Felt Wood

June 5, 2005. And back then I didn't even title them. I'll call this one "Felt Wood" today. Mark Felt and Bob Woodward. Supposedly Felt was Deep Throat. Maybe you bought that. I didn't. Either Felt wasn't Deep Throat or Felt was one of many people who were (meaning Deep Throat was a composite).

Too much didn't and still doesn't add up and, considering Bob Woodward's background, lying isn't a new thing. (I'm referring to his military intelligence background but you can extend that to his 'reporting' if you wish.)

So Felt was supposedly on his deathbed back on June 5, 2005 and, this was the story, because he was about to die, Bob Woodward was coming out with the truth. Mark Felt did die. Over three years later. (December 18, 2008.) Yet another Bob Woody story that never held up.

I should actually feature Woody in more comics, he's very easy to draw. As easy to draw as he is stupid. So the whole comic's premise was Woody was introducing Mark Felt to the world.

And this is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Thursday, March 26, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Gareth Porter explains what the draw down means, and more.

Since it was little covered and since what coverage there was missed or (Spency Akerman) distorted the exchange, let's start by dropping back to yesterday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the nomination of Chris Hill to be Ambassador to Iraq. A key exchange was the following between Senator Jim Webb and Hill.

Senator Jim Webb: That being said, I just burned two minutes backing you up here, Ambassador Hill, and I got something I want to get clarified and it's something that's been concerning me for well over a year and that is the nature of the Strategic Framework Agreement and the SOFA agreement in Iraq and what our obligation actually is. And have you read those two agreements?


Chris Hill: Yes I have.

Senator Jim Webb: I-I read them last fall when they were, I think, wrongly categorized as "restricted information" -- where you had to go to a room to read a couple of documents that were not even classified because the previous administration, in my view, was trying to keep this issue away from the public debate. I re-read them again, about ten days ago, and I'm an old-legislative-council, words are very important to me. You've been through this many times and I also notice in your testimony and in the phraseology that's now being used we're talking -- you are talking, the administration is talking more about the drawing down of forces rather than the withdrawal of forces. And I think -- I think that's a pretty important distinction when looking at the verbage in this agreement. My concern is this: I was among a number of people -- the chairman [John Kerry], I know, also was, Vice President [Joe] Biden was one -- who was saying an agreement of such magnitude should have had the approval of the United States Congress. Whether or not it was raised to the level of a treaty, it certainly should have had the approval of the United States Congress. It required the approval of the Iraqi Parliament. And yet because of all the machinations and the presidential campaign, the business of the Congress, this agreement was basically done through executive signatories. It wasn't brought before the Congress at all. Now if you go and read this agreement -- and this is, if you're not familiar enough in detail to give me an answer today, I really would like to hear what the administration thinks. If you read this agreement in toto -- if you take Articles 2, 24, 27 and 30 and read them with the defintional phrases against each other, there really seems to be quite loose language when we're talking about a full withdrawal by the end of 2011. Just very briefly and I appreciate that the chairman will allow me a possibly couple of minutes over [overlapping, Commitee Chair John Kerry tells him to take the time he needs] but hopefully not. In the "Defintion of Terms" a "member of the United States forces" means any member who is a member of the United States Army, Navy, Airforce, Marine Corps. Any individual. Now if you read that against Article 24, I'm not going to go into detail through all the phraseology, it says, "All United States forces shall withdraw from Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011." I -- I am of the understanding, although I was not a participant, that that at one time said all United States forces "must withdraw" but now says "shall withdraw" -- "All United States forces shall withdraw no later than December 31, 2011." If you then look at Article 27 there are two fairly lengthy paragraphs that I'm not going to quote in total but they basically talk about if there is any external or internal threat to Iraqi soverignty, political independence -- some very loose language -- that we will take appropriate measures. And it also says there will be close cooperation training, equipping, etc. And finally, if you read all of that against Article 30, it says -- and this is important because of the way we came to this agreement -- it's important to me, anyway, as a legislature: "This agreement shall be amended only with the official agreement of the parties in writing and in accordance with the Constitutional procedures in effect in both countries." Well the argument can now be made that, since the Congress was not a part of the approval of the document, that an executive agreement, a signature in the same form as the way this agreement was signed, could basically say "Okay, we're not going to be out of there by December 2011. December 31, 2011" And in listening to the discussions with respect to residual forces and this sort of thing, I -- I'm not really hearing clearly that it's the intention of the administration to have a complete withdrawal of all United States forces by December 31, 2011. Would you comment on that?


Chris Hill: First of all, with respect to commenting on the specifics of the -- of the agreement, I would I would rather get back to you with a considered answer. Words matter on this. And this is the fundamental document that is the basis for our having forces in Iraq today so --

Senator Jim Webb: So the question really to come back to us on is: "Is it the position of the administration that we will withdraw all American military forces from Iraq by December 31, 2011? All?"
Chris Hill: That is -- that is our -- that is the position as I understand it. Now I understand, too, that this will this will be in continued consultations but my understanding is that, uh, it is the position that we will withraw all forces by December 31, 2011.

Senator Jim Webb: I very much appreciate that answer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is what had little Spency juking in his shorts as he heavy-panted, "that's a flat declaration." No, it's not and it actually goes to an issue Spency's mocked and made fun of. The GOP's argument is that they are concerned by what was said by Hill in previous testimony and Senator Sam Brownback feels he was misled by Hill in Congressional testimony. (See yesterday's snapshot.) If the position of the adminstration is as Webb fears (and I believe it is based on comments from and arguments with friends serving in the administration) and Hill is held accountable for stating "That is -- that is our -- that is the position as I understand it. Now I understand, too, that this will this will be in continued consultations but my understanding is that, uh, it is the position that we will withraw all forces by December 31, 2011."; Hill will come back and say, "Well, I also said before that I didn't know and words matter." Yes, Hill said that before. That is correct. And I don't believe Webb is confused on this issue.

But that goes to what has bothered Brownback. You can comb through Hill's testimony, his remarks specifically to Brownback while Hill served in the previous adminsitration, and technically Hill has told the truth. Technically. But he has misrepresented -- intentionally or not -- because he gives a sloppy presentation. Now we've remarkded yesterday on how sad/appalling it was that a nominee for an ambassadorship to another country showed up for a Senate hearing without combing his hair (prior to the hearing, at the start of the hearing or even during it -- anytime would have been helpful) and that goes to his sloppy presentation. But does he intend to be so sloppy? Does he just not think it matters for him to comb his hair (click here for an example of one huge twig sticking out in the back)? Does he just not think it matters for him to speak clearly?

On the last question, if he does think it is important to speak clearly, his first reply should have stood. Hill said, "First of all, with respect to commenting on the specifics of the -- of the agreement, I would I would rather get back to you with a considered answer. Words matter on this. And this is the fundamental document that is the basis for our having forces in Iraq today so --" Hill doesn't know the answer. That's clear from that statement. But, as with Brownback, Hill couldn't stick with a solid reply. Instead he offers comments that are speculation -- and the way he speaks, his speaking manner, during that section, it's clear he's speculating. If push comes to shove, Hill will point to that first reply ("First of all . . .") and state that he wasn't sure and words matter.

Throughout the hearing Hill contradicted himself non-stop. Sometimes he was threatening Iran, sometimes he was talking about how important it was for Iran and Iraq to get along. Hill is incredibly sloppy. I have no idea if -- as was asked yesterday -- Condi Rice yelled at him for a North Korea related issue but he has a reputation of being very sloppy of ignoring the directives because he picks from them to choose what he thinks is important. And what happens when his ranked importance wasn't ranked as highly by higher up in the State Dept? He would state he'd misunderstood the directive. [A new GAO report will address a few paragraphs down notes that "the Administration has emphasized the importance of a responsible drawdown of U.S. forces but has not yet defined this term." Hill's testimony didn't either.]

Not one, not twice. This is a repeat pattern and why is the Congress not being told of that? Hill's sloppy. I had no opinion of his nomination (as Ava's noted, she and I lobbied friends in the adminstration on behalf of several women to be the US Ambassador to Iraq -- the women we lobbied for were all qualified and would have, by their gender alone, sent a message that needs to be sent when the US has already installed a group of sexist thugs to run Iraq). I'd stated before that he was qualified though maybe not for Iraq. Yesterday's hearing and comments that followed after from friends at the State Dept? He's not qualified. Do I think he'll be confirmed? Probably. But his work habits are as sloppy and as poor as his grooming. And we'll go on the record right now, while everyone else is silent and wants to play like Hill's qualified, stating he is not qualified. Congress doesn't need someone who will mislead them -- intentionally or not -- and the White House does not need someone who will take the directive and then determine what he wants to do. Iraq doesn't need it. The exchange with Webb underscored Brownback's objection for anyone paying attention.


