|
Thursday,
August 2, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri fumes as Turkey
visits Kirkuk, Allawi makes a high profile stop in the region, is the
Dept of Veterans Affairs violating US law, what is controlling
ownership, and more.
With the non-stop wars of
the last years, there are a large number of veterans in the US
population. Some of them would like to start their own businesses. Gordon Block (Watertown Daily Times) reports
on "soldiers and veterans" who turned out for a seminar on that topic
that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was behind. Those attending were
able to ineract with "Empire State Development; the Departments of
State, Labor, and Taxation and Finance; the state Liquor Authority and
the Workers' Compensation Board." Governor Cuomo's Deputy Secretary for
Civil Rights, Alphonso B. David, explains, "We want them to understand
there are these resources." This week the Deputy Administrator of the
US Small Business Administration Marie C. Johns explored the topic at The Huffington Post and noted,
"In fact, over nine percent of veterans start or purchase a business
once they return home. And the ripple effect of their entrepreneurial
spirit is evident in the rate of small business ownership across the
nation. Currently, there are over two million veteran entrepreneurs
employing close to six million people across the nation."
Veteran
businesses, Congress was told today, that apply for to be recognized as
such by the VA suffer from a 60% initial rejection rate and there is a
40% rejection rate for those who apply a second time. The VA's Leney
stated that the VA believed, this year alone, 59 businesses had
fraudulently applied for veteran status and that they had referred those
59 to the Office of Inspector General. This is more than double the
2011 numbers (25 referred) and 2012 is not yet over.
Chair
Marlin Stutzman: Everyone here knows about the problems VA has had
implementing the small business provisions of a series of public laws
beginning Public Law 109-461 and we'll hear more about it today, I'm
sure. While addressing those continuing issues is important, especially
those that may include criminal activity, the past is not my focus
today. I want to know how and -- equally important -- when VA will put
in place the systems and the policies that will shorten the time,
decrease the level of effort needed to pass muster to lower the costs
and finally create a community of veteran owned businesses that is
reasonably free from unqualified companies. This is not just a VA
task. There are issues we in Congress need to deal with as well.
"We
have patiently waited for signs of progress following the installation
of a new Executive Director of Smll and Veteran Business Programs at the
VA," declared Chair Bill Johnson this morning. "And while some
improvements have been made, unfortunately the goals established nearly
a year ago have yet to be achieved. This Committee has an oversight
responsibility to the American people to ensure that tax dollars
administered by the VA are going to legitimate, qualified, veteran owned
businesses. I am hopeful that today's hearing will encourage and
assist the VA in reaching their goals of improving the CVE [Center for
Veterans Enterprise] once and for all."
Stutzman
and Johnson were co-chairing a joint hearing of two House Veterans
Affairs subcommittees -- the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
(Johnson) and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation
(Stutzman).
The first panel was the
Executive Director of VA's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization, Thomas Leney. That's what we're emphasizing today because I
want it on the record here that the Congress believes the VA is not in
compliance with the law. In addition, we're going to note the most
puzzling and troubling moment of the hearing. This also took place on
the first panel. If you're a veteran wanting to start a small business,
you may need money. One way to get money for your business is to bring
in investors. But while, in the real world, doing that will not
penalize you, in the faux world of VA classifications, it turns out many
veteran owned businesses are not getting recognized as such -- which
can mean that they are not allowed to bid for VA contracts. VA is
operating under a defintion of ownership and control that is unique to
the world of VA and clearly puzzled the members of Subcommittees --
Democrats and Republicans.
First up, the issue of the law. Excerpt:
Chair
Bill Johnson: Mr. Leney, you heard the quote I read just a little bit
before from the Federal District Judge for the District of Columbia.
