Saturday, March 31, 2007

Retired General: Time to Stabilize Iraq Running Out

By Jeff Schogol
Stars and Stripes

Saturday 31 March 2007

McCaffrey says Iraqi troops need to be equipped, and US can't sustain "surge."
Arlington, Virginia - The United States should plan on having three years left to conduct major operations in Iraq, said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey.

McCaffrey, former commander of U.S. Southern Command, has written a report on the conditions in Iraq and the way forward after his trip in early March to Iraq and Kuwait.

One of the report's conclusions: The United States has little time left to get things right in Iraq.

"It is very unlikely that the U.S. political opposition can constitutionally force the President into retreat," the report says. "However, our next President will only have 12 months or less to get Iraq straight before he/she is forced to pull the plug. Therefore, our planning horizons should assume that there are less than 36 months remaining of substantial U.S. troop presence in Iraq."

In a Thursday phone interview with Stars and Stripes, McCaffrey said President Bush can continue pursuing the war in Iraq for the rest of his term because it is unlikely the Democratic-controlled Congress will stop war funding.

"If they significantly impair the president's ability to command wartime forces, then he will turn around and say, 'Let you be accountable for the outcome,'" McCaffrey said. "Why in their right minds would they want to do that?"

However, McCaffrey said the current U.S. troop presence in Iraq is unsustainable and recommended withdrawing some of the "surge" units. "We can sustain probably seven to 10 brigades in perpetuity in Iraq, but we've got 20," McCaffrey said.

The Army is starting to unravel after having been "starved for resources" and given its current commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan, he said. "We have no strategic reserve in the United States to deploy into a new combat requirement," he said. "There is no strategic reserve in the Middle East. We are flat on our ass."

Asked about McCaffrey's report, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman reiterated comments from the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the U.S. military has about 2 million troops to call upon.

The recent increase in U.S. forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan reflect the Defense Department's capability to provide extra troops when needed, Whitman said.

"I am confident, as is the chairman, that the United States military will be able to provide trained, equipped and ready forces for any mission that it may receive," he said.

In other matters, McCaffrey stressed the need to give the Iraqi troops and police officers enough weaponry to eventually take over for U.S. and other coalition forces.

Right now, the Iraqis are ill-equipped with only three C-130 transport aircraft, Soviet weapons and no logistics or medical system.

McCaffrey insists the Iraqis need 150 U.S. helicopters, 24 C-130 Hercules aircraft, 5,000 light armored vehicles and precision weapons to suppress mortar and rocket attacks.

Responding to McCaffrey's comments, a senior military official said the Iraqis are already getting more sophisticated weaponry including Cougars and other armored vehicles.

The Iraqi security forces already have more than 2,000 up-armored Humvees, a division of tanks and mechanized vehicles and a brigade of Armored Security Vehicles, the official said in a Friday e-mail to Stripes.

"Having said that, General McCaffrey's right, and there are plans to steadily increase the armament of the ISF ensuring that it is done in a manner that ensures that there is sufficient maintenance, spare parts, training, etc. so that all the new systems don't become 'hangar queens' in short order," the official said.

US Death Toll in March 2007 Is Twice Iraq Forces

By Steven R. Hurst The Associated Press Saturday 31 March 2007

Baghdad - The U.S. military death toll in March, the first full month of the security crackdown, was nearly twice that of the Iraqi army, which American and Iraqi officials say is taking the leading role in the latest attempt to curb violence in the capital, surrounding cities and Anbar province, according to figures compiled on Saturday.

The Associated Press count of U.S. military deaths for the month was 81, including a soldier who died from non-combat causes Friday. Figures compiled from officials in the Iraqi ministries of Defense, Health and Interior showed the Iraqi military toll was 44. The Iraqi figures showed that 165 Iraqi police were killed in March. Many of the police serve in paramilitary units.

According to the AP count 3,246 U.S. service members have died in Iraq since the war began in March 2003.

At least 83 American forces died in January and 80 in February, according to the AP tabulation.

The Iraqi figures were gathered from officials who released them on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to give out the numbers.

Additionally, the Iraqi ministry figures listed 1,872 Iraqi civilian deaths for the month, about 300 more than the AP tabulation, which is mainly gathered from daily police reports nationwide.

The civilian death toll for the month was down significantly from 2,172 in December, the highest month casualty figure since the AP began keeping records of civilian deaths in April 2005.

However, the number of civilians killed in March was in the same range as for the first two months of this year; 1,604 in January and 1,552 in February, according to the AP count.

Nearly a third of the Iraqi civilian deaths, more than 500 people, where killed in three big bomb attacks in the last week of the month and revenge killings of Sunni men in Tal Afar the night after a Shiite market was bomb in the northwest Iraqi city.

Friday, March 30, 2007

Congressional Memo: Pentagon War Funds Need Not Urgent

By Richard Cowan Reuters Friday 30 March 2007

Washington - The U.S. Army has enough money on hand to finance the Iraq War through most of July, according to a congressional study that challenges President George W. Bush's assertions that an infusion of funds is needed more urgently.

According to a Congressional Research Service memo dated March 28 and sent to the Senate Budget Committee, "The Army could finance the O&M (operations and maintenance) of both its baseline and war program ... through most of July 2007" by shifting around money in existing accounts.

The memo said it based its projections "using Army and other data."

That assessment was at odds with Bush and some of his war managers, who have said that Congress could undermine U.S. troops and the war in Iraq if it did not approve approximately $100 billion within weeks.

"The Democrats are distorting and hiding behind a CRS memo on the eve of Congress' spring vacation to distract from their failure to send the President a responsible bill he can sign," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "It's time for the Democrats to send the president a bill that funds the troops without forcing retreat, handcuffing our commanders, or adding billions of dollars in pork spending."

Fratto warned that a delay in funding was already affecting troops.

"Yesterday, the Department of Defense notified Congress that in order to meet the force protection needs of the Marine Corps and the Army, we are borrowing funds from other important Marine and Army procurement programs," Fratto said.

Bush requested the emergency funds in early February and Congress is in the process of writing bills providing more money for the war than the president requested.

But Democrats have added conditions to the money, including setting timetables for withdrawing all combat troops from Iraq. Bush wants the money without the conditions and has threatened to veto either bill passed by the Senate or the House of Representatives.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a House panel on Thursday that after April 15, without emergency funding, the Army would have to begin curtailing some troop training, which "could over time delay their ability to go back into combat."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that if the funds were not approved by May 15, the Army might have to extend some soldiers' tours, because other units would not be ready, and reduce equipment repair work, among other things.

Time-Consuming Process

If Congress sends Bush a bill that he vetoes, lawmakers would then have to go through a potentially time-consuming process of rewriting and passing a new war-funding bill.

The administration tried to turn up the pressure on Congress on Friday, when White House spokeswoman Dana Perino criticized lawmakers for taking a spring vacation without making adequate progress on the emergency war funds.

"Every day that the Congress fails to act on this request causes our military hardship and impacts readiness," Perino said.

But according to the memo, "the Army could finance its O&M expenses through the end of May by tapping $52.6 billion in O&M funding already provided by Congress."

Furthermore, with congressional approval, the Pentagon could temporarily transfer money out of other accounts, giving the Army "almost two additional months" to conduct its regular operations and the war.

Since invading Iraq in March 2003 to depose then President Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration has refused to include in annual budgets the full estimated cost of the war each year. Instead, it has submitted "emergency" requests that many lawmakers complained have made it difficult to do proper oversight of the war.

More Than 100 Are Killed in Iraq as a Wave of Sectarian Attacks Shows No Sign of Letting Up

By Kirk Semple The New York Times Friday 30 March 2007

Baghdad - More than 100 people were killed Thursday in a series of attacks around Iraq that included two suicide bombings that struck crowded markets during the week's busiest shopping hours, the authorities said.

The attacks extended an extraordinary surge of sectarian violence in Iraq this week, including a series of bombings and reprisals in the northern city of Tal Afar in which more than 140 people were killed in two days.

On Thursday, officials said 18 police officers in Tal Afar suspected of participating in the massacre of Sunni Arab residents in reprisal for the bombing of a Shiite neighborhood had been freed after being detained for only a few hours.

At a time when the Shiite-dominated central government has been under intense pressure to rein in Shiite militias and death squads, the releases are sure to bring even more outrage from Sunni Arabs.

The deadliest attacks on Thursday were aimed at predominantly Shiite neighborhoods in central Iraq and appeared to be part of a fierce campaign by Sunni Arab insurgents to undermine the latest government security plan for Baghdad.

At least 60 people, mostly women and children, were killed when a man wrapped in an explosive belt walked into a crowded street market in the Shaab neighborhood of eastern Baghdad and detonated the belt, an Interior Ministry official said. At least 25 people were wounded.

The attack appeared to be carefully timed, hitting just after sundown on the eve of the Muslim day of prayer, when markets are packed.

Two hours earlier, a coordinated attack involving three suicide car bombers, including one driving an ambulance, killed at least 28 people, including women and children, and wounded 53 in the predominantly Shiite town of Khalis, about six miles north of Baquba in the violently contested province of Diyala, according to the Iraqi authorities.

The first of those suicide car bombs was detonated at a crowded market, according to a senior Iraqi security official in Baquba. As people rushed to help victims of the first car bombing, a second such bomb went off, killing and wounding rescuers and security forces, the official said.

The third suicide bomber, who was driving a stolen ambulance, apparently had engine problems about 500 yards from the central hospital, his apparent target, the security official said. When several people approached the man to help, the official said, he detonated his explosives.

