Another week brings more activity both on and off Capitol Hill related to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). The Senate Armed Services Committee will be holding a hearing on Thursday morning at 9:45 a.m., which will feature a prominent proponent of the discriminatory policy, as well as two victims of it. The contrast should be fairly striking.
Speaking in support of DADT will be retired U.S. Marine Corps General John J. Sheehan. Those speaking in support of repealing DADT will be former Air Force Major Mike Almy and former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Junior Grade Jenny Kopfstein. Both are veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and had distinguished military careers, which were prematurely terminated as a result of DADT. This will be the first congressional hearing to feature those whose military careers were ended as a result of the policy since President Obama’s call for repeal of DADT in his January State of the Union address. Be sure to check back after the hearing for highlights and our take.
That's Ian Thompson's "Another Week Brings More DADT Action in Washington" (ACLU). I'd like it better if Ian had called out Barack. If he plans to repeal something, he can place a policy on hold while he waits for Congress to repeal it. That's reality. Even if Ian avoids it. Read Rachel Myers' "Let the Sunshine In" which does a better job re: accountability.
Accountability? At my site in the summer of 2007, I posted an entry that a lot of others in the community signed off on. I need to take accountability for my part. I am sorry. I apologize. I was completely wrong when I endorsed cowardly Dennis Kucinich. He is a joke. He will forever be a joke. He has no spine, he has no guts, he has no courage. If you missed all that, just click here for NYT story on Denny Boy.
My apologies to any and all readers who I may have influenced. My bad. My wrong. If I could take it back, I would. Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wendesday, March 17, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, ballot counting continues, a British court rules against the Ministry of Defence ordering them to pay the parent of a soldier who died in Iraq, Gordon Brown corrects his testimony to the Iraq Inquiry, the US Congress hears about what veterans and veterans' families need, Dennis does what's best for Dennis, and more.
"The voting may be over," observes Jim Loney (Reuters), "but the March 7 parliamentary election viewed as a make-or-break moment for Iraq as it tries to emerge from decades of economic decline, dictatorship and war is far from over." The ballots counted thus far is still estimated to be approximately 80%. Al Jazeera reports that Nouri al-Maliki's party (State Of Law) are complaining of election fraud, stating the tallies are being manipulated. No concerns until al-Maliki's perceived lead was thought to drop. (Thought to. The ballots are still being counted.) Jomana Karadsheh and Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) also note 80% of the ballots have been counted and state that the biggest vote getters thus far apper to be the Iraqi National Movement (led by Ayad Allawi and also known as Iraqiya) and State Of Law. Alsumaria TV reports, "After counting votes of around 80% of polling sations till Tuesday night, figures showed former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi in the lead by a difference of 9000 votes in comparison with Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki in all Iraqi provinces." These are preliminary numbers and unofficial. Not only are they subject to change, they do not include the Iraqi refugees or the Iraqi security forces. BBC News points out, "The BBC's Andrew North, in the capital, says the picture could well change by the time all the votes are counted." Xinhua explains, "However, the rivals on Wednesday are keeping their eyes watching the remaining count of about 20 percent of the elections votes that may either widen Allawi's margin or reverse the balance." Anthony Shadid (New York Times) adds that Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc appears to have done well by the votes counted thus far and may even be the second most popular Shi'ite bloc in the election behind Nouri's political party. At War (the paper's blog) has video of Shadid speaking to Stephen Farrell about al-Sadr's bloc and another Shi'ite party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, which has done very well in previous elections. (However, leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim died last fall of cancer and his son Ammar al-Hakim is the new leader.) Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) weighs in on al-Hakim's party. Richard Spencer (Telegraph of London) notes that the ballot counting is supposed to be completed tomorrow (that may or may not take place) and that a count will be known. Reminder, this will not be the official (certified) count. Spencer notes that as the unofficial count stands now, State of Law and the Iraqi National Movement would each receive 87 seats in the Parliament. That would be 174 seats leaving 151 for other parties (there will be a total of 325 seats in the Parliament, up from 275. Spencer notes that an individual political party needs to win 163 seats to have a majority or else they need to enter into a power-sharing coalition with other parties to reach the 163 number. The unofficial results thus far do not indicate any political party will be able to rule without entering into a power-sharing agreement. That was expected before the election (though some gas bags on March 8th tried to insist Nouri's party was likely to win enough seats to rule without a power-sharing agreement.)
Should the trend continue in the remaining 20% of the ballots and should it hold in the official count, each party end up with 87 votes, to reach the magic number of 163, one of them would need to grab 76 seats out of the 151 seats remaining. 151, point, is 76 plus 75. If the current vote holds and the official vote is similar, there could be some intense negotiations as each of the two parties rushed to form a power-sharing agreement with other parties. Potentially even the minority candidates could wheel and deal -- such as the 5 seats that will go to Iraqi Christians. That's not gas bagging, by law, the Iraqi Christians are guaranteed 5 seats in this Parliament. 3 other seats are guaranteed to religious minorities. The Yazidis in Nineveh Province are guaranteed one seat, the Shabakis in Nineveh are guaranteed one seat and, in Baghdad, the Saibis are guaranteed one seat. Kadhim Ajrash, Caroline Alexander and Henry Meyer (Bloomberg News) quote Control Risks Group's Julien Barnes-Dacey stating, "It is up to Maliki and Allawi to make the best offers. No one is showing their cards yet because the full results have not yet emerged and they are going to wait and see what they are offered." Leila Fadel (Washington Post) observed earlier today, "A narrow lead would make it harder for Maliki to garner allies he needs to form a coalition government." And substitute Allawi for al-Maliki in that sentence because it's true of both of them. And, should there be a major upset in the official count, true of a third party as well.
If the results are similar but not exact, say side A ends up with 6 extra seats, it could be the 'winner' but not the group to end up with the power-sharing coalition that puts it in charge. Andrew England (Financial Times of London) explains, "It is not even guaranteed that the victorious coalition, or 'list', will form the government as no side will have an overall majority, meaning there will be weeks or months of political bargaining." Jim Loney and Samia Nakhoul (Reuters) run down election possibilities here.
Regardless of the outcome, Michael Hastings (The Hastings Report, True/Slant) observes:
To claim that the war is a success because we established something that looks like democracy is an interesting one to make. First, it presupposes that an establishment of democratic principles in the region is an actual goal of American foreign policy. This is clearly not true, as seen by our relationship with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, and the Gulf States–we don't pressure those folks too much about their democratic principles. Secondly, it presupposes that the only(or certainly the most effective) way to bring democracy to the Middle East was to invade Iraq. This, I think, is a claim that should be subject to debate, and the winning argument should be pretty obvious. Perhaps we could have used our economic leverage with our above mentioned allies to push them towards democracy first, and maybe then that would have the "democratic domino" effect on Iraq, all while avoiding a war!
Meanwhile Marc Lynch (Foreign Policy) scoops everyone by discovering "A Strategic Plan to Improve the Political Position of the Islamic State of Iraq:"
The 55 page document, published under a pseudonym, is a remarkably frank "lessons learned" analysis which does not shy away from identifying where the ISI's strategy went wrong. It's not an "official" document, whatever that means, but it's fascinating nonetheless and demonstrates some deep thinking about the fortunes of the Islamic State in Iraq. It explains its setbacks, which it argues came at the height of its power and influence, on what it calls two smart and effective U.S. moves in 2006-07: an effective U.S. media and psychological campaign, which convinced many that the "mujahideen" had committed atrocities against Iraqis and killed thousands of Muslims; and the Awakenings, achieved through its manipulation of the tribes and the "nationalist resistance." The document doesn't mention the "Surge" much at all, at least not in terms of the troop escalation which most Americans have in mind.
Building upon a lengthy post-mortem on the Awakenings and the media campaigns, the Strategic Plan sets out a detailed agenda for the coming years during and after the U.S. withdrawal. It calls the coming war "a political and media war to the first degree", with the winner "the side that best prepares for the period following the withdrawal." It recognizes that the Islamic State can not control all of Iraq through military force alone, and that only a wise political strategy can succeed. It then offers a detailed five point plan, including a process to unify the ranks of the jihad, in part by reaching out to the old nationalist resistance and convincing them to return to the fold; detailed military preparations, including recommendations to conserve men and resources until the right time; and an enhanced media operation designed to rebut the most damaging charges against the Islamic State and carefully tied to a coherent political strategy. Perhaps its most striking concept is a detailed plan for creating "Jihadist Awakenings", mimicking the U.S. engagement of the tribes to create broader popular support.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Reuters notes an Abu Ghraib bombing which injured two children.
Shootings?
AFP reports that Iraqi Christian Sabah Gurgis was shot dead by unknown assailants in Mosul. This appears to be the latest in another wave of persecution of Christians in Mosul. Reuters notes a Baghdad shooting resulted in a Human Rights Ministry official being wounded.
Turning to England and legal news. Robert Thomson died serving in Iraq at the age of 22 on January 31, 2004 in what England's Ministry of Defence termed "a tragic accident." A court of law begs to differ. BBC News reports that a British military inquiry "blamed Mr Thomson" for the "tragic accident" (he was buried alive when the trench he was in collapsed) but the Court of Session overruled that and awarded Margaret Valentine forty-two thousand pounds (US equivalent: approximately $64,398). His mother is quoted stating, "It has taken six years and it was never about the money. Money would never bring him back, supposing they gave me forty-million pounds. My laddie died a horrific death. He struggled to get out [of the trench] but couldn't. It was about getting here, a judge ruling that there was negligence. It was totally unsafe work and there was no regard for his safety. I always knew he never entered the trench of his own volition." Still in England, Gordon Brown testified to the Iraq Inquiry March 5th. Miranda Richardson and Ruth Barnett (Sky News -- link has text and video) report that while taking questions on Wednesday Gordon Brown's claim to the Inquiry that when he was Chancellor (under Tony Blair) defense spending rose each year ("in real terms") and confronted, with it today, Brown admitted he had mispoken. [PDF format warning] Sky News has posted the letter from Brown here. Richardson and Barnett point out, "The four-page document does not acknowledge that the Prime Minister made an error in the way he described defence spending." Chris Ames (Iraq Inquiry Digest) gets the last word on Brown's letter, "It is typical Brown -- no admission of error, no apology, a lot of spin. It may be Brown's way of limiting the political damage, but to puff such a letter out with so much spin must have seriously alienated the Inquiry." Polly Curtis and Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) explain, "The prime minister was forced to correct his official evidence to the Chilcot inquiry -- which he repeated just last week in the commons -- after Ministry of Defence figures revealed that once inflation was accounted for, the budget declined in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2007. The revelations are particularly damning because some of the real-term cuts spanned years when the armed forces were at war in Afghanistan and Iraq." James Kirkup (Telegraph of London) terms the incident "an embarrassing retreat". Quentin Letts (Daily Mail) observes, "The truth was extracted by Tony Baldry (Con, Banbury), who put his question in an unhysterical but assertive manner. Mr Baldry spoke along the lines of 'come on now, there's a good boy, say you're sorry, then we can all start afresh and nothing more will be said of the matter'. Mr Brown hated admitting it. Shades of a child drinking its spoonful of cod liver oil." Cathy Newman (Channel 4 News) quotes MP David Cameron offering his thanks to Brown, "In three years of asking the prime minister questions I don't think I've ever heard him make a correction or retraction." Nico Hines and Philippe Naughton (Times of London) note that Brown's correction still wasn't accurate since he claimed that it was only one or two years that his statements were incorrect: "In fact, it fell in three separate years, according to figures compiled by the House of Commons library -- four years if 1997/98 is included, although the financial year had already started when Labour came to power." Jon Craig (Sky News) wonders what other things Brown might "own up to between now and election day?"
Monday the US House Armed Services Committee's Military Personnel Subcommittee held a hearing which started a little after 5:30 p.m. There wasn't space for it in yesterday's snapshot so we'll pick it up now. US House Rep Susan Davis is the Chair of the Subcommittee, Joe Wilson is the Ranking Member. Appearing before them were the National Military Family Association's Kathleen Moakler, Dr. Barbara Cohoon, Kelly Hruska, Candace Wheeler and Katie Savant. Chair Davis explained at the opening that the "hearing is a review of the priority legislative initiatives needed to support military families. We have asked the National Miliatary Family Association, the association with the greatest expertise regarding family issues, to help us understand how the Congress can best assist our military families." Various issues were raised, including housing on Guam by US House Rep Madeleine Z. Bordallo. We'll emphasize the following exchange:
Ranking Member Joe Wilson: For any of you, I'd like to ask, it's been mentioned in the testimony that there are redundancies in military programs and some programs don't meet the needs of today's military families. Are there any programs existing today in your opinion, that should be terminated? If so what are they?
Kathleen Moakler: Well I think we need to look at the myriad of services that are provided by each of the services and especially in the area of information and referral. It seems like people are starting up new programs to collect information from community sources and get them out there for military families but there's so many areas to choose from that it gets confusing. So if there could be one list. The National Resource Directory is a good start. That'd be a purple list. We are all about having purple programs for families. Not that they would lose their individual individuality but sometimes too many resources can be confusing.
Ranking Member Joe Wilson: And the internet could be a real resource to help cut through, so you can find it for a particular community.
Kathleen Moakler: Yes, you could put in your zip code and find out where these resources are.
Ranking Member Joe Wilson: And to me, again, it's exciting that they're so available technologically for families. Another recommendation has been to establish a unified joint-medical command structure within DoD. Can you explain how that would be helpful?
Dr. Barbara Cohoon: That would be me. On this particular one. I handle health care for our organizations. What we're talking about right now we're dealing with the funding happens under 3 different srevices rather than it being joined and we're looking at what's happening with the national capital region and how that's rolling out. And as we're looking at programs that are rolling out sometimes the best practices aren't necessarily shared across. And as we've seen up at the national capitol region where you'll have Army and Navy working together and then down in the San Antonio region you have Air Force and Army working together -- the ability to be able to share resources so you're purchasing the same equipment, you're teaching your staff as far as utilizing the same policies would go a long way as far as keeping down cost but also improving the quality of care through efficiencies but also as far as patient safety .
Joe Wilson: And another example would be the Uniform Services University which is a joint-service university. And since one of my sons [Add Wilson] is a graduate, I know it's a great institution. So I hope we can possibly look into what you suggest.
Dr. Barbara Cohoon: We'd look forward to working with you on that.
Joe Wilson: That'd be great. And then for anyone who would like to answer, it's been suggested the system of multi-layered case managers for wounded service members and their families may be aggregivating the delivery of necessary services to the families. How would you streamline the process to make it more effective.
Dr. Barbara Cohoon: What we're seeing again is all the services are rolling out their own programs and their own level of case managers. The VA's doing the same thing, also we have DoD doing the same thing. And our families are getting confused as far as who do you go to for what when? So we've been asking for maybe a report to take a look and I knew the GAO was looking at the Federal Recovery Coordinators to see how effective they're being, but also we need to look at the Recovery Care Coordinators and everyone else. What we're finding is that the families sometimes aren't aware that certain case managers are available that they could utilize -- i.e. the Federal Recovery Coordinators -- or that they're in the VA and now they could be using the VA Case Managers and instead they're still utilizing the services on top of that. So there are a lot of great programs but we want to make sure that we take a look that we haven't added so many on that it's getting confusing for the families.
Joe Wilson: Well your organization serves such a vital function as a safety net and as a means of providing assistance to families and so I hope you'll continue that effort and I'm particularly concerned about persons going from DoD to VA care -- that that be as seamless as possible and without a hiccup so that people receive services with nobody to fall between the cracks so thank you very much for your time.