He said "several of the groups cited by the CVE as a basis for denying
the application for inclusion in the VetBiz VIP database are described
in such generalized and ambiguous terms that the Court is essentially
left to guess as to the precise basis for the agency's decision." So
what steps has the CVE taken to ensure that decisions for appeals are
sufficiently reasoned so that, if the issue does go to court, a judge
can properly exercise judicial review.
Thomas Leney: Uh -- sir, I find that, uh, judicial concern, uh, troubling --
Chair
Bill Johnson: Okay, I know you find it troubling. And we've got a lot
of witnesses to hear from today. I don't want to -- I don't want to
spin our wheels. Have you made any improvements as a result of that
District Judge's findings and the input that we've given you from this
Committee -- Subcommittee -- to make sure that appeals are sufficiently
reasoned to make sure that they can be understood? Has any action been
taken?
Thomas
Leney: Yes, sir. As I mentioned in my oral statement every request for
reconsideration receives a legal review from our Office of General
Counsel on the basis of are we prepared to defend it in court?
Chair Bill Johnson: Have you made any changes to your process to make sure that they are --
Thomas Leney: That is the change to the process. Every one of our requests for reconsideration receives a legal review.
Chair Bill Johnson: Okay. And that wasn't being done prior to --
Thomas Leney: That was not being done prior.
Chair
Bill Johnson: Does -- does VA possess the necessary expertice in
making determinations of ownership under their current process?
Thomas Leney: Yes, sir.
Chair
Bill Johnson: Okay. Does -- VA does not allow for affiliatons whereas
because you testified a few minutes ago that because your processes are
consistent, your regulations are consistent with SBA regulations if I
heard you correct.
Thomas Leney: Yes, sir.
Chair
BIll Johnson: The VA does not allow for affiliatons whereas
government-wide rules do allow for affiliatons. Why is there a
difference between SBA and VA's interpretation?
Thomas
Leney: Sir, in response to engagement with this Committee, we
undertook a review of our regulation with respect to 13 CFR 125 and 13
CFR 124 which are the SBA regulations. We found that not only are our
regulations similar, our interpretations are similar as well. In fact,
based on our review to date the SBA regulations routinely reaches
similar if not identical decisions as the VA. We have -- We have
undertaken a review of the regulation. We're doing that in
collaboration with the SBA and, in fact, one of the elements, if you
compare the two regulations, our regulation is much more detailed than
13 CFR 125.
Chair
Bill Johnson: What about 13 CFR 121, Mr. Leney, that's also a part of
this disccusion that describes the intent of the Congress? How do you
-- how do you involve 13 CFR 121 in your process?
Thomas Leney: Sir, the 13 CFR 121 is one of the regulations we are now looking at as part of our review of our regulations.
Chair
Bill Johnson: But it's been for a long time and we've suggested that
you include it for a long time. And you're just now looking at it?
Thomas
Leney: Sir, our focus -- my focus has been to implement the
regulations that the VA utilizes for the verification program.
Chair Bill Johnson: But shouldn't the regulation be based on the law, Mr. Leney?
Thomas Leney: The regulation, we believe, is based on the law, sir.
Chair Bill Johnson: But not if you exclude, uhm, 121.
Thomas
Leney: Sir, like I say, the Secretary [of the VA Eric Shinseki] has
directed us to review the regulation. We are doing so in conjunction
with the SBA and stakeholders. I cannot -- I cannot speak to why it was
not being done previously. But it is being done now.
Chair Bill Johnson: How long have you been here, Mr. Leney?
Thomas Leney: Sir, I've been here a year.
Chair Bill Johnson: And this is not the first time that you've testified before this Subcommittee.
Thomas Leney: This is not the first time.
Chair Bill Johnson: We've talked about 121 before.
Thomas Leney: Yes, sir.
Chair Bill Johnson: Okay. So why are you waiting for the Secretary to tell you to do something that the law clearly requires?
Thomas
Leney: Sir, as I stated, my focus has been to implement the regulation
that is in place with the VA. That regulation has been long standing
and it has been tested. We are now reviewing that regulation based on
an extensive series of stakeholder engagements. And I'll be happy to
come back and report --
Chair
Bill Johnson: You'll get a chance to come back, Mr. Leney, because
it's a violation of the law. 121 is part of the process and that's what
this Subcommittee demands, it's what the American people demand.
That's why we're losing patience with the process -- because we keep
making these suggestions and we keep spinning our wheels and chasing
this same rabbit around the corner over and over again. So I'm sure
I'll have more questions but I'm going to go now to Mr. Stutzman for his
questions.
Chair
Marlin Stutzman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe the VA has a
fairly robust statistical analysis section. Is that correct?
Thomas Leney: Sir, I can't speak to that. I don't know.
Chair Marlin Stutzman: You don't know that --
Thomas Leney: I don't know the extent of the statistical analysis.
Chair Marlin Stutzman: You do have -- You do have one?
Thomas Leney: I can't speak to that. I do not know.
Now
let's move over to issues of ownership and control and, again, we're
just on the first panel and the one witness, Thomas Leney.
US
House Reps Jerry McNerney and Phil Roe asked about veterans who are
turned down despite owning 51% of their company. They can't get a
veterans small business contract if they own 51% because that's not
"control." Roe explained that if you owned 51% of GM stock, you control
General Motors. However, that's not the VA definition. The VA
definition is that the owner must have 100% control. There can be
partners, but they can't have control or even voting rights because, as
the VA is interpreting it, even voting rights waters down control. No,
that doesn't make any sense at all.
Chair
Bill Johnson: You said you're going towards lines of clear
delineation. Give us the definition of control. You ought to be able
to do that. You're the Director of this department. Tell this
Subcommittee right now, tell the people that are listening today what is
the defintion of control if 51% ownership doesn't qualify. What is it?
Thomas
Leney: The definition of 100% control is that you can do anything you
want with that business, make any decision concerning that business to
include selling that business for a dollar and no one else in that
business to include other owners -- other minority owners -- can do
anything to prevent you from doing so.
Chair
Bill Johnson: Mr. Leney, do you know of any business in the world that
has more than one owner where that defintion would qualify? Can you
name me one business? One?
Thomas Leney: I can name you thousands of businesses
Chair Bill Johnson: Where that definition qualifies?
Thomas Leney: Yes, sir.
Chair Bill Johnson: Under a court of law?
Thomas Leney: Yes, sir.
Chair Bill Johnson: I'd like to see them. Would you write them down and submit them to this Committee?
Thomas Leney: Yes, sir.
Chair Bill Johnson: I'd like you to do that. I'd like to see that.
Those
were among the big moments in the hearing today. Time and space
permitting, we'll note some other moments from the hearing tomorrow.
Lara Jakes (AP) reports
that attempts by the US government to have Ali Mussa Daqduq extradited
to the US to stand trial for his part in "the 20007 killings of five
American soldiers" has been rebuffed by an Iraqi legal panel composed of
three judges whose ruling notes, "It is not possible to hand him over
because the charges were dropped in the same case. Therefore, the court
decided to reject the request to hand over the Lebanese defendant Ali
Mussa Daqduq to the U.S. judicial authorities, and to release him
immediately." Back in December, law professor Robert Chesney noted where blame could fall. The list included:
Blame
the Maliki administration for intransigence in refusing to let us
remove Daqduq during the waning days of our presence, and for now
apparently going forward with comically minor charges. Blame the Obama
administration for not somehow overcoming that intransigence. Blame
critics of the administration who fiercely objected (for reasons that
still make little sense to me) to the prospect that Daqduq might be
brought into the United States for a military commission trial, making a
fetish out of GTMO as the only permitted geographic location for such
proceedings. Blame the Obama administration for refusing to use GTMO in
the face of such intransigence.
Back
in June of 2009, the US began releasing those responsible for the
deaths of the five American soldiers. They did so, see the June 9, 2009 snapshot, so that Barack could get a terrorist group to turn over some British corpses. As noted in that snapshot:
CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were:
Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N.
Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of
Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York;
and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the
five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali
are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states
that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the
release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did?
Somebody needs to answer for it."
Liz Sly and Peter Finn (Washington Post) reported
that US National Security Council spokesperson Tommy Vietor insisted
that the White House "sought and received assurances that he will be
tried for his crimes." Some assurances. May 7th,
Daqduq was cleared of all charges. Senator Kelly Ayotte released a
statement that day noting that she and 19 other US Senators lodged their
objection to transferring Daqduq July 21, 2011 in a formal letter which
"expressed the Senators' concerns that transferring Daqduq to Iraqi
custody might result in his release and a return to terrorist
activities." Those concerns were dismissed. When the May 7th verdict
came down the White House demanded a "do-over" in Iraqi courts. No
surprise (except maybe to the White House) the same Iraqi courts cleared
Daqduq of the charges which led the July 12th fuming from the White House that appeared to be just for show:
AFP reports
that there was an attack on a police patrol in Taji yesterday which led
to the deaths of four police officers and that there was an attack on a
Taji prison in which four other police officers were killed. Alsumaria reports
that the attack started with a bombing at the gate and then assailants
stormed the prison where they clashed with prison guards -- they state
officials have not released the death tolls -- and they remind something
similar happened in Baghdad Tuesday when a car bombing outside the
counter-terrorism center was followed by assailants attempting to storm
the center leading to five deaths and twenty-seven people being
injured. The supposed goal behind the Tuesday attack was to break out
forty terrorists including leadership. Of the Tuesday attack, Al Mada notes
that there were six suicide bombers outside the center who detonated
before assilants attempted to storm the counter-terrorism center.
Meanwhile Alsumaria reports that this morning a Baghdad attack using three bombs have left 4 police officers dead and four more injured. All Iraq News reports
there has been an armed attack on the Diyala headquarters of Sahwa
("Awakening," "Sons of Iraq") which has claimed the life of 1 and left
four more injured. AFP notes
a Baghdad car bombing has left 9 people dead and another thirty-two
injured, a Kirkuk home invasion left four family members dead (the
victims were Turkmen -- parents and two daughters -- and their throats
were all slit), three more Kirkuk attacks resulted in the deaths of 7
Iraqi soldiers with eleven more left injured, a Tirkit attack resulted
in 4 police officers being shot dead, a Tikrit bombing left 3 Sahwa
dead, 1 soldier was shot dead in Dujail with four more kidnapped and a
Samarra attack resulted in the death of 1 Sahwa and 1 police officer at
the hands of unknown assailants.
Iraq
Body Count, an independent tracking database, reports no drop in
civilian casualties, with an average of about 4,000 killed per year
since 2009.
The US troop pullout six months ago has taken the wind
out of the sails of many armed groups, especially Shia groups, whose
raison d'etre was opposing the occupation. But it has also led to a
rebalancing of power in which politicians, militias, "terrorists" and
countries in the region are vying for influence.
"The main event in
Iraq, which was postponed for many years due to the US presence, is the
struggle among Iraqis to control the country," argues Michael Knights, a
fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and author of
several books on Iraq. Analysts expect the struggle to continue bubbling
along for some time to come.
Here are a few of the drivers of conflict in Iraq:
Dysfunctional
parliament: Iraqi politics are young - only truly born after the US
withdrawal - and its players are still learning how to make democracy
work. "The main driver of violence in Iraq is the dysfunctionality of
the political process and the polarization between [Prime Minister
Nouri] al-Maliki and his opponents," says Joost Hiltermann, Iraq analyst
with the International Crisis Group. The Shiite rulers do not know how
to absorb minorities into the fold, and many questions around the
constitution, federalism and power/resource-sharing remain unanswered.
The inability to reach agreement has left the government unable to do
much of anything: unable to provide basic services (leading to mounting
frustration with the government) and unable to properly run its security
forces (who cannot contain the insurgents). Without some kind of
political consensus on how to run the country, insurgent groups will
keep finding fuel to light the fire. Or as one UN analyst put it: "Iraq
will be stuck like this until Iraqi politics become mature enough."
With
July now seen as the deadliest month in two years, Nouri's government
is eager to change the topic and are instead trying to steer the focus
to oil. Kadhim Ajrash and Nayla Razzouk (Bloomberg News) report,
"Iraq's crude exports in July rose for the third consecutive month to
an average of 2.52 million barrels a day, generating sales of $7.5
billion, the head of the country's State Oil Marketing Organization
said." AFP adds,
"Iraq's revenues from oil, which account for the lion's share of the
country's income, were up by about $1 billion in July compared to the
month before, an oil ministry spokesman said on Wednesday." The
announcement will most likely lead Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc to further
question the Ministry of Finance's assertion earlier this week that
there was no oil surplus revenues to distribute among the Iraqi people.
UPI notes
that "independence-minded Kurds seeking their own oil industry and a
new bombing offensive by al-Qaida, could cripple Baghdad's ambitions to
become the world's top oil producer."
It started late last year with ExxonMobil, then a month ago Chevron joined in, followed this week by Total and now Gazprom.
That's four of the world's biggest international oil and gas giants
that have defied Baghdad to sign up for concessions to drill for oil in
the Kurdistan region of northern Iraq.
Baghdad
has blacklisted the oil giants from future bidding rounds for southern
fields, and has condemned the sweet deals that the Kurds have been
offering as in violation of the Iraqi constitution.
All Iraq News notes
Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey's Foreign Minister, arrived in Erbil yesterday
on a regional visit and today he is visting Kirkuk. The outlet states
he may visit Baghdad. Al Mada notes
that Davutoglu was received yesterday by Kurdish Regional Government,
the Minister of the Interior, the Governor of Erbil and other
dignataries. Click here
for a photo of KRG President Massoud Barzani receving Davutoglu and the
KRG press release notes that the two addressed the relationship between
their two gvoernments (which has seen increased friendship, the
release notes) and discussed economic and energy partnerships as well as
the situation in Syria. The Journal of Turkish Weekly adds:
According
to the written statement released by the Turkish Foreign Ministry,
Davutoglu and Barzani held productive meetings in Irbil about bilateral
relations, regional problems and discussed the Syria crisis.
According
to the statement, Davutoglu and Barzani clarified their satisfaction
over the relations and agreed to expand them in all fields, particularly
in the fields of economic development and energy.
According to
statement Davutoglu and Barzani discussed the situation in Syria. "They
emphasized that the situation in Syria is grave. Syrian people continue
to suffer. Loss of life and destruction are at unprecedented levels.
They underlined that the actions of the Syrian regime and its policy to
provoke sectarian and ethnic conflict within the country will further
deteriorate the situation. The developments in Syria also pose a threat
to regional security and stability. This situation is unacceptable by
all standards," the statement said.
UPI reports
that upon seeing Kirkuk, Davutoglu declared, "This is the most
important day of my life. I am visiting Kirkuk, which was always in my
dreams. I am happy to be the first Turkish foreign minister to visit
Kirkuk in 75 years. Kirkuk will be an eternal city of peace in Iraq
where our Turkmen, Kurdish and Arab brothers live together." All that
peace talk was apparently too much for Baghdad. UPI notes that the
visit resulted in "outrage from the Iraqi government." Basil el-Dabh (Egypt Daily News) also notes, "Iraq's federal government condemned Davuutogulu's visit on Thursday."
Kirkuk is disputed with both Baghdad and the KRG claiming it. We're dropping back to the July 26, 2011 snapshot for more on this issue:
Of greater interest to us (and something's no one's reported on) is the RAND Corporation's report entitled "Managing Arab-Kurd Tensions in Northern Iraq After the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops."
The 22-page report, authored by Larry Hanauer, Jeffrey Martini and Omar
al-Shahery, markets "CBMs" -- "confidence-building measures" -- while
arguing this is the answer. If it strikes you as dangerously simplistic
and requiring the the Kurdish region exist in a vacuum where nothing
else happens, you may have read the already read the report. CBMs may
strike some as what the US military was engaged in after the Iraqi
forces from the central government and the Kurdish peshmerga were
constantly at one another's throats and the US military entered into a
patrol program with the two where they acted as buffer or marriage
counselor. (And the report admits CBMs are based on that.) Sunday Prashant Rao (AFP) reported
US Col Michael Bowers has announced that, on August 1st, the US
military will no longer be patrolling in northern Iraq with the Kurdish
forces and forces controlled by Baghdad. That took years. And had
outside actors. The authors acknowledge:
Continuing
to contain Arab-Kurd tensions will require a neutral third-party
arbitrator that can facilitate local CMBs, push for national-level
negotiations, and prevent armed conflict between Iraqi and Kurdish
troops. While U.S. civilian entities could help implement CMBs and
mediate political talks, the continued presence of U.S. military forces
within the disputed internal boundaries would be the most effective way
to prevent violent conflict between Arabs and Kurds.
As
you read over the report, you may be struck by its failure to state the
obvious: If the US government really wanted the issue solved, it would
have been solved in the early years of the illegal war. They don't want
it solved. The Kurds have been the most loyal ally the US has had in
the country and, due to that, they don't want to upset them. However,
they're not going to pay back the loyalty with actual support, not when
there's so much oil at stake. So the Kurds were and will continue to be
told their interests matter but the US will continue to blow the
Kurdish issues off over and over. Greed trumps loyalty is the message.
(If you doubt it, the Constitution guaranteed a census and referendum
on Kirkuk by December 31, 2007. Not only did the US government install
Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister in 2006, they continued to back him
for a second term in 2010 despite his failure to follow the
Constitution.)
Along
with avoiding that reality, the report seems rather small-minded or, at
least, "niche driven." Again, the authors acknowledge that as well
noting that they're not presenting a solution to the problems or ways to
reach a solution, just ways to kick the can further down the road and,
hopefully, there won't be an explosion that forces the issue any time
soon. ("Regional and local CBMs have the potential to keep a lid on
inter-communal tensions that will, without question, boil beneath the
surface for a long time. They cannot, however, resolve what is, at its
heart, a strategic political dispute that must be resolved at the
national level.") Hopefully? Page nine of the report notes that the
consensus of US military, officials, analysts, etc. who have worked on
the issue is that -- "given enough time -- Arab and Kurdish participants
will eventually have a dispute that leads to violence, which will cause
the mechanism to degrade or collapse."
The
report notes that, in late 2009, Gen Ray Odierno (top US commander in
Iraq at that point) had declared the tensions between Arabs and Kurds to
be "the greatest single driver of instability in Iraq." It doesn't
note how the US Ambassador to Iraq when Odierno made those remarks was
Chris Hill who dismissed talk of tensions as well as the issue of the
oil rich and disputed Kirkuk.
These issues are all at play. Further irritating Nouri may be Ayad Allawi's visit. KUNA reports that he is in Anakara meeting with Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
In
other news, President Barzani has a response to Nouri's whisper
campaign. Earlier this week, State of Law was whispering to the press
that Barzani would be called before Parliament for questioning. Then
the Speaker of Parliament's office weighed in noting that no such
request had been made. Al Mada reports
today that Barzani states he's more than ready to appear before
Parliament and answer questions if called. This not only allows Barzani
to appear open to the Iraqi people, it also underscores that Nouri's
ongoing refusal to appear before Parliament for questioning is in
violation of the Constitution.
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.