|
Thursday,
May 17, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, a new political entity
emerges in Iraq, the political crisis continues, Turkey and Iraq clash
again, the VA speaks to unions about policy changes on veterans
prosthetics but doesn't feel the need to seek input from veterans, and
more.
Yesterday, the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health held a hearing.
WASHINGTON,
D.C. -- Today, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing to examine
VA's current capabilities to provide state-of-the-art care to veterans
with amputations. The Committee heard testimony concerning VA's proposal
to change procurement processes for prostheses, potentially hindering a
veteran's ability to acquire the latest prosthetic and corresponding
care and support.
"VA has been struggling to keep pace with the
rising demands of younger and more active veterans with amputations,"
stated Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health.
"VA must continue to provide multi-disciplinary care to maintain
long-term and life-time quality of life. Placing prosthesis procurement
into the hands of contracting officers is alarming. VA needs to match
the determination and spirit demonstrated by our wounded warriors and
recommit themselves to becoming a leader once again in prosthetic care."
Currently,
VA provides care to approximately 42,000 veterans with limb loss. As
of August of 2011, 1,506 servicemembers had experienced amputations on
active duty from Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. An additional
2,248 veterans underwent major amputations at VA in 2011. VA prosthetic
costs have more than doubled in the past five years, yet, VA's care has
fallen behind that of the Department of Defense (DoD).
"Prosthetics
are a truly individualized extension of one person's body and mobility,
not your typical bulk supply purchase," stated Jim Mayer, a Vietnam
veteran, double amputee, and wounded warrior advocate and mentor. "When
today's warriors are referred to VA and seek the newer, cutting-edge,
technologically superior prosthetics they have been accustomed to
[through DoD], will VA be able to meet that demand? DoD centers of
excellence provide state-of-the-art and often newly evaluative
prosthetics that have allowed warriors to thrive, not just in walking,
but also run competitively, compete in the Paralympics, rock climb,
play myriad sports and other endeavors."
"Prosthetic
technology and VA have come a long way from the Civil War era. Following
World War II, veterans dissatisfied with the quality of VA prosthetics
stormed the Capitol in protest. Congress responded by providing VA with
increased flexibility for prosthetic options and federally funded
research and development," said Buerkle. "As a result, VA has been a
leader in helping veterans with amputations regain mobility and achieve
maximum independence. This is why I am troubled by VA's proposed changes
in procurement policies and procedures which shifts the emphasis from
the doctors to contracting officers."
So what kind of change is being discussed?
Jonathan
Pruden: Under the change, only a contracting officer could procure a
prosthetic item costing more than $3,000. This policy would effect
essential items including most limbs like mine and wheel chairs. It
would require the use of a system designed for bulk procurement
purchases that involves manually processing over three hundred -- that's
300 -- individual steps to develop a purchase order. This system may
be great for buying cinder blocks and light bulbs but it is certainly
not appropriate for providing timely and appropriate medical care.
Equally troubling, this change offers no promise of improving service to
the warrior. Instead, it would mean greater delays. The change could
realize modest savings but at what cost? A warrior needing a new leg or
wheel chair should not have to wait longer than is absolutely
necessary. I know warriors who have stayed home from our events, stay
home from school, from work, can't play ball with their kids or live
in chronic pain while they wait for a new prosthesis. I know first
hand what it's like to not be able to put my son into the crib while I'm
waiting for a new prosthetic, to live in chronic pain and to have my
daughter ask my wife once again, "Why can't Daddy come and walk with
us?" With VA moving ahead on changing procurement practices, wounded
warriors need this Committee's help. A prosthetic limb is not a mass
produced widget. Prosthetics are specialized, medical equipment that
should be prescribed by a clinician and promptly delivered to the
veteran. We urge this Committee to direct VA to stop implementation of
this change in prosthetic procurement.
At
the start of yesterday's hearing, Subcommittee Chair Ann Marie Buerkle
noted the hearing was entitled "Optimizing Care for Veterans With
Prosthetics." The Subcommittee heard from four panels. The first one
was featured Gulf War Veteran John Register and Vietnam Veteran Jim
Mayer. Disabled American Veterans' Joy Ilem, American Orthotic & Prosthetic Association's Michael Oros, Paralyzed Veterans of America's Alethea Predeoux and Southeast Wounded Warrior Project's
Jonathan Pruden made up the second panel (we covered the second panel
in yesterday's hearing). The third panel was the VA's Office of
Inspector General's Linda Halliday accompanied by Nicholas Dahl, Kent
Wrathall and Dr. John D. Daigh Jr. and Dr. Robert Yang. The fourth
panel was the VHA's Dr. Lucille Beck accompanied by Dr. Joe Webster, Dr.
Joe Miller and Norbert Doyle.
We're going
to stay on the issue of the proposed change. And we're going to go to
the fourth panel. The VA is just eating up time in the excerpt below.
They have no idea what they're saying -- I don't think Dr. Beck even
knows what "impetus" means judging by her answer -- and you would think,
"At last they're done" but then they'd launch back in. I really think
that Congress needs to address the issue of witnesses whose words wander
all over but never arrive anywhere. Yes, some people speak that way.
But with government employees, it always seem to be an attempt to run
out the clock.
Chair
Ann Marie Buerkle: I have a lot of questions. A lot of it is based on
what we heard from the three previous panels -- especially the veterans
and the veterans service organizations. I think they provide for us a
reliable source of information and they identify needs for us. My first
question is: What was the impetus behind the change? You heard the
concern from the previous panels. What was the impetus behind the
change in the procurement policy? And did you consult with the veterans
service organizations and/or veterans? Who did you talk to to make
this change?
Dr.
Lucille Beck: The impetus for the change, uhm, is an impetus from the
department to assure compliance with federal aquistion regulations. I
have with me Mr. Norbert Doyle who is VHA's chief procurement logistics
officer today. We were anticipating some of these questions. And he's
available to provide more information about the change and what's
happening.
Chair
Ann Marie Buerkle: And just if you would, before you start, so does
that mean heretofore the VA was not compliant? I mean if that's the
basis for your change -- that compliance is an issue -- maybe you could
make that clear to us.
Norbert
Doyle: Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Dr. Beck. I -- Ma'am, yes, the impetus
was to bring VA contraction -- to include VHA and all the other VA
contracting organizations and veteran alignment with the federal
aquistion regulations. We also, uh, it's my understanding the
department recognized several years ago that they were weakened in
certain areas, in contract administration and the awarding of contracts
and this was also to bring it inhouse to ensure proper stewardship of
the government dollars. In reference to your question "did we talk to
veteran service organizations?" Uh, actually last, uh -- before -- I
don't believe we did before we started the process;however, last week --
And I'm happy to meet with any organization to discuss what we're
doing. I heard the complaints from the veterans service organizations
that they feel out of the loop. I met last week with Dr. Beck, with the
Secretary's Advisory Committee on Prosthetics and Special
Disabilities. We spent a great deal of time with them. And I think
that group has representatives from many veterans service organizations
to east -- address their concerns that they may -- that they may have.
Again, I make that offer that I would be happy to meet with any group to
discuss these.
Chair
Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you. I think it would be in the best interest
as we go forward to do what's best for our veterans and to hear from
the veteran service organizations and from the veterans themselves and
from those who have gone through this process who understand it
intimately as did the first two panelists. That -- It would seem like
very basic to meet with them and have them identify needs and concerns.
You heard Wounded Warriors say, "We're asking you, Congress, to please
freeze this change." And the other point I wanted to bring up was the
pilot. You heard Paralzyed veterans, their organization asked or
mentioned a pilot. Have you done a pilot? If so, what were the
findings? Is that the justification for this change?
Norbert
Doyle: Yes, ma'am, I actually have a number of issues to address along
these lines. First, uh, to put it in context -- and, granted, we're
talking about the more expensive items that we're talking about today --
the transfer of authority from prosthetics to contracting only impacts
those procurements above $3,000 which is the mandated federal aquistion
-- or federal, uh, micropurchase threshold. So only 3% of orders that we
estimate fall in that realm. So 97% of prosthetic orders will stay
with prosthetics. Uh, as I said we-we are doing this to bring us more
in line with federal acquistion regulations and also to address many of
the issues that the IG has mentioned although those were identified, I
think, previously. Now I want to assure everybody that if a clinician
specifies a specific product for a veteran, contracting will get that
product for that individual. I-I do not, as a-a-a chief -- as a chief
contracting person in-in the Veterans Health Administration I do not
want my contracting officers making a decision as to what goes in a
veterans body or gets appended to it. That is clearly a clinician
decision. And how we, uh, going to get that, uh, product the clinician
specifies for the veteran and we're going to do it under the auspices of
the federal aquisition regulations. We're going to cite
the authorities of 8123 which one individual mentioned that, the broad
latitude given by Congress to the veteran -- to the Veterans
Administration. We're going to do that by properly preparing
justifications for approvals for sole source citing in paragraph 4 the
authorities granted under 8123. There are seven exceptions in part six
of the FAR [Federal Acquistion Regulation] to full and open
competition. Exception 5 is the one that as authorized by statute and
that's the one that we will -- we will use. We have gone through
great pains to ensure success in this transfer. And a little bit of
history, even starting last summer when we started this process under
the direction of the department, Dr. Beck's and my folks, uh, we formed a
team. And that team included field personnel -- both prosthetics and
contracting which we thought was critical. They developed a plan on the
transfer. It was a very detailed plan. The plan, actually, as we got
into it, got more detailed as we identified other issues. We then
worked with our union partners to make sure that they did not have
issues and we could proceed successfully. There were pilots as part of
the plan which is probably the best part other than bringing field
people into the planning process, the pilot was a great aspect. We did
pilot in three VISNs -- in VISN 6, 11 and 20 -- and that's the Virginia,
North Carolina area, the Michigan area and the Pacific northwest. We
piloted beginning in January for about 60 days. Those pilots concluded
in March. We did learn from those pilots and we're implementing
changes to ensure that care is not impacted. Some of the things that we
learned is that our staffing models are incorrect in the number of
procurements that we could do in a day. In the contracting office, we
are hiring. We have received approval to hire additional people to
ensure we can keep up. We are streamlining the process by, I mentioned,
justification approvals, by templating that process so it becomes more
fill-in-the-blank with the clinicians prescription. Those are the type
process. We're slowly now implementing in the rest of the Veterans
Health Administration. I think four more VISNs are starting that
process now and the rest of the VISNs will be coming on in June and
July. The goal is to have all of this done by the end of July. There
is a contingency plan that we have discussed. Uh, we still have the
legacy procurement system if something does not go right or something
unexpected happens that we can fall back on. But we don't expect-expect
that to happen.
Dr.
Lucille Beck: I would like to add that this has been -- has been a
very strong collaboration and partnership prosthetic and sensory aid
services very concerned that we can continue to provide the services to
the veterans that, uhm, they deserve and that we have always been able
to do and so our prosthetics organization at our local medical centers
and at the VISN level remain the eyes and ears so all orders still come
through prosthetics. Prosthetics is managing them and we're working
with contracting officers to achieve the, uh, placement of the order in,
uh, uhm, uh, as it's required to be, uh, meeting all of our acquisition
requirements and, uhm, we-we are as Mr., uh, Doyle has said, very aware
of the ability to use 8123 and have spent a significant amount of time
developing justifications and approvals that allow us to use that and
really reflect the needs of our -- the individualized rehab needs of our
veterans. We're very much aware that we customize these products and
services, that they are selected based on an individual, uhm, veterans
needs and that has been our goal as we have managed this transition.
We're coming into a critical time as we move the transition forward and
extend it to other VISNs. And, uhm, we, uh, have very, uh-uh-uh, very
well developed and exact procedures in place to monitor this as we go.
And we are prepared, I think, Mr. Doyle and I, as a team, to -- and our
offices as teams to uhm, uh review this very carefully and make
recommendations on the way forward based on how this process affects
veterans.
Norbert Doyle: And, uh, I'm sorry, ma'am
Chair Ann Marie Buerkle: Go ahead, Mr. Doyle.
Norbert
Doyle: I add that when I met with the Advisory Committee on
Prosthetics and Special Disability uh, uh, last week, they had many of
these same concerns. I think after spending a degree of time with them,
uh, they at least understood what we were doing. They're still very
interested in ensuring that we do achieve success but I'll let Dr. Beck
comment. I don't think we left there with a burning issue -- at least, I
did not -- that we needed to address. Also as-as-as a veteran myself
who made several trips to Iraq and Afghanistan both in a military and
civilian capacity, you know, I am very sympathetic to the needs of the
veterans population. And I will do no -- I can assure you I will do
nothing that hurts the veterans because, you know, there but for the
grace of God go I actually and that's the way I look at it.
Chair
Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you. My time is way run over. However, if my
colleagues will indulge me, I just have a couple of quick follow up
questions and then I'll allow you to have as much time as you need. My
first concern is that you said that with the procurements it just only
pertains to those over 3,000 and you said only 3% of the orders are over
3,000. How many requests do you have?
Norbert
Doyle: Uh, that is still not an insignificant number. Uh, based on our
planning estimate, our planning figures for Fiscal Year '10 in which we
planned the transfer over it was, uh, 3% of the orders equals roughly
90,000 orders.
Chair
Ann Marie Buerkle: So I would suggest that because we're talking about
1500 warriors with amputations that proably are in need of
prosthetics that that is probably going to be a small percentage of what
you are doing; however, all of those are going to exceed that $3000
threshold. We heard earlier about a $12,000 limb. And if it's $25,000
that doesn't matter because the veterans need prosthetics and need state
of the art prosthetics. So that concerns me, that piece right there.
But the other thing that concerns me, you mentioned you talked with your
union partners. It would seem to me more appropriate to talk to your
veteran partners and to the veterans who have gone through this and be
more concerned with their thoughts about this being a program that works
versus talking to the union partners. And, lastly, the pilot
information, the results of those pilots? If I could respectfully
request that you provide us with -- I think you said that you did
three: 6, 11 and 20 VISNs. If you could provide us with the findings for
those pilot programs, I would greatly appreciate it.
Tomorrow's
snapshot will include US House Rep Mike Michaud's questions. Right
now, whether you're pro-union or not (I am pro-union), the VA really
doesn't get it or thought everyone would overlook that. They failed --
failed -- to speak to veterans about this change but spoke to unions?
That just doesn't look or sound right. You're talking about, as Chair
Buerkle noted at the very end of the hearing, something more than isn't a
sock or a pair of pants. Why would you leave veterans out of this
discussion? It makes no sense at all.
The
pilot program that Doyle babbled on about? That pilot program was a
failure. By his own description, it was a failure. You can't fine tune
'we're overwhelmed.' When that's the case, you need another pilot
program to see if your adjustments worked.
There
are so many problems with what was said. And while you could pan for
bits of gold with Doyle, someone needed to tell Dr. Beck that she had
nothing worth saying and she really wasted everyone's time. I do get
that there's a temptation to think, "I have to speak! The other
person's gone on forever! So let me rattle something off!" Like many
temptations, that one can be resisted. And, in fact, it should be.
From the House Veterans Affairs Committee to the Senate where Senator Patty Murray is the Committee Chair. Her office notes:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, May 17, 2012
CONTACT: Murray 202-224-2834
Burr 202-228-1616
VETERANS: Murray, Burr Introduce Bill to Ensure Dignified Burials
Comes after veteran's remains were discovered to have been buried in cardboard box
(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and U.S. Senator Richard Burr
(R-NC), Ranking Member, introduced legislation to help ensure every
veteran receives a dignified burial. The Dignified Burial of Veterans
Act of 2012 would authorize the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) to furnish a casket or urn to a deceased veteran when VA is unable
to identify the veteran's next-of-kin and determines that sufficient
resources are not otherwise available to furnish a casket or urn for
burial in a national cemetery. This bill would further require that VA
report back to Congress on the industry standard for urns and caskets
and whether burials at VA's national cemeteries are meeting that
standard. Under current law, VA is not authorized to purchase a casket
or urn for veterans who do not have a next-of-kin to provide one, or the
resources to be buried in an appropriate manner.
Chairman
Murray and Ranking Member Burr, joined by U.S. Senators Bill Nelson
(D-FL) and Marco Rubio (R-FL), introduced this legislation after a
veteran, with no known next-of-kin, was buried in a cardboard container
at a VA
National Cemetery in Florida. The exposed remains were discovered
during a raise and realign project at the cemetery. The veteran's
remains were later placed in a bag and reburied with what was left of
the cardboard box.
"When America's heroes make a commitment to serve their country, we make a promise to care for them," said Chairman Murray. "That includes helping to provide them with a burial honoring their service. I was deeply disturbed
when I heard this news. There is no reason why the remains of a veteran
should ever be treated with this lack of dignity. I am pleased we are
taking the appropriate steps to right this indescribable wrong."
"Those
who have served our country in uniform deserve our honor, appreciation,
and respect, and that responsibility does not end when they pass away,"
said Senator Burr.
"My heart goes out to those affected by the problems at the Florida
National Cemetery in Bushnell. We must ensure that the remains of
veterans and servicemembers are treated with dignity and respect and
that the families of those who have passed away have no doubts as to the
quality of the final resting place of their loved ones."
"All veterans deserve a dignified final resting place," said Senator Nelson. "A cardboard box certainly isn't one. That's why we've got to make sure this doesn't happen again."
"Those
who serve our nation in uniform deserve our respect and support, from
the moment they commit to serve through their deaths and even beyond as
we honor their legacies," said Senator Rubio.
"Providing dignified burials for veterans is a solemn pledge we must
uphold. Cases like this are outrageous and need to be corrected so that
no deceased veteran is ever dishonored in this way again."
Meghan Roh
Deputy Press Secretary | Social Media Director
Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
202-224-2834
Changing topics and dropping back to the December 29th snapshot:
Pinar Aydinli (Reuters) reports
that Huseyin Celik, spokesperson for Turkey's ruling political party,
has declared, "It has been determined from initial reports that these
people were smugglers, not terrorists. [. . .] If mistakes were made,
if there were flaws and if there were shortcomings in the incident that
took place, by no means will these be covered up." That incident? A
bombing that took place near the border Turkey shares with Iraq. BBC News (link has text and video) reports
on last night's bombing, "An air strike by Turkish warplanes near a
Kurdish village close to the border with Iraq has left 35 people dead,
officials say. One report said that smugglers had been spotted by
unmanned drones and were mistaken for Kurdish rebels." Reuters quotes
Uludere Mayor Fehmi Yaman explaining that they have recovered 30
corpses, all smugglers, not PKK, and he declares, "This kind of incident
is unacceptable. They were hit from the air." AFP adds,
"Local security sources said the dead were among a group smuggling
gas and sugar into Turkey from northern Iraq and may have been mistaken
for Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) rebels." Uludere is in the Turkish
province of Sirnak which borders Iraq. CNN notes,
"The [Turkish] military statement claimed the the strike was in the
Sinat-Haftanin area of northern Iraq, where many militant training camps
are situated and there are no civilian settlements." Peter Beaumont (Guardian) reports, "The donkeys had been sent across Turkey's south-eastern border with Iraq
to ferry vats of smuggled diesel and cigarettes. On Thursday when they
came back it was with bodies wrapped in carpets lashed to their sides:
the victims of a Turkish air raid that killed up to 35 villagers from
this remote region."
The attack demonstrates yet again how
drones are not answers and how futile the Turkish government's response
to the PKK has been. 35 people are dead, not one of them PKK. All were
killed by the Turkish government in what the government insists (and
believes) was a worthwhile action.
Today Mike Mount (CNN) reports
that the attack decisions were based on "video surveillance provided by
a U.S. drone" and "The airstrike also raises questions on how U.S.
partners use information given to them by U.S. drones." Remember that
as the government presses to distribute drones throughout the US. 35
people dead as a result of that 'intel.'
Still on the topic of Turkey, Reuters reports:
An
official from Iraq's foreign ministry met Turkey's ambassador, Younis
Demirer, to complain about the Turkish diplomats in the cities of Basra
and Mosul, a statement on the foreign ministry website said on Thursday.
"Some
activities conducted by the two Turkish General Consuls in Basra and
Mosul ... are far from their Consular duties and obligations stated in
the Vienna Convention for Consular Relations of 1963," the statement
said, without elaborating.
This
incident is part of a long back and forth as Nouri al-Maliki seems
determined to prove that he can alienate all neighboring countries
except Iran. Among other issues, Nouri's furious that Turkey -- like
Qatar and Saudi Arabia -- refused to turn over Iraqi Vice President
Tareq al-Hashemi to Baghdad. al-Hashemi's kangaroo trial started this
week but he remains in Turkey. In addition, Nouri has repeatedly
insisted that Turkish officials comments are 'interfering' with his
ability to rule.
The latest conflict might be worrisome if Iraq didn't have so many internal problems -- including the continuing violence.
Alsumaria reports
that the home of a member of the "military personnel" was blown up in
Mosul by unknown persons andd that the house collapsed. No one was
killed or injured. In addition, police
have closed down streets and are conducting a search in Kirkuk after a
peshmerga was leaving his home this morning when two cars with unknown
assailants pulled up and kidnapped him. That's one of two searches and raids going on in Kirkuk today. In addition, a neighborhood was raided after rockets attacked the Kirkuk airbase. At least one person was detained. Alsumaria reports
that the mass arrests continued today with 118 people arrested and at
least twenty-four 'suspects' were injured while 2 were killed. Today's
wave of mass arrests follows yesterday's. Al Sabaah reports 57 people were arrested Wednesday. Alsumaria notes
that attorneys staged a sit-in today in Diayala in protest against the
random mass arrests taking place. The arrests came on the same day Nouri
gave a speech promising to punish the 'Ba'athists.' Al Mada notes
Nouri is promising to avenge the crimes of the Ba'ath Party. He
declared that the uninformed and the intellectually deviant were
participating in the political process and, sadly, he wasn't confessing
to his own issues. He spoke of "mass graves" and how he will expose the
crimes of the Ba'ath and that he's called on the Minister of Human
Rights to assist with that. Iraq Body Count counts 14 killed yesterday: "Kirkuk: 11 bodies. Mosul: 1 by gunfire, 1 body. Shirqat: 1 pharmacist, by gunfire." As
the violence continues, so does the political crisis. May 28th is
supposed to be the deadline for Nouri al-Maliki to announce he is
implementing the Erbil Agreement or face a no-confidence vote. Moqtada al-Sadr publicly announced the deadline.
If you don't stick to a deadline, there's no point in announcing one.
And Nouri may believe that this is just one of many deadllines he's been
given (such as the one regarding Article 140, the Constitutionally
mandated deadline) which he can actually blow off. And he may be right. March
7, 2010, Iraq held parliamentary elections. Iraqiya, led by Ayad
Allawi, came in first, State of Law, led by Nouri, came in second.
Nouri did not want to give up the post of prime minister and, with
support from the White House and Tehran, Nouri dug his heels in creating
eight months of gridlock, Political Stalemate I. This only ended in
November 2010 when the US brokered a deal known as the Erbil Agreement.
At a big meet-up in Erbil, the various political blocs signed off on
the agreement. Nouri got his second term as prime minister in exchange
for concessions to other political blocs. But once he became prime
minister, Nouri refused to honor the agreement. By the summer of 2011,
the Kurds were publicly demanding that Nouri return to the Erbil
Agreement and Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr joined in the call. More
recently, April 28th,
another meet up took place in Erbil. Participants included KRG
President Massoud Barzani, President of Iraq Jalal Talabani, Speaker of
Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi, Ayad Allawi and Moqtada al-Sadr. The
demands coming out of that meet-up were a return to the Erbil Agreement
and the implementation of 18-point plan by Moqtada. Who would
replace Nouri? A number of names have been floated. Ibrahiam
al-Jaafari has been the most promiment. al-Jaafari has held the post
before and, in 2006, the Iraqi Parliament wanted to name him to anotehr
term; however, the US refused to allow that to happen and demanded that
their puppet Nouri al-Maliki be given the post instead. Just as Bush
protected Nouri in 2006, Barack did in 2010.
Al Rafidayn reports
today that Kurdish leaders say they are comfortable with the choice of
al-Jaafari to replace Nouri as prime minister. They also report that if
Nouri doesn't meet the deadline, the plan is for Moqtada to meet with
the National Alliance (Shi'ite slate that includes Nouri's State of Law,
Moqtada's bloc, the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq and more) and to
address the issues and options. Alsumaria reports
State of Law's Bahaa Jamal al-Din has declared in an interview with
them that withdrawing confidence from Nouri would pull the country into a
series of crisies. The obvious follow up to that would be: Is that
really a warning because it sounds like a threat? Alsumaria also notes
that al-Din states Moqtada's meeting with the National alliance today. Al Mada reports
National Alliance MP Jawad Albzona confirms the meet-up but places it
more up in the air with details not nailed down yet about issues such
as the time of the meet-up. Dar Addustour notes
the National Alliance has already postponed one meet-up on this issue
this week (they cancelled the planned May 15th meet-up). Alsumaria reported
earlier today that Moqtada al-Sadr is waiting on formal response from
the National Alliance and it's expected to be in written form. Moqtada tells Alsumaria that the response will determine the next move. Did he receive the reply? Alsumaria reports
Moqtada's not speaking now about a no-confidence vote and, when they
last spoke with him, he stated he hadn't received any response from the
National Alliance. Al Sabaah reports that Nouri's calling for a face-to-face sit-down with political blocs. Al Rafidayn reports
on rumors that include threats to publish "secret documents" in an
attempt to stop and/or start a no confidence vote. The latest round of
whispers today follow yesterday's allegation by Iraqiya that State of
Law was intentionally circulating false rumors as part of a
disinformation campaign. (It's an allegation many will believe because
State of Law has been doing that for weeks now.) Still on the political
scene, Khaled Waleed (Niqash) reports a new group emerging on the political scene:
A leading Sunni Muslim authority has launched a new initiative
to bring together extremist groups in a political alliance. What makes
the alliance unusual is that the extremists, who laid their weapons down
after US troops withdrew from the country late last year, come from the
two major sects of Islam in Iraq: Shiite and Sunni. In practice, these
sects are often rivals in a political, and sometimes a social, sense.
During several years of unrest between 2005 and 2007, that rivalry
turned violent in Iraq with extremist Sunni Muslim groups like al-Qaeda
targeting Shiite Muslims and vice versa.
But
now leading Sunni Muslim religious leader, Mahdi al-Sumaidaie, a
hardline cleric who is well known for issuing fatwas, or religious
decrees, calling upon followers to fight the US forces in Iraq and who
is also known to represent the Salafist jihadists, is not only bringing
the extremist factions to the debating table, he is also planning to
unite the two sides within one political party.
What
will unite the various groups from different sects is the fact that
they all fought against US troops in Iraq, after that country invaded
Iraq in 2003. Al-Sumaidaie believes that, now that the US military has
left Iraq, it is time for these groups to lay down their weapons and to
participate in the political process.
In what Nouri hoped would be an easy political victory, May 7th, Nouri's government acknowledged that it can't protect the people, Al Rafidayn reported
that Nouri's agreed to allow every Iraqi household to keep one gun
provided they register it with the nearest police department. Dar Addustour added that Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh has explained the one gun can be either a rifle or a pistol. Al Sabaah noted that the Ministry of the Interior will issue guidelines on how the new procedure will be implemented. Kitabat explained that the current policy had been for the Iraqi forces to confiscate any weapon they found during a house raid. May 10th, the pushback began. Alsumaria reported
that State of Law MP Shirwan Waeli is questioning the wisdom of the
decision and stating State of Law shouldn't be giving legitimacy to
arming people and that, futhermore, it suggests that the government is
unable to protect Iraqis so it is now the direct responsibility of the
citizens to protect themselves. Supporters argue that the move was an
attempt to limit guns and that the one-gun rule will greatly reduce the
number of firearms in each home. Alsumaria noted
that objections to Nouri's one-gun policy are also coming from the
Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and the Kurdistan Alliance. Ala
Talabani, spokesperson for the Kurdistan Alliance, spoke publicly
today about the issue and declared that they fear making each household
register their one gun with the nearest police station in their areas
will provide temptation for corruption. Talabani also states that they
fear the rule could lead to an increase in so-called 'honor' killings as
well as an increase in domestic violence. Today
Al Mada reports
that his proposal of one firearm per household continues to be
criticized. Women for Peace's Shaza Nagi declares that a group of NGO
members met to discuss the proposal and to put forward various
counter-proposals. The biggest concern remains, according to Nagi, the
presumed acknowledgment of this move: That the government's making clear
it cannot protect the citizens.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.