Back to Spency Ackerman the Democratic Cheerleader on the public dime. I'm not really sure that "This Is the Hill Sam Brownback Wants to Die On" qualifies for reporting in commercial publishing. But it is not in keeping -- none of Spency's 'reporting' is -- with their 501 (c) (3) non-profit tax status. When the day comes -- and it will, it may be ten years or more, but it will come -- that the Republicans have control of one or both houses, look for some of these 'non-profits' that self-describe as 'independent' and 'non-partisan' (and have to in order to be granted that tax status) to come under investigation. As they should. You don't cheat the tax payers by being wink-wink independent when actually being a party organ for a political party. You're seeing the abuses that lead to outrage and lead the public to switch back and forth between the two parties over and over, installing one and then the other. (A true independent media would have done the work required for a third party to emerge long ago but we don't have an independent media system in this country.) It's an important point and as long as we're going on the record re: Chris Hill's qualification, let's go on the record re: the appalling clowning that passes for 'reporting.' These are the nut-jobs who wanted to criticize the MSM. And yet, as we're seeing, they are guilty of every conspiracy theory they floated against the MSM. They have no ethics at all and they work in the beggar world of Panhandle Media because their character and ethics are so low that they can't work anywhere else. Though this [MSM] reporter isn't trying to frighten, Laura Rozen (Foreign Policy) blogged last night:The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held Chris Hill's confirmation hearing to become US ambassador to Iraq this morning. Though chairman Sen. John Kerry, ranking Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), two former Bush-appointed ambassadors to Iraq John Negroponte and Ryan Crocker, and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad, as well as Generals David Petraeus, Ray Odierno and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have come out in favor of getting Hill into place in Baghdad quickly, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) took to the Senate floor this afternoon to vow to continue to oppose him.

And a real left with a real alternative media would be frightened and bothered that the likes of Bloody John Negroponte and Can I Get Another Buck Down My G-String Zalmay Khalilzad are endorsing Hill for Ambassador of Iraq.

Staying with the issue of the draw down (the White House wants it spelled "drawdown," since we've noted the draw down since January -- as opposed to withdrawal -- we'll continue to spell it the way outlets have in previous wars -- unlike PBS which takes spelling lessons from Barack), Gareth Porter (IPS via Information Clearing House) reports the following:


Despite President Barack Obama's statement at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina Feb. 27 that he had "chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months," a number of Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), which have been the basic U.S. Army combat unit in Iraq for six years, will remain in Iraq after that date under a new non-combat label.A spokesman for Defence Secretary Robert M. Gates, Lt. Col. Patrick S. Ryder, told IPS Tuesday that "several advisory and assistance brigades" would be part of a U.S. command in Iraq that will be "re-designated" as a "transition force headquarters" after August 2010. But the "advisory and assistance brigades" to remain in Iraq after that date will in fact be the same as BCTs, except for the addition of a few dozen officers who would carry out the advice and assistance missions, according to military officials involved in the planning process. Gates has hinted that the withdrawal of combat brigades will be accomplished through an administrative sleight of hand rather than by actually withdrawing all the combat brigade teams. Appearing on Meet the Press Mar. 1, Gates said the "transition force" would have "a very different kind of mission", and that the units remaining in Iraq "will be characterised differently". "They will be called advisory and assistance brigades," said Gates. "They won't be called combat brigades." Obama's decision to go along with the military proposal for a "transition force" of 35,000 to 50,000 troops thus represents a complete abandonment of his own original policy of combat troop withdrawal and an acceptance of what the military wanted all along - the continued presence of several combat brigades in Iraq well beyond mid-2010. National Security Council officials declined to comment on the question of whether combat brigades were actually going to be left in Iraq beyond August 2010 under the policy announced by Obama Feb. 27.

Truths about the draw down will continue to emerge. Good for Porter for getting the ball rolling. Returning to the hearing, the peace movement should have been combing through Hill's statement. It's really important, Hill would repeatedly state, that the US military "take with them a sense of pride in the mission accomplished" and also "we want them to leave behind . . . a sense of security in the country." He would repeat similar remarks to Senator Russ Feingold (Feingold expressed concerns about the 35,000 to 50,000 troops remaining in Iraq after Barack's plan goes through): "They come back with not only a sense of a mission accomplished but a sense of a mission well done because our nation depends on this." Our nation depends on lies, Chris Hill? Kat noted Senator Robert Menendez at the hearing and she pointed out that his questioning was pracitacl and "that it's called 'oversight,' not 'aftersight'." Menendez noted the three to five billion dollars that the Special Inspector General for Reconstruction in Iraq has found to have been wasted, the millions "stolen by Iraqi officials" and that the SIGR noted "that there is corruption across the board at Iraq's ministries." Menendez was bothered by the waste, the theft and the lack of oversight. he wanted to know "why do you think our efforts there in reconstruction got so badly off track and, if confirmed as an ambassador, what do you consider your responsiblities to be with overseeing continued reconstruction and mitigating waste?"

Hill started off strong noting, "When the American tax payers give you money for something, it is important that we make sure that it is carefully spent -- wisely spent." Hill then went prancing off to The Land of Platitudes. (His point on this throughout the hearing was no more reconstruction will be paid for by US dollars -- oh really? -- and that US money will only now be used to 'firm up' the ministries, via training. He stressed this especially in an exchange with Senator Robert Casey Jr. insisting that there would be no actual construction and that US assistance would be "more in terms of technical assistance" from this point forward.) Other than talking about making sure seminars weren't booked if no Iraqis had interest in attending, he had nothing. Menendez noted, "I don't get the sense that there won't continue to be needs for US assistance to Iraq." He further pointed out that when money is mispent, badly spent or stolen, it makes it more difficult to get needed funds in the future for any project, anywhere. As Kat points out, he was looking for proactive measures by Hill. Hill provided none. Hill did state that really it was just a case of imposing some regulations. The SIGR states their massive and widespread corruption in every ministery but Hill believes a few regulations will fix the problem? If there's a job Hill might have been more poorly suited for than Ambassador to Iraq, it would apparently be fixing the economic crisis in the US so possibly we should all be thankful that he's only been nominated to be an ambassador?

The day Hill insisted that rebuilding efforts in Iraq would only now be technical assistance having to do with how to run ministeries, etc. and asserted that the US was out of the reconstruction of physical structures in Iraq, the US Government Accountability Office begged to differ. They issued the report entitled [PDF format warning] "Iraq and Afghanistan: Security, Economic, and Governance Challenges to Rebuilding Efforts Should Be Addressed in U.S. Strategies." As the report documents, this "technical assistance" for the ministries became the goal in 2007 -- two years ago. Further, the report indicates that indeed reconstruction will continue to be an issue for the US and this is probably most clear in the Figure 4 diagram. From the report, we'll note this on the spending (remember, al-Maliki sits on billions while the Iraqi people suffer):


Despite its substantial budget surplus and international assistance, Iraq has not spent the resources it set aside for reconstruction efforts essential to its economic recovery. As table 2 indicates, Iraq has spent about 12 percent, or $2 billion, of the $17.2 billion it allocated for reconstruction activities in the oil, electricity, and water sectors. In contrast, U.S. agencies have spent almost 90 percent, or $9.5 billion, of the $10.9 billion Congress made available for investment activities in these sectors since fiscal year 2003. Moreover, Iraqi ministries have consistently spent far higher percentages of their operational budgets, which include employee compensation, than they have of their investment budgets, which include infrastructure costs.

In yesterday's hearing, Senator Russ Feingold noted "recent press reports on the Kurdish region" and wondered how concerned we should be about this rising tension and what role the US should play in this situation?" This is where the 'wise' Hill declares of the question mark dangling over oil-rich Kirkuk, "they're disputes, they're flat out land disputes . . . just old fashioned land disputes." And then adds, "My understanding is that there are no total deal breakers there." Today Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reports that the US has had to move "a combat brigade" into the area and is being forced to mediate the conflict while Nouri al-Maliki has sent in Saddam Hussein's former strong-man Maj Gen Abdul Amir Zaidi to Kirkuk to "remove Kurdish forces, known as the peshmerga, from this bitterly disputed province, which is home to as much as 13% of Iraq's oil reserves and borders the semiautonomous Kurdistan region."