The attacks came on the heels of a two-day spate of sectarian bloodshed in Tal Afar, during which a double suicide bombing in a Shiite neighborhood was answered by a Shiite massacre of Sunni residents. More than 140 people have been killed there, with at least 210 people wounded, officials said.

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki immediately ordered an investigation into the killings. Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani told the government-run television channel Iraqiya on Wednesday that the government would "take legal action" against the 18 police officers who had been arrested and accused of involvement in the massacre, in which at least 70 people were killed.

But on Thursday, officials in Nineveh Province, where the attacks occurred, said the police officers had been held only briefly by the Iraqi Army and released.

Nineveh's governor, Durad Kashmul, said at a news conference that the the army had freed the policemen "to deter strife" after a street demonstration demanding their release, Reuters reported.

Husham al-Hamdani, the head of the provincial security committee, confirmed to The Associated Press that the officers had been freed but gave no reason. Repeated calls to the spokesmen for the Iraqi military command went unanswered, and an envoy from Prime Minister Maliki who visited Tal Afar said he could not confirm or deny the report that the policemen had been released.

In Baghdad, a bomb placed on a popular shopping street in the Baya district killed 10 people and wounded 20, according to officials at the Interior Ministry and Yarmuk Hospital. A car bomb exploded near a hospital in Mahmudiya, south of Baghdad, killing four people and wounding 20, the ministry official said. And a suicide car bomber detonated himself at an Iraqi Army checkpoint in the Jamiya district of western Baghdad, killing three soldiers and wounding 16.

At least eight more people were killed by gunmen in Baghdad and Mosul, officials said, including a guard employed by the Shiite politician Ahmad Chalabi. At least 25 bodies were discovered around Baghdad.

In the capital, Ryan C. Crocker was sworn in as the new American ambassador to Iraq. At the ceremony, in the international Green Zone, Mr. Crocker said: "Turning the tide from oppression to freedom does not come overnight. It does not come without high costs."

He added: "President Bush's policy is the right one. There has been progress; there is also much more to be done."

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Bush War on Terror Draws Fire as Misguided Venture

By David Morgan Reuters Thursday 29 March 2007

Washington - Five-and-a-half years after the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush's war on terrorism has emerged as a wasteful, misguided exercise that poses its own threat to U.S. national security, experts say.

A growing number of analysts and former U.S. officials say the global war on terrorism has undermined U.S. influence abroad, forced onerous costs in American lives and money in Iraq, and unleashed a huge government spending spree that has often funded projects unrelated to national security.

It has also produced a climate of fear in the United States that helped justify the war in Iraq and the curtailment of civil liberties at home, they said.

"The atmosphere of anxiety and uncertainty, and the vagueness of the definition of the enemy, makes the country more fearful and more susceptible to being steered in irrational directions," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was U.S. national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter in the 1970s.

Unlike the muted response to attacks by Britain and Spain, experts say the U.S. has overreacted to the September 11 attacks that killed 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania in 2001.

Congress has spent nearly $271.5 billion on homeland security since September 11, with money often going to projects that have nothing to do with security but that are important to politicians and their constituents, according to a survey by the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

At the same time, the number of potential terrorism targets identified by Congress has exploded from 160 in 2003 to 80,000, allowing such unlikely sites as a Midwestern apple festival and a roadside theme park in Florida to bid for funds.

Meanwhile, the private sector - lobbyists, interest groups, industries, the media and even universities - has also used the national security label aggressively to sell its own agendas, experts say.

"What's clear is that there is no focus whatsoever in the way we are fighting terrorism," said Veronique de Rugy, author of the AEI study.

Department of Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke dismissed the criticism as old and inaccurate, saying the Bush administration had never viewed sites such as small theme parks to be critical national assets deserving of funds. "This has no basis in fact," he said.

Knocke's boss, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, has also taken issue with the assertion that the U.S. response to September 11 is exaggerated.

"If we begin to heed arguments that somehow our concern about security is overblown ... then I feel we're going to feel consequences in the loss of lives," Chertoff said in a speech outlining his priorities for 2007.

But terrorism experts say the United States has yet to develop a clear understanding of the threat posed by al Qaeda and other Islamist militant groups, despite the war on terrorism and a total of $500 billion spent on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The most pernicious effect of the war on terrorism has been the Iraq war, which has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and damaged U.S. standing in the Muslim world for generation, experts say.

"Iraq has been vastly worse than anything terrorism's ever done," said Ohio State University political science professor John Mueller, author of a book about the war on terrorism titled, "Overblown."

While both Democrats and Republicans have acknowledged the shortcomings of U.S. policy in Iraq, experts say politicians have not questioned the war on terrorism mainly because it remains a vote-getter.

"Politicians are acting this way because they think they'll lose votes if they don't. Basically, it's a big pork-barrel, so the pork-barrel leaders are there in five seconds," said Mueller, using American vernacular for the politics of self-enrichment.

Senate OKs Iraq Troop Withdrawal Bill

By Anne Flaherty The Associated Press Thursday 29 March 2007

Washington - Senate Democrats ignored a veto threat and pushed through a bill Thursday requiring President Bush to start withdrawing troops from "the civil war in Iraq," dealing a rare, sharp rebuke to a wartime commander in chief.

In a mostly party line 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $122 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008.

The vote came shortly after Bush, in a move that his aides said was unprecedented, invited all House Republicans to the White House to appear with him in a sort of pep rally to bolster his position in the continuing war policy fight.

"We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we've got a troop in harm's way, we expect that troop to be fully funded," Bush said, surrounded by Republicans on the North Portico, "and we got commanders making tough decisions on the ground, we expect there to be no strings on our commanders."

"We expect the Congress to be wise about how they spend the people's money," he said.

The Senate vote marked its boldest challenge yet to the administration's handling of a war, now in its fifth year, that has cost the lives of more than 3,200 American troops and more than $350 billion. In a show of support for the president, most Republicans opposed the measure, unwilling to back a troop withdrawal schedule.

The House, also run by Democrats, narrowly passed similar legislation last week. Party leaders seem determined that the final bill negotiated between the two chambers will demand some sort of timetable for winding down the war - setting them on course for a veto showdown with the president.

"We've spoken the words the American people wanted us to speak," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "There must be a change of direction in the war in Iraq, the civil war in Iraq."

"The Senate and the House have held together and done what we've done," he told reporters. "It's now in his corner to do what he wants to do."

In a letter to Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Reid had said earlier: "This Congress is taking the responsible course and responding to needs that have been ignored by your administration and the prior Congress."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the president respects the role of Congress - and Congress should respect his.

"I think the founders of our nation had great foresight in realizing that it would be better to have one commander in chief managing a war, rather than 535 generals on Capitol Hill trying to do the same thing," she said. "They're mandating failure here."

The legislation represents the Senate's first, bold challenge of Bush's war policies since Democrats took control of Congress in January. With Senate rules allowing the minority party to insist on 60 votes to pass any bill and Democrats holding only a narrow majority, Reid previously had been unable to push through resolutions critical of the war.

This latest proposal was able to get through because Republicans said they didn't want to block an appropriations bill needed for the war.

"I think the sooner we can get this bill ... down to the president for veto, we can get serious about passing a bill that will get money to the troops," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Democrats acknowledge they do not have enough support in Congress to override Bush's veto, but say they will continue to ratchet up the pressure until he changes course.

The looming showdown was reminiscent of the GOP-led fight with President Clinton over the 1996 budget, which caused a partial government shutdown that lasted 27 days. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., the House speaker at the time, eventually relented but claimed victory because the bill represented a substantial savings over the previous year's spending.

Bush said the money is needed by mid-April or else the troops will begin to run out of money, but some Democrats say the real deadline is probably closer to June.

Experts: Soldiers With Brain Injuries Could Develop Epilepsy

By Jamie Talan Newsday Thursday 29 March 2007

Epilepsy experts worry that veterans arriving home with traumatic brain injuries are at risk for seizures and these electrical storms could be subtle and develop months to several years following their initial injury.

"Epilepsy is very common following head injury," said Dr. Marc Dichter, professor of neurology and pharmacology at the University of Pennsylvania.

He was one of dozens of speakers at an epilepsy meeting held Thursday and continuing Friday at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, Md. "We are concerned that we will have a growing number of young people with head injuries who may develop epilepsy."

Right now, there are no treatments to prevent epilepsy, a condition that affects 1 to 2 percent of the population. Trauma and brain infection increase the risk for seizures.

"As the brain tries to repair itself, it may take time to ripen into seizures," said Dr. Dennis Spencer, an endowed professor of neurosurgery at Yale School of Medicine in Connecticut.

Government reports estimate more than 30,000 troops have been injured in the 4-year-old war in Iraq, and the two major wounds have been limb loss and traumatic brain injury. Veterans groups put the number of injured much higher.

Experts say it is hard to know exactly how many injured troops could later develop epilepsy. U.S. Army and other officials have said better medical care in Iraq has meant that more severely injured soldiers have been saved, only to return home with serious injuries, Dichter said. Severe brain trauma can trigger epilepsy in as many as 30 percent to 50 percent of the brain-injured soldiers, he added.

Early warning signs for epilepsy can include subtle changes in behavior, lapses in memory, strange sensory auras, attention problems and depression.

Most of the meeting was about new research in epilepsy. Researchers reported on a new material that can be laid over the brain that records information from thousands of neurons, which they said would enable them to better understand seizure activity.

John Donohue of Brown University is testing a way to detect seizures by placing into the brains of patients electrodes that can sense a seizure in the making.

Dichter is conducting a pilot study on head injuries, focusing on people who arrive at emergency rooms with gunshot wounds or wounds from accidents. These people are at greater risk of developing epilepsy over the next year or two. Funded by the Department of Defense, scientists also will test the effectiveness of short-term use of anti-seizure medicines to ward off seizures.

It took more than a year for 54-year-old Denise Pease of Corona, assistant comptroller for commercial banking in the Office of the New York City Comptroller, to get the right diagnosis and treatment for epilepsy.

"I went from being a vibrant woman with a bright future to being a candidate for an extended adult care facility," Pease told scientists at the meeting.

Months after a car accident 12 years ago she began losing her way on the street and forgetting familiar things. It wasn't until a relative witnessed a seizure that she received a proper diagnosis.

This week, the American Epilepsy Society also announced new efforts to help wounded soldiers on their return home. Post-traumatic stress disorder, common among soldiers, could also complicate diagnosis and treatment of epilepsy.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Have the Car-Bombers Already Defeated the Surge?

By Mike Davis TomDispatch.com Tuesday 27 March 2007

The weapon no one can stop.

Despite heroic reassurances from both the White House and the Pentagon that the six-week-old U.S. escalation in Baghdad and al-Anbar Province is proceeding on course, suicide car-bombers continue to devastate Shiite and Sunni neighborhoods, often under the noses of reinforced American patrols and checkpoints. Indeed, February was a record month for car bombings, with at least 44 deadly explosions in Baghdad alone, and March promises to duplicate the carnage.

Car bombs, moreover, continue to evolve in horror and lethality. In January and March, the first chemical "dirty bomb" explosions took place using chlorine gas, giving potential new meaning to the President's missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The sectarian guerrillas who claim affiliation with "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" are now striking savagely, and seemingly at will, against dissident Sunni tribes in al-Anbar province as well as Shiite areas of Baghdad and Shiite pilgrims on the highways to the south of the capital. With each massacre, the bombers refute Bush administration claims that the U.S. military can "take back and secure" Baghdad block-by-block or establish its own patrols and new, fortified mini-bases as a realistic substitute for local self-defense militias.

On February 23rd, for instance, shortly after the beginning of the "Surge," a suicide truck-bomber killed 36 Sunnis in Habbaniya, west of Baghdad, after an imam at a local mosque had denounced al-Qaeda. Ten days later, a kamikaze driver ploughed his truck bomb into Baghdad's famed literary bazaar, the crowded corridor of bookstores and coffee houses along Mutanabi Street, incinerating at least 30 people and, perhaps, the last hopes of an Iraqi intellectual renaissance.

On March 10th, another suicide bomber massacred 20 people in Sadr City, just a few hundred yards away from one of the new U.S. bases. The next day, a bomber rammed his car into flatbed truck full of Shiite pilgrims, killing more than 30. A week later, horror exceeded itself when a car bomber evidently used two little children as a decoy to get through a military checkpoint, then exploded the car with the kids still in the back seat.

In a demonstration of a tactic that has proven especially deadly over the past year, a car-bomb attack on March 23rd was coordinated with an assailant in a suicide vest and almost killed Deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zubaie, whose tribal alliance, the Anbar Salvation Council, has accepted funding from the Americans and been denounced by the jihadis.

When it comes to the development of suicide vehicles, however, the most alarming innovation has, without doubt, been the debut in January of truck bombs carrying chlorine gas tanks rigged with explosives. Of course, "dirty bombs," usually of the nuclear variety, have been a longtime obsession of anti-terrorism experts (as well as the producers of TV potboilers), but the sinister glamour of radioactive devices - scattering deadly radiological waste in the City of London or across midtown Manhattan - has tended to overshadow the far greater likelihood that bomb-makers would initially be attracted to the cheapness and ease of combining explosives with any number of ordinary industrial caustics and toxins.

As if to emphasize that poison-gas explosions were now part of their standard arsenal, sectarian bombers - identified, as usual, by the American military as members of "al-Qaeda in Mespotamia" - unleashed three successive chlorine suicide-bomb attacks on March 16th against Sunni towns outside of Falluja. The two largest attacks involved dump trucks loaded with 200-gallon chlorine tanks. Aside from the dozens wounded or killed by the direct explosions, at least another 350 people were stricken by the yellow-green clouds of chlorine.

As in April 1915, with the first uses of chlorine gas on the Western Front in World War I, these explosions sowed widespread panic, underlining - as the bombers no doubt intended - the inability of the Americans to protect potential allies in al-Anbar Province, the heartland of the Sunni insurgency. (The recent discovery of stocks of chlorine and nitric acid in a Sunni neighborhood of west Baghdad will hardly assuage those fears.)

The shock waves from the March dirty bombs also rattled windows on the Hudson River, where New York Police Department (NYPD) experts warned the media that poor security at local chemical plants raised the danger of copy-cat attacks using stolen ingredients. An anonymous senior official in the department's Counter-Terrorism Bureau told Reuters that "the NYPD expected would-be attackers targeting New York to try to import the tactic." At the same time, New Jersey's two Democratic Senators - Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg - complained that the Bush administration was coddling the chemical industry by blocking New Jersey and other states from implementing tougher safety regulations.

Meanwhile, back in Iraq, the chlorine clouds and the truck bombs have deflected U.S. troops into a massive, desperate hunt for the "makeshift car-bomb factories" that Major General William Caldwell, chief spokesman for the Surge, claims proliferate in the gritty suburbs and industrial estates that ring Baghdad.

The image of a clandestine car-bomb industry, by the way, is rich with irony. Baghdad's factory belt contains hundreds of state-owned and private factories that once manufactured canned food, tiles, baby clothes, transit buses, fertilizers, commercial glass, and the like. Since the American invasion, however, the plants are idle, if not derelict, and their once integrated Sunni-Shiite workforces are bunkered down, jobless, in increasingly sectarian neighborhoods. Unemployment in greater Baghdad is variously estimated in the 40-60% range.

It is unlikely that the current raids - using troops who would otherwise be securing streets and "winning hearts and minds" - will uncover more than a tiny fraction of the city's bomb "factories." Indeed, the car bomb - even more than the roadside bombs (IEDs) that are filling the Humvee junkyards - has proven globally to be an almost invincible weapon of the ill-armed and underfunded, as well as the one weapon of mass destruction that the Bush administration has totally ignored. None of the American commanders in the field in 2003-2004, much less the imperial daydreamers in neoconservative think-tanks back in Washington, seem to have foreseen the ubiquity of its use.

According to a national cross-sectional cluster sample survey of mortality in Iraq since the U.S. invasion, carried out by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Iraqi physicians (organized through Mustansiriya University in Baghdad), an estimated 78,000 Iraqis were killed by several thousand vehicle bombings between March 2003 to June 2006. Moreover, as I explain in my newly-published history of the car bomb, Buda's Wagon, there is little hope for any technological fix or scientific miracle that will allow reliable detection of a stolen Mercedes with 500 pounds of C-4 in the trunk or a dump truck laden with chlorine tanks and high explosives idling in one of Baghdad's colossal traffic jams. (Checkpoints? Just a synonym for target of opportunity.)

In the meantime, the bombers are obviously wagering that if they can sustain current levels of carnage, the Shiite militias will be forced back onto the streets to protect their neighborhoods (as the American troops can't), risking a bloody, all-out confrontation with U.S. forces for the ownership of the vast Shiite slum of Sadr City and other Shiite areas in eastern Baghdad. On the other side, Lieutenant General David Petraeus, counterinsurgency expert and mastermind of the Surge, must shut down the car-bombers by the beginning of the summer or face a likely popular revolt in Sadr City. With each explosion, his chances of success diminish.

Friday, March 23, 2007

Congress, End the War

The Nation 02 April 2007 Issue

"War is over, if you want it," declared John Lennon in the thick of the Vietnam nightmare. To the extent that Lennon's "you" referred to the US Congress, he was right, then and now. The House and Senate have the authority to end the war in Iraq quickly, efficiently and honorably. Claims to the contrary by George W. Bush and his apologists are at odds with every intention of the authors of the Constitution. Which part of "Congress shall have the power to declare war... to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces...to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers" does the White House fail to understand? Unfortunately, it may be the same part that cautious Congressional leaders have trouble comprehending.

Democrats gained control of Congress in November with the charge to bring the occupation to a swift conclusion. Yet, as we mark the fourth anniversary of the war, the story of the 110th Congress still seems to be one of an opposition party struggling to come to grips with its authority to upend a President's misguided policies. Nothing has illustrated the lack of direction so agonizingly as the debates over nonbinding resolutions opposing the troop surge; weeks went into advancing measures that, as their names confirmed, were inconsequential. For a time, it seemed as if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has been so effective on the domestic front, was ceding any real leadership role on foreign policy.

With the announcement of spending legislation that includes benchmarks for progress in Iraq, and a plan to begin withdrawing troops if those benchmarks are unmet, Pelosi has begun to define a Democratic opposition to Bush's policies. But she has not gone nearly far enough. While Democratic leaders are finally arguing for a withdrawal timeline, it is not the right one. Theoretically, the plan would create the potential for withdrawal of some troops in six months. Realistically, because it lacks adequate monitoring mechanisms - Pelosi says determinations about the benchmarks would be a "subjective call" - the best bet is that even if the Democratic plan were to overcome all the hurdles blocking its enactment, there would be no withdrawals for more than a year.

Forcing Americans and Iraqis to die for Bush's delusions for another year while emptying the Treasury at a rate of more than $1 billion a week is unconscionable. That is why House members who have battled hardest to end the war are so frustrated with Pelosi's approach. "This plan would require us to believe whatever the President would tell us about progress that was being made," says Representative Maxine Waters, speaking for the bipartisan Out of Iraq Caucus. Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Lynn Woolsey has been blunter, saying of the legislation, "There's no enforcement mechanism."

Waters and Woolsey are right. While we respect efforts by antiwar Democrats like Jim McDermott and Jerrold Nadler to negotiate with Pelosi in hopes of improving the legislation, conservative Blue Dog Democrats have already signaled that the price of their support will be the removal of any teeth put into the plan by progressives. Worse, they have tampered with the legislation in ways that may even encourage Bush's interventionist tendencies: The Democratic proposal for a timeline originally included a provision that would have required Bush to seek Congressional approval before using military force against Iran. But under pressure from conservative members of her caucus and lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Pelosi removed the language. By first including the provision and then removing it, Pelosi and her aides have given Bush an opening to claim that he does not require Congressional approval for a wider war.

The haggling over compromises points up the flaw in Pelosi's approach: It is too soft, too slow, too open to lobbying mischief and abuse by a President who has done nothing but abuse Congress for six years. America and the world are not crying out for a timeline that might begin extracting troops from Iraq a year from now. Almost 200 American soldiers, and thousands of Iraqis, have died since the Democrats took control of Congress. To accept that the war will go on for another year, at the least, is to accept that the death toll will continue to mount.

Democrats should recognize that the time has come to use the full power accorded Congress in time of war: the power of the purse. As Senator Russ Feingold says, "Some will claim that cutting off funding for the war would endanger our brave troops on the ground. Not true. The safety of our servicemen and -women in Iraq is paramount, and we can and should end funding for the war without putting our troops in further danger."

Instead of negotiating with Bush to give him another year of his war before facing consequences, Democrats should refuse to write another blank check. They should instead support Representative Barbara Lee's proposal to fully fund the withdrawal of US soldiers and military contractors from Iraq. Lee would give military commanders the resources they need to withdraw all troops by the end of the year by mandating that emergency supplemental funding be used only for that purpose.

There may not be enough Democratic and renegade Republican votes to win House passage of Lee's legislation - at least not initially. But tremendous educational and practical progress can be made by just saying no, as loudly as possible, to a President who has not gotten enough resistance from Congress. Setting up a conflict between Bush's desire to keep troops in Iraq through the end of his presidency and a plan to bring them home this year sharpens the debate at a time when the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that a majority of Americans now favor setting a clear deadline. Even as Bush blusters on about staying the course - or whatever the slogan of the moment may be - he is feeling the pressure to end this war. Indeed, he has already split with Vice President Cheney and other Administration hardliners on the issue of engaging diplomatically with Iran and Syria.

No matter what the ultimate exit strategy, engaging in regional diplomacy to help contain the civil war in Iraq and provide more international assistance to the Iraqi people is an essential step in repositioning the United States to be a constructive force in the region, as opposed to serving as a catalyst for a wider sectarian war. The Bush Administration's dawning recognition of this fact will be heightened and extended only if war foes maintain their resolve. If the debate in Congress is about whether to attach a few soft benchmarks to Bush's request for more money to maintain the occupation on his terms, he will feel little sense of urgency. But if the debate is about whether to provide only the money needed to bring the troops home, Bush will understand that time is running out for his strategy - and that he can no longer afford to casually dismiss diplomacy and the logic of withdrawal.

House OKs Timetable for Troops in Iraq

By Anne Flaherty The Associated Press Friday 23 March 2007

Washington - A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy.

Ignoring a White House veto threat, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not."

The vote, echoing clashes between lawmakers and the White House over the Vietnam War four decades ago, pushed the Democratic-led Congress a step closer to a constitutional collision with the wartime commander in chief. Bush has insisted that lawmakers allow more time for his strategy of sending nearly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq to work.

The roll call also marked a triumph for Pelosi., who labored in recent days to bring together a Democratic caucus deeply divided over the war. Some of the party's more liberal members voted against the bill because they said it would not end the war immediately, while more conservative Democrats said they were reluctant to take away flexibility from generals in the field.

Republicans were almost completely unified in their fight against the bill, which they said was tantamount to admitting failure in Iraq.

"The stakes in Iraq are too high and the sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families too great to be content with anything but success," said Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

The bill marks the first time Congress has used its budget power to try to end the war, now in its fifth year, by attaching the withdrawal requirements to a bill providing $124 billion to finance military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of this year.

Excluding the funds in the House-passed bill, Congress has so far provided more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including about $350 billion for Iraq alone, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. More than 3,200 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since war began in March 2003.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Think Again: Taking Mr. Bush at his Word

By Eric Alterman March 22, 2007

The fourth anniversary of the Iraq war this week has led many in the media to look for the milestones in the conflict—the casualty figures, both American (3,223 dead, 15,129 wounded) and Iraqi (perhaps as many as 65,160 in media-reported violence and as many as 601,000 in the entire course of the conflict); the changes in personnel and policy; and the swings in public opinion. But one memory worth recalling, since so many in the pro-war punditocracy appear to have caught a rare case of collective amnesia, is the president’s sell to the American people at the outset of this catastrophe four years ago this week.

“My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger.”

These are the bold words that launched the United States into perhaps its worst foreign policy misadventure in the country’s entire history.

“The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality.”

How many could have predicted that those words would lead to Abu Ghraib, to Hadaitha, and the sex crimes—many of them directed at female soldiers—committed by American
troops; to an increase in the terrorist threat against us; to the destruction of our international reputation; to the disintegration of any kind of personal security for most Iraqis; and the collapse of Iraq’s economic infrastructure, to say nothing of the hundreds of billions—potentially trillions—of dollars thrown away in this never-ending sinkhole. And oh yes, the thousands of American soldiers killed, the tens of thousands wounded, and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis similarly maimed and killed.

Bush has even managed to turn the murderous Saddam Hussein into a martyr across the Arab world with a Kangaroo Court murder trial and botched execution of the dictator and his sons and collaborators.

“I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm.”

The casualty figures here speak for themselves, as do the fact that 2 million Iraqis live as refugees outside their country. Even after invading Iraq with questionable motives in the first place, numerous policy choices led to the insurgency and now the civil war that daily threatens Iraqi and American lives, whether failing to prevent looting after the fall of Baghdad, disbanding Hussein’s army and leaving it nowhere to go, or not sending enough troops to maintain order despite repeated warnings force.

“More than 35 countries are giving crucial support—from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units.”

Thank God for Palau. The much-mocked coalition of the willing, which lacked even symbolic support from major European powers and Arab states like in the Gulf War, made the U.S. coalition hollow at best and should have been a sign that international opinion was not with us. And the number of troops contributed was hardly an equal share of the burden; the U.S. deploying at least five times as many troops, if not much more, than any other country. Today, 16 countries have withdrawn from the coalition of the willing.

“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.”

It hardly bears repeating that, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bad intelligence, purposely manipulated by the Bush administration, convinced well over half the country that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It also convinced the balance of the Senate and many political opponents who literally could not imagine the degree to which this administration was willing to go to deceive Americans into war.

Of course, the constant demagoging of the non-existent connection between Iraq and 9/11—a notion finally and authoritatively debunked by the 9/11 Commission Report—convinced 55 percent of Americans the relationship existed. But there was no genuine threat to the U.S. from Iraq back then as there is today. Even worse, the unrest in the Middle East has emboldened terrorists and rogue states alike, leaving us in more dangerous security situation than when the war began.

“Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly—yet, our purpose is sure.”

The administration’s phony scare stories led the vast majority of the country into war with the support of about seventy percent of the country. Thank goodness for the dissenting voices that spoke out in the midst of the campaign of vilification against those who disagreedand the high spirits following the fall of Baghdad. Back then, as The Washington Post reported in a story headlined, “GOP to Hammer Democratic War Critics,” “Bush and GOP congressional leaders [reacted] with vitriol” towards anyone who questioned their wisdom.

In the elite media, The Weekly Standard excoriated war critics in an article headlined, “The Cassandra Chronicles: The Stupidity of the Antiwar Doomsayers.” The New Republic joined in, as did blogger Andrew Sullivan who now shares the views of people he called traitors. But as Paul Krugman noted in a December New York Times article recognizing the accuracy of these pre-war pessimists, the thing to remember about Cassandra is that she was right. If only one could say the same about the Bush cheerleaders who dominated our media—and amazingly, still do.

“[H]elping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment. ... And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.”

Half measures have characterized the entire campaign, from the lack of body armor and now rest and training for the troops, to the incompetence and political prioritizing of the civilian administration. Military commanders during the first weeks of the war weren’t expecting insurgents, and there was never a plan for the post-war occupation and reconstruction—the famously lacking “Phase IV.”

“We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.”

Iraq today has been sadly ripped apart by sectarian violence. Even worse, The New Yorker reports that the U.S. is doing little to aid the people who did respond to the U.S.’s call for action. Iraqis who worked for the American troops and civilian authorities are being cast aside and often killed by their countrymen for collaboration. Sound familiar?

Bush’s war lacka a military solution and is facing rapidly dwindling chances for a political solution, yet it will continue through the end of his presidency because no one of authority in the administration is capable of admitting a mistake. The saddest part of this entire horrific story is how much of it was predictable from the start. Remember John Kerry’s question about being the last person to “die for a mistake?” How would you like to be the mother, father, son, or daughter to lose your loved one for the same damn mistake a second time?

Eric Alterman is a Senior Fellow of the Center for American Progress and the author of six books. His popular blog, “Altercation,” has moved from MSNBC.com to Media Matters. The new URL is http://mediamatters.org/altercation/.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Four Years Later... And Counting: Billboarding the Iraqi Disaster

By Anthony Arnove TomDispatch.com Sunday 18 March 2007

As you read this, we're four years from the moment the Bush administration launched its shock-and-awe assault on Iraq, beginning 48 months of remarkable, non-stop destruction of that country ... and still counting. It's an important moment for taking stock of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Here is a short rundown of some of what George Bush's war and occupation has wrought:

Nowhere on Earth is there a worse refugee crisis than in Iraq today. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, some two million Iraqis have fled their country and are now scattered from Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and Iran to London and Paris. (Almost none have made it to the United States, which has done nothing to address the refugee crisis it created.) Another 1.9 million are estimated to be internally displaced persons, driven from their homes and neighborhoods by the U.S. occupation and the vicious civil war it has sparked. Add those figures up - and they're getting worse by the day - and you have close to 16% of the Iraqi population uprooted. Add the dead to the displaced, and that figure rises to nearly one in five Iraqis. Let that sink in for a moment.

Basic foods and necessities, which even Saddam Hussein's brutal regime managed to provide, are now increasingly beyond the reach of ordinary Iraqis, thanks to soaring inflation unleashed by the occupation's destruction of the already shaky Iraqi economy, cuts to state subsidies encouraged by the International Monetary Fund and the Coalition Provisional Authority, and the disruption of the oil industry. Prices of vegetables, eggs, tea, cooking and heating oil, gasoline, and electricity have skyrocketed. Unemployment is regularly estimated at somewhere between 50-70%. One measure of the impact of all this has been a significant rise in child malnutrition, registered by the United Nations and other organizations. Not surprisingly, access to safe water and regular electricity remain well below pre-invasion levels, which were already disastrous after more than a decade of comprehensive sanctions against, and periodic bombing of, a country staggered by a catastrophic war with Iran in the 1980s and the First Gulf War.

In an ongoing crisis, in which hundred of thousands of Iraqis have already died, the last few months have proved some of the bloodiest on record. In October alone, more than six thousand civilians were killed in Iraq, most in Baghdad, where thousands of additional U.S. troops had been sent in August (in the first official Bush administration "surge") with the claim that they would restore order and stability in the city. In the end, they only fueled more violence. These figures - and they are generally considered undercounts - are more than double the 2005 rate. Other things have more or less doubled in the last years, including, to name just two, the number of daily attacks on U.S. troops and the overall number of U.S. soldiers killed and wounded. United Nations special investigator Manfred Nowak also notes that torture "is totally out of hand" in Iraq. "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein."

Given the disaster that Iraq is today, you could keep listing terrible numbers until your mind was numb. But here's another way of putting the last four years in context. In that same period, there have, in fact, been a large number of deaths in a distant land on the minds of many people in the United States: Darfur. Since 2003, according to UN estimates, some 200,000 have been killed in the Darfur region of Sudan in a brutal ethnic-cleansing campaign and another 2 million have been turned into refugees.

How would you know this? Well, if you lived in New York City, at least, you could hardly take a subway ride without seeing an ad that reads: "400,000 dead. Millions uniting to save Darfur." The New York Times has also regularly featured full-page ads describing the "genocide" in Darfur and calling for intervention there under "a chain of command allowing necessary and timely military action without approval from distant political or civilian personnel."

In those same years, according to the best estimate available, the British medical journal The Lancet's door-to-door study of Iraqi deaths, approximately 655,000 Iraqis had died in war, occupation, and civil strife between March 2003 and June 2006. (The study offers a low-end possible figure on deaths of 392,000 and a high-end figure of 943,000.) But you could travel coast to coast without seeing the equivalents of the billboards, subway placards, full-page newspaper ads, or the like for the Iraqi dead. And you certainly won't see, as in the case of Darfur, celebrities on Good Morning America talking about their commitment to stopping "genocide" in Iraq.

Why is it that we are counting and thinking about the Sudanese dead as part of a high-profile, celebrity-driven campaign to "Save Darfur," yet Iraqi deaths still go effectively uncounted, and rarely seem to provoke moral outrage, let alone public campaigns to end the killing? And why are the numbers of killed in Darfur cited without any question, while the numbers of Iraqi dead, unless pitifully low-ball figures, are instantly challenged - or dismissed?

In our world, it seems, there are the worthy victims and the unworthy ones. To get at the difference, consider the posture of the United States toward the Sudan and Iraq. According to the Bush administration, Sudan is a "rogue state"; it is on the State Department's list of "state sponsors of terrorism." It stands accused of attacking the United States through its role in the suicide-boat bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. And then, of course - as Mahmood Mamdani pointed out in the London Review of Books recently - Darfur fits neatly into a narrative of "Muslim-on-Muslim violence," of a "genocide perpetrated by Arabs," a line of argument that appeals heavily to those who would like to change the subject from what the United States has done - and is doing - in Iraq. Talking about U.S. accountability for the deaths of the Iraqis we supposedly liberated is a far less comfortable matter.

It's okay to discuss U.S. "complicity" in human rights abuses, but only as long as you remain focused on sins of omission, not commission. We are failing the people of Darfur by not militarily intervening. If only we had used our military more aggressively. When, however, we do intervene, and wreak havoc in the process, it's another matter.

If anything, the focus on Darfur serves to legitimize the idea of U.S. intervention, of being more of an empire, not less of one, at the very moment when the carnage that such intervention causes is all too visible and is being widely repudiated around the globe. This has also contributed to a situation in which the violence for which the United States is the most responsible, Iraq, is that for which it is held the least accountable at home.

If anyone erred in Iraq, we now hear establishment critics of the invasion and occupation suggest, the real problem was administration incompetence or George Bush's overly optimistic belief that he could bring democracy to Arab or Muslim people, who, we are told, "have no tradition of democracy," who are from a "sick" and "broken society" - and, in brutalizing one another in a civil war, are now showing their true nature.

There is a general agreement across much of the political spectrum that we can blame Iraqis for the problems they face. In a much-lauded speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Sen. Barack Obama couched his criticism of Bush administration policy in a call for "no more coddling" of the Iraqi government: The United States, he insisted, "is not going to hold together this country indefinitely." Richard Perle, one of the neoconservative architects of the invasion of Iraq, now says he "underestimated the depravity" of the Iraqis. Sen. Hillary Clinton, Democratic frontrunner in the 2008 presidential election, recently asked, "How much are we willing to sacrifice [for the Iraqis]?" As if the Iraqis asked us to invade their country and make their world a living hell and are now letting us down.

This is what happens when the imperial burden gets too heavy. The natives come in for a lashing.

The disaster the United States has wrought in Iraq is worsening by the day and its effects will be long lasting. How long they last, and how far they spread beyond Iraq, will depend on how quickly our government can be forced to end its occupation. It will also depend on how all of us react the next time we hear that we must attack another country to make the world safe from weapons of mass destruction, "spread democracy," or undertake a "humanitarian intervention." In the meantime, it's worth thinking about what all those horrific figures will look like next March, on the fifth anniversary of the invasion, and the March after, on the sixth, and the March after that...

Put it on a billboard - in your head, if nowhere else.

US Troop Buildup in Iraq Approaches 30,000

By David Morgan and Andrew Gray Reuters Saturday 17 March 2007

Washington - The U.S. Army said on Friday it was sending some 2,600 soldiers to Iraq earlier than planned, raising the number of extra U.S. troops being deployed in a new effort to stabilize the country to nearly 30,000.

News of the latest deployment came as Democrats who now control Congress pushed legislation to end a war that is increasingly unpopular in the United States.

The combat aviation brigade from the U.S. Army's Third Infantry Division would deploy in early May, some 45 days sooner than previously envisaged, the Army said.

The brigade is the third element to be announced in a package of support units being deployed to assist 21,500 extra combat troops ordered to Iraq under a plan unveiled by President George W. Bush in January.

"The aviation brigade, which is really principally rotary helicopter support for the troops, is the final piece," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters.

There are more than 140,000 U.S. troops already fighting in Iraq, where sectarian violence has thwarted American efforts to bring the four-year-old war to a close.

Gates said he also approved a significant increase in the number of U.S. military personnel training security forces in Afghanistan. Defense officials said the number of extra trainers was around 3,000.

The White House asked the U.S. Congress earlier this month to consider funding more trainers for Afghanistan.

Bush's plan for Iraq aims to quell violence in Baghdad and the western province of Anbar. Under the plan, the extra troops are meant to establish security while Iraqi politicians move ahead with political reconciliation.

The numbers released on Friday show the administration has already approved some 7,200 support troops.

The list includes the Army combat aviation brigade as well as 2,200 military police, requested by commanders to supervise detainees expected to be picked up during the security crackdown, and another 2,400 support personnel.

Gates urged Congress to approve an emergency spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan quickly and without the conditions Democrats want to impose a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

"It starts to be a real problem for us in April if we don't have the money," he told reporters traveling back with him to Washington, D.C. after a change of command ceremony at U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida.

"Legislation that would involve specific deadlines and strict conditions would make it difficult, if not impossible, for our commanders to achieve their mission."

From Shock and Awe to the "Surge" Without End

By Raymond Whitaker The Independent UK Sunday 18 March 2007

Four years ago this Tuesday, George Bush began his ill-fated Iraq campaign. Today's news that the US is sending an extra battalion to Baghdad will push troop levels to 160,000 - 10,000 more than at the time of the invasion.
US troop levels in Iraq are set to rise higher than at any time since the war began four years ago, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

This summer, troop levels will top 160,000 - compared with the 150,000 there were at the time of the invasion.

As Britain prepares to pull 1,600 troops out of southern Iraq, the Pentagon has just obtained the agreement of the US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, to deploy an additional combat aviation brigade of 2,600, consisting of ground forces and a full complement of helicopters.

The brigade was due to go to Iraq in the summer as part of a regular rotation of troops, but is being sent in early to support the "surge" of American forces approved by President George Bush in January.

At that point the plan, aimed at bringing the insurgency in Baghdad and neighbouring Anbar province under control, called for an additional 21,500 combat troops to be sent to Iraq. But the figure has since crept up to nearly 30,000, with 2,200 military police being added to handle the higher number of people being detained in security sweeps, plus a further 2,400 combat and service-support personnel. Pentagon figures released on Friday show a total of 7,200 troops have been added to the "surge", taking the overall increase to 28,700.

According to the US military thinktank GlobalSecurity.org, there were 132,000 American ground troops in Iraq at the beginning of this year. When the reinforcements finish arriving by the end of June, the total will rise above 160,000, more than at any point in the past four years. Tuesday is the fourth anniversary of the start of the conflict with the "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad.

In 2003, when the American-led coalition smashed its way to Baghdad in three weeks, there were never more than 150,000 US troops in the country. By March 2004, when Saddam Hussein was in custody and Mr Gates's over-confident predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, was anticipating an early exit, the total slipped as low as 117,500. The only months the US deployment approached 160,000 were November and December 2005, when extra forces were in place during the national elections. Their numbers were reduced immediately afterwards, but the formation of a government has done nothing to quell the violence.

Last week the Pentagon admitted for the first time that there was civil war in parts of Iraq. Its assessment of the final quarter of 2006 was its bleakest ever, with record levels of violence. Attacks increased to more than 1,000 a week and average daily casualties rose above 140 - and those figures, the report admitted, are based purely on "violence observed by or reported to the US-led military coalition". The real extent of violence is likely to be much greater.

Describing worsening sectarian divisions, the report said: "Illegally armed groups are engaged in a self-sustaining cycle of politically motivated violence, using tactics that include indiscriminate bombing, murder, and indirect fire to intimidate people and stoke sectarian conflict."

Up to 9,000 civilians are fleeing the country each month as a result, according to the Pentagon. The UNHCR says that if internally displaced people are included, the figure rises to something like 50,000 a month.

This is the background to the "surge" operation, which began a month ago. American and Iraqi forces are attempting to "clear and hold" Baghdad, neighbourhood by neighbourhood.

"Once security forces have locked down an area," an official told the IoS, "we are applying a tailored combination of social, governance, economic and political measures. The aim is to take advantage of the temporary absence of insurgents, and render that absence permanent by 'hard-wiring them out' of the environment that they used to dominate.

"Then they may not be able to return, or if they do they will find greatly increased resistance and will stand out better against the background of the population, and it will be harder [for them] to operate."

Commanders claim there have been positive early results, with a decline in sectarian killings in Baghdad, although February saw a record number of bombings. They also admit that to some extent violence has simply been displaced outside the capital - on Friday, in Anbar province, two suicide truck bombers driving tankers filled with chlorine killed at least eight people south of Fallujah. About 350 civilians and six US troops were treated for chlorine gas exposure.

"Moving security forces into an insurgent area to 'shut it down' is like stamping on a puddle - the large pool of water disappears, but little splashes and spots radiate out from it," said the official.

"So if security operations are all you are doing, they will have local and temporary effects. Violence will decrease, but only where you are operating, and when you leave it will come back."

Major General William Caldwell, the most senior US military spokesman in Baghdad, said it would make "an incredible difference ... if the high-profile car bombs can be stopped or brought down to a much lower level". But the official warned that the bombers would remain difficult to stop until the mood of the population changed, and that would come, if at all, at the end of the operation.

While those conducting the operation stress the need for patience, the risk is that US troop losses will rise, strengthening the campaign in Washington for a pullout date to be set. So far this month 44 American soldiers have been killed, on course to match the 80 deaths in February and 83 in January. The belief in Baghdad, said the official, was that the US public would tolerate the losses, as long as there was a perception of progress being made: "What they hate are not lives lost, but lives wasted."

But the political side of the "surge" plan is going badly, according to the Pentagon and others. The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is showing little enthusiasm for American attempts to reverse one of their own worst mistakes: the "de-Baathification" of the old regime, which removed thousands of Sunni military commanders and pushed them into the insurgency.

"In one sentence," the official concluded, "my take on the current situation is: 'Right strategy, great team, possibly too late.'"

A Nation in Ruins

2,000,000 Iraqis now live outside Iraq, according to UNHCR

12,000 doctors have fled Iraq since the war began. Another 2,000 are said to have been killed, and at least 250 kidnapped

50% Average inflation in 2006, according to the World Bank

6.3 hours of electricity daily in Baghdad in December 2006. In May 2003 there were 16-24 hours

32 percentage of people in Iraq with drinkable water

3,700,000 Iraqis now receive food aid from the UN World Food Programme

16% Proportion of Iraqis who said in January that their income meets their basic needs

Four Years After Start of War, Anger Reigns

by Steve Vogel and Michael Alison Chandler The Washington Post Sunday 18 March 2007

Demonstrators brave cold to carry message to Pentagon, as counter-protesters battle back.

Thousands of demonstrators protesting the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq marched on the Pentagon yesterday, jeered along the way by large numbers of angry counter-protesters.

Demonstrators included many families that brought young children to the march. There were also many high school students and young people.

Organizers billed the antiwar rally as marking the 40th anniversary of the 1967 march on the Pentagon. At times, verbal clashes during the cold and blustery day demonstrated that the bitter divisions of four decades ago sparked by Vietnam are very much alive in the debate over Iraq.

The march, part of a weekend of protests that included smaller demonstrations in other U.S. cities and abroad, comes as the Bush administration sends more troops to Iraq in an attempt to regain control of Baghdad and Congress considers measures to bring U.S. troops home.

Paul Miller, 72, a Korean War-era Marine Corps veteran who flew from California for the march with his brother, was making his first appearance at an antiwar rally. "I was like everybody else. I trusted the people who ran the country, and I'm tired of being lied to," Miller said, standing on a hill overlooking the Pentagon, a beret with a Marine Corps pin on his head. "I feel so bad for the young Marines who are getting their legs blown off and losing their lives."

Organizers said yesterday's march on the Pentagon reflected the public's sense of betrayal over the escalation of the war. As some speakers called for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, others denounced Congress in equally bitter terms for not cutting off funding for the war. Yet attendance at yesterday's march was noticeably smaller than one held in Washington in January, police said.

Much of the passion yesterday was supplied by thousands of counter-demonstrators, many of them veterans who mobilized from across the country to gather around the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Some said they came in response to appeals on the Internet to protect the Wall against what they feared would be acts of vandalism; no such acts were reported.

Antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan makes a victory sign as she marches toward the pentagon. Sheehans's son, Casey, was a casualty of the war in Iraq.

Others said they were tired of war protesters claiming to speak for the country. "I'm here because I think we need to commit to our troops in the field," said Guy Rocca, 63, a veteran who drove nine hours from Detroit.

Some counter-protesters yelled obscenities and mocked the marchers as traitors. War protesters responded with angry words of their own, and police intervened at times to prevent shouting matches from escalating.

The counter-demonstrators ringed the Lincoln Memorial and continued along portions of Arlington Memorial Bridge. "You've got no pride and no honor," yelled Kenneth Murphy, a Vietnam veteran from North Carolina.

When marchers reached the Virginia side of the bridge, they were greeted by more protesters at the traffic circle in front of Arlington National Cemetery, along with a banner that read in part: "You dishonor our dead on Hallowed ground." The war protesters might have found the warmest reception of the day at the Pentagon, where police had the building blocked off, but no counter-demonstrators were waiting.

"It's strange to say, but welcome to the Pentagon," said protest leader Mara Veheyden-Hilliard, speaking on a stage in the north parking lot as the first streams of marchers began arriving.

A group of protesters who tried to reach the Pentagon by charging toward the south parking lot ended up in a tense standoff with police. Five arrests were made in the incident. But beyond shoving matches, no violence was reported.

After a night of rain, sleet and snow, the day began with bright sunshine but low temperatures. Marchers assembled at first in relatively sparse numbers on a muddy playing field at 23rd Street and Constitution Avenue NW.

Organizers, who had predicted tens of thousands of marchers would demonstrate, gave estimates ranging from 15,000 to 30,000. Police no longer provide official estimates of crowd size but informally put it at 10,000 to 20,000, with a smaller but sizable contingent of counter-protesters.

War protest leaders said a large winter storm that hit the Northeast hurt turnout. More than 60 bus loads of protesters who had been scheduled to come from the region canceled their trips Friday night, according to Brian Becker, national coordinator for the Answer Coalition, the event's main sponsor.

It was quickly apparent that the weather had not prevented counter-demonstrators, many in black leather motorcycle jackets, from showing up in force and surrounding all sides of the Wall.

At one point before the march started, counter-demonstrators formed a gantlet along an asphalt walkway on Constitution Avenue and heaped verbal abuse at protesters who walked through on their way to the assembly area. One Vietnam veteran in a wheelchair yelled obscenities at demonstrators, including some with children.

Some demonstrators supporting the war effort engaged in good-natured banter with war protesters. But others blocked paths and prevented marchers from getting near the Wall, particularly anyone carrying a sign. District resident Eric Anderson, 47, had his sign ripped from his hands and thrown in the mud.

Bob Anders, 60, an Iowa banker who said he served with the 25th Infantry Division in Vietnam and rode a bus from Iowa to protest the war, had his heart set on seeing the memorial but turned around after seeing the situation. "I've never seen the memorial, and I wanted to see it in a spirit of protest," he said.

After speeches from antiwar activists including Cindy Sheehan, the first marchers took off across the bridge shortly before 1 p.m. The marchers began arriving at the Pentagon about 1:45, some gathering in front of the stage in the north parking lot and others perched on a hill by a Route 27 overpass.

About 2:10, a group of several hundred young people continued past the rally point and marched down Route 27 toward the south parking lot until they confronted a police barricade. Some youths who carried traffic barrels cut in half and painted red and black as shields and wore scarves over their faces pressed forward as Pentagon police, backed by Virginia state troopers in riot gear, stood two layers deep, trying to push them back. When that failed, the police donned gas masks. One of the protesters threw a firecracker, and many people ran off.

About 70 to 80 people sat down and were threatened with arrest. Protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching." Then protesters took a vote and opted to back off.

Yet, many demonstrators showed respect toward police and the military.

Among those marching on a day of cold, whipping wind was Maureen Dooley of Melfa, Va., who first marched on the Pentagon when she was 18; now she is 58. "I came, as I did today, to be quietly counted among the people opposed to this war," she said.

Dooley said she wished she could "apologize for my generation" for the way the antiwar movement treated Vietnam veterans on their return home. "This time, we're with our young men and women," she said.

The Pentagon's windswept north parking lot was cold, and many protesters did not linger long. By 3:30 p.m., only a few hundred marchers remained huddled around the stage. Most had left, with many of the out-of-towners seeking refuge on the floor of the nearby Arlington Cemetery Metro station.

One group that had come by overnight bus from Iowa City huddled on the floor near the station elevators. They had survived the 22-hour bus ride as well as the insults of the counter-protesters, only to be defeated by the bitter cold.

"We just couldn't take it anymore," said Christine Gaunt, 50, a hog farmer from Grinnell, Iowa. Now, with a voice fatigued from chanting litanies against the president and feet tired from marching on the military industrial complex, Gaunt just counted the hours to the group's scheduled bus pickup at 7 p.m.

If she was lucky, she said in a tired voice, she would get home this afternoon, just in time to haul her pigs to the Sunday market.

Staff writers Nelson Hernandez, William Wan and Theola Labb and the Associated Press contributed this report.

Congress, End the War

The Nation 02 April 2007 Issue

"War is over, if you want it," declared John Lennon in the thick of the Vietnam nightmare. To the extent that Lennon's "you" referred to the US Congress, he was right, then and now. The House and Senate have the authority to end the war in Iraq quickly, efficiently and honorably. Claims to the contrary by George W. Bush and his apologists are at odds with every intention of the authors of the Constitution. Which part of "Congress shall have the power to declare war... to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces...to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers" does the White House fail to understand? Unfortunately, it may be the same part that cautious Congressional leaders have trouble comprehending.

Democrats gained control of Congress in November with the charge to bring the occupation to a swift conclusion. Yet, as we mark the fourth anniversary of the war, the story of the 110th Congress still seems to be one of an opposition party struggling to come to grips with its authority to upend a President's misguided policies. Nothing has illustrated the lack of direction so agonizingly as the debates over nonbinding resolutions opposing the troop surge; weeks went into advancing measures that, as their names confirmed, were inconsequential. For a time, it seemed as if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has been so effective on the domestic front, was ceding any real leadership role on foreign policy.

With the announcement of spending legislation that includes benchmarks for progress in Iraq, and a plan to begin withdrawing troops if those benchmarks are unmet, Pelosi has begun to define a Democratic opposition to Bush's policies. But she has not gone nearly far enough. While Democratic leaders are finally arguing for a withdrawal timeline, it is not the right one. Theoretically, the plan would create the potential for withdrawal of some troops in six months. Realistically, because it lacks adequate monitoring mechanisms - Pelosi says determinations about the benchmarks would be a "subjective call" - the best bet is that even if the Democratic plan were to overcome all the hurdles blocking its enactment, there would be no withdrawals for more than a year.

Forcing Americans and Iraqis to die for Bush's delusions for another year while emptying the Treasury at a rate of more than $1 billion a week is unconscionable. That is why House members who have battled hardest to end the war are so frustrated with Pelosi's approach. "This plan would require us to believe whatever the President would tell us about progress that was being made," says Representative Maxine Waters, speaking for the bipartisan Out of Iraq Caucus. Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Lynn Woolsey has been blunter, saying of the legislation, "There's no enforcement mechanism."

Waters and Woolsey are right. While we respect efforts by antiwar Democrats like Jim McDermott and Jerrold Nadler to negotiate with Pelosi in hopes of improving the legislation, conservative Blue Dog Democrats have already signaled that the price of their support will be the removal of any teeth put into the plan by progressives. Worse, they have tampered with the legislation in ways that may even encourage Bush's interventionist tendencies: The Democratic proposal for a timeline originally included a provision that would have required Bush to seek Congressional approval before using military force against Iran. But under pressure from conservative members of her caucus and lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Pelosi removed the language. By first including the provision and then removing it, Pelosi and her aides have given Bush an opening to claim that he does not require Congressional approval for a wider war.

The haggling over compromises points up the flaw in Pelosi's approach: It is too soft, too slow, too open to lobbying mischief and abuse by a President who has done nothing but abuse Congress for six years. America and the world are not crying out for a timeline that might begin extracting troops from Iraq a year from now. Almost 200 American soldiers, and thousands of Iraqis, have died since the Democrats took control of Congress. To accept that the war will go on for another year, at the least, is to accept that the death toll will continue to mount.

Democrats should recognize that the time has come to use the full power accorded Congress in time of war: the power of the purse. As Senator Russ Feingold says, "Some will claim that cutting off funding for the war would endanger our brave troops on the ground. Not true. The safety of our servicemen and -women in Iraq is paramount, and we can and should end funding for the war without putting our troops in further danger."

Instead of negotiating with Bush to give him another year of his war before facing consequences, Democrats should refuse to write another blank check. They should instead support Representative Barbara Lee's proposal to fully fund the withdrawal of US soldiers and military contractors from Iraq. Lee would give military commanders the resources they need to withdraw all troops by the end of the year by mandating that emergency supplemental funding be used only for that purpose.

There may not be enough Democratic and renegade Republican votes to win House passage of Lee's legislation - at least not initially. But tremendous educational and practical progress can be made by just saying no, as loudly as possible, to a President who has not gotten enough resistance from Congress. Setting up a conflict between Bush's desire to keep troops in Iraq through the end of his presidency and a plan to bring them home this year sharpens the debate at a time when the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that a majority of Americans now favor setting a clear deadline. Even as Bush blusters on about staying the course - or whatever the slogan of the moment may be - he is feeling the pressure to end this war. Indeed, he has already split with Vice President Cheney and other Administration hardliners on the issue of engaging diplomatically with Iran and Syria.

No matter what the ultimate exit strategy, engaging in regional diplomacy to help contain the civil war in Iraq and provide more international assistance to the Iraqi people is an essential step in repositioning the United States to be a constructive force in the region, as opposed to serving as a catalyst for a wider sectarian war. The Bush Administration's dawning recognition of this fact will be heightened and extended only if war foes maintain their resolve. If the debate in Congress is about whether to attach a few soft benchmarks to Bush's request for more money to maintain the occupation on his terms, he will feel little sense of urgency. But if the debate is about whether to provide only the money needed to bring the troops home, Bush will understand that time is running out for his strategy - and that he can no longer afford to casually dismiss diplomacy and the logic of withdrawal.

Saturday, March 10, 2007

Bush Seeks 8,200 More Troops for Wars

By Deb Riechmann, The Associated Press Saturday 10 March 2007

Montevideo, Uruguay - President Bush asked Congress on Saturday for $3.2 billion to pay for 8,200 more US troops needed in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of the 21,500-troop buildup he announced in January.

Bush wants Congress to fund 3,500 new US troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan. The money also would pay for the estimated 3,500 existing U.S. troops he already announced would be staying longer in the region to counter an anticipated Taliban offensive in Afghanistan this spring.

In Iraq, most of the additional troops would help with the latest Baghdad security plan, which is getting under way in the capital. The money would pay for 2,400 combat support troops, 2,200 military police forces and 129 troops for reconstruction teams.

The budget revisions come as many lawmakers opposed to the buildup in Iraq are debating funding for the war. But in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Bush proposed canceling $3.2 billion in low-priority defense items to offset the extra money needed to support the additional troops.

Cutting the programs, he said, would eliminate the need to increase the overall $93.4 billion in additional defense money he's already requested to finance this year's war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This revised request would better align resources based on the assessment of military commanders to achieve the goal of establishing Iraq and Afghanistan as democratic and secure nations that are free of terrorism," Bush wrote in his letter to lawmakers.

Bush signed the letter on his flight Friday from Brazil to Uruguay, part of his five-nation tour of Latin America that continues on Sunday in Colombia. The White House released the letter Saturday in Montevideo, Uruguay.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, recently hinted of the need to bolster the U.S. troop presence in Iraq.

"Gen. Petraeus expects under the Baghdad security plan as well as other parts of Iraq, that the number of people going into detention will increase and so these military police forces will be for that," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Pentagon Deploys 2,200 More Troops to Baghdad

The Associated Press Thursday 08 March 2007

Washington - The Pentagon has approved a request by the new US commander in Iraq for an extra 2,200 military police to help deal with an anticipated increase in detainees during the Baghdad security crackdown, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.

Gates also cited early indications that the Iraqi government is meeting the commitments it made to bolster security, although he cautioned that it was too early to reach any firm conclusions about the outcome.

"We're right at the very beginning," he told a Pentagon news conference. "But I would say that based in terms of whether the Iraqis are meeting the commitments that they've made to us in the security arena, I think that our view would be so far, so good." He was referring to the movement of additional Iraqi troops into the capital.

Gates said that the request for extra MPs is in addition to the 21,500 combat troops that President Bush is sending for the Baghdad security plan, along with 2,400 support troops.

Gordon England, the deputy defense secretary, told Congress this week that the number of required support troops could reach 7,000.

"That's a new requirement by a new commander," Gates said of the request for more MPs by Gen. David Petraeus, who assumed command in Baghdad last month. He added that there were other troop requests still being considered in the Pentagon; he gave no specifics.

The day-to-day commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, has recommended that the higher troop level be maintained until February 2008, The New York Times reported on its Web site Wednesday night. Odierno said the extra troops are needed to support a sustained effort to win over the Iraqi populace.

Odierno made the recommendation to his superior, Gen. David Petraeus, but Petraeus has not yet acted on it, the report said, citing unidentified military officials.

House Democratic leaders, meanwhile, intend to propose legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the fall of 2008, and even earlier if the Iraqi government fails to meet security and other goals, Democratic officials said Wednesday night.

The conditions, described as tentative until presented to the Democratic rank and file, would be added to legislation providing nearly $100 billion the Bush administration has requested for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the officials said, speaking anonymously.

The legislation is expected on the floor of the House later this month, and would mark the most direct challenge to date the new Democratic-controlled Congress has posed to the president's war policies.

Gates said it was not a surprise that Sunni insurgents have launched increased attacks in recent days.

"I think that we expected that there would be in the short term an increase in violence as the surge began to make itself felt," Gates said, adding that there were other "very preliminary positive signs" that the Baghdad security plan is working.

Joining Gates at the news conference, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that in recent days the number of sectarian murders was down slightly and the number of car bombings was up.

"So I think you see potentially the Iraqi people wanting to take advantage of this opportunity and the enemy wanting to keep it going," Pace said.

We'll Have to Talk to Militants, Says US Chief in Iraq

By Lauren Frayer The Associated Press Thursday 08 March 2007

The new commander of US forces of Iraq, General David Petraeus, said today that insurgents in Iraq have sought to intensify attacks during a Baghdad security crackdown and additional US forces will be sent to areas outside the capital where militant groups are regrouping.

Petraeus said the troop build-ups outside Baghdad will focus on Diyala province north-east of Baghdad, a growing hotbed for suspected Sunni extremists fleeing the US-Iraqi security operation in Baghdad.

But Petraeus stressed that military force alone is "not sufficient" to end the violence in Iraq and political talks must eventually include some militant groups now opposing the US-backed government.

"This is critical," said Petraeus in his first news conference since taking over command last month. He noted that such political negotiations "will determine in the long run the success of this effort. "

Petraeus listed a series of high-profile attacks since US and Iraqi forces began the security sweep three weeks ago, including a suicide blast at a mostly Shiite university and an assassination attempt against one of Iraq's vice presidents.

The Pentagon has pledged 17,500 combat troops to the capital. Petraeus has said the full contingent should not be in place until early June. He declined to say how many US forces will be deployed to Diyala, where the group al-Qaida in Iraq has made one its main staging grounds.

Military officials believe many insurgents have shifted from Baghdad to Diyala to escape the security operation.

"Car bombs have targeted hundreds of Iraqis," Petraeus said. He also denounced the wave of other attacks, including the "thugs with no soul" who have killed more than 150 Shiite pilgrims in the past three days.

"We share the horror" of witnessing the suicide bombings and shootings against the pilgrims, who are heading for a religious commemoration beginning Friday in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, about 50 miles south of Baghdad.

The attacks - mostly blamed on Sunni insurgents - are seen as attempts to provoke a civil war with Shiite militia. But Petraeus said it was " critical" for leaders to halt any drift toward sectarian conflict.

He said US forces are ready to help provide additional security for the pilgrims if asked by Iraqi authorities.

"It is an enormous task to protect all of them and there is a point at which if someone is willing to blow up himself ... the problem becomes very, very difficult indeed," he said

But Petraeus added that he saw no role for the powerful Shiite militia known as the Mahdi Army, which had sent out fighters to guard the pilgrimage in the past two years.

He said "extremist elements" in the militia have been engaged in " true excesses" in the past - an apparent reference to suspected gangs carrying out targeted killings against Sunnis.

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Blood Diamonds and Blood Oil

By Retired US Army Reserve Colonel Ann Wright Tuesday 06 March 2007

Child and teen soldiers in Sierra Leone and the US.
We have a myth that we can transform children and kids in their teens into men and women by sending them to war. If they fight young, we give them adulthood. Children and kids who fight eventually do grow into adults - adults with lifetimes ahead of them filled with emotional pain and anger. Is that what we want for our children and for our country?

Last week at Fort Hood, Texas, I attended the court-martial of US Army Specialist Mark Wilkerson. The night before his second deployment to Iraq, he went AWOL for 18 months. You learn a lot about a person's life during court proceedings. I learned that Mark joined Junior ROTC (high school Reserve Officer Training Corps) when he was 15, a sophomore in high school. He said that in grade school he was not inclined toward the military, but his grandmother showed him photo albums of his father, grandfather and great-grandfather in uniform. Joining the military was his family tradition. As a junior in high school, Mark signed up for delayed entry into the military. One month after graduating from high school in May 2002 at age 17, Mark was in basic training in the US Army. In December 2002 he got married and in February 2003 he deployed to Kuwait and on into Iraq. Mark served in Iraq for one year and returned to Fort Hood in March 2004.

Upon his return to the United States, he began having nightmares. He had a full-blown case of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from the sights, sounds and actions in Iraq. After his one year in Iraq, Mark decided he could not kill others; he submitted an application for Conscientious Objector (CO) status in March 2004. In July 2004 he was told his unit would return to Iraq in January 2005. His CO application was denied in November 2004.

In January 2005, the night before Mark's unit was to depart for Iraq, he and his wife closed their apartment, canceled their cell phone accounts and left Fort Hood. Eighteen months later, in August 2006, after a press conference at Camp Casey in Crawford, Texas, Mark voluntarily returned himself to military control at Fort Hood . During the press conference and before turning himself in, Mark said: "I made the difficult decision to go absent without leave (AWOL) for political, spiritual and personal reasons. I am not willing to kill, or be killed, or do anything I consider morally wrong, for reasons I don't believe in." Mark was tried by a US military general court-martial on February 22, 2007, and was convicted of missing military movement and being absent without leave. He was sentenced to seven months' imprisonment and a bad conduct discharge.

At the same time as I was attending Mark's court-martial, I was reading "A Long Way Home: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier" by Ishmael Beach, a book that describes his experience as a child soldier in Sierra Leone. I also had seen recently the movie "Blood Diamond," a film about rebels in Sierra Leone. The rebels captured young Sierra Leoneans and made them kill family, neighbors and others in bloody initiation rites, then kept them in the rebel family through techniques for developing loyalty to a group whose mission was to kill those designated by their superiors. Thousands of five- to twenty-year-olds were used by the rebels in the war for control of the diamond fields in Sierra Leone.

I was the deputy ambassador at the US Embassy in Freetown, Sierra Leone, when the rebels took over the capital of the country in 1997 and led the evacuation of over 2,500 persons from the violence of Freetown. I returned to Sierra Leone the following year when the embassy reopened. I interviewed many victims of the machete rampages of the child soldiers. I visited the child/kid soldier rehabilitation centers in the Freetown area.

Using the youth of one's country to fight old men's wars is the history of most countries. Child soldiers in Sierra Leone helped rebel forces to wreak havoc in villages, creating instability that enabled the rebels to gain control of diamond fields. Teen soldiers in the United States are recruited and put in uniform at age 15 (JROTC) to fight at age 17 for oil in Iraq. Some child soldiers in Sierra Leone escaped their rebel "family" and the violence in overrun villages by running far into the jungle and eventually finding refuge from the violence. Some teen soldiers in the United States escaped their military "family" and the violence in Iraq by going AWOL in the United States or in Canada. Those from both countries who stayed with their "families" remained because of "family ties and bonds" formed by either rebel or national indoctrination and by steel - either machetes or guns.

I would argue that the result is much the same. Young men and women in Sierra Leone and in the United States are filled with lifetimes of nightmares from actions they have committed or from sights they have seen in war. Killing by machete or killing by guns results in the same emotional issues for those who have committed the acts. In Sierra Leone, child soldiers eventually were helped in internationally operated rehabilitation centers. In the United States, teen soldiers have gone to US military or Veterans Administration hospitals for assistance. Child soldiers from Sierra Leone are learning to deal with why they burned huts, and why they chopped off arms and legs. Teen soldiers from the United States are dealing with why one busted down doors and terrorized families, and why they sent blistering streams of lead into buildings and homes.

Having been in the US military for 29 years, I understand the need for a professional military. However, Junior ROTC should end in our high schools and the recruitment of high school students in the schools must stop. The United States should not relegate its youth to a future of nightmares and emotional damage from wars. We do not need child/teen soldiers in the United States.

Children and teens should not have to fight for diamonds or for oil.

Technorati search
Google Groups End the War in Iraq
Browse Archives at groups-beta.google.com
Search Popdex: