Layla Anwar writes: http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2009/10/important-news-from-occupied-iraq.html
October 23, 2009
IMPORTANT NEWS FROM OCCUPIED IRAQ
Managed to get hold of some alternative Iraqi sat TVs namely Al-Rafidain, Ar-Rai, Al Babeliya which I have mentioned before. I made it a point to watch some of the news on these channels as they cover events that are totally blacked out in the mainstream media, including the Arabic speaking ones.
1) The Iraqi Resistance under its different factions
Several resistance activities against the Occupier namely in Kirkuk, where one US patrol came under attack. Same in Mosul. Two days ago, another US patrol under attack in El Anbar province, and in North of Baghdad. Today another US patrol came under fire in Falluja, and several mortar bombs fell on the US airbase in Nasseriya. I must add that all the above were successful operations. US commander Odierno in Baghdad admitted that there has been a upsurge of Resistance activities in the past week.
2) Elections
A deliberate stalemate provoked by the puppet government and its Shiite parties.Several issues :
a) the debate around the open/closed list. This latter is favored by the sectarian government as it will ensure another round of victory in the upcoming elections.
b) the refusal of the Shiite parties to allow Iraqi refugees to vote, again to ensure its victory in the upcoming elections.
c) Kirkuk. Much haggling is around Kirkuk which the Kurds insist to turn into another province under the so called Kurdistan regional government. Hence the possibility of the elections being postponed and consequently the deferral of US troop withdrawal is very likely.
According to several Iraqi analysts, Iran is playing a very important role in the current election deadlock through the Shiite parties and the U.S is concerned that the initial agenda it invaded Iraq with remains as is — i.e the partition along ethnic and sectarian lines. Hence the likelihood of having the same sectarian faces re-appear in post election Iraq (if they take place at all) are a very likely happening.
3) Oil and other resources
A member of congress by the name of Paul Perkins ? (am now told the exact name is Boone Pickens) has presented a bill demanding that a share of Iraqi oil revenues be automatically allocated to the US for its “liberation effort”, to cover the costs of the war, also arguing that the death of U.S soldiers in Iraq (5′000), and the trillion of dollars spent in invading and occupying Iraq had to be reimbursed one way or another.
Kuwait is still claiming 40 billion dollars in reparations and now the US is claiming its lion share of Iraqi oil revenues for “reparations” as well, since American oil companies did not get the full desired quota in Iraq. In other words there are claims being made for an Iraqi financing of the American war industry, to cover the American bill of occupations both in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
Furthermore, apart from oil, the Anbar province, according to some analysts comprises important minerals, still unexplored, one of which is phosphate which can produce uranium and also red mercury amongst others…
Prior to the occupation, Iraq was more or less self sufficient in its industry and agriculture, today Iraq relies solely on imports of goods namely from Iran. Another example that can be taken as a measurement yardstick just to show the extent of Iraq’s economic dependency since 2003 – Iraq used to have 30 million date palms, today it imports dates from Iran and the Gulf countries !
The deliberate destruction of Iraq’s economic and industrial infrastructure is meant to keep Iraq as a satellite province, another banana or pistachio republic, another Dubai, an open arena for vulture foreign investments, in particular American and Iranian.
4) The Israeli connection
A bill of law has been passed in the Iraqi parliament authorizing companies that were previously banned due to their (direct/indirect) connection to the Zionist state to become operational again in Iraq. This is most evident in the so-called Kurdistan were several Israeli companies are operating as tourism, industrial and real estate. Israelis have already “visited” other parts of Iraq, namely in the South and some reports confirm that they have also purchased land there and in Baghdad.
Furthermore, while there is much media brouhaha around the so called US troop withdrawal, there is a total failure in mentioning the American “logistic” bases which will remain in Iraq and the largest US embassy in the world, in Baghdad.
On that subject, an article appeared in the Zionist newspaper, Yehodot Aranot,(can’t spell those bloody names correctly), stating that the U.S embassy in Baghdad is to employ 185 Israeli advisers, for its running/management of Iraq.
The Israeli model for the West Bank is much sought by the Americans i.e a military occupation with a handing out of the Civil administration functions/matters to the puppet government (as in the model of the West Bank and the PA). Coincidentally I watched Amira Hass (the Haaretz journalist) on the Riz Khan show, and she did affirm that Israeli “advisers” are much sought worldwide for “security matters”
I have the full article in Arabic, if anyone cares to translate the whole thing into English please contact me via Twitter.
5) A message to Iraqis with a conscience left.
If you have a relatively good command of the English language and no, it does not need to be perfect, I urge you to do something for your country, instead of sitting on your backsides engaging in nonsensical drivel on the Internet. There is much that needs to be done in English. I can’t do it alone anymore. Please contact me via Twitter. And thanks in advance.
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Occupation. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Occupation. Afficher tous les articles
vendredi 23 octobre 2009
samedi 2 mai 2009
Obama's Iraq - The Picture of Dorian Gray
April 28, 2009
The Picture of Dorian Gray
Obama's Iraq
By JEREMY SCAHILL
http://www.counterpunch.org/scahill04282009.html
Remember when Barack Obama made that big announcement at Camp Lejeune about how all US combat troops were going to be withdrawn from Iraqi cities by June 30? Liberals jumped around with joy, praising Obama for ending the war so that they could focus on their “good war” in Afghanistan.
Of course, the celebrations were and remain unwarranted. Obama’s Iraq plan is virtually identical to the one on Bush’s table on January 19, 2009. Obama has just rebranded the occupation, sold it to liberals and dropped the term “Global War on Terror” while, for all practical purposes, continuing the Bush era policy (that’s why leading Republicans praised Obama’s plan). In the real world, US military commanders have said they are preparing for an Iraq presence for another 15-20 years, the US embassy is the size of Vatican City, there is no official plan for the withdrawal of contractors and new corporate mercenary contracts are being awarded. The SOFA Agreement between the US and Iraq gives the US the right to extend the occupation indefinitely and to continue intervening militarily in Iraq ad infinitum. All it takes is for the puppets in Baghdad to ask nicely…
In the latest episode of the “Occupation Rebranded” mini-series, President Obama is preparing to scrap the June 30 withdrawal timeline.
As The New York Times reports: “The United States and Iraq will begin negotiating possible exceptions to the June 30 deadline for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraqi cities, focusing on the troubled northern city of Mosul, according to military officials. Some parts of Baghdad also will still have combat troops.”
According to the Times, the US is playing with the definition of the word “city” when speaking of withdrawing combat troops from all cities:
There are no plans to close the Camp Victory base complex, consisting of five bases housing more than 20,000 soldiers, many of them combat troops. Although Victory is only a 15 minute drive from the center of Baghdad and sprawls over both sides of the city’s boundary, Iraqi officials say they have agreed to consider it outside the city.
In addition, Forward Operating Base Falcon, which can hold 5,000 combat troops, will also remain after June 30. It is just within Baghdad’s southern city limits. Again, Iraqi officials have classified it as effectively outside Baghdad, so no exception to the agreement needs to be granted, in their view.
Combat troops with the Seventh Field Artillery Regiment will remain in the heart of Baghdad at Camp Prosperity, located near the new American Embassy compound in the Green Zone. In addition to providing a quick reaction force, guarding the embassy and noncombat troops from attack, those soldiers will also continue to support Iraqi troops who are now in nominal charge of maintaining security in the Green Zone.
Camp Victory is of tremendous strategic importance to the US occupation. In addition to the military’s share of Baghdad International Airport, it includes four bases—Victory, Liberty, Striker and Slayer—as well as the US-run prison “Camp Cropper.” That’s where the US keeps its “high value” prisoners. While the US officially handed control of Forward Operating Base Freedom to “Iraqi control,” the US military is keeping the swimming pool.
Meanwhile, future plans are being laid for other US bases. Camp Prosperity is going to house US contractors and other personnel, while at Camp Union III housing is being built for several thousand soldiers, trainers and advisers.
What is abundantly clear is that there are enough cosmetic changes going on in Baghdad intended to make it look like the occupation is ending, while continuing it. Again, from the Times:
The Green Zone was handed over to Iraqi control Jan. 1, when the agreement went into effect. In addition to the United States-Iraqi patrols, most of the security for the Green Zone’s many checkpoints and heavily guarded entry points is still done by the same private contractors who did it prior to Jan. 1.
“What you’re seeing is not a change in the numbers, it’s a doctrine change,” said First Sgt. David Moore, a New Jersey National Guardsman with the Joint Area Support Group, which runs the Green Zone. “You’re still going to have fighters. Every U.S. soldier is trained to fight.”
The Iraq occupation is like The Picture of Dorian Gray. No matter what public face the Obama administration attempts to present, it only grows more heinous with each passing day.
Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.His new website is RebelReports.com
The Picture of Dorian Gray
Obama's Iraq
By JEREMY SCAHILL
http://www.counterpunch.org/scahill04282009.html
Remember when Barack Obama made that big announcement at Camp Lejeune about how all US combat troops were going to be withdrawn from Iraqi cities by June 30? Liberals jumped around with joy, praising Obama for ending the war so that they could focus on their “good war” in Afghanistan.
Of course, the celebrations were and remain unwarranted. Obama’s Iraq plan is virtually identical to the one on Bush’s table on January 19, 2009. Obama has just rebranded the occupation, sold it to liberals and dropped the term “Global War on Terror” while, for all practical purposes, continuing the Bush era policy (that’s why leading Republicans praised Obama’s plan). In the real world, US military commanders have said they are preparing for an Iraq presence for another 15-20 years, the US embassy is the size of Vatican City, there is no official plan for the withdrawal of contractors and new corporate mercenary contracts are being awarded. The SOFA Agreement between the US and Iraq gives the US the right to extend the occupation indefinitely and to continue intervening militarily in Iraq ad infinitum. All it takes is for the puppets in Baghdad to ask nicely…
In the latest episode of the “Occupation Rebranded” mini-series, President Obama is preparing to scrap the June 30 withdrawal timeline.
As The New York Times reports: “The United States and Iraq will begin negotiating possible exceptions to the June 30 deadline for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraqi cities, focusing on the troubled northern city of Mosul, according to military officials. Some parts of Baghdad also will still have combat troops.”
According to the Times, the US is playing with the definition of the word “city” when speaking of withdrawing combat troops from all cities:
There are no plans to close the Camp Victory base complex, consisting of five bases housing more than 20,000 soldiers, many of them combat troops. Although Victory is only a 15 minute drive from the center of Baghdad and sprawls over both sides of the city’s boundary, Iraqi officials say they have agreed to consider it outside the city.
In addition, Forward Operating Base Falcon, which can hold 5,000 combat troops, will also remain after June 30. It is just within Baghdad’s southern city limits. Again, Iraqi officials have classified it as effectively outside Baghdad, so no exception to the agreement needs to be granted, in their view.
Combat troops with the Seventh Field Artillery Regiment will remain in the heart of Baghdad at Camp Prosperity, located near the new American Embassy compound in the Green Zone. In addition to providing a quick reaction force, guarding the embassy and noncombat troops from attack, those soldiers will also continue to support Iraqi troops who are now in nominal charge of maintaining security in the Green Zone.
Camp Victory is of tremendous strategic importance to the US occupation. In addition to the military’s share of Baghdad International Airport, it includes four bases—Victory, Liberty, Striker and Slayer—as well as the US-run prison “Camp Cropper.” That’s where the US keeps its “high value” prisoners. While the US officially handed control of Forward Operating Base Freedom to “Iraqi control,” the US military is keeping the swimming pool.
Meanwhile, future plans are being laid for other US bases. Camp Prosperity is going to house US contractors and other personnel, while at Camp Union III housing is being built for several thousand soldiers, trainers and advisers.
What is abundantly clear is that there are enough cosmetic changes going on in Baghdad intended to make it look like the occupation is ending, while continuing it. Again, from the Times:
The Green Zone was handed over to Iraqi control Jan. 1, when the agreement went into effect. In addition to the United States-Iraqi patrols, most of the security for the Green Zone’s many checkpoints and heavily guarded entry points is still done by the same private contractors who did it prior to Jan. 1.
“What you’re seeing is not a change in the numbers, it’s a doctrine change,” said First Sgt. David Moore, a New Jersey National Guardsman with the Joint Area Support Group, which runs the Green Zone. “You’re still going to have fighters. Every U.S. soldier is trained to fight.”
The Iraq occupation is like The Picture of Dorian Gray. No matter what public face the Obama administration attempts to present, it only grows more heinous with each passing day.
Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.His new website is RebelReports.com
lundi 2 mars 2009
Iraqis say NO TO OCCUPATION
(AFP/File/Ali Yussef)IRAQIS WANT ALL US TROOPS OUT
Iraqis from the Sadr Movement hold a banner protesting US occupation in Baghdad.
samedi 28 février 2009
Drawdown Plan may leave combat brigades in Iraq
February 28, 2009
Drawdown Plan May Leave Combat Brigades in Iraq
by Gareth Porter
President Barack Obama has given military commanders a free hand to determine the size and composition of a residual force in Iraq up to 50,000 troops, apparently including the option of leaving one or more combat brigades or bringing them from the United States, after the August 2010 deadline for the ostensible withdrawal of all combat brigades now in Iraq.
Although the ostensible purpose of the combat brigades remaining in Iraq would be to protect other U.S. troops in the country, they would also provide the kind of combat capability that U.S. commanders have wanted to maintain to deal with a broad range of contingencies.
The fact that the commanders have the option to nullify Obama's pledge to removal all combat brigades raises serious questions about whether he has given up control over his Iraq policy.
Obama declared, in a speech at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina that by Aug. 31, 2010, "[O]ur combat mission in Iraq will end." But he confirmed earlier indications from administration officials that the residual force would be from 35,000 to 50,000 troops – far higher than Democratic congressional leaders had previously been led to expect by Obama.
Obama did not refer to the possibility that combat brigades would remain in the country after Aug. 31, 2010, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted as much in a question and answer session with reporters after the speech.
Obama also stated, "I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011." But Gates, and the top commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, have both indicated on the record that they wanted to keep U.S. troops in Iraq even after that date, based on the assumption that the Iraqi government will renegotiate the Status of Forces agreement.
NBC News Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski reported just before Obama's speech that discussions had taken place in the Kirkuk area between some U.S. military commanders and Iraqis "to establish what could end up as a permanent air base, U.S. air base, in Kirkuk."
Obama's claim that the U.S. combat mission will end in August 2010 raises the question whether he will call a halt to combat patrols by U.S. personnel embedded with Iraqi units. The sweeping concession made to CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus and Iraq commander Gen. Odierno on the residual force suggests that he will not demand the end of such operations by U.S. troops.
The freedom granted to Odierno and Petraeus on the residual force overshadows his concession to the generals and Gates in accepting the recommendation for 19-month timetable for withdrawing combat brigades.
Obama had appeared to be leaning toward the 16-month withdrawal of combat brigades he had pledged during the campaign as recently as a Jan. 21 White House meeting with Gates and Petraeus.
Obama provided no further details on the residual force. According to the Washington Post report published Friday, two unnamed "senior officials" – one of whom was presumably Secretary Gates – told Congressional leaders Thursday that Obama would let commanders decide not only the exact schedule of withdrawal of combat brigades but the size of the residual force.
In a teleconference with reporters Friday afternoon, Gates appeared to confirm indirectly that he and field commanders have discussed either keeping combat brigades in Iraq but calling them "non-combat" forces or actually sending new combat brigades to Iraq from the United States during the drawdown of the brigades now in Iraq.
A reporter asked Gates, "You have said they're not going to be combat brigades, but are you going to take combat brigades that are in the United States and sort of rename them, redesignate them, or are you going to create new units for this specific mission?"
Gates first sidestepped the question entirely. "[W]ith respect to the 35,000 to 50,000," he said, "I think that that's a question probably better directed at General Odierno." But he then added, "[I]n terms of whether those are new units or whether they are re-missioned units that are already there, I think remains to be seen."
CBS News Pentagon correspondent David Martin, reflecting the leaks from Pentagon officials, reported Feb. 24 that the residual force would be organized in "training and assistance brigades" that would be capable of conducting combat operations and calling air strikes from carrier or land-based aircraft. In a comment to CBS News Political Hotsheet, Martin said the units would be "fully combat capable," suggesting that they would be drawn from combat brigades.
Some leading Senate and House Democrats were clearly taken by surprise by the size of the residual force to which Obama had agreed. On the Rachel Maddow Show Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "I don't know what the justification is for 50,000, a presence of 50,000 troops in Iraq."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Carl Levin, chair of the Armed Services Committee, both indicated that the figure was higher than they had expected. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, said, "I do think we have to look carefully at the numbers that are there and do it as quickly as we can."
Defeated Republican presidential candidate John McCain, on the other hand, sounded like a loyal supporter of Obama's decision, saying it is "reasonable" and that he is "cautiously optimistic that the plan that is laid out by the president can lead to success."
Obama even took a step toward committing himself to reversing the whole withdrawal policy if violence in Iraq resumes anytime before the end of 2011. Rep. John McHugh, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said Obama had assured him that he would "revisit" the withdrawal plan "if the situation on the ground deteriorates and violence increases."
The decision on Iraq policy announced by Obama Friday ended a four-month period of maneuvering by Gates, Odierno and CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus aimed at getting Obama to change his Iraq policy.
Gates and the two generals had wanted to keep a large residual force, including combat brigades, in Iraq not only through 2011 but for at least another four years beyond that. They had presented a 23-month draw-down plan to Obama at the Jan. 21 White House meeting as an alternative to his 16-month drawdown plan.
Later, they settled on 19 months as an acceptable compromise. It is now clear, however, that the primary objective of the trio was to get Obama to approve complete control by the commanders over the residual force up to 50,000.
The Washington Post reported that the senior administration officials who briefed Congressional leaders Thursday said that Obama's "senior civilian and military advisers" – meaning Gates and Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen – had recommended both the 19-month drawdown plan and the size of the residual force.
The Post reported the "senior officials" as suggesting that the reason for both recommendations was to avoid "jeopardizing Iraq's still-fragile security." However, a source who was close to Obama during the campaign and maintains ties to his advisers said Obama's acceptance of the 19-month plan was to "defuse the conflict with the Pentagon."
Not mentioned in either Obama's speech or briefings by Gates is the question of whether U.S. pilots and planes will be part of the residual force after August 2010. The silence on that matter suggests that U.S. airpower will continue to participate in combat, despite the supposed end of the U.S. combat mission.
http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=14329
Drawdown Plan May Leave Combat Brigades in Iraq
by Gareth Porter
President Barack Obama has given military commanders a free hand to determine the size and composition of a residual force in Iraq up to 50,000 troops, apparently including the option of leaving one or more combat brigades or bringing them from the United States, after the August 2010 deadline for the ostensible withdrawal of all combat brigades now in Iraq.
Although the ostensible purpose of the combat brigades remaining in Iraq would be to protect other U.S. troops in the country, they would also provide the kind of combat capability that U.S. commanders have wanted to maintain to deal with a broad range of contingencies.
The fact that the commanders have the option to nullify Obama's pledge to removal all combat brigades raises serious questions about whether he has given up control over his Iraq policy.
Obama declared, in a speech at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina that by Aug. 31, 2010, "[O]ur combat mission in Iraq will end." But he confirmed earlier indications from administration officials that the residual force would be from 35,000 to 50,000 troops – far higher than Democratic congressional leaders had previously been led to expect by Obama.
Obama did not refer to the possibility that combat brigades would remain in the country after Aug. 31, 2010, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted as much in a question and answer session with reporters after the speech.
Obama also stated, "I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011." But Gates, and the top commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, have both indicated on the record that they wanted to keep U.S. troops in Iraq even after that date, based on the assumption that the Iraqi government will renegotiate the Status of Forces agreement.
NBC News Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski reported just before Obama's speech that discussions had taken place in the Kirkuk area between some U.S. military commanders and Iraqis "to establish what could end up as a permanent air base, U.S. air base, in Kirkuk."
Obama's claim that the U.S. combat mission will end in August 2010 raises the question whether he will call a halt to combat patrols by U.S. personnel embedded with Iraqi units. The sweeping concession made to CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus and Iraq commander Gen. Odierno on the residual force suggests that he will not demand the end of such operations by U.S. troops.
The freedom granted to Odierno and Petraeus on the residual force overshadows his concession to the generals and Gates in accepting the recommendation for 19-month timetable for withdrawing combat brigades.
Obama had appeared to be leaning toward the 16-month withdrawal of combat brigades he had pledged during the campaign as recently as a Jan. 21 White House meeting with Gates and Petraeus.
Obama provided no further details on the residual force. According to the Washington Post report published Friday, two unnamed "senior officials" – one of whom was presumably Secretary Gates – told Congressional leaders Thursday that Obama would let commanders decide not only the exact schedule of withdrawal of combat brigades but the size of the residual force.
In a teleconference with reporters Friday afternoon, Gates appeared to confirm indirectly that he and field commanders have discussed either keeping combat brigades in Iraq but calling them "non-combat" forces or actually sending new combat brigades to Iraq from the United States during the drawdown of the brigades now in Iraq.
A reporter asked Gates, "You have said they're not going to be combat brigades, but are you going to take combat brigades that are in the United States and sort of rename them, redesignate them, or are you going to create new units for this specific mission?"
Gates first sidestepped the question entirely. "[W]ith respect to the 35,000 to 50,000," he said, "I think that that's a question probably better directed at General Odierno." But he then added, "[I]n terms of whether those are new units or whether they are re-missioned units that are already there, I think remains to be seen."
CBS News Pentagon correspondent David Martin, reflecting the leaks from Pentagon officials, reported Feb. 24 that the residual force would be organized in "training and assistance brigades" that would be capable of conducting combat operations and calling air strikes from carrier or land-based aircraft. In a comment to CBS News Political Hotsheet, Martin said the units would be "fully combat capable," suggesting that they would be drawn from combat brigades.
Some leading Senate and House Democrats were clearly taken by surprise by the size of the residual force to which Obama had agreed. On the Rachel Maddow Show Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "I don't know what the justification is for 50,000, a presence of 50,000 troops in Iraq."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Carl Levin, chair of the Armed Services Committee, both indicated that the figure was higher than they had expected. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, said, "I do think we have to look carefully at the numbers that are there and do it as quickly as we can."
Defeated Republican presidential candidate John McCain, on the other hand, sounded like a loyal supporter of Obama's decision, saying it is "reasonable" and that he is "cautiously optimistic that the plan that is laid out by the president can lead to success."
Obama even took a step toward committing himself to reversing the whole withdrawal policy if violence in Iraq resumes anytime before the end of 2011. Rep. John McHugh, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said Obama had assured him that he would "revisit" the withdrawal plan "if the situation on the ground deteriorates and violence increases."
The decision on Iraq policy announced by Obama Friday ended a four-month period of maneuvering by Gates, Odierno and CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus aimed at getting Obama to change his Iraq policy.
Gates and the two generals had wanted to keep a large residual force, including combat brigades, in Iraq not only through 2011 but for at least another four years beyond that. They had presented a 23-month draw-down plan to Obama at the Jan. 21 White House meeting as an alternative to his 16-month drawdown plan.
Later, they settled on 19 months as an acceptable compromise. It is now clear, however, that the primary objective of the trio was to get Obama to approve complete control by the commanders over the residual force up to 50,000.
The Washington Post reported that the senior administration officials who briefed Congressional leaders Thursday said that Obama's "senior civilian and military advisers" – meaning Gates and Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen – had recommended both the 19-month drawdown plan and the size of the residual force.
The Post reported the "senior officials" as suggesting that the reason for both recommendations was to avoid "jeopardizing Iraq's still-fragile security." However, a source who was close to Obama during the campaign and maintains ties to his advisers said Obama's acceptance of the 19-month plan was to "defuse the conflict with the Pentagon."
Not mentioned in either Obama's speech or briefings by Gates is the question of whether U.S. pilots and planes will be part of the residual force after August 2010. The silence on that matter suggests that U.S. airpower will continue to participate in combat, despite the supposed end of the U.S. combat mission.
http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=14329
mercredi 17 décembre 2008
Bush claims victory, he gets shoes
Bush claims victory, he gets shoes
Demand for the immediate release of Muntather Al-Zaidi
Statement by The BRussells Tribunal Committee (15 December 2008)
In one magnificent act, Muntather Al-Zaidi, an Iraqi journalist with Al-Baghdadiya television, epitomized the truth of the defeat of the United States in Iraq and lifted the spirit of resistance within the hearts of all Arabs, matching that of the Iraqi people who continue to resist imperialism and colonialism and who refuse humiliation.
It is Bush who is humiliated, and from it he cannot recover. He had snuck into Iraq, unannounced, to sign an illegal treaty with his puppet stooge aimed at institutionalizing the US occupation. Two flying shoes destroyed the façade upon which he and his cronies claim victory in Iraq.
For the orphans and widows
The greatest expression of contempt in Arab culture is wielding a shoe to an adversary. Bush and his criminal cronies deserve contempt. Bush claims not to know what Al-Zaidi’s “cause” is. Al-Zaidi made it clear: the shoes he threw at Bush were for the orphans and widows of Bush’s imperial war that to date has killed more than 1.2 million Iraqis and displaced six million more.
The shoes were thrown equally in the direction of Bush’s local puppets — proof that no government under occupation can be legitimate or gain legitimacy, that resistance expresses the sovereignty of the Iraqi people, exposing the Bush-Maliki agreement as worthless and devoid of legality. Two flying shoes expressed the paradise that is resistance in comparison to the ignominy of submission. Iraq is unbreakable, its people proven proud and invincible.
Al-Zaidi needs protection
Following five and a half years of relentless destruction and killing, it is clear that Muntather Al-Zaidi, in daring to challenge the imperial United States, took a step into that grey zone between the human right to life and the permanent threat of death wielded by imperialism. Given the Maliki government’s eagerness in summarily executing its political opponents — including their lawyers — and as he is reportedly in the direct custody of Maliki’s own security guards, we have firm reason to believe that Al-Zaidi is in immediate danger of being tortured and/or assassinated.
We remind all that Muntather Al-Zaidi is a protected person under international humanitarian law, which governs the US occupation, and has guaranteed rights under international human rights law.[1] International humanitarian and human rights law outlaws torture and summary execution, incommunicado detention, the ill treatment of detainees, or denial of access to legal counsel. The US occupation is directly responsible for Al-Zaidi’s welfare and must guarantee his security. As a journalist, he must be afforded extra protection.
Appeal for action
Following Al-Zaidi’s action, thousands have taken to the street in his support and countless statements are being written in his defence. We salute his courage, demand to know his exact location, and join millions in demanding his immediate release.
We join all patriotic Arabs and the Iraqi people who today celebrate their dignity, visually announced and reaffirmed in the public humiliation of a disgraced American president.
We call upon all human rights organizations and bodies, including responsible organs of the United Nations, along with journalists’ syndicates and associations, to defend the right to security and life of Muntather Al-Zaidi and work to ensure his immediate release.
The BRussells Tribunal Committee
15 December 2008
Please circulate this appeal widely.
* Bush gets shoes: http://www.youtube.com/v/OM3Z_Kskl_U
* Hel Laila Hilwa — Hussein Al-A’dhami: http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHasAMLQByk
[1] See Articles 6-7 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 113 and 116 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
mardi 10 juin 2008
U.S. seeking 58 bases in Iraq, Shiite lawmakers say
Mon, Jun. 09, 2008
Leila Fadel McClatchy Newspapers
BAGHDAD -Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.
Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.
"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."
Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation with two years notice from either side, lawmakers said.
"It would impair Iraqi sovereignty," said Ali al Adeeb a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party of the proposed accord. "The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq... if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help."
Both Saghir and Adeeb said that the Iraqi government rejected the terms as unacceptable. They said the government wants a U.S. presence and a U.S. security guarantee but also wants to control security within the country, stop indefinite detentions of Iraqis by U.S. forces and have a say in U.S. forces' conduct in Iraq.
The 58 bases would represent an expansion of the U.S. presence here. Currently, the United States operates out of about 30 major bases, not including smaller facilities such as combat outposts, according to a U.S. military map.
" Is there sovereignty for Iraq - or isn't there? If it is left to them, they would ask for immunity even for the American dogs," Saghir said. "We have given Bush our views - some new ideas and I find that there is a certain harmony between his thoughts and ours. And he promised to tell the negotiators to change their methods."
Maliki returned Monday from his second visit to Iran, whose Islamic rulers are adamantly opposed to the accord. Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei said following meetings with Maliki that we have "no doubt that the Americans' dreams will not come true."
Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, criticized the lawmakers for poisoning the public discussion before an agreement is concluded. He said U.S. officials had been flexible in the talks, as well as "frank and honest since the beginning."
"This is an ongoing process," Zebari said. "There is no agreement yet. Proposals have been modified, they have been changed and altered. We don't have a final text yet for them to be judgmental."
Zebari, who said a negotiating session was held with U.S. officials on the new accord Monday, said any agreement will be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for approval. Leaders in the U.S. Congress have also demanded a say in the agreement, but the Bush administration says it is planning to make this an executive accord not subject to Senate ratification.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain didn't respond for requests for comment, but the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, said through a spokesman that he believes the Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress and that it should make "absolutely clear" that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said he had not heard of a plan to seek 50 or more bases in Iraq, and that if it is the case, Congress is likely to challenge the idea. "Congress would have a lot of questions, and the president should be very careful in negotiating," Hamilton, who now directs the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, told McClatchy.
The top U.S. Embassy spokesman in Iraq rejected the latest Iraqi criticism.
"Look, there is going to be no occupation," said U.S. spokesman Adam Ereli. "Now it's perfectly understandable that there are those that are following this closely in Iraq who have concerns about what this means for Iraqi sovereignty and independence. We understand that and we appreciate that and that's why nothing is going to be rammed down anybody's throat.
"It's kind of like a forced marriage. It just doesn't work. They either want you or they don't want you. You can't use coercion to get them to like you," he added.
U.S. officials in Baghdad say they are determined to complete the accord by July 31 so that parliamentary deliberations can be completed before the Dec. 31 expiration of the UN mandate.
The agreement will not specify how many troops or where they will be deployed, said a U.S. official who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the subject, but the agreement will detail the legal framework under which U.S. troops will operate. The U.S. official said that in the absence of a UN resolution authorizing the use of force, "there have to be terms that are in place. That's the reality that we're trying to accommodate."
Iraqis are determined to get their nation removed from the purview of the U.N. Security Council under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows the international body to declare a country a threat to international peace, a step the U.N. took after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Iraqi officials say that designation clearly is no longer appropriate.
But even on that basic request, the U.S. has not promised to support Iraq, Saghir said, and is instead withholding that support as a pressure point in negotiations.
U.S. demands "conflict with our sovereignty and we refuse them," said Hassan Sneid, a member of the Dawa party and a lawmaker on the security committee in the parliament. "I don't expect these negotiations will be done by the exact date. The Americans want so many things and the fact is we want different things."
"If we had to choose one or the other, an extension of the mandate or this agreement, we would probably choose the extension," Saghir said. "It is possible that in December we will send a letter the UN informing them that Iraq no longer needs foreign forces to control its internal security. As for external defense, we are still not ready."
Margaret Talev in Washington contributed.
McClatchy Newspapers 2008
Leila Fadel McClatchy Newspapers
BAGHDAD -Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.
Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.
"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."
Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation with two years notice from either side, lawmakers said.
"It would impair Iraqi sovereignty," said Ali al Adeeb a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party of the proposed accord. "The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq... if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help."
Both Saghir and Adeeb said that the Iraqi government rejected the terms as unacceptable. They said the government wants a U.S. presence and a U.S. security guarantee but also wants to control security within the country, stop indefinite detentions of Iraqis by U.S. forces and have a say in U.S. forces' conduct in Iraq.
The 58 bases would represent an expansion of the U.S. presence here. Currently, the United States operates out of about 30 major bases, not including smaller facilities such as combat outposts, according to a U.S. military map.
" Is there sovereignty for Iraq - or isn't there? If it is left to them, they would ask for immunity even for the American dogs," Saghir said. "We have given Bush our views - some new ideas and I find that there is a certain harmony between his thoughts and ours. And he promised to tell the negotiators to change their methods."
Maliki returned Monday from his second visit to Iran, whose Islamic rulers are adamantly opposed to the accord. Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei said following meetings with Maliki that we have "no doubt that the Americans' dreams will not come true."
Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, criticized the lawmakers for poisoning the public discussion before an agreement is concluded. He said U.S. officials had been flexible in the talks, as well as "frank and honest since the beginning."
"This is an ongoing process," Zebari said. "There is no agreement yet. Proposals have been modified, they have been changed and altered. We don't have a final text yet for them to be judgmental."
Zebari, who said a negotiating session was held with U.S. officials on the new accord Monday, said any agreement will be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for approval. Leaders in the U.S. Congress have also demanded a say in the agreement, but the Bush administration says it is planning to make this an executive accord not subject to Senate ratification.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain didn't respond for requests for comment, but the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, said through a spokesman that he believes the Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress and that it should make "absolutely clear" that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said he had not heard of a plan to seek 50 or more bases in Iraq, and that if it is the case, Congress is likely to challenge the idea. "Congress would have a lot of questions, and the president should be very careful in negotiating," Hamilton, who now directs the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, told McClatchy.
The top U.S. Embassy spokesman in Iraq rejected the latest Iraqi criticism.
"Look, there is going to be no occupation," said U.S. spokesman Adam Ereli. "Now it's perfectly understandable that there are those that are following this closely in Iraq who have concerns about what this means for Iraqi sovereignty and independence. We understand that and we appreciate that and that's why nothing is going to be rammed down anybody's throat.
"It's kind of like a forced marriage. It just doesn't work. They either want you or they don't want you. You can't use coercion to get them to like you," he added.
U.S. officials in Baghdad say they are determined to complete the accord by July 31 so that parliamentary deliberations can be completed before the Dec. 31 expiration of the UN mandate.
The agreement will not specify how many troops or where they will be deployed, said a U.S. official who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the subject, but the agreement will detail the legal framework under which U.S. troops will operate. The U.S. official said that in the absence of a UN resolution authorizing the use of force, "there have to be terms that are in place. That's the reality that we're trying to accommodate."
Iraqis are determined to get their nation removed from the purview of the U.N. Security Council under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows the international body to declare a country a threat to international peace, a step the U.N. took after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Iraqi officials say that designation clearly is no longer appropriate.
But even on that basic request, the U.S. has not promised to support Iraq, Saghir said, and is instead withholding that support as a pressure point in negotiations.
U.S. demands "conflict with our sovereignty and we refuse them," said Hassan Sneid, a member of the Dawa party and a lawmaker on the security committee in the parliament. "I don't expect these negotiations will be done by the exact date. The Americans want so many things and the fact is we want different things."
"If we had to choose one or the other, an extension of the mandate or this agreement, we would probably choose the extension," Saghir said. "It is possible that in December we will send a letter the UN informing them that Iraq no longer needs foreign forces to control its internal security. As for external defense, we are still not ready."
Margaret Talev in Washington contributed.
McClatchy Newspapers 2008
jeudi 17 avril 2008
IRAQIS: The Occupation has divided us
"Mesopotamia crying"by Iraqi Artist Abu Talib
What Iraqis say: There were no differences between us, we are all Muslims, but the occupation has divided us.
Juan Cole has posted an Aljazeera video
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Sunni-Shiite Divide in Baghdad Worsens
Click on link below to watch video
http://www.juancole.com/
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
