Tag: Iraq

Britain to Pull 2,100 Troops from Iraq

Jon Ponder

The Brits are leaving Basra:

[U.K. Prime Minister] Tony Blair today declared that “the next chapter in Basra’s history will be written by the Iraqis,” as he announced that 1,600 British troops would be withdrawn in the coming months.

The current total of 7,100 would be reduced first to 5,500 and then to 5,000 by the end of the summer, the prime minister told parliament in a special statement on Iraq.

But he did not specify a time in 2008 when all UK troops would be withdrawn

The British withdrawal could escalate beyond these numbers after Blair leaves office at the end of the summer.

Somebody Missed Snack Time: GOoPer Mica Throws Another Hissy Fit

Trish

The first time my representative, John Mica (R-Winter Park, Fla.), pitched a tantrum against the new Democratic leadership in Congress, everyone figured he hadn’t had his nappie.

The story made national headlines as an embarrassing illustration of how badly the new minority party was adapting to its more humble status. Mica, the former head of the transportation committee, threw a hissy fit when he discovered the comfy chair in which his large GOP ass was formerly housed was reassigned.

Mica: “Google it yourself. This is tomorrow, 8:17 Mecca time, Al Jazeera: ‘Democrats Attack Bush War Policy,’ and the lead quote is from Speaker Pelosi”

Mica arrived for the roundtable and discovered that he did not have one of the nice, cushy chairs at the head of the table that were occupied by Oberstar, Shuster and other speakers…

According to sources, none of whom wanted to be anywhere near this story, Mica threw a fit and demanded to know from staff why he didn’t have a special chair of his own next to Oberstar and the others.

But before staff could rectify the situation, and as startled members looked on, a furious Mica stormed out of the room and ordered the other Republican members to leave. Among the uncomfortable departees was Shuster’s own son and successor, Rep. Bill Shuster.

Everyone gave him that one, especially after his staff said it was all just a big ol’ misunderstanding. But his comments when he got to speak on the Iraq resolution show Johnny’s scorn for Democrats knows no bounds. Hey John, sneer much?

[…]

Sen. Mel Martinez Still Claiming Iraq is About 9/11

Trish

Looks like someone missed the memo. In his floor statement last week, as Republicans in the Senate filibustered their way out of the debate on Iraq that the country has been clamoring for, Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) did it again. He repeated that old chestnut about how we’re fighting in Iraq because these are the people who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.

I’m quoting the entire passage from his very own web site, so as not to be accused of taking what he said out of context or making this shit up.

Jeez, Mel, where you been? Don’t you know we’ve shifted away from that whole “al Qaeda is the root of all evil in Iraq” bit to “Iran is the root of all evil in Iraq?”

But, getting beyond the procedural debate and the tit for tat that so often signifies what Washington is about, what is it that, fundamentally, this debate is about? It’s about the Global War on Terror. It is about the events that unfolded in our country on the morning of September the 11th, 2001, and the aftermath of all of that, the things that have occurred as our nation has responded to the attacks that were brought upon our shores. And, as we have sought to carry out this difficult war, but one in which we must not waiver, which is this War on Terror. And as a result of this War on Terror, our troops are in Iraq today where they have removed a dictator from power, and where they have confronted the enemy, which regardless of how someone might have felt about the original decision to go into Iraq, today we are there and we are engaging an enemy that is the very enemy that attacked us here on 9/11.

It is known that in al-Anbar province, it is fundamentally an al-Qaeda operation. So to send additional reinforcements to al-Anbar province to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq is in the best interest of this nation; it is in our national interest. To pacify, to bring some peace to Baghdad, which is the capital city of Iraq, which is essential to the peace and security of that nation—of that budding democracy—that is attempting to put itself on its feet and to bring some stability to that capital city, by additional reinforcements of American troops in a new plan, I think is reasonable.

Jeez, Mel, where you been? That is just so, like, last month!

Don’t you know we’ve shifted away from that whole “al Qaeda is the root of all evil in Iraq” bit to “Iran is the root of all evil in Iraq?” Come on, get with the party line already.

For those of you don’t know, Martinez has been tapped to lead the GOP in the next election cycle. I hope for their sake he’s better at fund-raising than making speeches.

Joint Chiefs Chair Denies Bush Officials’ Iran Weapons Claim

Jon Ponder

Red-handed: Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace has quashed a story put out by anonymous Bush officials yesterday purporting that the government of Iran was supplying weapons to Shi’ite insurgents in Iraq:

We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se [specifically], knows about this,” he said. “It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it’s clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.

It’s good for the republic, though tragically too late, that a general is finally calling the president on his bullshit.

Rice Refused to Take Iran’s Call in 2003

Trish

Nobody home Iran reached out to the incompetent Bush diplomatic team in 2003 but its calls went unreturned by the worst president ever’s worst diplomats.

Conjuring deja vu all over again in congressional testimony this week, Secretary of Narcolepsy State Condo Rice said the Iranians just didn’t make it clear enough for her or her predecessor, Colin Powell.

“We had people who said the Iranians went to talk to you, lots of people who said the Iranians want to talk to you,” Rice said

Rice told Congress she does not remember seeing the 2003 Iranian proposal, which suggested Iran was ready to discuss its disputed nuclear program, support for militant groups that the United States labels terrorists and the acceptance of Israel…

The document, faxed to the State Department in the early days of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, proposed direct talks, perhaps in Paris. Iraq was at the top of the proposed agenda, with Tehran proposing “active Iranian support for Iraqi stabilization.”

Like the infamous “Terrorists are Going to Hijack Passenger Jets and Fly Them into Skyscrapers” memo that Rice’s National Security Council couldn’t quite parse out the meaning of, the Iranian fax will go down in history as one of the biggest missed opportunities since Capt. Smith said, “Icebergs? Who cares about icebergs? This ship is unsinkable!”

“We had people who said the Iranians went to talk to you, lots of people who said the Iranians want to talk to you,” Rice said during an exchange with Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla.

“But I think I would have noticed if the Iranians had said, ‘We’re ready to recognize Israel,'” Rice said. “I just don’t remember ever seeing any such thing.”

Well of course you don’t, Condo, and therein lies the problem. The Bush team’s idea of diplomacy is sitting back and waiting for the other side to wave a white flag and say, “O.K., we’re giving you everything you want and a few things you haven’t thought of yet! And would you like that gift-wrapped?”

To them, it’s a zero-sum game. Gone are the days of give and take, back and forth, and agreements all parties can live with long-term that win Nobel Peace prizes. Now it’s just threaten sanctions, impose sanctions, and send Cheney off to the bunker to await the explosion.

“This administration, out of some combination of ideological blindness and incompetence, couldn’t be bothered to explore whether this opportunity was as serious as it looked on paper,” [Rice’s former National Security Council Aide Flynt] Leverett said Wednesday…

The Bush administration has resisted suggestions, including from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, that it should engage Iran to try to improve security in next-door Iraq.

And these idiots want us to take their word for it when they tell us now that we might possibly need to go to war with Iran? Don’t!

By Stifling War Debate, GOP Senators Risk Handing Dems a Super Majority in ’08

Jon Ponder

In shutting down debate yesterday on Pres. Bush’s escalation of the Iraq war, Senate Republicans embarked on what could be the riskiest legislative gambit since House Speaker Newt Gingrich shut the government down during a budget dispute with Pres. Clinton.

If Dems were to hold all their seats in 2008 (as they did in 2006) and pick up just 10 of 13 GOP seats that are in play, they would have a 60-seat “super majority.”

The GOP filibuster puts GOP senators squarely on the opposite side of public sentiment. In a Rasmussen poll released last Friday, 55 percent of Americans said they favor a firm timetable for withdrawing troops that gets our troops out within one year — while only one-third (33 percent) said they believe the escalation will succeed.

All but two Republican senators voted with their leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, to close the debate on a non-binding resolution — a rebuke of the president so mild that critics view it as little more than a slap on the wrist. Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut, voted with the Republicans.

The two GOP senators who voted with the Democrats — Susan Collins of Maine and Norm Coleman of Minnesota — are both up for reelection in 2008.

And they are not alone. In fact, what makes the GOP gambit so risky is that nearly half the members the GOP Senate conference — 21 out of 48 — are up for reelection next year, whereas only 12 of the 48 Democratic seats are in play. (Neither seat held by independents — Lieberman and Bernie Sanders of Vermont — are up.)

If their votes now to stifle debate on this unpopular war were to become an issue in campaigns next year, the GOP losses could hand a 60-seat majority to the Dems, giving them the magic number required to shut off filibusters on bills and nominations.

As things stand now, one GOP senator, Wayne Allard of Colorado, has announced his retirement, and five GOP seats are considered vulnerable — Collins, Coleman, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Gordon Smith of Oregon — with seven seats called “Republican favored.” If the Dems were to hold all their seats (as they did in 2006) and pick up just 10 of the 13 seats that are in play, they would have a 60-seat “super majority.”

In 1996, voters’ dim view of Gingrich’s government shut-down — especially after he admitted that he was motivated by a fit of pique after feeling slighted by Pres. Clinton on Air Force One — made it a winning campaign issue for the Clinton-Gore campaign.

Similarly, voters in 2008 who are angry over the Senate Republicans’ seemingly bizarre support for an unpopular war and an even more unpopular president may be surprised to learn that Minority Leader McConnell has close, even intimate, ties to the Bush administration. His wife, Elaine Chao, is a Bush Cabinet member; having served as secretary of labor since 2000.

What Really Happened in Najaf? Mistake or Massacre?

Buck Banks

Unfriendly fire: When I first heard about the cult that Iraqi soldiers engaged in a pitched battle outside Najaf last weekend, I must admit it sounded fishy. I mean, why hadn’t we heard of a messianic group that was well-armed and well-funded (given the US $1 million supposedly found by soldiers) and opposed to the Iraqi government?

Well, it seems that, like many explanations we’ve gotten for events in Iraq, that answer might be a lot more gray than black and white. Alexander Cockburn gathered information from a Bagdad newspaper and the Heal Iraq Web site that, if true, means it was an ethnically based massacre of Shiites. But we’ll probably never know for sure.

A picture is beginning to emerge of a clash between an Iraqi Shia tribe on a pilgrimage to Najaf and an Iraqi army checkpoint that led the US to intervene with devastating effect.

There are growing suspicions in Iraq that the official story of the battle outside Najaf between a messianic Iraqi cult and the Iraqi security forces supported by the US, in which 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre.

A picture is beginning to emerge of a clash between an Iraqi Shia tribe on a pilgrimage to Najaf and an Iraqi army checkpoint that led the US to intervene with devastating effect. The involvement of Ahmed al-Hassani (also known as Abu Kamar), who believed himself to be the coming Mahdi, or Messiah, appears to have been accidental.

The story emerging on independent Iraqi websites and in Arabic newspapers is entirely different from the government’s account of the battle with the so-called “Soldiers of Heaven”, planning a raid on Najaf to kill Shia religious leaders.

The cult denied it was involved in the fighting, saying it was a peaceful movement. The incident reportedly began when a procession of 200 pilgrims was on its way, on foot, to celebrate Ashura in Najaf. They came from the Hawatim tribe, which lives between Najaf and Diwaniyah to the south, and arrived in the Zarga area, one mile from Najaf at about 6am on Sunday. Heading the procession was the chief of the tribe, Hajj Sa’ad Sa’ad Nayif al-Hatemi, and his wife driving in their 1982 Super Toyota sedan because they could not walk. When they reached an Iraqi army checkpoint it opened fire, killing Mr Hatemi, his wife and his driver, Jabar Ridha al-Hatemi. The tribe, fully armed because they were travelling at night, then assaulted the checkpoint to avenge their fallen chief.
[…]

ISG Chair James Baker to Senate: ‘Give War a Chance’

Jon Ponder

The Iraq Study Group recommended ramping up diplomacy and putting more responsibility for patrolling the streets on Iraqi forces. It pointedly did not reccomend escalating the war. And yet, here is its co-chairman, the Republican operative and former Sec. of State under Bush’s daddy, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday:

James Baker, the co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, on Tuesday endorsed President Bush’s troop surge in Iraq, urging the Senate to “give it a chance.”

“The president’s plan ought to be given a chance,” Baker told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Just give it a chance.”

At which point all the Republican senators stood up, held hands and started singing the John Lennon song, “All we are saying is give war a chance!”

UN: Iraq Occupation Has Created 3.7 Mil Refugees

Jon Ponder

The Iraq war has spawned a refugee crisis that will likely become increasingly dire over the next year. According to the United Nations, 3.7 million Iraqi citizens are currently displaced as a result of the civil war the U.S. invasion has unleashed. They include 1.7 million who are homeless inside Iraq and 2 million who are living in other countries.

The United States will accept fewer than 500 refugees out of the 3.7 million Bush’s war has created.

“The current exodus is the largest long-term population movement in the Middle East since the displacement of Palestinians following the creation of Israel in 1948,” said a U.N. report in early January. The U.N.’s refugee commission is seeking $6o million to apply to the crisis.

Astoundingly, the United States — whose president started the war — will accept fewer than 500 Iraqi refugees this year. (Not a typo: 500.)

By comparison, between 500,000 and 1 million Iraqi refugees are living in Syria, 700,000 are in Jordan, 20,000 to 80,000 are in Egypt and up to 40,000 are living in Lebanon.

Obviously, our government is not allowing the people its war displaced to come here because it fears that terrorists would enter the country with them. But one day — thanks to George W. Bush — we’ll pay for this displacement, one way or another.

Most U.S. Soldiers Killed in Iraq Come from Rural Areas

Buck Banks

IED fodder: Due to local economic conditions, lack of educational and employment opportunities, and other pretty obvious reasons, most of the U.S. volunteer army comes from the hinterlands, not the cities. It’s not an uncommon story — young men and women from small towns getting their asses shot off while rich Republicans get richer off the spoils of war.

This might be considered part of a long-term White House strategy of fighting two significant wars abroad while demobilizing the population at home.

Demographer William O’Hare and journalist Bill Bishop, working with the University of New Hampshire’s Carsey Institute, which specializes in the overlooked rural areas of our country, have actually crunched the numbers in an important study that has gotten too little attention. Matching a data set from the Department of Defense listing the dead and their hometowns against information from the White House Office of Management and Budget on which counties in this country are metropolitan, they found that the American dead of the Iraq and Afghan Wars do indeed come disproportionately from rural America. Quite startlingly so.

According to their study, the death rate “for rural soldiers (24 per million adults aged 18 to 59) is 60 percent higher than the death rate for those soldiers from cities and suburbs (15 deaths per million).” Of rural areas, Vermont has the highest rate of casualties, followed by Delaware, South Dakota, and Arizona. Only eight of our states have higher urban than rural death rates.

Demographer O’Hare, who himself grew up in the small Michigan town of Flushing, tells Tomdispatch:

“We know that soldiers from rural America are dying at higher rates than those from urban America, strikingly higher, 60 percent higher. We know, from other research, that the rural young join the military at higher rates than those from metropolitan areas. The dearth of opportunity in rural areas simply leaves more young people there with fewer alternatives to the military.

“Dozens of case studies show that opportunities are moving away, part of a long-term shift. The opportunity differential between rural and urban America is probably higher now than at any time in the past. Our study highlights the price some young folks and their families are paying for lack of opportunity in rural America.”

What does this mean? Just over 3,000 Americans have died in Iraq. If the U.S. population is 300 million, then that’s just 0.001 percent of it. Add into this the fact that the American dead come disproportionately from the most forgotten, least attended to parts of our country, from places that often have lost their job bases; consider that many of them were under or unemployed as well as undereducated, that they generally come from struggling, low-income, low-skills areas. Given that we have an all-volunteer military (so that not even the threat of a draft touches other young Americans), you could certainly say that the President’s war in Iraq — and its harm — has been disproportionately felt. If you live in a rural area, you are simply far more likely to know a casualty of the war than in most major metropolitan areas of the country.

No wonder it’s been easy for so many Americans to ignore such a catastrophic war until relatively recently. This might, in a sense, be considered part of a long-term White House strategy, finally faltering, of essentially fighting two significant wars abroad while demobilizing the population at home. When, for instance, soon after the 9/11 attacks the President urged Americans to go to Disney World or, in December 2006, to go “shopping more” to help the economy, he meant it. We were to go on with our normal lives, untouched by his war.