Yesterday's snapshot covered the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing and Kat covered it at her hearing last night in "Senate Armed Services Committee," while Wally covered it in "Saxby Chambliss wants clarification" at Rebecca's site and Ava covered it in "Guantanamo, Bagram" at Trina's site.
Individuals, organizations and groups are gearing up for the demonstrations Saturday against the wars Barack Obama now owns. DC, Los Angeles and San Francisco have scheduled demonstrations. One organization participating is A.N.S.W.E.R. and they note:
In just days, we will be taking to the streets! We are hearing from people all over the country who are coming to bring their message to D.C., and we want to share with you some of the plans and ways that you can make an important contribution to the impact of the March 20 National March on Washington to demand "U.S. Out of Afghanistan and Iraq Now!"
Visual Impact
As always, there will be thousands of printed and handmade signs. We will also be making hundreds of coffins with flags representing the multinational victims of U.S. wars of aggression, and many people are bringing coffins that they are making themselves. You can help make and carry coffins in the march by arriving at Lafayette Park between 10 a.m. and 12 noon.
In just days, we will be taking to the streets! We are hearing from people all over the country who are coming to bring their message to D.C., and we want to share with you some of the plans and ways that you can make an important contribution to the impact of the March 20 National March on Washington to demand "U.S. Out of Afghanistan and Iraq Now!"
Visual Impact
As always, there will be thousands of printed and handmade signs. We will also be making hundreds of coffins with flags representing the multinational victims of U.S. wars of aggression, and many people are bringing coffins that they are making themselves. You can help make and carry coffins in the march by arriving at Lafayette Park between 10 a.m. and 12 noon.
You can also bring visuals that are specific to the stops on the march. We will be marching from the White House to the offices of Halliburton, Washington Post, Mortgage Bankers Association of America, National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
For example, Cheney puppets would be great to have when we go to Halliburton. You might want to bring a copy of the Washington Post to return to their doorstep since it's functioning as pro-war propaganda rather than real news. Think about each stop and be creative!
Be Seen AND Be Heard
We'll have speakers on the rally and march, and of course we'll be chanting. We also want to have as many drums as possible, so we are encouraging everyone who can to bring a drum (or a bucket or other implement on which you can drum). The drums should have straps so you can hold them while at the rally and on the march.
If you are not able to bring anything, don't worry. You can pick up a sign when you arrive.
The plan had been to note a hearing and to note a report released but those we'll wait (or maybe never appear here.) Reality: If women don't make a point to note things to do with women, usually no one else steps up to the plate. Hillary Clinton, for example, had an incredible proposal regarding funding for breast cancer research when she was running in the Democratic Party primaries and the press ignored it. One of the few to cover it was a woman at the Boston Globe. -- a tiny bit of coverage. That's only one example. [Click here for real time commentary on the way the press buried it.] Let's stay with the Globe. When you're talking about women in the service or female veterans who have been the victim of sexual assault, you don't go to a man who's never been sexually assaulted for your quotes. You go to a woman. It's basic but at the Globe no one thought before they wrote an article allegedly about sexual violence aimed at women in the military and spoke to men in the military but forgot to speak to women. Now we could go to any outlet and do that, note where a woman stepped up and where a man wrote women of the story (even when they were the story). We don't note everything of Women's Voices, Women's Vote. This community (including me) supports single-payer, universal health care and not Barack's BigBusinessGiveAway (see Betty last night for the most recent community commentary on that). So we don't break our necks to include that sort of thing. But they've released a new report and we'll will note their press release in full:
There's legislation now before the 111th Congress that would dramatically advance the economic security of unmarried women -- a fast-growing group that is not recognized or understood by the nation's lawmakers. That was the message today for the standing room-only crowd gathered for the release of a joint comprehensive report by Women's Voices. Women Vote (WVWV) and the Center for American Progress (CAP). The report , "Advancing the Economic Security of Unmarried Women," details the legislation before this session of Congress that, if enacted, would lift the lives of unmarried women. In addition, WVWV released a summary of a demographic report that details a seismic shift in America since 1960 -- the move from a nation of married couples to a nation of unmarried people. (To download copies of the legislative report and demographic report summary, click on the link below.) Advancing the Economic Security of Unmarried Women Unmarried America 2010: The Status and the Importance of Unmarried America "Today, more than 45 percent of all Americans are unmarried and almost half of all women are unmarried -- widowed, divorced, separated, or never married. But policymakers have failed to recognize this new definition of the American family or the economic disparity between married and unmarried women," explained WVWV founder and President Page Gardner. Unmarried women "are already half of all women, burdened and un-served by a set of policies designed for the America of 50 years ago. That's why WVWV and CAP have joined in this groundbreaking effort to help elected officials understand that our government's policies must meet the needs of all Americans, regardless of marital status."
(To download Page Gardner's presentation, click here.)
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), the author of the Paycheck Fairness Act, also participated in the event and called on Congress to enact legislation that will help unmarried women. The legislative report focuses on key areas that would benefit unmarried women economically, including bills that would increase the minimum wage, access to job training and higher paying jobs, expanding the definition of family and increasing funding for child care. The complete demographic report will be available on Thursday March 18, 2010 at 12:00pm.
The 57-page report -- I'm leaving off "about the authors" and pages that follow it in my count but counting the appendix -- ends with an easy to follow appendix entitled "Laws and legislation discussed in this report" offering break downs of bills (and who sponsored them) for categories such as "Equal pay, better pay," "Child care and early education," housing, and both paid and unpaid family leave bills. On health care, more work should have been done -- IS ANYONE GOING TO DO THIS WORK? -- explaining how the working poor and slightly higher will be effected under ObamaCare. The extreme poor and the poor are covered. The people -- especially single mothers -- who are just keeping their heads above water right now -- how would ObamaCare effect them? As Betty pointed out last night, a parent will postpone their own insurance to ensure that their child's needs are taken care of but, under ObamaCare, you're no longer able to make that choice. It's an in depth report and worthy of much praise but I want to be clear before someone e-mails we DO NOT support ObamaCare and we do not support the 'findings' in this study on it. Working women have been completely left out of this conversation and how working women will be hit if this passes isn't something that the press cares a great deal about. But, hey, remember, it was the New York Times that told us the way to judge ObamaCare was by how it provided for prostate cancer -- a disease no woman will ever get. But the paper thinks that's how you judge a health care plan or plan for reform of health care. By how it treats the men. [Click here for real time critique and scroll way down into the entry.]
While we're on the subject of Obama's BigBusinessGiveAway, if you're a community member and you wrote me about Dennis Kucinich, I either wrote you or had someone write you one line: Dennis does what's best for Dennis. If you're not a community member but are a regular reader who e-mails often, you may have gotten that reply as well. A number of people also wrote community sites and, when asked by anyone if they should include Dennis' 'brave' stand at their sites, I said, "Dennis does what's best for Dennis." Yes, Chris Floyd wrote a powerful piece. But what's the point? Dennis does what's best for Dennis. Today he held a press conference to announce his caving. He was going to stand tall, he was going to stand brave.
In 2004, as Rebecca loves to share, she and I were at the DNC convention in Boston and a young woman (college age) came up in tears because Dennis had sold out the peace movement. I told her he wasn't worth her tears, that he was a little s**t (and he is) and that "Dennis does what's best for Dennis." Dennis has no spine. It's a myth. If Nancy doesn't pull the chain around his neck, Dennis stands tall. But you better believe when Pelosi snaps her fingers, Dennis falls in line. I've seen it happen too many times. That is not why I didn't join others in 2007 (others in the community) in endorsing Dennis. I didn't think I should endorse any one candidate for president. (This community has Democrats, Greens, Socialist, Communists, independents, swing voters and never-going-to-vote-for-any-of-the-bums. It's not my place to offer an endorsement in that situation.) We treated Dennis like a real candidate until he demonstrated that "Dennis does what's best for Dennis." He did that by handing his delegates to Barack in Iowa, remember? Peace man Dennis. He did that. Dennis does what's best for Dennis. You should learn to take anything he says with a grain of salt and you should never, ever depend upon him keeping a promise no matter how many times he makes it publicly. Dennis, all together now, does what's best for Dennis. Should this cite not be dark when the next Democratic Party primaries take place and should Dennis run again, we won't play fair this time. He's demonstrated over and over again that he's not a real candidate and we won't bother to cover him. It was fine to do so in 2008 because so many members thought he did something, thought he stood for something. And he did what he always does which is prove you can't count on him for anything. Having wasted time covering him once in the site's existence, I have no desire to do so again. Bye-bye, Dennis.
Finally, TV note. NOW on PBS begins airing Friday on most PBS stations (check local listings):
There are places in the world where the success of a soap opera is measured not just in TV ratings, but in human lives. On March 19 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), NOW travels to Kenya, where ambitious producers and actors hope one such TV show, "The Team", can help foster peace amongst the country's 42 official tribes. During presidential elections two years ago, tribalism-influenced protests in Kenya left almost 1,500 dead and nearly 300,000 displaced. Tensions continue today over issues including extreme poverty and widespread corruption. In "The Team", soccer players from different tribes work together to overcome historic rivalries and form a common bond. The hope is that commonalities portrayed in fiction can inspire harmony in the real world. Early reaction to the show's inaugural season is promising. "I was very surprised to see how Kenyans want change, how they want to live in peace and the way the responded to us," Milly Mugadi, one of the show's stars, noted during a local screening. "There were people from different tribes talking about peace and how to reconcile with each other... they opened up their hearts." John Marks, whose organization Common Ground produces versions of "The Team" in 12 different countries, is cautiously hopeful. "You don't watch one of our television shows and drop your submachine gun," explains Marks, who says he was inspired by the influence of "All in the Family" on American culture. "But you can change the environment so it becomes more and more difficult to be in violent conflict." Can this soap opera for social change really make a difference in stopping violence? Next on NOW.
iraq
reutersjim loneyal jazeeracnnjomana karadshehmohammed tawfeeqthe new york timesanthony shadidxinhua
the telegraph of londonrichard spencer
caroline alexanderbloomberg news
the financial times of londonandrew england
bbc news
the washington postleila fadel
true/slantmichael hastings
marc lynch
sky newsmiranda richardson
ruth barnett
iraq inquiry digestchris ames
the guardian
richard norton-taylor
the telegraph of londonjames kirkup
channel four
the times of londonnico hines
philippe naughton
pbsnow on pbs
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Senate Armed Services Committee
Today we were at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing where they heard from Gen. David Petraeus. There was another witness but he was pretty much ignored throughout the hearing.
I'll grab the lighter aspects of the hearing.
Carl Levin's the Chair. He welcomed three new members to the Committee: Edward Kaufman (who was present at the start of the meeting), Jeff Bingham (whom I never saw come in, did I miss him?) and Scott Brown. Brown joined the hearing in progress and Levin welcomed him to the committee and spoke of the bipartisanship the committee strives for. Levin noted Scott Brown's lengthy service in the Massachusetts Army National Guard (approximately 30 years) and felt Brown would be able to provide a unique perspective as a result. John McCain is the Ranking Member and he echoed Levin's welcome but noted of Brown that "unfortunately, he joins Senator Graham as a lawyer." Which got a few chuckles.
Senator Lindsey Graham may be leaving the Senate and joining the administration. I make that statement because it was as if it was everyone-get-your-jokes-in-now with Graham today. For example, Petraeus noted that Graham had helped with some judicial elements in Iraq and Senator Saxby Chambliss replied, "I'm always concerned about the security of our country when Senator Graham is in theater."
That got a bigger laugh and may have been the biggest laugh in the hearing. (Chambliss was joking.) Carl Levin shot back, "We're going to give Senator Graham an additional minute to defend himself." And Chambliss countered, "He needs more than that."
And no one laughed harder that Graham at that last one.
So there were jokes (not too many -- this was a serious hearing but the jokes did relieve the tedium). There was also someone shouting. I couldn't see who it was. John McCain was asking Petraeus about Afghanistan and a protester briefly hollered two statements, the last had something like "out now" in it. Whoever it was, the Congressional police were already around them when I figured out what direction it was coming from.
I don't know on the yelling. I think it can be effective. A chant would probably be better. But if you yell, you are going to be removed. I don't now what the point is in all cases. In some, you're angry, I get it. And I support your right to yell.
But one of the most effective objections was lodged by supporters of the residents of Camp Ashraf. That was months ago but they all wore white and they sat near the front and drew attention through their silence. (And matching outfits.)
I'm not opposed but the man or woman who yelled today? I couldn't even hear what was yelled. Others probably could. But probably half the people present couldn't hear.
Just tossing that out there. (And repeating, I support anyone's right to yell. I'm not making this a 'manners' issue. Yell. Congress works for us and sometimes their behavior is so outrageous that yelling may be your only option.)
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, March 16, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the counting of ballots continues, the US military announces another death, Gen David Petraeus is not in favor of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (despite what some outlets are 'reporting'), he did offer curious remarks re: the draw-down, in DC peace activists are gathering, and more.
Today the US military announced: "CONTINGENCY OPERATING BASE SPEICHER, Iraq -- A United States Division - North Soldier died of injuries sustained in a vehicle roll-over while conducting a patrol in northern Iraq, March 15. Three other Soldiers were injured and evacuated to a military medical facility where they are currently being treated. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/, The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is under investigation." Two service members were announced dead over the weekend (see yesterday's snapshot) and with today's announcement, the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War should be at 4385. ICCC has only 'discovered' one of the weekend deaths and not yet discovered today's so their count is currently 4383. Should this continue for long, we may switch to either AP or DoD's count.
Staying with today's violence . . .
Bombings?
Jim Loney and Robin Pomeroy (Reuters) report that twin Mussayab bombings have resulted in at least 8 deaths. BBC News adds, "Police told the BBC the devices - a type known as "sticky bombs" - had been magnetically attached to the underside of two minibuses carrying passengers." Reuters notes a Baghdad sticky bombing left three people injured and 2 Baghdad roadside bombings left five people wounded. Lin Zhi (Xinhua) notes that the death toll for yesterday's Falluja bombing increased by 1 (to eight, twenty-five is the number wounded). Alsumaria TV also notes the death toll is eight from the Falluja bombing.
Shootings?
Reuters notes 1 Iraqi soldier shot dead in Mosul and, dropping back to Monday, 1 Mosul store owner shot dead in his store.
Iraq wrapped up Parliamentary elections Sunday March 7th. The counting of ballots continues. Alsumaria TV reports, "Iraqi Parliament constitutional term ends today." At Inside Iraq, an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy observes, "It looks that our politicians want to design a kind of democracy that fits their demands and wishes regardless the wish of millions of people who voted only to have a real national government that can provides their basic needs which they have been waiting to gain for decades." On today's Morning Edition (NPR), Quil Lawrence spoke to a dairy farmer in Falluja, Suhaib Munaim, who "believes that the Americans are trying to impose sitting Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and the votes won't make any difference." Quil notes that belief. With no sense of irony and with no sense of responsibility. Quil has repeatedly hailed Nouri as the winner for over eight days. If people in Iraq see Nouri as the US choice, maybe US reporters in Iraq need to take some accountability? Monday March eighth -- the day after voting concluded -- Quil Lawrence took to Morning Edition.
Steve Inskeep: Well let's remember here, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's party was trying to maintain control of the government. That was one key question here. Do you have a sense about whether he succeeded?
Quil Lawrence: He seems to have done very well. I'm talking to people all over Baghdad as well as hearing reports from friends in the south -- but it's probably not possible for him to form a government without a couple of allies. [. . .]
The elections were for the Parliament. That's what the people voted for. The Parliament then decides who is Prime Minister. The votes had not been counted -- not even a partial return from even one province but there Quil and Steve were gas bagging on how Nouri would maintain control. Golly, Quil, why might Iraqis think the US wanted Nouri?
Thursday on All Things Considered (NPR) -- or maybe All Things Except The Facts Considered -- Michele Norris and Quil spoke.
Michele Norris: Fivce days after the polls closed in Iraq's general elections, the first preliminary results were released today and they confirmed what many had predicted. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appears to have done well, but not well enough to form a government without convincing a few of his opponents to join with him. And, as NPR's Baghdad correspondent Quil Lawrence reports, that won't be easy. Maliki's closest opponents from the secular bloc of former Prime Minister Ayad Alawi have already started claiming fraud.
Quil Lawrence: About 12 million ballots are being counted and then entered into two separate computer systems in a building deep inside Baghdad's Green Zone. Almost two days later than expected, Iraq's electoral commission announced results in only five of the eighteen provinces based on less than 30 percent of the votes from those provinces.
Grasp that. With less than 30% of the vote in 5 provinces -- not even half the vote in half the provinces -- it was time for more gas baggery about how Nouri was a winner! It never ended. It never stopped. Live by the gas baggery and you can die by the gas baggery. We didn't engage in it, we're not going to now. The ballot counting at present -- about 80% of the votes counted according to Reuters and McClatchy's Hannah Allam and Laith Hammoudi via Christian Science Monitor note that the votes counted make up 79% -- has the race much tighter than anything NPR informed of you. Gas bagging served no one. It was a waste of time. It will be a waste of time regardless of the outcome of the vote. Reporting isn't let's all make like we're on MSNBC talking to/shouting at Chris Matthews. In engaging in the gas baggery -- NPR was only one outlet to do so -- many messages were sent to Iraqis. The first was that the US wanted Nouri as prime minister. On this week's Listening Post (Al Jazeera), Richard Gizbert observed, "As they scan their new media landscape, Iraqis are under no illusions about what they see. They know the channels covering the elections had their favorite candidates as did the newspapers." He was speaking of Iraqi media. But Iraqis have every reason to think what they see in their media is similar to what goes on elsewhere. Please note, now forgotten, the HUGE number of young, first-time voters in this election. This was their moment and the Western press failed them. If the US press wanted to set an example of how to report on an election -- which includes facts and objectivity and distance -- they failed. Iraqis paying attention to the Western coverage learned that you don't need results before calling an election and that you could run with anything -- facts be damned. I have no personal preference on who is prime minister. I'm not Iraqi. But I know it does matter to them -- as it should -- and I know they got cheated by the Western press. Vote counting continues, that is known.
Also know is that Iraq's minority populations are targeted non-stop. This includes Iraq's LGBT community. At the end of last month, David Taffet (Dallas Voice) reported on Iraqi refugees Yousif Ali and Nawfal Muhamed who were in Dallas speaking about what they'd experienced in Iraq ("being kidnapped, raped, robbed and stabbed in Baghdad") for the 'crime' of being gay. After being designated refugees by the United Nations, the US granted asylum to the two men. Last Thursday, the US State Dept issued "2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices" which noted the persecution of the LGBT community in Iraq:
During the year there were reports of discrimination and violence against gay men and lesbians, mostly by nongovernmental actors. Press reports in April indicated that approximately 60 gay men had been murdered during the first four months of the year, most of them in Baghdad. According to UNHCR, during the year approximately 30 boys and men from Baghdad were murdered because they were gay or perceived to be gay. On April 4, local and international media reported the discovery of the bodies of nine gay men in Sadr City. Three other men were found tortured but alive. Numerous press reports indicate that some victims were assaulted and murdered by having their anuses glued shut or their genitals cut off and stuffed down their throats until they suffocated. The government did not endorse or condone these extra-judicial killings, and the MOI publicly stated that killing men or lesbians was murder. On May 29, Muqtader al-Sadr, leader of the JAM militia, ordered that the "depravity" of homosexuality be eradicated. Although he publicly rejected outright violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) individuals, reports attributed the killings of gay men to radical Shia militias, as well as to tribal and family members shamed by the actions of their LGBT relatives. Authorities had not announced any arrests or prosecutions of any persons for killing, torturing, or detaining any LGBT individuals by year's end.
Last May, Paul Canning explained , "The campaign started in 2004, following the religious decree of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani that said gay mena nd lesbians should be 'punished, in fact, killed . . . The people should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing'. Since then Iraqi LGBT has received reports and information of over 600 LGBT people killed. But Iraqi gays and media reports say that the killings have massively escalated since the end of 2008."
We'll stay with LGBT issues but move over to the US for a moment. Gen David Petreaus appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee (as did Adm Eric T. Olson). The general was asked about Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- the current policy in the military which is supposed to translate as 'If you are gay, you can serve but you cannot discuss your sexuality or personal life or loved one or much of anything. If you do, you're kicked out of the miltiary. Oh, but your surperiors can't ask you if you're gay.' Allegedly, President Barack Obama is going to keep a campaign promise and end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Not anytime soon. Maybe at the end of the year
Ranking Member John McCain: Finally General Petraeus and Adm Olson do you believe that Don't Ask, Don't Tell needs a thorough review before action is taken?
Gen David Petraeus: Uh, Senator, my position is . . . Can I -- can I give my statement on that?
Ranking Member John McCain: Yeah. We're short of time. But please go ahead.
Chair Carl Levin: Well how long is this statement?
Gen David Petraeus: About eight minutes sir.
Ranking Member John McCain: No. No.
Gen David Petraeus: Well look sir this is not -- this is not a soundbyte issue.
Chair Carl Levin: I understand.
Ranking Member John McCain: It's a pretty straight forward question, though.
Chair Carl Levin: We respect -- we respect -- believe me the thoughtfulness that you are applying to it, we've read your public statement but an eight minute answer unless someone else wants to use all their time for it, I'm afraid would violate the spirit of our rules. I would suggest however that if nobody asks you that question and their time is used for that purpose that you make that part of the record. But someone may well ask you. I just don't -- because of our time limit -- to take eight minutes.
With that settled -- or seemingly settled -- Adm Olson was asked (by McCain) and he spoke a few words (but didn't press the button on his microphone) while nodding his head indicating "yes." Which, based on McCain's question, means he does believe a review is needed. After that, Petraeus jumped in.
Gen David Petraeus: I believe the time has come to consider a change to Don't Ask, Don't Tell but I think it should be done in a thoughtful and deliberative manner -- that should include the conduct of the review that Secretary [of Defense Robert] Gates has directed that would consider the views in the force on a change in the policy and it would include an assessment on the likely effects on recruiting retention morale and cohesion and would include an identification of what policies might be needed in the place of a change and recommend those policies as well.
Chair Carl Levin: And as I believe you said in my office the likely effects could go in either direction. The likely effects could go in either direction, I believe you told me, either negative or positive
Gen David Petraeus: It could. It could.
That is what was said. Some outlets are declaring Petraeus supports the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That is not what he stated. He stated he supports a thorough review before anything is done. And Levin's remarks at the end really nail that down -- which may be why they're not reported. Petraeus has only endorsed the study. We'll return to the hearing later in the snapshot. Yesterday Marcia wrote about Jene Newsome who was dischared from the Air Force for the 'crime' of being in a loving relationship with another woman. Robert Doody (ACLU's Blog Of Rights) provides background on how the police, while in Jene and Cheryl's home, saw their marriage certificate and dropped a dime on them with the Air Force. As Marcia rightly points out, this is NOT the compromise that was agree to in the early nineties. Don't Ask, Don't Tell needs to be tossed out (and all who want to serve should be able to). But it is the law now and it's not Don't Ask, Don't Tell, But Snitch. Jene's rights were violated under the policy. She did not go public with those she served with. She followed the policy and she's been punished for following the policy. Marcia notes this:
Congress.org has a page where you can contact your members of Congress to let them know where you stand on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Congress.org's Ryan Teague Beckwith provides an update, "After a week, more than 2,500 letters were sent, with 64 percent opposed to changing the policy and 36 percent in favor of ending it."
Between those numbers and the obvious reluctance on the part of many (put Petraeus on that list), the repeal is not a "done deal." And while it's in effect, it's not fair to expect Jene or anyone else to follow it but not demand that the superiors follow it. A snitch calls? So what. It's really not your business and, in order for you to make it your business, you have to be in violation of the policy because a 'tip' that leads to questioning means you violated the Don't Ask aspect of the policy.
Meanwhile 2011 looms around the corner. The Iraqi air force is not ready (as has been noted since 2007). The Congress continues to complain about the administration not sharing a withdrawal plan with them. (Michele Flournoy always offers such lovely excuses.) And people are beginning to grasp that if the US government wanted troops out of Iraq, they'd be out by now. Just last week, the Afghanistan War was debated on the House floor and the bill being voted on would have pulled all US troops out of Afghanistan by . . . the end of this year. And yet our 'antiwar' (or at least 'antidumbwar') Barry O's done damn little. Well that's not fair. He's done an amazing job of embracing and continuing the policies of George W. Bush. Michael Schwartz asks "Will the U.S. Military Leave Iraq in 2011?" (Huffington Post): Like so many others who have been following the recent developments in Iraq, I do not have a settled opinion on what will happen to the US military presence there between now and the end of 2011, when the Status of Forces Agreement calls for the withdrawal of all troops (not just "combat" troops). For me, the (so far) definitive statement on this question by Obama was his 2006 election campaign statement at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, where he firmly asserted the need to maintain a (approximately 50,000 strong) US "strike force" in or near Iraq to guarantee US interests in the Middle East, to allow Washington to move quickly against jihadists in the region, and to make clear to "our enemies" that the US will not be "driven from the region." (I am attaching that document, which I still think is the most explicit expression of his thinking on this issue.) In that statement he said that this force could be stationed in Iraq, perhaps in Kurdistan, or in a nearby country (despite the absence of nearby candidates). Since taking office he has neither reiterated nor repudiated this policy, but his actions have made it very clear that he is unwilling to sacrifice the 50k strike force, even while he has also said he would abide by the SOFA and remove all troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. In the meantime, Gates and various generals have released hedging statements or trial balloons (see the recent Tom Dispatch article by Engelhardt) saying that the 2011 deadline might be impractical and that various types of forces might stay longer, either to provide air power, to continue training the Iraq military, or to protect Iraq from invasion. Any or all of these could translate into the maintenance of the 50k strike force as well as the five (previously labeled as) "enduring bases."
Back to Congress on Iraq. The 'deadlines' for draw-downs and withdrawals were addressed in the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning in testimony from Gen David Petraeus. Also offering testimony was Adm Eric T. Olson. "By September 1st the US combat mission will end" in Iraq declared Committee Chair Carl Levin speaking of the planned draw-down. That something more might be coming was probably most noticeable with Petraeus' prepared remarks which, typed, ran 56 pages. Wait, he didn't read the whole thing outloud, did he? Olson noted that he'd submit his prepared remarks for the record and just make a few brief statements to which the Chair replied, "That'll be fine." Did Petraeus read his entire prepared remarks? No. He declared, "I too have submitted a written statement for the record and will summarize it here." He declared that. As opposed to everything else which he read word-for-word from a prepared statement. That is correct. Petraeus showed up with a 56 page statement and also with a written statement that was supposed to be more 'off the cuff' and 'brief.'
Brief? Eighteen minutes and thirty-four seconds after he began his opening remarks he used the phrase "In conclusion." A minute and sixteen seconds later, after referring to "our troopers" when he meant "troops" and "unvavering" when he meant "unwavering," he was finally done. Finally. Nearly 20 minutes for an opening statement?
In his written remarks and read-aloud-but-written (opening statement) remarks, he gave what he always gives. For example, does he ever speak of Iraq without offering "but the gains there remain fragile and reversible"? Senator Joe Lieberman noted that phrase as well. And during his exchange with Lieberman the issue of the draw-down was raised. "[. . .]" indicates I'm not interested in Joe Lieberman's Happy Talk of the illegal war and have edited him out.
Senator Joe Lieberman: [. . .] whether it is still going to be possible or we should desire to draw down to 50,000 American troops in Iraq by September 1st of this year? It's obviously not a goal, a draw down required by the Status Of Forces Agreement with Iraq. It's a good goal but I'm sure -- you'd say -- you'd be the first to say, we don't want to arbitrarily go to it if we think there's risk of a reversal as a result. So give me your sense at this moment of whether we'll be able to get down to the 50,000 by September 1st?
Gen David Petraeus: I think we will be able to do that, Senator. I think that in fact we may reconfigure the force a bit over what we were originally were thinking it would look like say four months or so ago. We're constantly tinkering with it There's a possibility we may want to keep an additional brigade headquarters, as an example, but then slim out some of its organic forces and some of the other organic forces elsewhere. Headquarters really matter in these kinds because they're the the element of engagement. And if indeed we think there's a particularly fragile situation say in a certain area in the north, we might do that. And that's something we are looking at. But we still believe we will be able to stay on track to get down to that 50,000 figure.
Lieberman stated that would mean there would be a 7th Brigade headquarters and Petraeus agreed and that it would be somewhere around Kirkuk. Kat 's going to cover some of the hearing at her site and Wally will cover another exchange on the numbers in Iraq at Rebecca's site tonight.
Switching to Suzy Sority, the New York Times' Matthew Longo. A pampered child who, like all the brown nosers who came before him, goes for the easy applause from the adults by attacking other students. (Let's hope those undergraduates caught what the prissy grad student had to say about them.) Apathy, Matthew Longo has discovered it and it's here, in River City, right here in River City, with the young! They're apathetic and so disconnected from the war, unlike him, Longo wants you to know. It's the apathy of the young, he insists. So much easier to blame the people than to offer a media critique, right? Iraq disappeared from the media radar some time ago and only resurfaced in the last two weeks as a means for gas bagging over the (unknown) election outcome. But blame the people and not the media. What the brown noser can't find, Cindy Sheehan (Cindy's Soapbox) sees in DC:
Well, I have good news for all these people who have been lamenting over the lack of young people in our Peace Movement: they are out here at Camp OUT NOW on the lawn of the Washington Monument.
We set up our Peace Camp today (Obama flew over us in his helicopter twice) with very little glitches, except a few involving our permit and the Park Police. For the very first, very cold day, we had a solid 50 people, and the best news is, 25 of them are college students, and one of my organizers is a senior at Catholic University.
Today as I observed the young people interacting with each other and the other activists, I felt such energy and a renewed sense of real hope. For some people, the struggle for peace has lasted decades, even for me. I have been working so hard for almost six years now.
Students for a Democratic Society aren't apathetic. They released the following last week:
Funk the War 9: Bad Romance Student power against Obama's recession empire
Funk the War, light the bed on fire, and break free from this bad romance! Washington, DC. March 19, the 7th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. Student mutiny against the War on Terror: Fund Education, Not War & Occupation.
Obama's got us singing like Lady Gaga, "I want your love and all your lover's revenge." Thousands of anti-war youth fell in love with Obama and dropped everything to build his campaign. He seduced us with promises of hope and change from Bush's abuses, all the while refusing to give up his lust for the War on Terror.
We've been together a while now and Obama keeps expanding the War on Terror in the Middle East and Central Asia. He's taking advantage of record youth unemployment and skyrocketing college costs to drag young people into a war we've got nothing to gain from. More soldiers trapped in the War on Terror are committing suicide than ever before. Obama, "Baby, you're sick."
March 19th is the 7th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq and the occupation's going strong. It's time to Funk the War, light the bed on fire, and break free from this bad romance.
"Walk, walk, fashion baby, work it!" DC SDS is calling for a massive student power dance party against empire to disrupt the corporate-political war machine in streets of the capital city. We refuse to let another year of war in Iraq and war on our youth pass by without resistance. Join us in the streets and help build an unstoppable student & youth anti-war movement in 2010.
Assemble your crew, practice your moves, and throw on them dancing shoes. We'll be hosting anti-imperialist education events, direct action trainings, dance floor mayhem, and smaller actions in the lead up to March 19th. Get in touch if you'd like to attend or host an event or if we can help support your resistance efforts: strategic planning, action trainings, logistical support, we'd love to help. We'll see you in the streets.
Upcoming events in Washington, DC:
[. . .]
* March 19: Funk the War: Bad Romance * March 20: Mass march against the war; Funk the War post-action meet-up
More information: visit us on the interwebs at dc-sds.org email: funkthewar9@gmail.com phone: Sam 202-436-2075; Rachel 609-529-6415
Most likely, the problem isn't the students Matthew Longo encounters; the problem's Longo himself. March 20th, in DC, San Francisco and Los Angeles, marches against Obama's continued wars will take place. The wars continue. In an essay entitled "Changing the Dynamic" (World Can't Wait), Debra Sweet nails it. By refusing to force Bush out of office in disgrace -- he didn't even have the threat of impeachment hanging over his head (thanks, Nancy Pelosi) -- we're now stuck with this cloud of 'normalcy' lingering over his policies which Barack Obama has embraced and continued. Read the essay. We'll note this from it on what you can do:
You can join in and support this resistance now.
Sustain World Can't Wait's work! Help spread this national movement.
Join in protest Saturday March 20, marking the 7th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. Washington DC, noon, The White House, or other cities nationwide.
Become a War Crimes Watcher; help bring the Bush era war criminals to justice by protesting wherever they appear publicly.
Get involved with the We Are Not Your Soldiers Tour, bringing Iraq & Afghanistan war veterans into high schools to help students resist recruiters.
Finally, TV note. NOW on PBS begins airing Friday on most PBS stations (check local listings):
There are places in the world where the success of a soap opera is measured not just in TV ratings, but in human lives. On March 19 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), NOW travels to Kenya, where ambitious producers and actors hope one such TV show, "The Team", can help foster peace amongst the country's 42 official tribes. During presidential elections two years ago, tribalism-influenced protests in Kenya left almost 1,500 dead and nearly 300,000 displaced. Tensions continue today over issues including extreme poverty and widespread corruption.In "The Team", soccer players from different tribes work together to overcome historic rivalries and form a common bond. The hope is that commonalities portrayed in fiction can inspire harmony in the real world. Early reaction to the show's inaugural season is promising. "I was very surprised to see how Kenyans want change, how they want to live in peace and the way the responded to us," Milly Mugadi, one of the show's stars, noted during a local screening. "There were people from different tribes talking about peace and how to reconcile with each other... they opened up their hearts."John Marks, whose organization Common Ground produces versions of "The Team" in 12 different countries, is cautiously hopeful. "You don't watch one of our television shows and drop your submachine gun," explains Marks, who says he was inspired by the influence of "All in the Family" on American culture. "But you can change the environment so it becomes more and more difficult to be in violent conflict."Can this soap opera for social change really make a difference in stopping violence? Next on NOW.
iraq
nprmorning editionquil lawrence
the huffington post michael schwartz
cindy sheehan
the new york times
alsumaria tv
richard gizbertlistening post
mcclatchy newspapers
hannah allam
the christian science monitor
the world cant waitdebra sweet
pbsnow on pbs
I'll grab the lighter aspects of the hearing.
Carl Levin's the Chair. He welcomed three new members to the Committee: Edward Kaufman (who was present at the start of the meeting), Jeff Bingham (whom I never saw come in, did I miss him?) and Scott Brown. Brown joined the hearing in progress and Levin welcomed him to the committee and spoke of the bipartisanship the committee strives for. Levin noted Scott Brown's lengthy service in the Massachusetts Army National Guard (approximately 30 years) and felt Brown would be able to provide a unique perspective as a result. John McCain is the Ranking Member and he echoed Levin's welcome but noted of Brown that "unfortunately, he joins Senator Graham as a lawyer." Which got a few chuckles.
Senator Lindsey Graham may be leaving the Senate and joining the administration. I make that statement because it was as if it was everyone-get-your-jokes-in-now with Graham today. For example, Petraeus noted that Graham had helped with some judicial elements in Iraq and Senator Saxby Chambliss replied, "I'm always concerned about the security of our country when Senator Graham is in theater."
That got a bigger laugh and may have been the biggest laugh in the hearing. (Chambliss was joking.) Carl Levin shot back, "We're going to give Senator Graham an additional minute to defend himself." And Chambliss countered, "He needs more than that."
And no one laughed harder that Graham at that last one.
So there were jokes (not too many -- this was a serious hearing but the jokes did relieve the tedium). There was also someone shouting. I couldn't see who it was. John McCain was asking Petraeus about Afghanistan and a protester briefly hollered two statements, the last had something like "out now" in it. Whoever it was, the Congressional police were already around them when I figured out what direction it was coming from.
I don't know on the yelling. I think it can be effective. A chant would probably be better. But if you yell, you are going to be removed. I don't now what the point is in all cases. In some, you're angry, I get it. And I support your right to yell.
But one of the most effective objections was lodged by supporters of the residents of Camp Ashraf. That was months ago but they all wore white and they sat near the front and drew attention through their silence. (And matching outfits.)
I'm not opposed but the man or woman who yelled today? I couldn't even hear what was yelled. Others probably could. But probably half the people present couldn't hear.
Just tossing that out there. (And repeating, I support anyone's right to yell. I'm not making this a 'manners' issue. Yell. Congress works for us and sometimes their behavior is so outrageous that yelling may be your only option.)
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, March 16, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the counting of ballots continues, the US military announces another death, Gen David Petraeus is not in favor of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (despite what some outlets are 'reporting'), he did offer curious remarks re: the draw-down, in DC peace activists are gathering, and more.
Today the US military announced: "CONTINGENCY OPERATING BASE SPEICHER, Iraq -- A United States Division - North Soldier died of injuries sustained in a vehicle roll-over while conducting a patrol in northern Iraq, March 15. Three other Soldiers were injured and evacuated to a military medical facility where they are currently being treated. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/, The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is under investigation." Two service members were announced dead over the weekend (see yesterday's snapshot) and with today's announcement, the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War should be at 4385. ICCC has only 'discovered' one of the weekend deaths and not yet discovered today's so their count is currently 4383. Should this continue for long, we may switch to either AP or DoD's count.
Staying with today's violence . . .
Bombings?
Jim Loney and Robin Pomeroy (Reuters) report that twin Mussayab bombings have resulted in at least 8 deaths. BBC News adds, "Police told the BBC the devices - a type known as "sticky bombs" - had been magnetically attached to the underside of two minibuses carrying passengers." Reuters notes a Baghdad sticky bombing left three people injured and 2 Baghdad roadside bombings left five people wounded. Lin Zhi (Xinhua) notes that the death toll for yesterday's Falluja bombing increased by 1 (to eight, twenty-five is the number wounded). Alsumaria TV also notes the death toll is eight from the Falluja bombing.
Shootings?
Reuters notes 1 Iraqi soldier shot dead in Mosul and, dropping back to Monday, 1 Mosul store owner shot dead in his store.
Iraq wrapped up Parliamentary elections Sunday March 7th. The counting of ballots continues. Alsumaria TV reports, "Iraqi Parliament constitutional term ends today." At Inside Iraq, an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy observes, "It looks that our politicians want to design a kind of democracy that fits their demands and wishes regardless the wish of millions of people who voted only to have a real national government that can provides their basic needs which they have been waiting to gain for decades." On today's Morning Edition (NPR), Quil Lawrence spoke to a dairy farmer in Falluja, Suhaib Munaim, who "believes that the Americans are trying to impose sitting Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and the votes won't make any difference." Quil notes that belief. With no sense of irony and with no sense of responsibility. Quil has repeatedly hailed Nouri as the winner for over eight days. If people in Iraq see Nouri as the US choice, maybe US reporters in Iraq need to take some accountability? Monday March eighth -- the day after voting concluded -- Quil Lawrence took to Morning Edition.
