News from the Colonies - America's War in Iraq
- Thread starter goofyfish
- Start date
- Status
crazeeeeeem
Registered Senior Member
Yep. The Nazis wanted to give the Czech german's 'democracy'. The US gov wanted to give Vietname democracy. The US wanted to give Indonesia democracy.....excuse me while I barf
Bangladeshi mission closed for threat
E-mail Threat Closes Bangladesh Iraq Mission
Bangladeshi Ambassador Sarwar Hossain Mollah and staff have closed their diplomatic mission in Iraq and relocated to Jordan after receiving an e-mail that threatened to blow up the mission, according to Reaz Rahman, the Bangladeshi Minister of Foreign Affairs.
• Gulf Daily News: "Bangladesh closes mission after threat"
And just because the damn song won't get out of my head:
E-mail Threat Closes Bangladesh Iraq Mission
Bangladeshi Ambassador Sarwar Hossain Mollah and staff have closed their diplomatic mission in Iraq and relocated to Jordan after receiving an e-mail that threatened to blow up the mission, according to Reaz Rahman, the Bangladeshi Minister of Foreign Affairs.
• Gulf Daily News: "Bangladesh closes mission after threat"
And just because the damn song won't get out of my head:
The AP wire story just hit minutes ago; there's less there than the GDN version.
3 dead, 1 injured in combat vehicle accident
Three soldiers from Fort Lewis--near Tacoma, Washington--have died in an accident. Their Stryker vehicles plunged into an irrigation canal after an embankment collapsed. The Army, of course, is investigating the cause of the collapse. The accident is especially unfortunate; in addition to three dead and one injured, the "Stryker brigade"--3rd Brigade, 2nd Division--is the first unit certified to operate with the new Stryker combat vehicle,
Have we some engineers out there who might be able to at least say, "Don't put a 38,000 pound (18,000 kg) vehicle on this road right here"?
Because while speculation on the cause is inappropriate at this time, I must admit the combat weight of the vehicle suggests that an Iraqi infrastructure suffering the setbacks and other issues facing the nation might not be able to handle 309 vehicles of that weight tromping around an area. Whether this accident resulted from sabotage or was a freak of nature or was, in fact, the weight of the vehicles, I think the issue of whether bridges and roads can hold these vehicles is an issue that warrants consideration.
And I'm quite sure someone somewhere in the system has made those considerations. Whether or not those results received any attention in planning is its own issue.
It is, most likely, my lack of confidence in our Commander in Chief. Given the way the Bush administration treats statistics, given its dedication to its goals, and given its apparent measure of the value of human life, I can certainly imagine a small detail such as bridge capacity per one vehicle versus heavy use by 309 of the things might get overlooked, but to the other, it doesn't seem to be such aspects of the planning that haven't gone well.
In the end, I'd say that when your only casualties are accidental so far, that's a good sign if good signs must be found amid the wreckage.
I'm trying to find a way to include one of the brigade's other incidents.
Three soldiers from Fort Lewis--near Tacoma, Washington--have died in an accident. Their Stryker vehicles plunged into an irrigation canal after an embankment collapsed. The Army, of course, is investigating the cause of the collapse. The accident is especially unfortunate; in addition to three dead and one injured, the "Stryker brigade"--3rd Brigade, 2nd Division--is the first unit certified to operate with the new Stryker combat vehicle,
Obviously, as the cause is under investigation, speculation on the specific cause would be inappropriate. However, an issue does come to mind.
Have we some engineers out there who might be able to at least say, "Don't put a 38,000 pound (18,000 kg) vehicle on this road right here"?
Because while speculation on the cause is inappropriate at this time, I must admit the combat weight of the vehicle suggests that an Iraqi infrastructure suffering the setbacks and other issues facing the nation might not be able to handle 309 vehicles of that weight tromping around an area. Whether this accident resulted from sabotage or was a freak of nature or was, in fact, the weight of the vehicles, I think the issue of whether bridges and roads can hold these vehicles is an issue that warrants consideration.
And I'm quite sure someone somewhere in the system has made those considerations. Whether or not those results received any attention in planning is its own issue.
It is, most likely, my lack of confidence in our Commander in Chief. Given the way the Bush administration treats statistics, given its dedication to its goals, and given its apparent measure of the value of human life, I can certainly imagine a small detail such as bridge capacity per one vehicle versus heavy use by 309 of the things might get overlooked, but to the other, it doesn't seem to be such aspects of the planning that haven't gone well.
In the end, I'd say that when your only casualties are accidental so far, that's a good sign if good signs must be found amid the wreckage.
I'm trying to find a way to include one of the brigade's other incidents.
Um ... yeah, people. Take care of yourselves over there.
Not exactly good news
• McCarthy, Rory. "Iraqi army walkout over pay." Guardian Unlimited, December 12, 2003. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1105382,00.html
Obviously, this isn't good news.
I'm inclined to post, in lieu of deeper commentary, a link to JPS' topic, "Union busting in Iraq," which includes an article discussing the fact that similar wages, paid to refinery workers, do not provide a living.
• McCarthy, Rory. "Iraqi army walkout over pay." Guardian Unlimited, December 12, 2003. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1105382,00.html
Well ... what to say?
Obviously, this isn't good news.
I'm inclined to post, in lieu of deeper commentary, a link to JPS' topic, "Union busting in Iraq," which includes an article discussing the fact that similar wages, paid to refinery workers, do not provide a living.
Iron Grip?
"Long as my arm, and five times as thick. You'll die at the end of my ...."
Whoops. Wrong bit.
Anyway, who's naming the operations these days?
"Operation Iron Grip"?
"US bombs S. Baghdad after copter crash." (Yahoo)
"Long as my arm, and five times as thick. You'll die at the end of my ...."
Whoops. Wrong bit.
Anyway, who's naming the operations these days?
"Operation Iron Grip"?
"US bombs S. Baghdad after copter crash." (Yahoo)
Someone with obvious reality issues. Maybe someday leadership will cease insulting American service people with continualshallow-minded hype such as this.
Baghdad: 35 wounded in mortar attack
Early wire reports bring news that mortars fired against a U.S. logistical base in Baghdad have wounded thirty-five soldiers.
I wonder what it would be like if, on these occasions, Rumsfeld or McClellan or somebody like that ought to stand up in front of the press and read the injuries to the nation.
On a morbid note, what's the best sanitized term you can think of for missing limbs? Digital excision? Vacation of the tarsal region and surriounding environs? "Rewarded with a King Missile"?
Okay, I know that last one seems wholly inappropriate, but it actually makes sense after a fashion. But how different would this be if it wasn't "35 wounded," but rather, "Joe Smith, missing a leg; Bill Jones, deafened, fractured skull ...."?
And would Geraldo draw a diagram explaining the king missile bit?
I like sanitized language sometimes. After all, I'm not being crass. I'm simply desensitized.
Early wire reports bring news that mortars fired against a U.S. logistical base in Baghdad have wounded thirty-five soldiers.
If you're the bad guys, and you're in the middle of Iraq, and you're facing off against the United States of America, you just had a reasonably good day. Pentagon numbers stand at 2,431 U.S. military personnel wounded in action in Iraq as of January 7, 2004 (CNN).
I wonder what it would be like if, on these occasions, Rumsfeld or McClellan or somebody like that ought to stand up in front of the press and read the injuries to the nation.
On a morbid note, what's the best sanitized term you can think of for missing limbs? Digital excision? Vacation of the tarsal region and surriounding environs? "Rewarded with a King Missile"?
Okay, I know that last one seems wholly inappropriate, but it actually makes sense after a fashion. But how different would this be if it wasn't "35 wounded," but rather, "Joe Smith, missing a leg; Bill Jones, deafened, fractured skull ...."?
And would Geraldo draw a diagram explaining the king missile bit?
I like sanitized language sometimes. After all, I'm not being crass. I'm simply desensitized.
U.S. Copter Goes Down in Iraq, Killing 8
also..
"At Abu Ghraib, hundreds of people waited in frustration for hours, hoping relatives would be among the first detainees that coalition officials said would be freed under a much-publicized amnesty.
However, U.S. guards said they had no orders to release anyone, and an Iraqi lawyer, Mohammed al-Tamimi, expressed doubt anyone would be freed Thursday.
"Liars! Liars! They won't let them out!" a woman screamed as she emerged from the prison. Others railed against "unjust arrests" among the thousands of people rounded up by U.S. and coalition troops and held without detention or charge. "
Things are really starting to get out of control.
also..
"At Abu Ghraib, hundreds of people waited in frustration for hours, hoping relatives would be among the first detainees that coalition officials said would be freed under a much-publicized amnesty.
However, U.S. guards said they had no orders to release anyone, and an Iraqi lawyer, Mohammed al-Tamimi, expressed doubt anyone would be freed Thursday.
"Liars! Liars! They won't let them out!" a woman screamed as she emerged from the prison. Others railed against "unjust arrests" among the thousands of people rounded up by U.S. and coalition troops and held without detention or charge. "
Things are really starting to get out of control.
A American C-5 was attacked by a portable SAM at 6,000 ft over Iraq. There seemed to be vibrations and it took out the number 4 engine.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/08/sprj.irq.main/index.html
These insurgents know what they are doing, I wonder if they are Iraqi or from outside?
Also here are some pics of the DHL A-300 damage done by a SAM-7:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?...c4Nw==&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwMy0xMi0wMg==&static=yes
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?...AxMjA=&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwMy0xMi0wMQ==&static=yes
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/08/sprj.irq.main/index.html
These insurgents know what they are doing, I wonder if they are Iraqi or from outside?
Also here are some pics of the DHL A-300 damage done by a SAM-7:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?...c4Nw==&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwMy0xMi0wMg==&static=yes
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?...AxMjA=&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwMy0xMi0wMQ==&static=yes
Bush administration officials have been accused of misrepresenting the threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
The accusation comes in a report from the influential left-of-centre Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which opposed the war in Iraq.
It also says there was no evidence for the claim that Saddam Hussein would give such weapons to terrorists.
The US and UK cited concerns over weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq last March.
Meanwhile, a 400-strong US team of weapons disposal experts is being withdrawn from Iraq.
US Government officials confirmed reports in the New York Times that the mission was being wrapped up, but stressed that the team had finished its work.
The newspaper reported that 400 - out of a team of 1,400 - had been assigned to search for depots for missile launchers and other equipment that might be used in conjunction with weapons of mass destruction.
'Future threat'
The Carnegie Endowment said it had studied hundreds of documents and interviewed dozens of specialists for its report WMD: Evidence and Implications.
The report says there was "no convincing evidence" that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear programme.
There was greater uncertainty about its biological weapons, it continues, but the threat related to what could be developed in future rather than what Iraq actually had.
The report says it was unlikely Iraq could have destroyed, hidden or moved large amounts of chemical and biological weapons without the United States detecting some sign of activity.
And it adds: "There was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred WMD to al-Qaeda and much evidence to counter it."
The study concludes that while the long-term threat from Iraq could not be ignored, it was being contained by a combination of UN weapons inspections, international sanctions and limited US-led military action.
"Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programmes," it contends.
There was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq ould have transferred WMD to al-Qaeda and much evidence to counter it".
BBC America Report
The report is actually stronger than this makes it sound. BBC News in England has made it an important feature, but reports that it is not being given much publicity at home. Is this the case?
The accusation comes in a report from the influential left-of-centre Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which opposed the war in Iraq.
It also says there was no evidence for the claim that Saddam Hussein would give such weapons to terrorists.
The US and UK cited concerns over weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq last March.
Meanwhile, a 400-strong US team of weapons disposal experts is being withdrawn from Iraq.
US Government officials confirmed reports in the New York Times that the mission was being wrapped up, but stressed that the team had finished its work.
The newspaper reported that 400 - out of a team of 1,400 - had been assigned to search for depots for missile launchers and other equipment that might be used in conjunction with weapons of mass destruction.
'Future threat'
The Carnegie Endowment said it had studied hundreds of documents and interviewed dozens of specialists for its report WMD: Evidence and Implications.
The report says there was "no convincing evidence" that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear programme.
There was greater uncertainty about its biological weapons, it continues, but the threat related to what could be developed in future rather than what Iraq actually had.
The report says it was unlikely Iraq could have destroyed, hidden or moved large amounts of chemical and biological weapons without the United States detecting some sign of activity.
And it adds: "There was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred WMD to al-Qaeda and much evidence to counter it."
The study concludes that while the long-term threat from Iraq could not be ignored, it was being contained by a combination of UN weapons inspections, international sanctions and limited US-led military action.
"Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programmes," it contends.
There was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq ould have transferred WMD to al-Qaeda and much evidence to counter it".
BBC America Report
The report is actually stronger than this makes it sound. BBC News in England has made it an important feature, but reports that it is not being given much publicity at home. Is this the case?
The "Kurdish headache," massive troop movements, and the United Nations
The Washington Post recounts events of interest across the Iraqi adventure today, including a staff report on friction between Kurdish representatives to the Iraq Governing Council and U.S. authorities.
Also, the United States is seeking a UN return to Iraq in support of the new Transitional Administration Law set for June 30, 2004. The UN is reluctant to put personnel in harm's way without the independence to carry out its mission, and today's closed-door meetings between John Negroponte of the US, Emyr Jones Perry of the UK, and Secretary Annan will seek to reassure the United Nations of Coalition capabilities to protect UN personnel and to discuss organizational roles.
The US also hopes the UN can help head off a movement to change current plans to use caucuses to elect the first transtitional government into regional elections.
Essentially, it appears that the US wishes the UN to play a cheerleader role. The Post article indicates that while the Bush administration wishes to deepen the UN role, the US is not prepared to grant the international body sufficient independence to negotiate the political transition.
And all this comes as the US initiates a massive personnel transfer in Iraq. According to the Washington Post:
Over 100,000 troops each way will move into and out of Iraq; 20,000 or so troops in Kuwait will rotate out, as will 10,000 in Afghanistan. The shift will involve eight and a half of the Army's ten active-duty divisions.
Commentary: This is one of those weeks that really just sucks if you're in charge. Even in the morally relative aspects of a war, the only thing you don't look forward to more than a week in which separatists are making waves, your most necessary assistance is being stubborn, and you initiate your largest troop transition in a half-century is a day with high casualties. The Oval Office ages people. Some may not have noticed it so much with Reagan since they were already working to hide the appearance of his age, but the senior Bush showed the office, and Clinton downright crumbled under its weight insofar as his voice went, his hair went white, he gained weight, and the bags under his eyes got bigger than the two-pound bag of Chee-tos. And look at Dubya. 9/11 sucked some of the life out of him; he looks comparatively like your grandparent with a broken hip. I remember a photograph, grainy black and white--I think from Time or some such--of Bush in the Oval Office at about 4 am in the days after 9/11. The man hadn't slept for seventy-two hours or so, and was held together simply by the knowledge that, no matter how much he hated the idea, he had asked for the presidency and now it was his. He couldn't come apart right then. And that knowledge was the fragile string binding his sanity.
This week will be a bit like that. It's sure to add a few more gray hairs, crease a couple more wrinkles, and hopefully go down better than a pretzel.
Good luck, George. Don't choke. At this point, Mr. President, even I'm with you on the simple grounds that somebody has to go through it and, well ... you're it, whether we like it or not.
Notes:
• Graham, Bradley. "Huge Movement of Troops Is Underway." Washington Post, January 9, 2004; page A13. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1773-2004Jan8.html
• Lynch, Colum. "White House Wants U.N. to Return to Iraq." Washington Post, January 9, 2004; page A12. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1495-2004Jan8.html
• Wright, Robin, and Alan Sipress. "Kurds' Wariness Frustrates U.S. Efforts." Washington Post, January 9, 2004; page A13. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1767-2004Jan8.html
The Washington Post recounts events of interest across the Iraqi adventure today, including a staff report on friction between Kurdish representatives to the Iraq Governing Council and U.S. authorities.
The disagreement makes all the more desperate the Bush administration push toward Iraqi self-government due at the end of June. While the administration might hope to craft other parts of the system around these troublesome issues, one Kurdish member of the IGC said that ignoring such details was tantamount to building a time bomb.
Also, the United States is seeking a UN return to Iraq in support of the new Transitional Administration Law set for June 30, 2004. The UN is reluctant to put personnel in harm's way without the independence to carry out its mission, and today's closed-door meetings between John Negroponte of the US, Emyr Jones Perry of the UK, and Secretary Annan will seek to reassure the United Nations of Coalition capabilities to protect UN personnel and to discuss organizational roles.
The US also hopes the UN can help head off a movement to change current plans to use caucuses to elect the first transtitional government into regional elections.
Apparently this concession is not enough to satisfy some American purpose, as the Post reports that Negroponte will meet with Annan instead of a "high-level delegation" originally scheduled to include Assistant Secretaries of State Kim Holmes (International Organization Affairs) and William Burns (Near Eastern Affairs).
Essentially, it appears that the US wishes the UN to play a cheerleader role. The Post article indicates that while the Bush administration wishes to deepen the UN role, the US is not prepared to grant the international body sufficient independence to negotiate the political transition.
And all this comes as the US initiates a massive personnel transfer in Iraq. According to the Washington Post:
While plans involve airlifting many troops into Iraq, the recent attack against an Air Force C-5 reminds American troops of a nearby enemy. As one senior Army officer expressed, "The enemy gets a vote."
Over 100,000 troops each way will move into and out of Iraq; 20,000 or so troops in Kuwait will rotate out, as will 10,000 in Afghanistan. The shift will involve eight and a half of the Army's ten active-duty divisions.
Commentary: This is one of those weeks that really just sucks if you're in charge. Even in the morally relative aspects of a war, the only thing you don't look forward to more than a week in which separatists are making waves, your most necessary assistance is being stubborn, and you initiate your largest troop transition in a half-century is a day with high casualties. The Oval Office ages people. Some may not have noticed it so much with Reagan since they were already working to hide the appearance of his age, but the senior Bush showed the office, and Clinton downright crumbled under its weight insofar as his voice went, his hair went white, he gained weight, and the bags under his eyes got bigger than the two-pound bag of Chee-tos. And look at Dubya. 9/11 sucked some of the life out of him; he looks comparatively like your grandparent with a broken hip. I remember a photograph, grainy black and white--I think from Time or some such--of Bush in the Oval Office at about 4 am in the days after 9/11. The man hadn't slept for seventy-two hours or so, and was held together simply by the knowledge that, no matter how much he hated the idea, he had asked for the presidency and now it was his. He couldn't come apart right then. And that knowledge was the fragile string binding his sanity.
This week will be a bit like that. It's sure to add a few more gray hairs, crease a couple more wrinkles, and hopefully go down better than a pretzel.
Good luck, George. Don't choke. At this point, Mr. President, even I'm with you on the simple grounds that somebody has to go through it and, well ... you're it, whether we like it or not.
Notes:
• Graham, Bradley. "Huge Movement of Troops Is Underway." Washington Post, January 9, 2004; page A13. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1773-2004Jan8.html
• Lynch, Colum. "White House Wants U.N. to Return to Iraq." Washington Post, January 9, 2004; page A12. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1495-2004Jan8.html
• Wright, Robin, and Alan Sipress. "Kurds' Wariness Frustrates U.S. Efforts." Washington Post, January 9, 2004; page A13. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1767-2004Jan8.html
It's not much, but it's a critical bit of news. At least that's one step back in the right direction for this region.
Couple that with this next article and I see baby steps...baby steps.
http://csmonitor.com/2004/0108/p01s04-wome.html
These are baby steps very similar to those the Shah's regime was making right before the curtain came down on them. As the Saudi elite and their American associates wall themselves up and lose touch, a groundswell of oppposition is building all around them. Just because the sane majority of central Arabians abhor terrorism and chaos does not mean that they will not cheer the fall of the House of Sa'ud when it comes.
Remember, any journalist interviewing people in the Kingdom is reporting from an environment where political dissent is not tolerated by the government. Foreign correspondents who write anything pessimistic are banished. Domestic ones go to prison. Saudi is a society constructed for the benefit of an embattled minority elite, and even peaceful popular dissent is forbidden. Violent dissent is therefore inevitable. As things approach a boil, an unprecedented exodus of Americans and other long-term foreign residents is happening right now.
Remember, any journalist interviewing people in the Kingdom is reporting from an environment where political dissent is not tolerated by the government. Foreign correspondents who write anything pessimistic are banished. Domestic ones go to prison. Saudi is a society constructed for the benefit of an embattled minority elite, and even peaceful popular dissent is forbidden. Violent dissent is therefore inevitable. As things approach a boil, an unprecedented exodus of Americans and other long-term foreign residents is happening right now.
Update: Kurdish autonomy
The U.S. and the Iraq Governing Council have apparently resolved enough of the Kurdish "issue" to move forward with plans for the transition to Iraqi self-government.
The Daily Times reports:
And speaking of slow hands, the good news from the U.N. so far seems to be that the administration and the Secretary-General are still on speaking terms. While talks aren't by any means going badly--
Notes:
• Report, Wire. "Iraq's Governing Council okays Kurdish autonomy." Daily Times/AFP, January 10, 2004. See http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-1-2004_pg4_1
• Wright, Robin and Alan Sipress. "Kurds' Wariness Frustrates U.S. Efforts." Washington Post, January 9, 2004; page A13. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1767-2004Jan8.html
• Leopold, Evelyn. "Government discusses Iraq with U.N.'s Annan." Reuters UK, January 9, 2004. See http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=436575§ion=news
The U.S. and the Iraq Governing Council have apparently resolved enough of the Kurdish "issue" to move forward with plans for the transition to Iraqi self-government.
The Daily Times reports:
Indeed, it looks as if the Kurdish faction played a strong enough hand to win the present round, though the unresolved issues surrounding the three additional provinces claimed by the Kurds could still prove to be the "time bomb" that undoes a fragile federalism. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal said, of the Kurdish situation:
Whether or not this latest development is good news will only be determined in history. Despite its heavy-handedness in matters of war, the Bush administration is scoring quiet successes on the international front; it's a wonder they don't play up the Libya angle a bit more. So it seems, all-around, to Bush's favor, in light of the administration's apparent unwillingness to meet the Kurds on every point, to leave certain issues to another day. While this could prove folly for the administration, the last thing Bush needs is a bunch of Kurds in the north prepared to resist Coalition occupation. Finesse, a gentle touch--the world likes a man with a slow hand.
And speaking of slow hands, the good news from the U.N. so far seems to be that the administration and the Secretary-General are still on speaking terms. While talks aren't by any means going badly--
--they're hardly a rush to new progress. Security and autonomy issues still separate the Coalition and the UN, and everybody seems to be looking to January 19, when more discussions are set to take place. The UK has offered Ambassador Greenstock, while the US has not yet indicated its representation.
Notes:
• Report, Wire. "Iraq's Governing Council okays Kurdish autonomy." Daily Times/AFP, January 10, 2004. See http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-1-2004_pg4_1
• Wright, Robin and Alan Sipress. "Kurds' Wariness Frustrates U.S. Efforts." Washington Post, January 9, 2004; page A13. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1767-2004Jan8.html
• Leopold, Evelyn. "Government discusses Iraq with U.N.'s Annan." Reuters UK, January 9, 2004. See http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=436575§ion=news
Here is a link for the C-5 attack:
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040108221902.tna5m386.html
Three major cargo jets have been attacked sucessfully, starting to look like Afghanistan 1981 a lot more, eh boys?
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040108221902.tna5m386.html
Three major cargo jets have been attacked sucessfully, starting to look like Afghanistan 1981 a lot more, eh boys?
US Occupation insists on Selection, not Election
As Iraqi Shia begin taking it to the streets, US administrators are stammering "not so fast", exhibiting behavior that can only be described as anti-democratic.
So in review: The US invaded Iraq to save us all from Saddam's fearsome aresenal of WMDs. Um, well, actually, it was to avenge all those mass graves, but not the ones that resulted from uprisings the US encouraged and then abandoned. No actually, we did it to promote democracy. Well, actually, um- "Next question, please".
As Iraqi Shia begin taking it to the streets, US administrators are stammering "not so fast", exhibiting behavior that can only be described as anti-democratic.
So in review: The US invaded Iraq to save us all from Saddam's fearsome aresenal of WMDs. Um, well, actually, it was to avenge all those mass graves, but not the ones that resulted from uprisings the US encouraged and then abandoned. No actually, we did it to promote democracy. Well, actually, um- "Next question, please".
Update: U.S. military suicides
Somewhere around Sciforums--I can't find it at present--is a short discussion about suicides by US personnel in Iraq. At any rate, to update the story:
• Loeb, Vernon. "Military Cites Elevated Rate of Suicides in Iraq." Washington Post, January 15, 2004; page A14. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18452-2004Jan14.html
Somewhere around Sciforums--I can't find it at present--is a short discussion about suicides by US personnel in Iraq. At any rate, to update the story:
• Loeb, Vernon. "Military Cites Elevated Rate of Suicides in Iraq." Washington Post, January 15, 2004; page A14. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18452-2004Jan14.html
Last edited:
Good News? Bad News? News? "Bloody" future in Iraq
Reuters reports today that the United States is apparently considering making some changes to the Iraqi transition of authority, moving to quell the dissatisfaction that brought thousands to the streets of Basra this week.
The protests by Basra Shi'ites protested the US plan to transfer authority to Iraqis, demanding direct elections and supporting a leading Shi'ite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who, despite even UN advice that proper elections cannot be organized in time, might issue a fatwa rejecting the American-backed government if his demands for direct elections are ignored.
A fatwa could put the occupying Coalition at odds with Iraq's Shi'ite majority. In the meantime, the transition to Iraqi authority faces disagreements over the range of Kurdish territory in the north, which issue brings protests from both Turkey and Iraqi Sunnis. The US finds itself at a delicate crossroads with seemingly similar territory in all directions; Turkish General Ilker Basbug said, at an Ankara news conference, ""If there is a federal structure in Iraq on an ethnic basis, the future will be very difficult and bloody."
In the meantime, Reuters reports:
• The US military is investigating apparently-new complaints of abuses in detainment camps, but gave no details of the accusations.
• The US estimates that it holds 9,500 detainees on Iraq security grounds, and notes that others have been detained and released since April.
• Japanese troops prepare for next month's deployment, marking an historic, difficult, and potentially politically-disastrous shift from Japanese defense security policy.
• US combat deaths: 343. Since end of major combat: 228. Casualties including non-combat deaths: 496.
Commentary:
Flip a coin; while it's important to get over the wounds of WWII, Japan's entry to the Iraqi Bush Adventure is at once impressive, puzzling, and the aftertaste is curiously bitter. A Japanese return to proactive and extrapolated security efforts° is an issue that I'm sure some could find to debate in and of itself, but I'm having some difficulty grasping the timing of the deployment. Aside from the pace of Japanese politics, I'm left wondering how it is that once international agreements and laws are smashed, once the "major combat" ends, now that the dictator is rolled up tight, and it's mostly a battle between the ideal of democracy, the idea of profit, and the complications of trying to kill occupiers ... now Japan's in? Interesting times, indeed. What strikes me about the political risk the move poses for Koizumi's governance is uncertain insofar as a choice by anti-Coalition operatives to focus on the Japanese contingent in order to strike a blow against Japanese morale and incite a political crisis could simply galvanize the Japanese fighting spirit and harden resolve.
Beyond the Japanese issue, which is merely a minor aspect, a microdrama at this point, looms a bloody future in Iraq. Can the Kurds and Sunni both be satisfied? Will old resentments toward former Sunni advantage in Iraq? And could Bush realistically have expected, at any point, that tromping into Iraq and trying to introduce "democracy" in any recognizable form in the 21st century demanded that centuries of American, colonial, and European history be compressed into ... what, an indefinite plan subject to the political pressures introduced by an American political mass that can't seem to get its collective head out of it's figurative ass?
American ideological coprophilia aside, how quickly can we convince the Iraqi people that the thing about democracy is that you get to argue about stuff without shooting each other to death over it? With Kurds solidifying their political vision in the north and al-Sistani leading the protest cry for the Shi'ites, the Sunni minority is probably quite nervous, and who can blame them? But will the issues be fought out at the ballot box or on the battlefield?
Interesting times indeed. Best of luck to the Bush team on this; too many lives are at stake for anything else.
Notes:
° proactive and extrapolated security efforts - In addition to the politically-correct (PC), there is also the bureaucratically-suitable (BS). A cynical smile goes with the phrase, "proactive and extrapolated security efforts."
- Reference links
• Marshall, Andrew and Adam Entous. "US acts to win over top Iraqi cleric." Reuters, January 16, 2004. See http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=440541§ion=news
• Associated Press. "Iraqi Shias Protest. U.S." Newsday.com, January 16, 2004. See http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...jan16,0,3021675.story?coll=ny-worldnews-print
• Leopold, Evelyn. "Government discusses Iraq with U.N.'s Annan." Reuters, January 9, 2004. See http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=436575§ion=news
Reuters reports today that the United States is apparently considering making some changes to the Iraqi transition of authority, moving to quell the dissatisfaction that brought thousands to the streets of Basra this week.
The protests by Basra Shi'ites protested the US plan to transfer authority to Iraqis, demanding direct elections and supporting a leading Shi'ite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who, despite even UN advice that proper elections cannot be organized in time, might issue a fatwa rejecting the American-backed government if his demands for direct elections are ignored.
A fatwa could put the occupying Coalition at odds with Iraq's Shi'ite majority. In the meantime, the transition to Iraqi authority faces disagreements over the range of Kurdish territory in the north, which issue brings protests from both Turkey and Iraqi Sunnis. The US finds itself at a delicate crossroads with seemingly similar territory in all directions; Turkish General Ilker Basbug said, at an Ankara news conference, ""If there is a federal structure in Iraq on an ethnic basis, the future will be very difficult and bloody."
In the meantime, Reuters reports:
• The US military is investigating apparently-new complaints of abuses in detainment camps, but gave no details of the accusations.
• The US estimates that it holds 9,500 detainees on Iraq security grounds, and notes that others have been detained and released since April.
• Japanese troops prepare for next month's deployment, marking an historic, difficult, and potentially politically-disastrous shift from Japanese defense security policy.
• US combat deaths: 343. Since end of major combat: 228. Casualties including non-combat deaths: 496.
Commentary:
Flip a coin; while it's important to get over the wounds of WWII, Japan's entry to the Iraqi Bush Adventure is at once impressive, puzzling, and the aftertaste is curiously bitter. A Japanese return to proactive and extrapolated security efforts° is an issue that I'm sure some could find to debate in and of itself, but I'm having some difficulty grasping the timing of the deployment. Aside from the pace of Japanese politics, I'm left wondering how it is that once international agreements and laws are smashed, once the "major combat" ends, now that the dictator is rolled up tight, and it's mostly a battle between the ideal of democracy, the idea of profit, and the complications of trying to kill occupiers ... now Japan's in? Interesting times, indeed. What strikes me about the political risk the move poses for Koizumi's governance is uncertain insofar as a choice by anti-Coalition operatives to focus on the Japanese contingent in order to strike a blow against Japanese morale and incite a political crisis could simply galvanize the Japanese fighting spirit and harden resolve.
Beyond the Japanese issue, which is merely a minor aspect, a microdrama at this point, looms a bloody future in Iraq. Can the Kurds and Sunni both be satisfied? Will old resentments toward former Sunni advantage in Iraq? And could Bush realistically have expected, at any point, that tromping into Iraq and trying to introduce "democracy" in any recognizable form in the 21st century demanded that centuries of American, colonial, and European history be compressed into ... what, an indefinite plan subject to the political pressures introduced by an American political mass that can't seem to get its collective head out of it's figurative ass?
American ideological coprophilia aside, how quickly can we convince the Iraqi people that the thing about democracy is that you get to argue about stuff without shooting each other to death over it? With Kurds solidifying their political vision in the north and al-Sistani leading the protest cry for the Shi'ites, the Sunni minority is probably quite nervous, and who can blame them? But will the issues be fought out at the ballot box or on the battlefield?
Or, to paraphrase Roger Waters, "Georgie, what have you done?"
Interesting times indeed. Best of luck to the Bush team on this; too many lives are at stake for anything else.
Notes:
° proactive and extrapolated security efforts - In addition to the politically-correct (PC), there is also the bureaucratically-suitable (BS). A cynical smile goes with the phrase, "proactive and extrapolated security efforts."
- Reference links
• Marshall, Andrew and Adam Entous. "US acts to win over top Iraqi cleric." Reuters, January 16, 2004. See http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=440541§ion=news
• Associated Press. "Iraqi Shias Protest. U.S." Newsday.com, January 16, 2004. See http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...jan16,0,3021675.story?coll=ny-worldnews-print
• Leopold, Evelyn. "Government discusses Iraq with U.N.'s Annan." Reuters, January 9, 2004. See http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=436575§ion=news
- Status