News from the Colonies - America's War in Iraq

[Tiassa]

On the reduction in violence, Thomas Ricks did this online chat earlier this month:

Montreal: Hi Tom. Thanks so much for doing these chats. Over on Andrew Sullivan's blog he posts a mother quoting her son who's serving in Iraq. He says: "No one ever mentions the fact that we have literally built walls around each neighborhood and along every highway as the reason the violence is down here. The place looks like an Orwell novel gone wrong. The people cannot shoot each other through walls and the insurgents cannot move around to plant their bombs. A society cannot function walled off form each other. We pay every bill, manage every facet of governance. The government at every level is a joke. The ministries are controlled by one faction (Shia). They have almost no experience or education. A bunch of guys walk around in suits and look important while they do nothing." How big a deal is this wall-building? What's the long term plan for the walls?

Thomas E. Ricks: I know the initial Iraqi reaction to the walls was unhappy, in part because it supposedly evoked images of Israel.

That said, the walls do seem to have had an effect in reducing violence, especially against Sunni neighborhoods that were being ethnically cleansed by Shiite militias. (And yes, another reason Baghdad is quieter is that ethnic cleansing has been completed in much of the city.)

(WashingtonPost.com)

 

[hypewaders]

a downward trend in overall violence in Iraq.

When it spikes a bloody record, don't forget it's the Libruls' fault, even watching silly trends, who needs 'em? War for Peace! War for Money! War Now, war now, oh now, oh now oh- Ohnowonowonow Bring it back

 

[John99]

Iraq will come around. Soon it will be the jewel of the Middle East.

 

[hypewaders]

With Christ ruling Jerusalem- Onward, Christian Soldiers

 

[iceaura]

Iraq will come around. Soon it will be the jewel of the Middle East.

Iran's got a better shot at that.

I wouldn't bet money on present day Iraq being fewer than three countries in five years - maybe with reasonable odds. It's essentially two now, and further split seems more likely than reconciliation. Maybe 2:1, if the Mosul Dam doesn't give way.

If the Kurd's want formal independence, say in some kind of Commonwealth situation like Canada and England, should the US agree and aid ?

 

[S.A.M.]

Iran's got a better shot at that.

I wouldn't bet money on present day Iraq being fewer than three countries in five years - maybe with reasonable odds. It's essentially two now, and further split seems more likely than reconciliation. Maybe 2:1, if the Mosul Dam doesn't give way.

If the Kurd's want formal independence, say in some kind of Commonwealth situation like Canada and England, should the US agree and aid ?

I think the Kurds would be happier with a state in the US. More stable.

 

[iceaura]

I think the Kurds would be happier with a state in the US. More stable.

I'd give 'em Texas, but it's pretty flat. They probably wouldn't like it. And it's low on oil, compared with Future Kurdistan.

Besides, stability is as stable does - we've got a fair amount of instability potential accruing in the US, and adding another fundie religion to the mix seems like a bad gamble.

 

[Killjoy]

I think the Kurds would be happier with a state in the US. More stable.

I'd rather make Kurdistan the 51st state than Puerto Rico...

Man, wouldn't that piss some sumbitches off !

 

[S.A.M.]

I'd give 'em Texas, but it's pretty flat. They probably wouldn't like it. And it's low on oil, compared with Future Kurdistan.

Besides, stability is as stable does - we've got a fair amount of instability potential accruing in the US, and adding another fundie religion to the mix seems like a bad gamble.

The Kurds? I'm guessing you've never met a Kurd.

It has been said that Kurds "hold their Islam lightly", meaning that their faith tends not to be as assertive as it can become in other areas.[82] One consequence, for example, has been the greater freedoms enjoyed by Kurdish women; they do not cover their faces, their hijab is less restrictive, and they do not wear full-cover garments such as the Iranian chador or Arabic abaya.[86][87]

You know inviting all the Kurds to the US would put an instant end to the Iraq war.

 

[iceaura]

The Kurds? I'm guessing you've never met a Kurd.

I have, briefly. Muslim fundie. Nice guy, and socially "easier" in ordinary American company than many Middle Easterners. Maybe because he was willing to drink a beer (one) in a social situation.

A lot of religious fundies are nice people. A lot of Texan Baptists, for example, are the salt of the earth.

At one point he asked me that question so characteristic of Middle Eastern Muslims, which I am beginning to believe will eventually come up in any long or extended set of conversations with a Middle Eastern Muslim man: Why do "Americans" (or "you", or "Westerners", etc) "allow their women" to behave so badly ?

Holding Islam lightly compared with other Middle Eastern Muslims is hardly reassuring. The Kurds should have their homeland where it is, and be happy in it, and create Islamic stability there.

 

[S.A.M.]

Holding Islam lightly compared with other Middle Eastern Muslims is hardly reassuring. The Kurds should have their homeland where it is, and be happy in it, and create Islamic stability there.

Why not help them to establish a homeland where they are less likely to be persecuted?

I doubt they will disagree.

Or does the desire to spread democracy stop at the front door?

 

[iceaura]

Why not help them to establish a homeland where they are less likely to be persecuted?

They have a homeland. They need no help, and the idea is bizarre.

Sorry if I missed a joke, there. What desire to "spread democracy", and what has that to do with a Kurdish homeland or Kurdish happiness ?

 

[S.A.M.]

They have a homeland. They need no help, and the idea is bizarre.

Sorry if I missed a joke, there. What desire to "spread democracy", and what has that to do with a Kurdish homeland or Kurdish happiness ?

Isn't that the whole idea?

"President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

 

[iceaura]

Isn't that the whole idea?

Whose? W's ? He's not here.

 

[Tiassa]

Dis-invading Iraq?

Not so much news, but commentary in the form of a straw poll. The Doonesbury Straw Poll, that is. For those who aren't familiar, the DSP is just what it sounds like. Every week or two, a new question goes up, and people vote. There's usually some sort of demographic breakdown, such as the current about party affiliation.

The available answers, of course, are often heavy on commentary, and the present poll is no different. The question at present is to wonder what the Pentagon's "big play" in 2008 will be: not invading Iran, "dis-invading" Iraq, or re-invading Afghanistan. It is that second answer that stings, ain't it:

What will the Pentagon's Big Play be in '08?

(A) Not invading Iran. Of course, with Cheney still breathing, anything's possible, but the NIE demotes this bogeyman to third row status so we can focus on worrying about the economy and immigration for a while. A long year for the neo-cons.

(B) Dis-invading Iraq. Come spring, we're... um... out of troops -- a little embarrassing for a superpower, but a military fact. So look for the surge to end as redeployment kicks in. White House spin: "It worked! We're bringing home the troops!" Three out of ten Americans will actually believe this.

(C) Re-invading Afghanistan. A resurgent Taliban, flush with opium profits, is spreading like an ink blot throughout the south. A corrupt national government is helpless to prevent it, and NATO isn't stepping up. Look for the Pentagon to ramp up to its breaking point.​

Nor is (B) my personal answer to the poll; I went with (C), in large part because I won't be surprised if we lob some missiles at Iran at some point, and if we end up "dis-invading" Iraq at some point—who knows?—it's not entirely impossible (although it's highly unlikely) that Dick Bush & Co. will actually attempt to put some boots on the ground in Iran.

The general overview puts the results at:

5,600 votes

(A) 17%
(B) 42%
(C) 40%​

Republican sympathizers tend to agree with me that we'll be back in Afghanistan (51%); more Democratic sympathizers think the big play will be the dis-invasion of Iraq (45%) than a renewed effort in Afghanistan (37%); of those who declared their affiliations as "other", slightly more expect an Afghani surge (41%) than the dis-invasion of Iraq (40%). A greater percentage of Republicans (22%) think Iran is off the table than Democrats (16%) or other (17%).

 

[Tiassa]

Accountability: Too Much to Ask?

Accountability: Too Much to Ask?
Court-martial conviction for disobeying an order in Abu Ghraib scandal thrown out

Although the abuse was systemic and widespread, the accountability for it has been anything but.

—Hira Shamsi, ACLU​

Lt. Col. Steven Jordan, the only officer charged in the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, saw his conviction for disobeying orders to not discuss the inquiry thrown out. AFP reports:

After a week-long court martial in August, Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, 51, who oversaw the Abu Ghraib interrogations center from September to December 2003, was acquitted of the most serious charges of mistreating prisoners and dereliction of duty.

He walked free with just a fine and a judicial reprimand for disobeying an order not to discuss the scandal with any colleague.

On Tuesday, however, General Richard Rowe, commanding general of the US Army Military District of Washington, who headed the court martial of Jordan, "disapproved the guilty finding and the sentence," an Army statement said.

"In light of the nature of the offense Jordan had been found guilty of committing and the substantial evidence in mitigation presented at trial and in post-trial matters submitted by defense counsel, Rowe determined that an administrative reprimand was a fair and appropriate disposition of the matter," it added.

An administrative reprimand, unlike a judicial reprimand like Jordan had previously been given, leaves no written judicial record of the case.

Rowe's decision effectively closes the book on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that so outraged the world after photographs of US soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees at the prison outside of Baghdad were published in April 2004.

After several investigations and years of hearings and military trials, only 11 soldiers -- those in the photographs -- were found guilty and given sentences that ranged from the equivalent of a slap on the wrist -- a few hours of community service -- to up to 10 years in prison.

(AFP/Google)

In other words: Move along, folks. Nothin' to see here. Never was.

I find disheartening the tacit suggestion that only eleven people were involved in the abuse, and that discipline in our military was so poor that nobody else noticed.

Oh, and for the record, Jordan is among those who have criticized the investigation:

The revelation that the Army threw out the conviction of the only officer court-martialed in the Abu Ghraib scandal renewed outrage from human rights advocates who complained that not enough military and civilian leaders were held accountable for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

Those critics found an unlikely ally in the officer himself, Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, whose conviction on a minor charge of disobeying an order was dismissed this week, leaving him with only an administrative reprimand.

Jordan told The Associated Press on Thursday he believes many officers and enlisted soldiers did not face adequate scrutiny in the investigation that led to convictions against 11 soldiers, none with a rank higher than staff sergeant.

He said the probe was "not complete" and that a link between abusive interrogations at Abu Ghraib and in military prisons at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Afghanistan was not adequately established.

If rough interrogation techniques were taught to the soldiers who abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Jordan said, "the question at that point is, who's responsible for that? Is it Donald Rumsfeld? (Lt.) Gen. (Ricardo) Sanchez? ... I don't know."

(Nuckols)

____________________

Notes:

Agence France-Presse. "US officer cleared in Abu Ghraib abuse". AFP/Google. January 11, 2008. See http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jt7cfTlZbGcneqPgXVPEBbgFfYOQ

Nuckols, Ben. "Abu Ghraib Officer: Probe Was Incomplete". Associated Press/Google. January 11, 2008. See http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iYm1LyoiuPfN8SGxkjTorEPW85dgD8U3IM6O0

 

[S.A.M.]

When no one is bothered by the fact that tens of thousands are incarcerated without charge or trial, many in solitary confinement, for YEARS, with no respite or access to any justice, whats a bit of torture, suicides and deaths? Thats SOP.

 

[Tiassa]

Women, War, and American values

Source: New York Times
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/world/middleeast/13contractors.html
Title: "Limbo for U.S. Women Reporting Iraq Assaults", by James Risen
Date: February 13, 2008

It's a difficult situation, to be sure. Apparently, war is such a manly sport that women should just stay the hell out of it.

Mary Beth Kineston, an Ohio resident who went to Iraq to drive trucks, thought she had endured the worst when her supply convoy was ambushed in April 2004. After car bombs exploded and insurgents began firing on the road between Baghdad and Balad, she and other military contractors were saved only when Army Black Hawk helicopters arrived.

But not long after the ambush, Ms. Kineston said, she was sexually assaulted by another driver, who remained on the job, at least temporarily, even after she reported the episode to KBR, the military contractor that employed the drivers. Later, she said she was groped by a second KBR worker. After complaining to the company about the threats and harassments endured by female employees in Iraq, she was fired.

“I felt safer on the convoys with the Army than I ever did working for KBR,” said Ms. Kineston, who won a modest arbitration award against KBR. “At least if you got in trouble on a convoy, you could radio the Army and they would come and help you out. But when I complained to KBR, they didn’t do anything. I still have nightmares. They changed my life forever, and they got away with it.”

Ms. Kineston is among a number of American women who have reported that they were sexually assaulted by co-workers while working as contractors in Iraq but now find themselves in legal limbo, unable to seek justice or even significant compensation.

(Risen)

Since the story of Jamie Leigh Jones broke last month, some 38 women who worked as contractors in Iraq, Kuwait, and elsewhere have come forward to report incidents. The U.S. Army reported that it has investigated 124 alleged sexual assaults in Iraq over the last three years; that number include both contractors and military personnel, but not cases investigated by other military branches. While the State Department says it has investigated four alleged rape cases, including Ms. Jones's accusation against KBR, the Pentagon has not yet responded to a request from Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) for data including the number of rape examinations performed by military doctors.

KBR spokeswoman Heather Browne said that the company would protect women working in Iraq, and specified that one case of harassment or assault was too many. KBR reports that it has nearly 2,400 female contractors in Iraq among a total of just over 54,000.

Women who worked as contractors in Iraq say that while on the job they encountered sexual discrimination and harassment, which sometimes veered dangerously to sexual assaults and even rapes.

Linda Lindsey, of Houston, who worked for KBR in Iraq from 2004 until early 2007, said that she often saw evidence of sexual harassment or discrimination, and that male supervisors often tried to force female employees to grant sexual favors in exchange for promotions or other benefits.

She added that the company’s management seemed unwilling to take action to improve working conditions for women in Iraq. “We filed complaints against one supervisor, and the complaints disappeared,” Ms. Lindsey said in an interview. “The impression you got was that they really didn’t want to hear it, because the money was coming in. Most of it was bad management on-site.”

Pamela Jones, of Texas, a KBR logistics coordinator in Kuwait in 2003 and 2004, was sexually assaulted by a supervisor. “It was known that if you started complaining that you could lose your job,” said Ms. Jones, who added that she reported it to management. “They give you an 800 number to report. But then they shoved it under the rug, and they told me I was a pest.”

She later won an arbitration award from KBR, according to her Houston lawyer, Peter Costea.

Lawyers for women who have reported that they were raped or assaulted while working in Iraq say that one of the biggest obstacles they face is the arbitration requirement.

That means that women who say they were victimized have had great difficulty taking KBR to court for failing to better protect its female employees in Iraq.

KBR defended the arbitration process, saying it is fair. The fact that Ms. Kineston and Pamela Jones won awards is an indication that the system works, said Ms. Browne, the KBR spokeswoman.

(ibid)

 

[Tiassa]

Lady Liberty weeps, blind Justice is raped

Source: Seattle Times (AP)
Link: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004179690_apguantanamoexecutions13.html
Title: "Executions May Be Carried Out at Gitmo", by Michael Melia and Andrew O. Selsky
Date: February 13, 2008

The latest ugly twist:

If six suspected terrorists are sentenced to death at Guantanamo Bay for the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. Army regulations that were quietly amended two years ago open the possibility of execution by lethal injection at the military base in Cuba, experts said Tuesday.

Any executions would probably add to international outrage over Guantanamo, since capital punishment is banned in 130 countries, including the 27-nation European Union.

Conducting the executions on U.S. soil could open the way for the detainees' lawyers to go to U.S. courts to fight the death sentences. But the updated regulations make it possible for the executions to be carried out at Guantanamo.

David Sheldon, an attorney and former member of the Navy's legal corps, said an execution chamber at Guantanamo would be largely beyond the reach of U.S. courts.

"I think that's the administration's idea, to try to use Guantanamo as a base to not be under the umbrella of the federal district courts," he said. "If one is detained in North Carolina or South Carolina in a Navy brig, one could conceivably file a petition of habeas corpus and because of where they're located, invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court."

The condemned men could even be buried at Guantanamo. A Muslim section of the cemetery at Guantanamo has been dedicated by an Islamic cultural adviser, said Bruce Lloyd, spokesman for the Guantanamo Naval Station. Among those buried elsewhere at the cemetery are U.S. servicemen.

"A small area of the cemetery has been fenced off and remains ready for the burial of any Muslim who may die here and not be repatriated to another country, for whatever reason," Lloyd told The Associated Press.

(Melia and Selsky)

We might ask the Bush administration what ever happened to the phrase, "with Liberty and Justice for all".

Puts the whole flap about the phrase "under God" in context, doesn't it? We approach an hour of unspeakable disgrace.

 

[Tiassa]

For America, for Justice

Source: New York Times
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28gitmo.html
Title: "Former Prosecutor to Testify for Detainee", by William Glaberson
Date: February 28, 2008

An interesting twist in the sad tale of Gitmo as the former "attack dog for the military commission system" has agreed to testify on behalf of a detainee alleged to be Osama bin Laden's driver. Colonel Morris D. Davis, who once suggested that a Marine defense lawyer representing a detainee might be guilty of a crime for speaking poorly of President Bush, intends to participate in the defense of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, whose attorney, Lieutenant Commander Brian L. Mizer, intends to argue for dismissal of charges against his client for improper influence by the Pentagon.

Some suggest that regardless of the outcome, it will be tough to erase from memory the image of an American military officer in uniform—the former face of the Guantanamo "process"—challenging the system he helped conduct for several years. And it will be difficult, perhaps impossible, to dampen completely the echoes of such a man seeking justice, struggling to do the right thing.

Until four months ago, Col. Morris D. Davis was the chief prosecutor at Guantánamo Bay and the most colorful champion of the Bush administration’s military commission system. He once said sympathy for detainees was nauseating and compared putting them on trial to dragging "Dracula out into the sunlight."

Then in October he had a dispute with his boss, a general. Ever since, he has been one of those critics who will not go away: a former top insider, with broad shoulders and a well-pressed uniform, willing to turn on the system he helped run.

Still in the military, he has irritated the administration, saying in articles and interviews that Pentagon officials interfered with prosecutors, exerted political pressure and approved the use of evidence obtained by torture.

Now, Colonel Davis has taken his most provocative step, completing his transformation from Guantánamo’s chief prosecutor to its new chief critic. He has agreed to testify at Guantánamo on behalf of one of the detainees, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a driver for Osama bin Laden.

Colonel Davis, a career military lawyer nearing retirement at 49, said that he would never argue that Mr. Hamdan was innocent, but that he was ready to try to put the commission system itself on trial by questioning its fairness. He said that there "is a potential for rigged outcomes" and that he had "significant doubts about whether it will deliver full, fair and open hearings."

(Glaberson)