Death to the House of Saud

russ baker reports on the middle east uprising that has scarcely been mentioned in either the u.s. or international news media...

Those wanting a closer look at what is going on in Saudi Arabia can go to the site Liveleak, where there’s highly disturbing video accompanied by this text: “Qatif—Firing live bullets at the demonstrators November 21, 2011: Video shows the brutal style Saudi security forces in dealing with the demonstrators by firing live bullets.” Another source is a blog called “Angry Arab News Service,” which features video in which a large and vocal group in Qatif are apparently chanting “Death to the House of Saud”:

That kind of material seems to warrant worldwide attention. And with that, we might reasonably expect the protests to grow. But the coverage has not come, nor the greater uprising.

[...]

[Saudis] cannot count on the handy boost the West gave to revolutions in nearby countries. Nor can they count on the Western media, which brays about its independence and initiative, but, increasingly, shows neither where the West’s precious oil supplies are involved.

Protesters in Qatif chant "Death to Al Saud" after 2 protestors were shot
dead by the security forces. The interior ministry then refused to give the
bodies to the families unless they waived their rights regarding compensation.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

A sign of hope for dumping Karzai in the upcoming Afghan election...?

wouldn't it be loverly...?

from the nyt...

When Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, the main election challenger to President Hamid Karzai, arrived here to campaign last weekend, thousands of supporters choked the six-mile drive from the airport. Cars were plastered with his posters. Motorbikes flew blue banners. Young men wearing T-shirts emblazoned with his face leapt aboard his car to embrace him to ecstatic cheers.

[...]

Mr. Karzai is still widely considered the front-runner in the campaign for the Aug. 20 presidential election. But Dr. Abdullah, who has the backing of the largest opposition group, the National Front, is the one candidate among the field of 41 who has a chance of forcing Mr. Karzai into a runoff, a contest between the top two vote-getters if no candidate wins more than 50 percent of the votes in the first balloting.

but here's the part that gets my attention...

Dr. Abdullah, with a diplomat and a surgeon as his running mates, is seen as part of a younger generation of Afghans keen to move away from the nation’s reliance on warlords and older mujahedeen leaders and to clean up and recast the practice of governing.

To do that, he advocates the devolution of power from the strong presidency built up under Mr. Karzai to a parliamentary system that he says will be more representative. He is also calling for a system of electing officials for Afghanistan’s 34 provinces and nearly 400 districts as a way to build support for the government.

Those provincial governors are now appointed from Kabul, and many have been criticized for cronyism and corruption. Influential Shiite clerics here in Herat, who supported Mr. Karzai in the last election in 2004, are now so fed up with corrupt appointees that they have said they will back Dr. Abdullah this time.

Re-engaging the people is essential to reverse the lawlessness and insecurity that have reached a critical point in much of the country, Dr. Abdullah said. “They have managed to lose the people,” he said of the current government. “In fighting an insurgency, you lose the people and you lose the war.”

as the plane was on final approach to the kabul airport for my second visit to afghanistan last november, i looked out on the grim scene of mud houses, pollution and dreadful poverty and had an astonishing revelation... i had developed a real soft spot in my heart for afghanistan... "what's wrong with this picture?" i remember thinking but then had to admit that i had developed a great deal of affection for the afghans i had met and become friends with on my first visit... the people and their country had come to mean a great deal to me and that emotional attachment has only been strengthened over two more visits and will no doubt become even stronger on the fifth one coming up...

the afghans are just like people everywhere else around the world... they only want what we all want - a little peace and quiet, food for their families, a roof over their heads, clothes for themselves and their kids, a chance to earn a living - none of it that wouldn't be recognized and heartily supported by any one of us... maybe they've got a shot at heading there if the upcoming election lets them turn the corner... and, oh yeah, btw, isn't that what we all said about obama...? sigh...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

If our government wasn't so damned arrogant, we'd have the good grace to be ashamed of ourselves

disgusting...

The United States inaugurated its largest embassy ever in the heart of the Green Zone on Monday, officially opening the fortress-like compound that was built as a testament to America's commitment to Iraq.

Addressing an inauguration ceremony under tight security, Ambassador Ryan Crocker said the $700 million embassy was testimony to America's long-term friendship with Iraq, where about 146,000 U.S. troops are deployed.

"From this embassy in the years to come, we look forward to building our partnership and contributing to the future," Crocker said.

meanwhile...

Attacks once again rocked Baghdad a day after a suicide bomber killed at least 38 people at a Shiite shrine just four miles north of the site of the new embassy. Four bombs exploded in different parts of Baghdad just before noon on Monday, killing four people and wounding 19.

i hope those occupying the seats of power in the REAL iraqi government feel comfortable in their new home...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

More violence in Peshawar

now that i've got some good friends in this part of the world, i pay much closer attention than usual to news from the area...

one of my good friends is the computer systems administrator for the project where i work... he moved his family from kabul to peshawar, pakistan, some time back for several reasons, not the least of which was their safety and security... he also felt that the schools there were much better for his kids... since then, he's been working tirelessly for weeks at a time (he also handles the regional offices of the project in several other afghan cities), and then takes a week or ten days to drive over the khyber pass to peshawar to spend time with his family...

in recent months, the trip has become increasingly dangerous... bereft of any identification or even a cell phone, he takes a taxi to the border crossing into pakistan and then catches another taxi on the other side for the remainder of the trip... his language, ability to speak the regional dialect, and appearance allow him to blend in and remain inconspicuous, but it's still a frightening, 9 hour ordeal...

he told me a few weeks ago that, come school vacation time, he'll be moving his family back to kabul... with stories like this, i can see why...

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (Reuters) - A car bomb killed at least 20 people and wounded scores in the northwestern Pakistani city of Peshawar on Friday, officials said.

The blast occurred near an assembly hall of minority Shi'ite Muslims in a crowded part of the city. One building collapsed in flames and several others were badly damaged and on fire.

"It shook the entire area like an earthquake," said resident Rahim Gul as he tried to remove rubble with his bare hands. "It was a huge and terrible explosion. As we reached here it was all burning. There was rubble all around."

Khizar Hayat, the chief doctor at the city's main government hospital, said at least 20 people had been killed and 50 wounded, 20 of them seriously.

people indiscriminately killing other people... sigh...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Juan Cole: Iran supported the Iraq-US Security Agreement because they think they can trust Obama

i think professor cole may be spot on...

Omid Memarian explains Iran's turnaround on the Iraqi-US security agreement, which it was rejecting only last month.

McClatchy has more: "Reports from Iran's state news agency called an Iraqi Cabinet vote that advanced the security compact a "victory for the ruling party and its Kurdish partners," referring to the Shiite lawmakers who supported the agreement."

Me, I think the turning point was the election Obama. The Iranians would never have trusted McCain enough to hope for any good outcome from a security pact. But I think they are convinced that Obama really does want US troops out of Iraq, and that he wants to talk to Iran.

one thing's for goddam sure... even THINKING about placing your trust in bush or his gang of criminals would be sheer folly...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The U.S.-Iraq security agreement sails into troubled waters

as well it should... look at what the u.s. is asking for... no wonder the iraqis are pissed off (see my post from saturday)... it's even uniting the sunnis and the shiites in a common cause...

juan cole...

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that both Sunni and Shiite Iraqis have united to reject the draft of a security agreement proposed by the United States. A high-level Iraqi source told the pan-Arab London daily that one point of dispute is that the US wants its troops to have complete freedom of movement in the country, whereas the Iraqis want it to be limited. The Americans are said to be seeking to retain the right to dominate Iraqi air space up to 29,000 feet, and to gain open access to the land, air and water of Iraq. The US wants to retain the right to arrest and detain any Iraqi whom the US believes represents a security threat. Washington desires the right to launch military operations to chase terrorists without seeking Iraqi government permission. The US wants immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts for American troops, contractors and corporations in Iraq.

The US also wants to retain the right to define terrorism against Iraq. It does not want to give any undertaking that it will defend Iraq from any outside attack unless it is convinced about the nature of that attack. Likewise it is not offering to safeguard the democratic regime in Iraq [emphasis added].

Iraqis for their part are demanding a recognition of Iraqi sovereignty.

geeeeez... can you even IMAGINE another country trying to impose these conditions on the u.s...? yeah, right... in your dreams...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

These Iraqis don't want the U.S. to stay

they don't want maliki and bush to force through the status of forces agreement...

from juan cole...

Thousands of followers of Shiite leader Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr peacefully protested across southern Iraq on Friday, according to McClatchy. They prayed and then stood silently in solidarity against the security agreement being negotiated by PM Nuri al-Maliki with George W. Bush.

Sadrists Demonstrate in Kufa


Sadrists Demonstrate in Kufa

more from professor cole...

On both the Iraqi and American side, this agreement is being characterized as a mere understanding between two executives. It is not being categorized as a treaty and there is no plan to submit it either to the Iraqi parliament or to the US Congress. It seems that the Bush team hopes it will take on the force of law just by virtue of existing and having been signed by the two leaders.

[...]

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that there is broad Sunni and Shiite uneasiness with the agreement, even inside Iraqi governing circles.

Al-Hayat says that those familiar with the current draft of the agreement says that it speaks of the establishment of 400 US military sites and bases through the country, of legal immunity for American troops and citizens, and an abrogation of any undertakings previously made, to share in the reconstruction of the country.

Another source told al-Hayat that US Ambassador Ryan Crocker is pressing for language permitting permanent US bases, and removal of other language forbidding the US to attack a third country from Iraqi soil. (This source does not sound reliable to me. US officials have repeatedly said they do not want "permanent" bases, and the provision disallowing the use of Iraqi soil as a launching pad for one country to attack another is in the Iraqi constitution.

so, if ambassador crocker is pressing for u.s. bases, listen to senior iraq advisor at the u.s. state department, david satterfield, categorically deny it in this al jazeera interview...



somebody's lyin' through their teeth and, given the past seven-plus years of the bush administration, i'm not inclined to point the finger at al-hayat...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Well, whaddaya know...! Zawahiri and al Qaeda support McCain...

who woulda thunk it...?

juan cole...

Well, it turns out that al-Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri has declared that he is actually on McCain's side in wanting to destroy Iran. Al-Zawahiri is hurt that McCain keeps confusing hyper-Sunni al-Qaeda with radical Shiism: "Ayman al-Zawahiri said al-Qaeda wants to see the destruction of Iran - a Shiite nation battling the terrorists . . . "The dispute between America and Iran is a genuine struggle, and the possibility of the US striking Iran is real," al-Zawahiri said. . ." Al-Zawahiri hopes that the US struggle with Iran will destroy the latter and weaken the former, putting al-Qaeda in a position to administer the coup de grace.

ain't it interestin'...?!?!

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Iran is pissed so, naturally, the U.S. throws gasoline on the fire

typical bush administration response...

"stop the crackdown...? i got yer crackdown right he-e-e-e-ere, ya wussies...!"

Iran called off further Iraq security talks with Washington until U.S. forces stop their crackdown on Shiite militias, but the military brought more air power into the fight Monday and escalated its accusations of Iranian backing for extremists.

The latest flare-up has put Iraq's government in a bind as it seeks to stamp out armed Shiite gangs but worries about angering Shiite heavyweight Iran, which has close ties to the core of Iraq's political leadership.

so, what does an honest-to-god expert, with all the right bona-fides think about this unholy mess...?

nir rosen in a post at steve clemons' washington note, entitled "selling the war"...

[T]here is nothing legitimate in the government of Iraq, it provides none of the services we would associate with a government, not even the pretense of a monopoly on violence, it was established under an illegitimate foreign military occupation and it is entirely unrepresentative of the majority of Sunnis and Shiites who are opposed to the American occupation and despise the Iraqi government.

Moreover the dominant parties in the government and in those units of the security forces that battled their political rivals in Basra and elsewhere are the ones closest to Iran. The leadership of the Iraqi government regularly consults Iranian officials and is closer to Iran than any other element in Iraq today. Moreover, the Americans have always blamed their failures in Iraq on outsiders, Baathists, al Qaeda, Iranians, because they refuse to admit that the Iraqi people don't want them. So Iran is a convenient scapegoat to explain the strength of the Sadrists, a strength actually resulting from the fact that they are a genuinely popular mass movement. Blaming Iran also lets the Americans maintain the illusion that the Mahdi Army's ceasefire is still in effect.

[...]

The truth is, most allegations about Iran's role in Iraq and the region are unfounded or dishonest. Iran was responsible for ending the recent fighting in Basra and calming the situation after Iraqi parliamentarians who backed Prime Minister Maliki approached it. The Iranians, never close to Muqtada or his family, were so annoyed with Muqtada and his presence that they reportedly ordered him out of Iran where he had been living in virtual house arrest anyway since arriving six months earlier. Iranian officials and the state media clearly supported Prime Minister Maliki and the Iraqi government against what they described as "illegal armed groups" in the recent conflict in Basra, which is not surprising given that their main proxy in Iraq, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council dominates the Iraqi state and is Maliki's main backer.

The Supreme Council is of course also the main proxy for the US in Iraq and somehow in the Senate testimony it was forgotten that its large Badr militia was established in Iran and is actually the only Iraqi opposition group to have fought on the Iranian side against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Moreover, the Badr militia was a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that is so demonized today, and Badr dominates the ministry of interior, if not most of Iraq at the higher echelons. But none of this openly available information made its way to the Post's editorial writers or the dominant discourse in the US.

then we have scott ritter, another honest-to-god expert, who sees the writing on the wall...

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who was among the original experts to question Bush Administration claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, now says he believes an attack on Iran is a "virtual guarantee."

"We take a look at the military buildup, we take a look at the rhetoric, we take a look at the diplomatic posturing, and I would say that it’s a virtual guarantee that there will be a limited aerial strike against Iran in the not-so-near future—or not-so-distant future, that focuses on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command," Ritter said last week in a little-noted interview with Amy Goodman's Democracy Now. "And if this situation spins further out of control, you would see these aerial strikes expanding to include Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and some significant command and control targets."

as horrified observers, all we can do in a situation like this is to try and connect the dots, and when the picture starts to emerge, start screaming bloody murder (not that screaming bloody murder has ever even slowed the white house criminals down)...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Why would Saudi Arabia want to get its embassy employees killed in Iraq? Oh, yeah, and then there's the political reasons...

o-o-o-o-oooooh no-o-o-o-oooo, there's NO reservations about contact with the iraqi government, absolutely NONE, unless, of course, you want to consider that the saudi government thinks the iraqi government is biased against sunnis... but, really, that's just a teeny-tiny little thing... pay it no mind...

The Iraqi capital isn't secure enough yet for an embassy, Saudi Arabia said Wednesday, insisting its diplomatic absence there doesn't reflect a lack of support for the country.

Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal's comments following months of urging by both Iraq and the United States for the kingdom to establish an embassy.

His statement was an apparent retreat from September comments that his country would open a Baghdad embassy soon.

"There aren't any reservations at all regarding contact with the Iraqi government by Arab countries," Saud told reporters.

"The real reason why there's no embassy in Baghdad is not for political but for security reasons," said Saud. "When secure conditions are present, then embassies ... will go to Iraq."

Iraqi and U.S. officials have been pushing Baghdad's Sunni neighbors to open embassies in Iraq as a sign of support for the Shiite-dominated government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Sunni powerhouse Saudi Arabia has kept al-Maliki's government at arm's length and has criticized it as biased against Iraq's Sunni Arab minority.

i don't know what their problem is... isn't the green zone safer than washington d.c...? i must remember to ask mccain about that when i see him again...

speaking of embassies and security, the employees of denmark's embassy here in kabul were "evacuated" to "undisclosed location" here in the city yesterday... it seems there's been a little flap over another cartoon...

The Danish Foreign Ministry said Wednesday that it has evacuated its staff from embassies in Algeria and Afghanistan because of threats after newspapers reprinted a cartoon depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

Embassy employees have been moved to secret locations in both countries' capitals but continue to work, Foreign Ministry spokesman Erik Laursen said.

The announcement comes after Danish intelligence officials warned of an "aggravated" terror threat against Denmark since newspapers in the country in February reprinted a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

The warning specifically singled out North Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The threat "is so concrete that we had to take this decision," Laursen told The Associated Press. "The decision is based on intelligence," he said, declining to elaborate.

sunday is the day afghanistan celebrates gaining its independence from britain back in 1919... damn near every morning at the ungodly hour of 6, choppers are doing practice fly-bys right past my window, at least ten of them, two-by-two, followed by another ten screaming jets... as soon as it finishes its agonizingly slow upload, i will post a youtube video of two of the choppers on the fly-by that i took about 45 minutes ago...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The Iraq propaganda machine is running at top speed

the media is pulling out all the stops portraying iraq as now snatching victory from the jaws of defeat...

scotty's giving it everything he's got...

Cap’n... she canna take any more. She’s gonna blow!

check it out...

Iraqis are returning to their homeland by the hundreds each day, by bus, car and plane, encouraged by weeks of decreased violence and increased security, or compelled by visa and residency restrictions in neighboring countries and the depletion of their savings.

but wait...! we've learned the hard way that, for every media story that labors to convince us that something is true, there MUST be a hidden story somewhere, something they're NOT telling us, something that is usually the polar opposite of the story that's being pushed... and, by golly, who better to dig up the anti-story than robert parry...

While U.S. generals in Iraq have stressed the gentler aspects of their latest "surge" successes – and the American press has gone along by publishing front-page articles about new signs of normalcy in Baghdad – the darker side of the counterinsurgency has generally been shoved into brief stories deep inside the newspapers.

[...]

The harsh repression surrounding the “surge” has drawn far less U.S. press attention. The grim reality, however, is that an increasingly desperate American military has stepped up its indiscriminate killing and jailing of Iraqis, especially “military-age males” or MAMS.

[...]

Other tidbits of troubling information – which often end up below the fold on the inside pages of newspapers – reveal how Iraq steadily has been transformed into a more efficient police state than dictator Saddam Hussein could have ever imagined.

[...]

During a summer 2007 trip to Iraq, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies was briefed on U.S. plans to dramatically expand the number of Iraqis in American detention by the end of 2008. “The detainees have risen to over 18,000 and are projected to hit 30,000 (by the U.S. command) by the end of the year and 50,000 by the end of 2008,” Cordesman wrote in his trip report, adding that the vast majority were Sunnis. “Shiite detainees are often freed while Sunnis are warehoused,” he wrote.

[...]

The troubling picture is that the U.S. chain of command, presumably up to President Bush, has authorized “rules of engagement” that allow targeted killings – as well as other objectionable tactics including arbitrary arrests, “enhanced interrogations,” kidnappings of suspects in third countries with “extraordinary renditions” to countries that torture, secret CIA prisons, and “reeducation camps” for younger detainees.

[...]

In effect, Bush’s “global war on terror” appears to have reestablished what was known during the Vietnam War as Operation Phoenix, a program that assassinated Vietcong cadre, including suspected communist political allies.

Bush’s global strategy also has similarities to “Operation Condor” in which South American right-wing military regimes in the 1970s sent assassins on cross-border operations to eliminate “subversives.”

[...]

Under Bush’s remarkable double standards, he has taken the position that he can override both international law and the U.S. Constitution in deciding who gets basic human rights and who doesn’t. He sees himself as the final judge of whether people he deems “bad guys” should live or die, or face indefinite imprisonment and even torture.

no surprises here, of course... it's business as usual for the bush administration and the united states, extending all the way back to the 60s...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Sunnis and Shiites unite on one thing - don't Balkanize us

notably absent from the joint statement are the kurds...

Iraq's political leadership, in a rare show of unity, skewered a nonbinding U.S. Senate resolution passed last week that endorses the decentralization of Iraq through the establishment of semiautonomous regions.

The measure, which calls for a relatively weak central government and strong regional authorities in Sunni Arab, Shiite and Kurdish areas, has touched a nerve here, raising fears that the United States is planning to partition Iraq.

"The Congress adopted this proposal based on an incorrect reading and unrealistic estimations of the history, present and future of Iraq," said Izzat Shahbandar, a member of former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's secular parliamentary bloc.

He was reading from a statement also signed by preeminent Shiite Muslim religious parties and the main Sunni Arab bloc.

He was reading from a statement also signed by preeminent Shiite Muslim religious parties and the main Sunni Arab bloc.

"It represents a dangerous precedent to establishing the nature of the relationship between Iraq and the U.S.A.," the statement said, "and shows the Congress as if it were planning for a long-term occupation by their country's troops."

The nonbinding measure was approved in Washington on Wednesday, and resentment appears to be building daily in Iraq. Passed by senators, 75 to 23, it supports a "federal system" that would create regions dominated by sect and ethnicity.

The measure was sponsored by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, a Democratic candidate for president. Biden, along with Council of Foreign Relations president emeritus Leslie Gelb, has advocated that the country be divided up along ethnic, sectarian and regional lines.

Northern Iraq already has a semiautonomous region ruled by Kurds, but its leaders want to annex adjacent areas with dominant Kurdish populations.

the friend i visited in texas last week announced that she liked biden... not one to keep my counsel, i said i thought biden was a nitwit... sponsoring the measure does nothing to dispel that notion...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

There are two very clear options: Option A) Get everybody out by midnight tonight. Option B) Get everybody out by midnight tomorrow

spiegel interviews seymour hersh...

key points...

• We have this wonderful capacity in America to Hitlerize people.

• I have this theory in life that there is no learning. There is no learning curve. Everything is tabula rasa.

• I always thought Henry Kissinger was a disaster because he lies like most people breathe and you can't have that in public life.

• This guy [Bush] believes he's doing God's work.

• There are two very clear options [in Iraq]: Option A) Get everybody out by midnight tonight. Option B) Get everybody out by midnight tomorrow.

• The fuel that keeps the [Iraq] war going is us.

• [T]he president has accepted ethnic cleansing [in Iraq].

here's some of the meat...

Hersh: We have this wonderful capacity in America to Hitlerize people. We had Hitler, and since Hitler we've had about 20 of them. Khrushchev and Mao and of course Stalin, and for a little while Gadhafi was our Hitler. And now we have this guy Ahmadinejad. The reality is, he's not nearly as powerful inside the country as we like to think he is. The Revolutionary Guards have direct control over the missile program and if there is a weapons program, they would be the ones running it. Not Ahmadinejad.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Where does this feeling of urgency that the US has with Iran come from?

Hersh: Pressure from the White House. That's just their game.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What interest does the White House have in moving us to the brink with Tehran?

Hersh: You have to ask yourself what interest we had 40 years ago for going to war in Vietnam. You'd think that in this country with so many smart people, that we can't possibly do the same dumb thing again. I have this theory in life that there is no learning. There is no learning curve. Everything is tabula rasa. Everybody has to discover things for themselves.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Even after Iraq? Aren't there strategic reasons for getting so deeply involved in the Middle East?

Hersh: Oh no. We're going to build democracy. The real thing in the mind of this president is he wants to reshape the Middle East and make it a model. He absolutely believes it. I always thought Henry Kissinger was a disaster because he lies like most people breathe and you can't have that in public life. But if it were Kissinger this time around, I'd actually be relieved because I'd know that the madness would be tied to some oil deal. But in this case, what you see is what you get. This guy believes he's doing God's work.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So what are the options in Iraq?

Hersh: There are two very clear options: Option A) Get everybody out by midnight tonight. Option B) Get everybody out by midnight tomorrow. The fuel that keeps the war going is us.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: A lot of people have been saying that the US presence there is a big part of the problem. Is anyone in the White House listening?

Hersh: No. The president is still talking about the "Surge" (eds. The "Surge" refers to President Bush's commitment of 20,000 additional troops to Iraq in the spring of 2007 in an attempt to improve security in the country.) as if it's going to unite the country. But the Surge was a con game of putting additional troops in there. We've basically Balkanized the place, building walls and walling off Sunnis from Shiites. And in Anbar Province, where there has been success, all of the Shiites are gone. They've simply split.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is that why there has been a drop in violence there?

Hersh: I think that's a much better reason than the fact that there are a couple more soldiers on the ground.

SPIEGEL ONLINE:So what are the lessons of the Surge ... ?

Hersh: The Surge means basically that, in some way, the president has accepted ethnic cleansing, whether he's talking about it or not.

and check out what hersh has to say about his old employer, the new york times...

The First Amendment failed and the American press failed the Constitution. We were jingoistic. And that was a terrible failing. I'm asked the question all the time: What happened to my old paper, the New York Times? And I now say, they stink. They missed it. They missed the biggest story of the time and they're going to have to live with it.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

McClatchy tells less than HALF the Iraq oil law story

i've posted numerous times on the iraq oil law (over 10 times, at least, some of the major ones being here, here, here, and here, among others)... the key points that AREN'T getting reported in the so-called "news" outlets in the u.s. are these, compiled from both the uk independent and the inter press news service agency...

[The production sharing agreements - PSAs] envisioned by the Iraqi petrochemical law contained extremely favorable provisions for the oil companies, in which they would be entitled to 70 percent of profits until development expenses were amortized and 20 percent afterwards. This would have guaranteed them at least twice the typical profit margin over the long run and many times that figure during the initial years.

There are other elements in the law (and the possible PSA contracts) that have also roused resistance inside Iraq. Among the most controversial:

* Insofar as PSAs or their legal equivalent were enacted, Iraq would lose control over what levels of oil the country produced with the potential to substantially weaken the grip of OPEC on the oil market.

* The law would allow the oil companies to fully repatriate all profits from oil sales, almost insuring that the proceeds would not be reinvested in the Iraqi economy.

* The Iraqi government would not have control over oil company operations inside Iraq. Any disputes would be referred instead to pro-industry international arbitration panels.

* No contracts would be public documents.

* Contacting companies would not be obliged to hire Iraqi workers, and could pursue the current policy of employing American technicians and South Asian manual laborers.

Several African countries with vast mineral riches have been subjected to these sorts of conditions, with large multinational companies extracting both minerals and profits while returning only a tiny fraction of the proceeds to the local population. As the resources are taken out of the ground and the country, the local population actually becomes poorer, while the potential for future prosperity is drained.

i've developed some respect for mcclatchy over the past few months as being one of the few u.s. news outlets that's taking the risk to put out the truth... so, why the hell am i reading a story like this...?

Leading Sunnis in Iraq's parliament continued on Wednesday to snub a set of U.S.-supported oil laws many see as key to ending sectarian killing.

The laws would regulate Iraq's oil industry and govern how to distribute oil revenues. The Bush administration contends passage of an equitable oil-sharing law would draw Sunnis into the Shiite-led government and help heal the nation's deep religious rift.

U.S. lawmakers also see the oil provisions as a gauge that measures the effectiveness of President Bush's surge strategy. An influx of 28,500 troops has brought total force strength to 150,000.

[...]

Iraqis of all political and sectarian stripes have concerns about any provision that would call for sharing oil revenues with foreign oil companies.

Ministers from parliament's Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front have boycotted voting for the bills. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Tuesday predicted that parliament would begin debating the legislation. But on Wednesday an official for the group said no draft should be considered until the Sunnis return to session.

ok, mcclatchy, WHY ARE THEY SO DAMN CONCERNED...? HUH...? could it be about some of the things the independent and inter press service reported...? COULD IT...? yeah... i thought so... SO WHY THE HELL DIDN'T YOU MENTION THEM...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The media is al-Qaeda's best p.r. agency

in the top reuters story this morning on the latest u.s. military push in iraq, al qaeda is mentioned 13 times in a 614 word story...

• al Qaeda militants (4x)
• Sunni Islamist al Qaeda
• al Qaeda (5x)
• al Qaeda hotbed
• stronghold of al Qaeda
• al Qaeda domination

reading the article, you would think that al qaeda is not only everywhere in iraq but is also behind all the insurgent activity that's going on... but, as is typical with our media, you have to read down to paragraphs 14 and 17 to get any clue about the bigger picture...

President George W. Bush has sent 28,000 extra troops mainly to Baghdad to help curb sectarian bloodshed and buy time for Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to reach a political accommodation with disaffected minority Sunni Arabs, who are locked in a cycle of violence with majority Shi'ite Muslims.

[...]

[Brigadier-General Mick Bednarek, deputy commanding general, operations, 25th Infantry Division] said the fight against al Qaeda in Diyala also involved local Sunnis Arabs who opposed the United States but who wanted to end al Qaeda domination of their communities.

being the good little robotrons that we are, we read and hear al qaeda, al qaeda, al qaeda, 24/7, and we KNOW (because we've been told time and time and time again) that osama bin laden heads al qaeda, that al qaeda is our mortal enemy, and that al qaeda is out to destroy us in our beds as we sleep, so, by extension, we are fighting osama bin laden and terrorists in iraq... after all, the bush administration has to have multiple ways of reinforcing their key themes, right...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Iraq - a continuing litany of death

juan cole provides the gruesome summary...

122 US troops died in Iraq in May, the worst total since late 2004.

A radical Salafi group in Baghdad claimed to have killed two US embassy employees, a husband and a wife, after robbing them of large sums. The US embassy will only say that the two are missing. An AP cameraman was shot and killed on Thursday.

A massive suicide bombing of police recruits in the largely Sunni city of Fallujah west of Baghdad killed 30 and wounded 20 on Thursday, a day when Iraqi authorities announced that almost 100 persons were killed, found dead, or injured [Arabic] in political violence. (Western wire services appear to have put their stories to bed before the full scope of the carnage was apparent.] Five bodies turned up in Mosul; there was a bombing in Baghdad that killed 1 and wounded 3; at least 2 were killed by rocket fire in Tal Afar (link). 29 bodies showed up in Baghdad streets and a lecturer in Fine Arts was shot down in Basra (link).

it never gets better, it only gets worse...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

A glimpse into the daily life of Baghdad

US Army soldiers from D Company of the 2-12 Cavalry from Fort Bliss, Texas, conduct house to house reconnaissance in the most dangerous city in the world.

put yourself in the place of that woman and her children... this is the kind of perspective most of us never get and, now that riverbend and her family are leaving the country (most likely have already left), those of us who try to get more are left with the tremendous vacuum our bought and paid for media maintain on descriptions of REAL iraqis living their lives...

spiegel offers up a series of narrative snapshots compiled by four iraqis and describes a day in the world's most dangerous city through their eyes... here's one of them...

It's Sunday, May 13 -- 1,496 days after the US military invaded the country. Another day begins for the 5 million residents of a city that was once the most advanced in the Arab world. Those days are long gone. Today Baghdad is a nightmare -- the world's most horrible city.

According to press reports, at least 35 people died in Baghdad on May 13, 2007, and dozens were injured. But no one will ever know exactly how many people have died since March 2003, when the war began. Baghdad is a city in which life lost its value long ago, a place where no one really knows how many murders, kidnappings and rapes the war has in fact brought to the city.

[...]

6:00 a.m., ISKAN

Imad, the body collector, is awakened by the sun. He unrolls his small rug and says his morning prayers, then he reads from the Koran. It is important to him to know that God is at his side because his work could cost him his life at any time. Imad, a former taxi driver, now makes a living driving bodies. He finds them and recovers them when their families are unable to. It's a good business. He is 39, a thin, nervous-looking man with a black beard and coarse hands. He lives in Iskan, a poor, crowded neighborhood near downtown Baghdad. Since Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi militia assumed control, only Shiites live in the district. Imad's house is tiny: four rooms on two floors. He sleeps in one of the upper rooms and his mother and two sisters sleep in the other one. Imad is single and says he is too busy to look for a wife.

it's worth reading the whole thing...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The 'fair" Iraq oil law - why the hell can't we get the TRUTH out of our media?

check this from today's nyt...

Iraqi Blocs Opposed to Draft Oil Bill

Kurdish and Sunni Arab officials are concerned over a draft
of a bill establishing a framework for the fair
distribution of oil revenues.

[...]

The draft law, which establishes a framework for the distribution of oil revenues, was approved by the Iraqi cabinet in late February after months of negotiations. The White House was hoping for quick passage to lay the groundwork for a political settlement among the country’s ethnic and sectarian factions.

[...]

The draft oil law would allow regions to enter into production-sharing agreements with foreign companies, which some Iraqis and critics of the Bush administration say could lead to foreigners reaping too much of the country’s oil wealth.

Iraqi officials say all contracts will be subjected to a fair bidding process, but there are fears that American companies could be favored.

here's the REAL STORY about iraq's oil law, contained in a post i made back in january... read it carefully and then decide if "fair distribution of oil revenues" comes within a country mile of being the truth...

it's a heckuva deal when you have the entire might of the taxpayer-supported united states goverment ready and willing to sacrifice people's lives in order to increase your opportunities for expanding business and increasing profits... you don't have to beat down or buy out the competition, you don't have to go through the tediousness of exploration and test drilling, you don't have a huge investment in new infrastructure, the economy is already in ruins so labor costs are laughably low... what's NOT to like...?

"Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days," Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb report in the cover story [Britain's The Independent on Sunday].

According to the paper, the law "would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972."

"Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs," the article continues. "After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. But that is twice the industry average for such deals."

reading things like this, i just get this incredible feeling of pride in my country... is the u.s. a great place, or what...?

then i posted this back in february...

more on iraq's oil law, the reason we went into iraq in the first place... of course, like everything else these days, it comes with the customary dose of cognitive dissonance...

inter press service news agency...

[The new oil law] specifies that up to two-thirds of Iraq's known reserves would be developed by multinationals, under contracts lasting for 15 to 20 years.

This policy would represent a u-turn for Iraq's oil industry, which has been in the public sector for more than three decades, and would break from normal practice in the Middle East.

According to local labour leaders, transferring ownership to the foreign companies would give a further pretext to continue the U.S. occupation on the grounds that those companies will need protection.

[...]

On Feb. 8, the labour unions sent a letter in Arabic to Iraqi President Jalal Talbani urging him to reconsider this kind of agreement.

"Production-sharing agreements are a relic of the 1960s," said the letter, seen by IPS. "They will re-imprison the Iraqi economy and impinge on Iraq's sovereignty since they only preserve the interests of foreign companies. We warn against falling into this trap."

[...]

The first draft was seen only by the committee of the Iraqi technocrat who penned it, nine international oil companies, the British and the U.S. governments and the International Monetary Fund. The Iraqi parliament will get its first glimpse next week.

[...]

There's no other country in the Middle East with the kind of oil reserves that Iraq has that would consider signing a production-sharing agreement," [Ewa Jasiewicz, a researcher at PLATFORM, a British human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry] said. "It's a form of privatisation and that's why those countries haven't signed these because it's not in their interests."

GOD-ROTTEN-DAMMIT... I'M SICK AND TIRED OF GETTING ONLY A TINY PART OF THE STORY... WHERE'S THE CONTEXT...? WHERE'S THE TRUTH...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Don't penalize the Iraqi government for moving backwards

in her back-to-back talk show appearances yesterday, condi introduced the new talking point du jour...

President Bush will not sign any war spending bill that penalizes Iraq’s government for failing to make progress, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday, a fresh warning to Congress about challenging him.

[...]

“To begin now to tie our own hands - and to say ‘We must do this if they don’t do that’ - doesn’t allow us the flexibility and creativity that we need to move this forward,” Rice said.

[...]

Rice said Iraqi leaders know U.S. patience is worn. Still, she said deadlines for progress could undermine the work of Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the new U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

oh, no, perish the thought that we should penalize the iraqi government if they don't make progress... however, should we penalize them if, instead of "making progress," they go backwards...?

A department of the Iraqi prime minister's office is playing a leading role in the arrest and removal of senior Iraqi army and national police officers, some of whom had apparently worked too aggressively to combat violent Shiite militias, according to U.S. military officials in Baghdad.

[...]

Although some of the officers appear to have been fired for legitimate reasons, such as poor performance or corruption, several were considered to be among the better Iraqi officers in the field. The dismissals have angered U.S. and Iraqi leaders who say the Shiite-led government is sabotaging the military to achieve sectarian goals.

"Their only crimes or offenses were they were successful" against the Mahdi Army, a powerful Shiite militia, said Brig. Gen. Dana J.H. Pittard, commanding general of the Iraq Assistance Group, which works with Iraqi security forces. "I'm tired of seeing good Iraqi officers having to look over their shoulders when they're trying to do the right thing."

and, please, pray tell, what is this "flexibility and creativity" bullshit...? the only creativity i've seen is how to keep the slaughter going against the wishes of the american people, how to continue to occupy a country against the wishes of the iraqi people, how to magically make billions and billions of dollars disappear, how to wage an illegal war on the basis of lies, how to create a sectarian civil war in a country where those same sects were living tolerantly side-by-side, and how to claim progress is being made when it clearly isn't... and as for "flexibility...?" 'fraid i haven't seen any...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Juan Cole's top 10 Bush Iraq mistakes

if it hadn't been for #1, the other 9 wouldn't have mattered...

Bush's Top Ten Mistakes in Iraq during the Past 4 Years

10. Refusing to fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when his incompetence and maliciousness became apparent in the growing guerrilla war and the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.

9. Declining to intervene in the collapsed economy or help put Iraqi state industries back on a good footing, on the grounds that the "market" would magically produce prosperity effortlessly.

8. Invading and destroying the Sunni Arab city of Fallujah in November, 2004, thus pushing the Sunni Arabs into the arms of the insurgency in protest and ensuring that they would boycott the January, 2005, parliamentary elections, a boycott that excluded them from power and from a significant voice in crafting the new constitution, which they then rejected.

7. Suddenly announcing that the US would "kill or capture" young nationalist Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in spring, 2004, throwing the country into massive turmoil for months.

6. Replying to Baathist guerrilla provocations with harsh search and destroy missions that humiliated and angered ever more Sunni Arab clans, driving them to support or join the budding guerrilla movement.

5. Putting vengeful Shiites in charge of a Debaathification Commission that fired tens of thousands of mostly Sunni Arab state employees simply for having belonged to the Baath Party, leaving large numbers of Sunnis penniless and without hope of employment.

4. Dissolving the Iraqi Army in May, 2003, and sending 400,000 men home, unemployed, resentful and heavily armed.

3. Allowing widespread looting after the fall of Saddam Hussein on April 9, 2003, on the grounds that "stuff happens," "democracy is messy," and "how many vases can they have?"-- and thus signalling that there would be no serious attempt to provide law and order in American Iraq.

2. Plotting to install corrupt financier, notorious liar, and shady operator Ahmad Chalabi as the soft dictator of Iraq, and refusing to plan for a post-war administration of the country because that might forestall Chalabi's coronation.

1. Invading Iraq.

it's a litany of absolute disaster that, tragically, is still being written...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments