their own blue collars workers or hiring non Iraqis.

A reminder here - We are talking about IRAQ, about our/my country up for grabs.

Let me continue...because you have only read 1% of what is happening...

And I must admit, in between each paragraph, I stop, pause and ask myself - what good ? you are addressing nothing but vile idiots.

Good Lord, there is so much to cover under economic cleansing, am not sure if this will end...

Agriculture :

Just like in the Industrial sector, Iraq prior to the sanction years was nearly self sufficient in its agricultural production. Not only that, it also used to export wheat, rice, dates and other food stuffs to neighboring countries. Naturally the war with Iran plus the sanction years brought Iraq to its knees food wise, which resulted in poor quality edibles, long queues for a can of tomato paste...but was offset by a rationing system that worked pretty well during those 13 years of "civilized" punishment.

In post 2003 Iraq, the agricultural picture looks a 100 times worse. The American policy of scorched earth - by which thousands of arable land were either razed or burnt, coupled with a drought provoked by the water cleansing of Iraq (see next chapter on Geography), coupled with bilateral deals for imports by which Iraq now relies heavily on foodstuff imports mainly from Iran, have led thousands of farmers to abandon the land and seek urban dwellings in hope of finding livelihood. This rural exodus into the city is not without consequences. But am not here to give you a sociological treatise.

Hundreds of hectares of arable land (arab-le meaning fertile) have either been sold for a small price because too dangerous to reach or not profitable enough to cultivate, and hundreds of others have been replaced with a more lucrative farming - poppy fields, with the seeds given/donated free of charge by neighboring Iran. It therefore comes as no surprise, that in the latest wave of protests, hundreds of Iraqis marched to the borders of Iran (from the South), forming a human barrier saying - STOP.

I feel this post is never ending. I have only given you little and there is so much more... And to be honest, had you really bothered, you would have found out all this by yourself...which again brings me to the pointlessness of this endeavor. But I started it, I have to finish it.

I still need to address :

- the Kuwait connection and the strangulation of Iraq.
- the US billion arm deals with US occupied Iraq
- the fraudulent billion dollars deal in obsolete technology and imports
- the missing billions since 2003.

I will update this later...all this is too much for me now.

 
http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2011/07/cleansing-of-iraq-2.html