In Baghdad today, a bombing claims multiple lives. The Los Angeles Times reports it was a car bombing and at least 18 are dead with another forty wounded. Aseel Kami, Tim Cocks, Mohammed Abbas and Angus MacSwan (Reuters) explain it took place "in a crowded shopping district" and women and children were present and are among the injured. They also note this follows Wednesday's wave of Operation Happy talk from "U.S. and Iraqi security officials [who] lauded a sharp drop in violence in Iraq, which they said was lower than any time since mid-2003, but insurgents have shown themselves still capable of launching high-profile attacks." They said. They said based on their figures. Their non-public figures. Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) observes, "The bombing, the fourth major attack in Baghdad and its outskirts this month, came a day after the U.S. military said attacks in Iraq were at their lowest level since 2003. Although perhaps true, Monday's attack illustrated the resilient ability of insurgents to carry out devastating strikes in some of the country's most dangerous regions -- parts of Baghdad and its outskirts, Diyala province and the region around the city of Mosul." Shadid notes the car was said to be a "yellow Renault" and he quotes Naama Sabr stating, "Everything seemed to fall down around our heads -- rubble, shrapnel, everything. What was left? The dead were dead, the wounded were wounded and the rest managed to live." Campbell Robertson (New York Times) notes how theories are filling the vacuum created by no information which leads one woman to insist the bombing was the work of "sidewalk vendors who wanted the street closed again" and she, Thamar Mehdi Hassan, states, "The municipality of Baghdad is responsible for this violence. If they open it they have to protect it." BBC carries AFP's quote of Umm Hatam, "I tried to escape and the fire was everywhere. I saw the dead bodies of women and children, and about 10 small buses were burnt." Here's a really scary thing everyone should absorb: The BBC is running with AFP. BBC News, which is now responsible for ABC News out of Iraq (US' ABC, not Australia's) and it's dependent upon AFP to find a quote for a Baghdad bombing -- a Baghdad bombing. CNN says the death toll is 22 and the number wounded is thirty-eight (and they note a Mosul roadside bombing by a primary school which killed four young girls).


The Los Angeles Times notes, "On Monday, a bomb in western Baghdad's Abu Ghraib district killed at least nine people, and another blast that day killed 18 people north of Baghdad in Diyala province." Al Jazeera reminds today's car bombing "came three days after a suicide attack against Kurdish mourners in central Iraq, which killed 27 people and wounded 50 others."

Turning to other reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report a Kirkuk roadside bombing which left three employees of the Electricity Department injured and a Mosul grenade attack which wounded a shop owner..

Shootings?

Sahar Issa and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report 1 store owner shot dead in Mosul and also in Mosul Iraqi forces shot dead a driver at a checkpoint and 1 woman "who was passing by".

Kidnappings?

Sahar Issa and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report Kirkuk was the site of an attempted kidnapping of a bodyguard for the President of the Criminal Court and that the bodyguard was not kidnapped (the kidnappers ended up fleeing) but he was left wounded.

Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier died March 25 from non-combat related injuries. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is currently under investigation." ICCC lists their count as 4261. That's the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. AP has a count of 4262 and noted this morning that the DoD count was higher by one (that was before today's announcement -- AP's raised their count to 4262 and presumably the DoD has raised their count by one as well).


Those wanting to catch on some of yesterday's key events can click here for a summary from the Dallas Morning News.

Yesterday Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) reported on the Government Accountability Office's study entitled "Iraq: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight." DeYoung explained the study found the costs for the drawdown to be "expensive" and, referring to the SOFA, DeYoung observes, "The report notes that many implementing details of the December U.S.-Iraq agreement remain unspecified. After June, for example, all U.S. military operations must be conducted with Iraqi government approval, yet 'it is unclear whether U.S. forces will have a 'blanket' authorization to conduct certain types of operations, such as medical evaluations or routine joint patrols,' it said." The GAO summary of the report notes:

Key issues that should be considered in further defining the new strategy and its supporting operational plans are as follows: (1) The security agreement establishes dates for repositioning U.S. forces in Iraq and removing them from the country--a significant change from the United States' prior, conditions-based strategy for Iraq. A responsible drawdown in Iraq will need to balance the timetable established in the security agreement, military doctrine that calls for the delineation of conditions that must exist before military operations can end, and the wishes of the Iraqi government. (2) If the United States adheres to the timetable contained in the security agreement, DOD will need to remove about 140,000 troops by the end of 2011. The redeployment of these forces and the removal of their equipment and material will be a massive and expensive effort. (3) The large U.S. military presence has provided vital support to civilian operations and has undertaken many traditionally civilian tasks. In moving forward, the United States will need to consider how to transition from a predominantly military presence to a civilian one as U.S. forces draw down. (4) As U.S reconstruction efforts end, Iraq will need to develop the capacity to spend its resources, particularly on investment that will further economic development and deliver essential services to its people. GAO estimates that the Iraqi government had a cumulative budget surplus of $47 billion at the end of 2008.

The report itself [PDF format warning, click here] is fairly straightforward and we may come back to it in a later snapshot to grab something unrelated to withdrawal. One reason for the delay and expense is closing US military bases which the GAO says there are 283 of (as November 2008) and that would normally require one to two months in order to shut down but that is a time frame for simple bases and something like Balad Air Force Base (their example) would require much longer with estimates of more "than 18 months". The expense, this isn't the report, could be cut as could the time frame if the military were right now doing an inventory on equpiment and determing what was worth tranpsorting out and what could be left behind (which usually means torched by the US military) or passed over to the Iraqi government.

Credit where it's due dept, five individuals earned it. First up, on Tuesday night's press conference, Steve Padilla (Los Angeles Times) manages to maintain a sense of persepctive:President Obama has ended his second White House news conference, so let the second-guessing analysis begin. In all, he fielded questions from 13 reporters. It's worth noting some of the things that did not come up during the Q & A with the press. Iraq, for one. Never came up. Isn't there a war going on?
Michael D. Shear and Scott Wilson (Washington Post) also maintained a sense of perspective:During the 55-minute news conference, Obama faced no questions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, or terrorism. Instead, the president focused consistently on his administration's efforts to boost the economy, presenting his first budget proposal as the critical and most far-reaching step in that process.And possibly even more deserving of praise was the New York Times' live blogging, done in real time, with Helene Cooper and Jeff Zeleny catching it as it happened:
Helene Cooper 9:01 p.m. I'm still slackjawed over the shocking lack of national security issues raised. This is a new world we're living in, after seven years of Al Qaeda, Iraq and Afghanistan. Hard to imagine a Bush press conference focusing so singularly on the economy, but then, these are clearly different times.
Jeff Zeleny 9:00 p.m. The second prime-time press conference for Mr. Obama is in the books. Thirteen questions, but not one about Iraq or Afghanistan. That would have been impossible to imagine during his presidential campaign. So what's the headline? "Hang on Americans, We'll Get Through This."
All five earned credit and I intended to note them yesterday but that section was pulled due to not having enough space for everything.

iraqthe los angeles times
ned parkeraseel kamitim cocksmohammed abbasangus macswan
gareth porterthe new york timesrod nordlandthe washington postanthony shadid
karen deyoung
mcclatchy newspapers
sahar issa
hussein kadhim
cnn
steve padillathe los angeles timesthe new york timeshelene cooperjeff zeleny
laura rozen

Read on ...

Iraq Roundtable

Rebecca: Welcome to the Friday Iraq roundtable. This should be our fifth. We've done these for the last six Fridays -- we skipped one Friday -- to help put a spotlight on the Iraq War and to note the March on the Penatagon which takes place tomorrow in DC. We'll have more on that in a moment. But we are in DC for tomorrow's March. Today's if this posts on Saturday. Participating tonight are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim and Ava; me, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review; Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Trina of Trina's Kitchen, Wally of The Daily Jot and Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts. This roundtable will also be posted at the sites of Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ and Ruth of Ruth's Report. For Stan and Marcia, it's their first group trip to DC. Ruth's also brought four grandchildren. Tracey and Jayson have been here with all of us before but the other two are new to DC. C.I. had offered to guest post at other sites if anyone wanted to go out and felt like they had to post as well. Marcia asked if it would be possible just to cross-post the roundtable at her site and then the others agreed that was a great idea. Jim's participating mainly to make sure C.I. doesn't talk about something Jim wants saved for Third on Sunday. I am not joking. Ty, Jess, Dona and Dallas are out with the gang seeing the nightlife in DC, in case anyone wonders. Ava and C.I. are taking notes and will type this up. This is a rush transcript. With that lengthy intro, I can't imagine that I've forgotten anything. Okay, where do we want to kick this off at?

Trina: I want to start with Kristoffer Walker because of the fact that I think it's an important issue and I also want to be sure it's covered at my site. We don't have to go into great detail, I know Jim wants a piece at Third, but I do want it noted and noted at the start.

Rebecca: No problem, Trina. We're going to toss to Ava for the background.

Ava: Okay, Kristoffer Walker is a 28-year-old Iraq War veteran. He had attempted to get discharged through channels. He was ignored. He returned on a pass last month and declared that he would not be returning to Iraq. He stated the Iraq War was illegal and immoral. Upon returning home, he advised the military of his decision and saw his local Guard to see about duties he might be able to do but was cursed out there. The Associated Press covered his story and was the only national domestic news source to do so. That includes small media and I have to leave it at that on that because we will be addressing that at Third. This week he was back in the news. With the military threatening and -- my opinion -- little supoort, he decided to return to Iraq. He is still opposed to the illegal war and stands by his statements.

Mike: This really ticked off my mother, this topic.

Rebecca: Trina is Mike's mother.

Mike: Right, sorry. And he didn't get any support, Ava's right. Courage to Resist, for example, an organization that is supposed to get the word out on service members who resist, never mentioned him. We're talking weeks where he wasn't mentioned. Media ignored him. It was disgusting. And they ignored him after he announced his decision.

Wally: And to be really clear here, AP covered that and covered him. Other than them, he was covered by Wisconsin media. He was also covered by right-wing websites which slammed him repeatedly. Can I toss to you on that, Jim?

Jim: Sure. C.I. covered Kristoffer repeatedly at The Common Ills --

C.I.: Interrupting to note that Jim and Dona filled in for me the night of the Academy Awards and they covered it the night they filled in. That was the first time it was covered at The Common Ills. Credit where it's due.

Jim: Thank you. But C.I. covered it repeatedly. And because of that, the nasty e-mails came in. Dona and I help out with the e-mails at the public account for The Common Ills. There are others who help out like Jess, Martha, Shirley, Eli, Ava and C.I. But there were really disgusting e-mails. On Kristoffer Walker, on C.I. for covering Kristoffer. And they'd usually note, these nasty e-mails, what this right-wing web site said or that one said. To be clear, no right-wing blogger, that I know of, e-mailed to attack. But it was obvious that the right-wing was covering Kristoffer Walker and, as is their inclination, they were slamming him. So with no left defense, he was pretty much on his own.

Trina: There's a mother that writes me regularly. Her son self-checked out and has gone elsewhere, outside of the US, not to Canada, and is now engaged to a woman in that country. He's been 'underground' bascially this whole time and hopefully he'll be able to go above ground after the wedding. But, she wrote just outraged each week over the refusal by so many media outlets to cover Kristoffer Walker and she was especially outraged by the silence. As am I.

Rebecca: It really was something and I tossed to Ava because she could do background but nothing else. Ditto C.I. The reason is Jim wants a piece on it for Third and if we run out of time or can't get it to work when we're writing it, he wants Ava and C.I. to be prepared to grab it in their TV piece.

Jim: If I could add one more thing. A number of e-mails came into The Common Ills on KPFA and I am lobbying Ava and C.I. to do two features -- the second would be on KPFA's hideous performance this week that just played out like a "We do not deserve tax payer funding."

Rebecca: I agree that would be interesting. Let's turn to stop-loss. Isaiah hasn't spoken and said he wasn't sure how much help he'd be so let me toss to him to give us some background on stop-loss.

Isaiah: Stop-loss is the backdoor draft. You enlist and you sign a contract. Say for eight years. That would usually mean six years of service and two years inactive at the end of your contract. In many cases, when your contract was coming to an end for active duty service, you would be informed you had been stop-lossed. In other cases, your contract might be up. C.I. had this in the snapshot but pulled it because there wasn't enough room, the snapshot was too many K, but look at Camilo Mejia. His contract had completely expired. He was serving in Iraq and he was stop-lossed there.

Jim: If I could, I'll recommend Kimberly Peirce's Stop-Loss which was insulted by KPFA today, by two people, as C.I.'s pointed out in replies to e-mails complaining about Aimee and her guest's little stunt, who didn't know what they were talking about. I don't just mean about the film, I mean about stop-loss. They may get busted by C.I. and Ava and I'm pushing for that.

Elaine: I'll jump in because I know Ava and C.I. can't address this subjet -- in case they're covering it Sunday at Third. As C.I. pointed out in today's snapshot, Robert Gates has repeatedly said the army would work to eliminate stop-loss. It hasn't happened yet. Nor is he making a promise that will cease. The best, kicking out all qualifiers, is he can guarantee a few months will not utilize stop-loss. Thomas E. Ricks has also pointed out that when stop-loss is supposedly being phased out, Robert Gates is out of the job as Secretary of Defense so it will actually be the next Secretary of Defense that will be over it.

Trina: To me, it's still the same thing it always is which is Barack gets applauded for doing nothing. A vague announcement is made and everyone tosses aside the vagueness and cheers madly.

Wally: Exactly. You've got liars praising Barack for something that, if it happens, IF, will not happen until January 2010. This is insane. It's the lazy child theory that C.I.'s friend was talking about.

Trina: Exactly. You sit there and praise the lazy child for something they say they will do and then, because they got their praise, they avoid doing a damn thing. How about we start waiting to see what's happening, to see something implemented, see if it's done?

Mike: I will not say whether it is a sister or brother but I will say my mother knows of what she speaks. I have a sibling that you do not praise for what will be becuase if you do ___ will not do what ____ said they would.

Elaine: You can take it to a relationship as well -- a love relationship. Think of the guy you dated who never did a thing. Think of how he meant to get you flowers for Valentine's Day or he meant to take you out to eat on your birthday or whatever. That is one of the most common problems among women that I have seen in all my years of practice. I always advise the same thing, which is what Trina's advocating right now, don't praise. Don't say, "Oh, that's so nice that you were going to" whatever. They get that bit of nice and they don't care. This isn't all men. It's not Mike and it's probably 2% of the men I've been involved with. But I think probably 65% of women can tell you of at least one relationship they've had where this took place.

Ava: I would agree with that and include myself on that list; however, I'm not talking about Jess, I'm talking about before I was involved with Jess.

Rebecca: Okay. The sixth anniversary of the illegal was Thursday. Saturday actions take place. The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War -- all are taking part in a real action. Iraq Veterans Against the War explains: IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21st As an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately. For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: http://www.pentagonmarch.org/ or http://www.answercoalition.org/.

Rebecca (Con't): So that's Saturday afternoon. If you're not in one of the cities listed above that doesn't mean there's not an action in your area. I'm going to swipe this from C.I.'s snapshot today, "In addition, IVAW's Dustin Alan Parks has organized a demonstration in Fort Worth, Texas. Chris Vaughn (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) reports 'the Rock Bottom Peace March" will take place "at 10 a.m. in General Worth Square in downtown Fort Worth'." So that's another event and there will be events in most areas. I want to talk about the People's Mujahideen of Iran, though, right now. I know very little of them. I know C.I. was holding to give time for the issue to be addressed and I know they appeared in today's snapshot so I want to discuss them.

C.I.: Okay, they've been in Iraq for approximately 23 years. They are Iranians. After the Shah was overthrown, they were welcomed into Iraq by Saddam Hussein who was not fond of Iran, to put it mildly. They have remained in Iraq all this time. Some countries see them as a terrorist organization. They have publicly renounced violence and the European Union decided not to list them as terrorists; however, the US continues to list them as such. That's more of a Bush era determination. I'm not saying that Barack's administration will change the listing -- or should -- I'm trying to make it clear as to what's going on. If there's a question, ask because I don't know how indepth we want to get on this?

Mike: Okay, Let me ask about the State Dept. I know this but for late comers.

Elaine: Let's back up a second. C.I. was asked by friends in the current administration not to write about this topic while they were attempting to deal with it. Right after the election, this became a huge problem in Iraq. And they were not in power, the new administration, and it was just a huge mess. C.I. agreed -- and this was noted at The Common Ills -- not to weigh in until February unless the refugees were attacked. You had Arianna's motley crue of uninformed bloggers weighing in at some point with alarmist posts that never include facts but make appeals to base emotions via 'creative' writing. C.I. stayed out of it until March. Until today. So let's start with why today?

C.I.: The Iraqi government made clear that they want the People's Mujahideen of Iran out of Iraq. They're asking for other countries to take them in. That means that it's an issue that has to be addressed now. Mike, you were asking about the State Dept?

Mike: Right. Talk about what was going on then and what's going on now.

C.I.: Well then was Bush. The State Dept knew the flare up was coming, the military knew it and was advising on it. They had months and months worth of heads up and they refused, the Bush White House, refused to address the situation. As Elaine pointed out, it finally flared up after the election and before Barack was sworn in. Even the flare up didn't prompt the Bush White House into action. A number of people at the State Department had prepared various options over the summer. The Bush administration wasn't interested then or at anytime else. I've even been told there was a certain glee over the fact that the flare up was taking place as the handover to Barack was about to take place.

Mike: Glee on the part of the Bush administration.

C.I.: Yes. Though not yet sworn in, this was one of the many foreign policy issues regarding Iraq that the Barack administration was discussing. They have various ideas and I have no idea which one they're getting behind but they are going to have to do something now that Iraq's government is saying the refugees have to leave. And "they are going to have to do something now" is not my attempting that they have dragged their feet. This is a very complicated issue and the US military has been able to protect the refugee camp. But that can't go on forever and it's not fair to the US military because the surrounding areas want the refugees out so it's only antagonizing relationships in that area, it's only builidng up ill will for US forces. So the refugees are in danger, al-Maliki wants them out and the US forces are risking garnering more animosity for protecting the Iranian refugees. For those three reasons, something has to be done. Now, one thing that can be done, is to talk to Nouri al-Maliki and make it clear that he needs to back off. If that happens, there may be more time to address the situation. But by sending out his spokespeople to make the announcement and with Iran's reaction -- they want the Iranian refugees out of the region -- not just out of Iraq -- unless they're going to be able to try them. So by sending out his spokespeople and with Iran's public reaction,the stakes got raised and in many ways it's worse than when the violence was more intense a few weeks ago, violence aimed at the refugees.

Mike: So what do you think will be done or what you guess will be done?

C.I.: I have no idea. I believe several options are being worked right now with the hopes that traction will start on one of them. If you want my opinion on what the Barack administration would prefer right now, it would be getting al-Maliki to cool down and back off the they-must-leave talk. Doing that would allow more time for the US to go into talks with other countries about accepting the refugees.

Wally: Can the refugees come here?

C.I.: Children and women, possibly. Not likely. But possibly. That was the opinion of State -- career employees -- under the previous administration and they continue to think maybe. But it's a weaker maybe now because Bush, as a Republican, might have been able to sell it to Congressional Republicans. Democrats might not like it but, out of humanitarian desires, might have allowed it. But Barack's a Democrat. He really can't propose that they come over and not expect major objections from the Republicans. They are still considered a terrorist group, that's how the US lists them. So it's very unlikely that under Barack, any could come to the US. The Republican reaction would most likely be to take the floor and denounce this admission of 'terrorists.' I'm not saying they're terrorists, I'm not saying they're not. They are refugees. I don't think that can be debated. It also can't be debated that the US has classified them as terrorists because that is the classification. So I don't see them coming here. Not in the current climate. You would have Republicans going on TV, they would make this Guantanamo issue. With Guantanamo, the talking point -- the Republican talking point is, "These are terrorists! Barack's making us unsafe!" Forget the fact that nothing's been closed and no one's been set free. But that's the talking point. They would combine that if the People's Mujahideen of Iran were allowed -- even in part -- to come to the US. They would tie it together and go to town on it. So, my opinion, it's not likely.

Wally: You're not taking an opinion on whether they're terrorists or not?

C.I.: No. I'm not disputing that they are classifed as such by the US government. But I'm not making a call on whether that's appropriate or not. That's me. Anyone in the community that wants to make a call one way or the other is welcome to do so.

Trina: You made a point in the snapshot that needs to be repeated here. This needs to be dealt with now while US forces are on the ground. Talk about that.

C.I.: The US forces are the only thing that have kept the refugees alive. There is tremendous ill will towards them in the region their camp is. A small drawdown of approximately 10,000 US forces are supposed to take place between now and December 31st. If violence flares up before or after or if al-Maliki needs US forces for another assault on Basra, you're putting the refugees at risk. Ideally, before any drawdown begins, this should be taken care of because its been ignored and ignored. And Iraq's now made a decision. That decision is the Iranian refugees leave. The US nees to faciliate that.

Trina: And you're not saying that US forces should remain for a longer period or anything like that.

C.I.: No. I'm saying the issue has been pushed by al-Maliki and has to be dealt with, that the US forces are the only thing that have kept the refugees safe and that the issue of their departure now has to be managed. The only thing that would change that would be al-Maliki backing off.

Ava: And if he did, he wouldn't be trust worthy. He's blown that with the US. They're very wary of what he might do in the lead up to the planned December elections.

Rebecca: Good point. I think we're going to wrap up. I'm going to let Isaiah and Trina give some closing thoughts or a topic we didn't grab that the might want to now.

Isaiah: Trina's nodding to me so I'll just say I can't believe what's going on. I can't believe how little attention the sixth anniversary of the start of the illegal war has received this week. I really think that if the left doesn't get over their infatuation with Barack real quick this country's going to be in huge trouble.

Trina: I would agree with Isaiah. Daniel Ellsberg has been pointing out that the illegal war is not ending and he is being ignored. Outlets that couldn't miss a word he said when Bully Boy Bush was in the White House now work overtime to ignore him. It's very telling and very sad. I would encourage everyone to get active tomorrow.

Rebecca: Well said. Thank you to everyone for participating. We're going to wind down now. I can tell you that three topics discussed will be pulled by Jim because he wants them covered at Third.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Friday, March 20, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, an Abu Ghraib lawsuit can proceed, media coverage of the sixth anniversary is sparse (but out there if you hunt), things heat up in England, and more.


"It is now six years since we went into Iraq," writes Rose Gentle (UK's Military Families Against The War). "On June 28th it will be five years to the day since I lost my boy. It's a day I can't get away from. I can remember watching the news when it said that a British soldier had been killed. I looked at the TV and saw the body of a boy on the ground. No, it can't be Gordon, I thought, as I would have been told by now. But it was. Four hour later I was told it was Gordon." Gordon Gentle died June 28, 2004 at the age of 19, in a Basra roadside bombing. Rose Gentle concludes, "One day we will know why we went there and we can all make up our own minds. But as a mum I have to know now." Rose Gentle is not the only one asking for answers. Nigel Morris (Independent of London) reports Carne Ross ("formerly Britain's top Iraq specialist at the United Nations) joined the cry "for a full public inquiry into the war" yesterday. The BBC informs that Brian Jones ("former senior defense intelligence expert") "also made the case for a public inquiry and shared that before the illegal war started he had already complained about the false claims the Tony Blair government was pushing such as Iraq's supposed WMDs. Monday Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reported 72% of respondents in a new BBC survey support an inquiry into the Iraq War. BBC explained that the 18-24 years-old group supports an inquiry by 81%. Last week, government e-mails from the period leading up to the illegal war were released demonstrating that the case Tony Blair was making for war was not valid and that these bogus claims were called out by intelligence experts.

The release of those e-mails followed the February 26th declarations made by John Hutton, UK Sec of Defense, on the floor of the House of Commons:

During the final stages of the review of records of detentions, we found information about one case relating to a security operation that was conducted in February 2004, a period which honorable members I'm sure will recall saw an increased level of insurgent activity as the transfer to Iraqi sovereignty drew closer. During this operation, two individuals were captured by UK forces in and around Baghdad. They were transferred to US detention in accordance with normal practice and then moved subsequently to a US detention facility in Afghanistan. This information was brought to my attention on the first of December, 2008. And I instructed officials to investigate this case thoroughly and quickly so I could bring a full account to Parliament. Following consultations with US authorities we confirmed that they transferred these two individuals from Iraq to Afghanistan in 2004 and they remain in custody there today. I regret that it is now clear that inaccurate information on this particular issue has been given to the House by my department. I want to stress however that this was based upon the information available to ministers and those who were briefing them at the time. My predecessors as secretaries of state for defense have confirmed to me that they had no knowledge of these events. I have written to the honorable members concerned, correcting the record, and am placing a copy of these letters also in the library of the house. And again, Madame Deputy Speaker, I want to apologize to the House for these errors. The individuals transferred to Afghanistan are members of Laskar-e-Taiba, a proscribed organization with links to al Qaeda. The US government has explained to us that they were moved to Afghanistan because of a lack of relevant linguists necessary to interrogate them effectively in Iraq. The US has categorized them as unlawful enemy combatants and continues to review their status on a regular basis. We have been assured that the detainees are held in a humane, safe and secure environment meeting international standards which are consistent with cultural and religious norms and the International Committee of the Red Cross has had regular access to the detainees. A due diligence search by the US officials of the list of all those individuals captured by UK forces and transferred to US detention facilities in Iraq has confirmed that this was the only case in which individuals were subsequently transferred outside of Iraq. This review has established that officials were aware of this transfer in early 2004. It has also shown that brief references to this case were included in lengthy papers that went to then-Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary in April 2006. It is clear that the context provided did not highlight the significance at that point to my right honorable friends. In retrospect, it is clear to me that the transfer to Afghanistan of these two individuals should have been questioned at the time. We have discussed the issues surrounding this case with the US government and they have reassured us about their treatment but confirmed that, as they continue to represent significant security concerns, it is neither possible or desirable to transfer them to either their country of detention or their country of origin.


There has been no oversight or accountability with the illegal war. As this has continued to be the case, public outraged has boiled resulting in the large majority who want a full and public inquiry into the Iraq War. Gordon Gentle is one of 179 British soldiers who have died in the illegal war.

This morning, USA Today's Susan Page filled in as host on The Diane Rehm Show. Iraq was brought up in the second hour and the discussion included:

Susan Page: Yesterday was the sixth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and it's interesting that looking for what stories might be on the front page today they deal more with the politics in Iraq than with the war and violence. I wonder, Michael Hirsh, at this moment, do we see the war actually coming to an end?

Michael Hirsh (Newsweek): Well I don't know if I would go quite that far but, um, but the Washington Post [click here for Anthony Shadid article Hirsh is referring to] did have did have an excellent piece on the front page this morning, summing up how new coalitions seem to be forming, cutting across sectarian lines with Prime Minister Maliki bringing some important Sunni politicians onto his side. And uh that -- it's remarkable the amount of progress that has occured.

Karen DeYoung (Washington Post): I think that it's not that it's how much violence can be -- is tolerable. You had Prime Minister Maliki last week in an interview coming back from Australia saying that he expected to ask the American troops to stay in certain places even after combat troops were supposed to withdraw and I would presume that would be around Mosul where al Qaeda is - has withdrawn too. Perhaps in Diyala. Places where you still see a relatively high level of violence. But I think the question of "Is the war over or not?" it depends on what is toleratable level and that obviously is relative to what was clearly an intolerable level before.

Yochi Dreazen (Wall St. Journal): You know statistics obviously lie and are deceptive but there are some that are really striking. One that sticks out in my mind that pertains to this is the casulty level in January. The number of troops who died in Iraq was smaller signficantly than who died in Afghanistan but also smaller significantly, unfortunately, than the number who committed suicide. So six years in, you not only have Afghanistan outstripping it but in some months military suicide outstrips the death toll in Iraq which when you think about where we were a year ago, two years ago, is a staggering change.

What? The suicide rate did not hold steady, it has climbed and climbed to the point that it is now a crisis as was admitted this week in the Congressional hearing. Yochi's first sentence sounds like the clue that he's about to use statistics that are deceptive. They also go to the fact that journalists are not social scientists and are not trained in much more than note taking. You need months and months to track a pattern. What Yochi is 'observing' may or may not be pattern. It may be a blip. But no social scientist would call it a pattern at this point. Only a general studies major would. Yochi can take comfort in the fact that something else happened that was so jaw droppingly appalling, his own sleight-of-hand with the numbers probably faded from memory quickly.

Susan Page: Talk about the treatment of US soldiers this week we had an important announcement by the US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates about a committment to phase out this policy of stop-loss that is so controversial. Michael Hersh tell us exactly what stop-loss is?

Michael Hirsh: Well that was a program the Bush administration put in place to extend the deployments of US soldiers beyond uh there alotted one year, two years and, uh, Gates in announcing the end of this described it basically as you know as a breach of the understanding the Defense Department had with its troops. During the worst years of the Iraqi insurgency from 2004, [200]5, [200]6 and [200]7 say, through that period there were, there were a lot of concerns that you might be gutting the army, that the career officers, particularly NCOs, non-coms, would start to leave because they were being asked to do more than they had in the past which was to do -- string together three overseas deployments in a row. So Gates is putting a stop to that and he's able to do it because of this draw down plan and because of the increased stability of the country.

Suddenly everyone else looks like a genius. Note to Hirsh, it is perfectly acceptable to use the sentence, "I don't know." In fact, that sentence is preferrable to, "Let me b.s. my way through an answer over the airwaves." This has nothing to do with three overseas deployments in a row. In its earliest usage in the Iraq War (and it predates George W. Bush which Hirsh also seems unaware of), it was used not to bring troops back into a theater of war but to keep them there. Camilo Mejia was in the earliest group of soldiers stop-lossed. The 'war' on 'terror' 'required' he be stop-lossed for over ten years. (That wasn't legal in any way with Camilo's case. Many issues applied and even a court that upheld stop-loss would have to address how it did not cover Camilo.) Camilo was in Iraq when he was stop-lossed. He was not home and deployed to Iraq. Where Hirsh is getting his 'information' is something only he can answer. He appears to either be pulling it out of thin air or his butt. We could continue to correct him but the program did self-correcting while broadcasting. Susan would note later in the hour (this is the second hour of today's show and about 14 minutes in) that they had gotten twitters and e-mails and she would ask Yochi Dreazen to explain stop-loss. He would note it came about after Vietnam, used in "the first Gulf War but not to the degree that it was used in the Iraq War. What it means is when you commit to serve in the US army, you typically committ to do a five or six year committment [of active service, C.I. note] so if you go in 18 you would serve out until you're 24 and then you could do whatever you wanted to do, re-enlist or leave. What stop loss does is it prevents you from leaving. So if you want to leave the Army, if you want to leave the Marine Corps, you can't the Army can keep you in some what indefinately though typically it's been six months to a year of extra service And what that means is if you want to get out of the army, you've done two tours in Iraq, your marriage is falling apart, whatever the issue, you can't do it. This is the policy John Kerry described in 2004 as a backdoor draft. because it forces you to serve when you don't want to serve." Susan Page would then note, "Secretary Gates didn't say that there would be absolutely no one effected by stop-loss but that he would restrict the number that get caught in this."

Thank you, Susan Page. All week long we've heard these lies of stop-loss is ending! It's over! Not really. Let's go first to the official announcement from the Defense Dept:

The Department of Defense announced today a comprehensive plan to eliminate the current use of Stop Loss, while retaining the authority for future use under extraordinary circumstances. This is an important step along the path in adapting the Army into an expeditionary force.
The Army Reserve and Army National Guard will mobilize units without employing Stop Loss beginning in August and September 2009, respectively. The Regular (active duty) Army will deploy its first unit without Stop Loss by January 2010.
For soldiers Stop Lossed during fiscal 2009, the department will provide a monthly payment of $500. Until the department is able to eliminate Stop Loss altogether, this payment will serve as an interim measure to help mitigate its effects.
"Stop Loss disrupts the plans of those who have served their intended obligation. As such, it is employed only when necessary to ensure minimal staffing in deploying units, when needed to ensure safe and effective unit performance," said Bill Carr, deputy under secretary of defense for military personnel policy. "It is more easily rationalized in the early stages of conflict when events are most dynamic; but tempo changes in this war have frustrated our efforts to end it altogether."
The department intends to provide Stop Loss Special Pay to eligible service members until the point of separation or retirement, to include that time spent on active duty in recovery following redeployment. Stop Loss Special Pay will begin on the date of implementation, and will take effect for those impacted on or after Oct. 1, 2008.
Stop Loss Special Pay implements the authority granted by Section 8116 of the "Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriation Act, 2009." The appropriation is available to secretaries of the military departments only to provide Special Pay during fiscal 2009.


That's Wednesday March 18th. Now let's go to what Gates said exactly about stop-loss.

Secretary Gates: Good afternoon. Today I have three major announcements to make. First, since assuming this position, I've wanted to dramatically reduce the number of soldiers who are stop-lossed. As of the end of January, there were 13,200 soldiers in stop-loss. I am pleased to announce that I have approved a plan to eliminate the use of stop-loss for deploying soldiers. Effective this August, the US Army Reserve will no longer mobilize units under stop-loss; the Army National Guard will stop doing so in September, and active Army units will cease deplying with stop-loss starting next January. Our goal is to cut the number of those stop-lossed by 50 percent by June 2010 and to eliminate the regular use of stop-loss across the entire Army by March 2011. We will retain the authority to use stop-loss under extraordinary circumstances.

And the legal definition of "extraordinary circumstances"? Thus far the courts have held that the answer to that is "the US military says so." So don't expect any end to stop-loss. We noted this nonsense Wednesday and assumed people had followed the story. Few could even get their facts right. So let's walk this through slowly. Jeff Schogol (Stars and Stripes) reported Jan. 27, 2007: "Defense Secretary Robert Gates has instructed all branches of the service to minimize the controversial 'stop-loss' program, under which U.S. troops can be involuntarily kept in the service for deployments." And how was this minimize wish (the same thing the Defense Dept wants now) received in the press? Roxana Tiron (The Hill) filed "Pentagon cuts stop-loss" January 25, 2007. What actually happened was that stop-loss was accelerated. But, hey, the headlines were so pleasing who bothered to count the numbers? Pauline Jelinek (AP) reported at that time (January 29, 2007): "Gates has asked the chief of each service branch for a plan by the end of February on how they would rely less on stop loss." I could be wrong on this but my understanding was that it was only the Army that was utilizing stop-loss -- only the army beginning in 2003. Other branches have used it since Vietnam but I'm referring to its current incarnation. Gates comments Wednesday applied only to the Army. If other branches are using it (I don't believe they are currently), Gates' speech wouldn't cover those branches.

On WAMU's Metro today, the issue of dignified transfer was addressed. David Furst explained "a new Pentagon policy allows news organizations to photograph the homecomings of fallen service members -- if families agree." He further noted that Gates declared (Wednesday) that arrangements would be made for families who wanted to be present. Kavitha Cardoza spoke with four Marines who received the fallen and their feelings were that they were a part of something honorable. General requirements include that they need to be physically fit and approximately the same height (within four inches) and training is eight hours a week. A phone call alerts them when a dignified transfer will be taking place and they report. They spoke of the process which for them includes reporting not knowing who will be arriving at Dover, walking up and seeing the coffins "on the side of the plane lined up, metal caskets with a flag over it . . . in person it's different," there's a prayer and the coffins are transferred with the Army going first. Cardoza then spoke with Furst about details she observed about the Marines handling the transfer:
". . . they were so young, you know, they just had baby faces. There was one -one man actually , he was 19. And we were interrupted a few times talking, so I lost my train of thought. And so I said, 'Where was I?' And he started laughing and said, 'Ma'am, you were telling me how young I looked'."


Today the US military announced: "BAGHDAD -- A Multi-National Divsion- Center Soldier died March 19 from non-combat related causes. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings to 4260 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. Another death and on the sixth anniversary. This as the Seattle Times reports that next month there will be ceremonies for South Dakota's Army National Guard's 300 members who are deploying to Iraq ("for a year"). No, the Iraq War has not ended. No, the US service members have not all come home.


Saturday, those wanting to call out the illegal war can join with groups such as The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War -- all are taking part in a real action. Iraq Veterans Against the War explains: IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21st As an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately. For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.

In addition, IVAW's Dustin Alan Parks has organized a demonstration in Fort Worth, Texas. Chris Vaughn (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) reports "the Rock Bottom Peace March" will take place "at 10 a.m. in General Worth Square in downtown Fort Worth". Kristy Kuhn (Deseret News) reports that Iraq War veterans spoke out at Salt Lake Main Library yesterday where the message was that the US is occupying Iraq and doing so for profit -- no liberation involved. Jeff Key is quoted stating, "People are getting extraordinarily rich off the blood of the soldiers." Heather Lockwood (Scripps Howard Foundation Wire) reports DC Students for a Democratic Society (DC chapter of SDS) protested last night with "loud funk music" and quotes Lehana Penaramda stating, "Basically the message is war is a waste of our youth." That was yesterday (and there were many other events) but on Wednesday the Grannies Peace Brigade stood up against the Iraq War with a demonstration in NYC. They explain what happened:
PEACE GRANNIES ARRESTED IN TIMES SQUARE WEDNESDAY, OCT. 18 Relax, everyone! The New York City police are solidly on the job these days. With rapists, murderers, bank robbers and dope peddlers, not to mention corporate thieves, rampant throughout the City, they made a significant dent in the crime statistics yesterday, March 18, when they arrested seven grandmothers aged 67 to 90 in Times Square. The grannies, all members of the Granny Peace Brigade, were sent to jail while protesting at the Times Square recruiting station. Their arrest occurred during what is believed to be the first antiwar protest of the Obama Administration, in an attempt to urge the President to reconsider his decision to retain 50,000 troops in Iraq after the official withdrawal scheduled to be completed in the next 18 months and his order for 17,000 more troops sent to Afghanistan. The women feel strongly that these measures will only result in increased death and destruction for Americans, Iraqis and Afghanis and further solidify anti-American feeling throughout the world. Said 94-year-old Brigadier Marie Runyon, "Peace can only be achieved through diplomacy and humanitarian aid." The Granny Peace Brigade women are mostly strong supporters of Barack Obama but were responding to his request that his constituency pressure him to do the right thing when they feel he is on the wrong path. The Brigade is not new to demonstrating at the Times Square recruiting station -- eighteen of the grannies were arrested and jailed on Oct. 17, 2005, when they attempted to enlist in the military to replace America's grandchildren in harm's way in Iraq. After a six-day trial in criminal court, they were acquitted.The seven grannies were arrested at approximately 1:45 p.m. and taken to the Midtown South police precinct. They were not all released until early the next morning, a total of approximately 12 hours. Some of them became shaky and weak after many hours of not eating, but were given no food for another hour and a half. Prior to the arrest, about 50 grannies and their supporters gathered on Military Island at which a press conference was held including speeches by mayoral candidate Rev. Billy, legendary Broadway actress and activist Vinie Burrows (one of the original 18 granny jailbirds), and a young member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Matthis Chiroux. A sister group, the Raging Grannies, performed some of their original anti-war songs. During the press conference, grandmothers wrapped yellow police crime scene tape around the ramp near the recruiting center, after which a group, some in wheelchairs and hanging on to walkers, assembled on the ramp leading to the center. The team of Norman Siegel and Earl Ward, who successfully defended the grannies in 2005, will represent them in their current case, for which the grandmothers are profoundly grateful. Siegel, currently a candidate for New York City Public Advocate, is a favorite of the ladies for his continuous support of them.

Matthis also took part in an action in NYC yesterday. Jennifer Mascia and Jason Grant (NYT online) quote him explaining, "Obama's policies just confirmed to me that the president may hvae changed, but the war is the same. Just because we have a black president now, doesn't mean that we don't have a racist war."

Meanwhile, in Iraq, the illegal war has created a refugee crisis number over four million internal and external refugees. That estimate does not include a group of Iranian refugees who have been in Iraq since long before the start of the illegal war. Mohammed Abbas (Reuters) reports that these refugees, the People's Mujahideen of Iran, find themselves unwelcomed by the new Shi'ite controlled government "which has mostly warm times with neighbouring Shi'ite Iran" and that al-Maliki's government is now asking that other countreis take them in, "Human rights groups say forcing the 3,500 PMOI members out of their base at Camp Ashraf in northeastern Iraq would violate international law." Iran's Press TV notes, "Iran has long called for the expulsion of MKO members from their headquarters and training center, Camp Ashraf, in Iraq. Tehran says the members of the group who do not have blood on their hands are allowed to return home but others have to stand trial in Iran." Meanwhile, in England, a protest is taking place. Aidan Jones (London Informer) reports that the country's Iraqi Embassy is the site of a protest by exiles in England who are calling for the refugee camp in Iraq to remain open. One protestor, Fatemeh, is quoted stating, "The Iraqis say they want to close the camp. If they close it thousands of people will be sent back to Iran where they will certainly face jail, if not death because the government there sees them as traitors." Al Arabiya News adds, "In 2001 the group renounced violence paving the way for the European Court of First Instance to rule in Dec. 12, 2006 against the inclusion of PMOI on the European Union's 'terrorist list'." At present, the US lists the group as a terrorist organization. The listing may or may not change under the Barack Obama administration. At present, these refugees have been protected by US forces. Actions taken in the last year (especially at the end of the year) have made it clear that without US protection, the refugee camp would have turned into a slaughterhouse. Whether or countries will take them in or not, the issue must be addressed while the US is present. Most issues should (my opinion) be decided by Iraqis because it is their country. The decisions of their puppet government and of the ones launching attacks on the camp are the Iranian refugees must go. The US (and the State Dept knows this) must faciliate the next moves because the US military has been the only thing keeping the refugees alive. The George W. Bush administration allowed this situation to fester and refused to address it. It exploded after the 2008 election and Barack Obama's administration has been attempting to figure out viable options to address the safety concerns of these refugees. This is a problem that was dumped on the current administration. I am not a rescuer of Barack Obama. I have no problem holding him or his administration accountable. However, this is a problem that the State Dept was aware was boiling and about to explode and they were aware of that as early as June of last year. The then-administration refused to deal with it even when it was raised in talks about the Status Of Forces Agreement and the Security Agreement all last year and two months of 2007. They knew this was going to explode and it did after the election. It did not concern them and they did nothing -- not even casual exchanges -- on this issue.

The previous US administration also did a hideous job of assisting external Iraqi refugees. That includes limiting the target numbers of Iraqi refugees who could be admitted to this country to a tiny, insulting number and still being unable to meet that target most years. Whether the current administration will do better on admitting Iraqi refugees to the US or not is an unknown at this point. (And if they stick to fiscal year figures, as the Bush administration did, they will be stuck with October, November and December of 2008 when Barack was not in the White House.) What is known is that today the US State Dept announced that for 2009 fiscal year, $141 million dollars are being added to the $9 million already promised. The State Dept states the money will go to funding:

continued provision of emergency relief supplies to the most vulnerable Iraqis;
rehabilitation of water systems for internally displaced persons and local communities in Iraq;
informal education activities for Iraqi students unable to attend public schools in Jordan and Syria;
school reconstruction to support the influx of Iraqi students into Syrian public schools;
mental health services for displaced Iraqis;
repairs to clinics in Iraq, including donation of medical equipment; and
mobile health units for Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria.

The bulk of the money is to go to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In May of last year, UNHCR noted they were $127 million short on money needed to assist the internal and external Iraqi refugees.

Today Xinhua reports that the US bombed homes in Diyala Province last night and killed at least "13 suspected militants". Turning to other reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad roadside bombings which left three people wounded and a suicide bomber in Anbar Province who apparently "tried to attack Sheikh Hasnawi Efan" -- he was shot dead by police but a grenade the bomber tossed claimed the life of 1 police officer and left two more wounded. Reuters notes Thursday events -- "fierces clashes" in which the 10 people were shot dead in Baquba and a Ramadi roadside bombing which left three people injured.

In legal news, Bill Mears (CNN) reports that US District Court Judge Gerald Bruce Lee has allowed a lawsuit against CACI over the torture at Abu Ghraib with 4 Iraqis stating that contractors took part in the torture "subjected them to beatings and mental abuse, then destroyed documents and video evidence and later misled officials about what was happening inside the facility." The Center for Constitutional Rights notes:

The plaintiffs are Suhail Najim Abdullah Al Shimari, Taha Yaseen Arraq Rashid, Sa'ad Hamza Hantoosh AI-Zuba'e and Salah Hasan Usaif Jasim Al-Ejaili – all of whom are Iraqi citizens who were released from Abu Ghraib between 2004 and 2008 without being charged with any crime.
The former detainees are represented by attorneys Susan L. Burke, William T. O'Neil and William F. Gould of Burke O'Neil LLC, of Washington, D.C.; Katherine Gallagher of the Center for Constitutional Rights; and Shereef Akeel, of Akeel & Valentine, PLC, of Troy, Mich.
The lawsuit alleges that the CACI defendants not only participated in physical and mental abuse of the detainees, but also destroyed documents, videos and photographs; prevented the reporting of the torture and abuse to the International Committee of the Red Cross; hid detainees and other prisoners from the International Committee of the Red Cross; and misled non-conspiring military and government officials about the state of affairs at the Iraq prisons.

The sixth anniversary took place and where was the coverage? Reduced to a daily headline by Amy Goodman. (No, I haven't forgotten her, Ava and I address Pravda on the Hudson this weekend.) Some did file reports yesterday. "It's so deadly now for U.S. troops," Lara Logan reported on The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric yesterday (link has video and text), "that even rebuilding work has to be done at night. U.S. engineers work in the dark to repair a bridge that was blown up by terrorists." She was reporting from Mosul and, no, that doesn't sound like the Iraq War is ending. But that report didn't make it on ABC or NBC so those watching their evening broadcasts were fed 'comfort food' passed off as news. That was only one of the disturbing bits of reality Logan offered. Another was this, "What you can't see in Mosul are the Iraqi soldiers who captured the suspect and then handed him over to their U.S. counterparts. They asked not to be identified, for fear of being killed." The Iraqi soldiers are scared to be seen on camera. For fear of being killed.And the spin is supposed to be "Iraq War Over, Rejoice!" It's an important report and Mosul overtook Baghdad for violence last year though few bothered to notice. (That does not mean things turned to milk & honey in Baghdad. It means Mosul grew ever more violent.) Along with CBS Evening News, the only other broadcast news to offer Iraq coverage was PBS. The NewsHour's Ray Suarez moderated an Iraq roundtable (link has text and audio):
RAY SUAREZ: Let's go to some of our viewer questions. Armeney writes from Okemos, Mich.: "What's the probability that Shiite-Sunni strains will reemerge when the Americans downsize their forces? Will al-Qaeda in Iraq prey upon Sunni discontent to strike back at the Shiite government?" Ambassador, why don't you take that first? FEISTAL ISTRABADI: Well, I mean, you know, this of course is the $64,000 question. I don't think any serious observer of the Iraqi security and armed forces believe that they're going to be ready in June of this year or by the end of next year to provide security in Iraq. And what happens when the Americans withdraw? If I can comment on what was said a moment ago about Maliki taking on the militias in Basra; what he has done is taken on the Jaish al-Mahdi, the Sadrists - what we often call the Sadrist militia in Basra and in Baghdad. He has not yet taken on the militia of his principal coalition partner, in Baghdad, that is to say the militia of the Supreme Council - the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the Badr brigade. And it's not clear that he can because much of the security forces are in the hands of the Badr brigade militia hierarchy. So we don't really have a taking on of militias in Iraq. What we have is a choosing of which militias are going to be in ascendancy in Iraq. And this is a real problem.When American forces start to withdraw, if you still have several militias intact, which can get back to the business of slaughtering the other side's civilians, which is what we had in 2006 and 2007 - and that's my real fear for the future of Iraq in the immediate post-withdrawal. For the record, disarming the militias? Also a benchmark. For those playing on the home editions, that would be benchmark seven (disarming) and benchmark thirteen was ensuring that the militias do not have "control of local security." And these benchmarks? They are not supposed to be 'near' them today. The 'surge' was done to create the political space for the 18 benchmarks to be achieved. All of the 18 were supposed to have been achieved before January 1st. They were not. That is why the 'surge' was a failure.

Others reporting on the Iraq War included Denise Davidson (San Diego Union-Tribune) who offered "Iraq War milestones" and Gregg Zoroya (USA Today) reports an 11.2% rate of unemployment "for veterans who served in Iraq and and Afghanistan and who are 18 and older" which may impact the Army's current re-enlistment goal have reached 152%. Howard LaFranchi (Christian Science Monitor) spoke with three people about the Iraq War, we'll note this section:

When Ms. Naar-Obed returned from Iraq in 2004, she brought with her news that would shake America and the world -- reports from Iraqis of abuse in the US detention facility in Abu Ghraib. "My hope was that whatever pressure I could bring to bear, either [in Iraq] or by speaking out about it when I was back home, would help put an end to the abuses we were hearing about," says Naar-Obed, who has spent several months of every year since 2002 in Iraq. Once again in Iraq, Naar-Obed is impressed not by any progress she sees, but by the challenges Iraq still faces. Iraq's sectarian tensions eased when ethnic cleansing led to migration and segregation. But the underlying tensions among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds remain. "There may be a current marked reduction in violent acts [because of the new segregation of sectarian populations], but there has been little in the way of political or personal reconciliation," she says by phone and e-mail. Currently in the Kurdish north, she says she senses "great fear and concern about what will happen when the walls that physically separate people come down, and when the forces that keep those walls erected leave."

Aamer Madhani (USA Today) speaks with Azher Amin, who is a steel fabricator in Iraq, and is told, "Right now, things in Iraq are 70% good and 30% bad, which is much better than it was just two years ago. But if the Americans leave too quickly, the siutation will reverse itself. I don't think anyone -- Iraqi or American -- believes realistically that by 2012 our army will be good enough to protect the people internally or to secure our borders."

NOW on PBS looks at the economy heading to Nevada where "the only public hospital in Las Vegas had to shut its doors to cancer patients and pregnant women." Dr. Howard Dean is a guest on the program. Washington Week also focuses on the economy and Gwen sits down with Jackie Calmes (New York Times), Doyle McManus (Los Angeles Times), Alexis Simendinger (National Journal) and Pierre Thomas (ABC News). Bill Moyers Journal offers Socialist historian Mike Davis (who will hopefully speak of more than the economy), a segment billed as "American Dissidents: Against the Tide, From Thomas Paine to Ralph Nader" (and we may crucify this, Ava and I, on Sunday -- Ralph? Ralph whom Bill couldn't have on throughout 2008 when he was running for president?) and Marta Pelaez of Family Violence Prevention Services. Will Bill's commentary this week note the illegal war or will he be one more voice of silence? Tune in tonight. (Or catch it online -- transcript, audio and video are the options and Moyers' program is the only PBS one that strives to serve all segments online.)All three begin airing on most PBS stations tonight. Moving over to commercial broadcast TV, Sunday, on CBS' 60 Minutes:President ObamaThe president discusses the most pressing issues of his first two months in office, including the economy, the bailouts, his budget and America's involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Steve Kroft will talk to Barack Obama in the Oval Office for the interview, expected to be longer than any other he has granted.
Mr. Ayers And Mr. LopezDiscovered living on the streets by Los Angeles Times newspaper columnist Steve Lopez, mentally ill musician Nathaniel Ayers has become the subject of a book by Lopez and now a Hollywood film. Morley Safer reports. Watch Video

iraq
nigel morris
npr
the diane rehm show
karen deyoungthe washington post
heather lockwoodkristy kuhn
the seattle timeslara loganthe cbs evening news with katie couricthe newshourray suarez
iraq veterans against the warmilitary families speak outveterans for peacehayder al-khoeithe new york timesjennifer masciaanthony shadidthe washington postdenise davidsongregg zoroyahoward lafranchi
the center for constitutional rights
60 minutespbswashington weeknow on pbs


Read on ...