Steve Inskeep: Well let's remember here, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's party was trying to maintain control of the government. That was one key question here. Do you have a sense about whether he succeeded?
Quil Lawrence: He seems to have done very well. I'm talking to people all over Baghdad as well as hearing reports from friends in the south -- but it's probably not possible for him to form a government without a couple of allies. [. . .]
The elections were for the Parliament. That's what the people voted for. The Parliament then decides who is Prime Minister. The votes had not been counted -- not even a partial return from even one province but there Quil and Steve were gas bagging on how Nouri would maintain control. Golly, Quil, why might Iraqis think the US wanted Nouri?
Thursday on All Things Considered (NPR) -- or maybe All Things Except The Facts Considered -- Michele Norris and Quil spoke.
Michele Norris: Fivce days after the polls closed in Iraq's general elections, the first preliminary results were released today and they confirmed what many had predicted. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appears to have done well, but not well enough to form a government without convincing a few of his opponents to join with him. And, as NPR's Baghdad correspondent Quil Lawrence reports, that won't be easy. Maliki's closest opponents from the secular bloc of former Prime Minister Ayad Alawi have already started claiming fraud.
Quil Lawrence: About 12 million ballots are being counted and then entered into two separate computer systems in a building deep inside Baghdad's Green Zone. Almost two days later than expected, Iraq's electoral commission announced results in only five of the eighteen provinces based on less than 30 percent of the votes from those provinces.
Grasp that. With less than 30% of the vote in 5 provinces -- not even half the vote in half the provinces -- it was time for more gas baggery about how Nouri was a winner! It never ended. It never stopped. Live by the gas baggery and you can die by the gas baggery. We didn't engage in it, we're not going to now. The ballot counting at present -- about 80% of the votes counted according to Reuters and McClatchy's Hannah Allam and Laith Hammoudi via Christian Science Monitor note that the votes counted make up 79% -- has the race much tighter than anything NPR informed of you. Gas bagging served no one. It was a waste of time. It will be a waste of time regardless of the outcome of the vote. Reporting isn't let's all make like we're on MSNBC talking to/shouting at Chris Matthews. In engaging in the gas baggery -- NPR was only one outlet to do so -- many messages were sent to Iraqis. The first was that the US wanted Nouri as prime minister. On this week's Listening Post (Al Jazeera), Richard Gizbert observed, "As they scan their new media landscape, Iraqis are under no illusions about what they see. They know the channels covering the elections had their favorite candidates as did the newspapers." He was speaking of Iraqi media. But Iraqis have every reason to think what they see in their media is similar to what goes on elsewhere. Please note, now forgotten, the HUGE number of young, first-time voters in this election. This was their moment and the Western press failed them. If the US press wanted to set an example of how to report on an election -- which includes facts and objectivity and distance -- they failed. Iraqis paying attention to the Western coverage learned that you don't need results before calling an election and that you could run with anything -- facts be damned. I have no personal preference on who is prime minister. I'm not Iraqi. But I know it does matter to them -- as it should -- and I know they got cheated by the Western press. Vote counting continues, that is known.
Also know is that Iraq's minority populations are targeted non-stop. This includes Iraq's LGBT community. At the end of last month, David Taffet (Dallas Voice) reported on Iraqi refugees Yousif Ali and Nawfal Muhamed who were in Dallas speaking about what they'd experienced in Iraq ("being kidnapped, raped, robbed and stabbed in Baghdad") for the 'crime' of being gay. After being designated refugees by the United Nations, the US granted asylum to the two men. Last Thursday, the US State Dept issued "2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices" which noted the persecution of the LGBT community in Iraq:
During the year there were reports of discrimination and violence against gay men and lesbians, mostly by nongovernmental actors. Press reports in April indicated that approximately 60 gay men had been murdered during the first four months of the year, most of them in Baghdad. According to UNHCR, during the year approximately 30 boys and men from Baghdad were murdered because they were gay or perceived to be gay. On April 4, local and international media reported the discovery of the bodies of nine gay men in Sadr City. Three other men were found tortured but alive. Numerous press reports indicate that some victims were assaulted and murdered by having their anuses glued shut or their genitals cut off and stuffed down their throats until they suffocated. The government did not endorse or condone these extra-judicial killings, and the MOI publicly stated that killing men or lesbians was murder. On May 29, Muqtader al-Sadr, leader of the JAM militia, ordered that the "depravity" of homosexuality be eradicated. Although he publicly rejected outright violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) individuals, reports attributed the killings of gay men to radical Shia militias, as well as to tribal and family members shamed by the actions of their LGBT relatives. Authorities had not announced any arrests or prosecutions of any persons for killing, torturing, or detaining any LGBT individuals by year's end.
Last May, Paul Canning explained , "The campaign started in 2004, following the religious decree of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani that said gay mena nd lesbians should be 'punished, in fact, killed . . . The people should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing'. Since then Iraqi LGBT has received reports and information of over 600 LGBT people killed. But Iraqi gays and media reports say that the killings have massively escalated since the end of 2008."
We'll stay with LGBT issues but move over to the US for a moment. Gen David Petreaus appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee (as did Adm Eric T. Olson). The general was asked about Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- the current policy in the military which is supposed to translate as 'If you are gay, you can serve but you cannot discuss your sexuality or personal life or loved one or much of anything. If you do, you're kicked out of the miltiary. Oh, but your surperiors can't ask you if you're gay.' Allegedly, President Barack Obama is going to keep a campaign promise and end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Not anytime soon. Maybe at the end of the year
Ranking Member John McCain: Finally General Petraeus and Adm Olson do you believe that Don't Ask, Don't Tell needs a thorough review before action is taken?
Gen David Petraeus: Uh, Senator, my position is . . . Can I -- can I give my statement on that?
Ranking Member John McCain: Yeah. We're short of time. But please go ahead.
Chair Carl Levin: Well how long is this statement?
Gen David Petraeus: About eight minutes sir.
Ranking Member John McCain: No. No.
Gen David Petraeus: Well look sir this is not -- this is not a soundbyte issue.
Chair Carl Levin: I understand.
Ranking Member John McCain: It's a pretty straight forward question, though.
Chair Carl Levin: We respect -- we respect -- believe me the thoughtfulness that you are applying to it, we've read your public statement but an eight minute answer unless someone else wants to use all their time for it, I'm afraid would violate the spirit of our rules. I would suggest however that if nobody asks you that question and their time is used for that purpose that you make that part of the record. But someone may well ask you. I just don't -- because of our time limit -- to take eight minutes.
With that settled -- or seemingly settled -- Adm Olson was asked (by McCain) and he spoke a few words (but didn't press the button on his microphone) while nodding his head indicating "yes." Which, based on McCain's question, means he does believe a review is needed. After that, Petraeus jumped in.
Gen David Petraeus: I believe the time has come to consider a change to Don't Ask, Don't Tell but I think it should be done in a thoughtful and deliberative manner -- that should include the conduct of the review that Secretary [of Defense Robert] Gates has directed that would consider the views in the force on a change in the policy and it would include an assessment on the likely effects on recruiting retention morale and cohesion and would include an identification of what policies might be needed in the place of a change and recommend those policies as well.
Chair Carl Levin: And as I believe you said in my office the likely effects could go in either direction. The likely effects could go in either direction, I believe you told me, either negative or positive
Gen David Petraeus: It could. It could.
That is what was said. Some outlets are declaring Petraeus supports the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That is not what he stated. He stated he supports a thorough review before anything is done. And Levin's remarks at the end really nail that down -- which may be why they're not reported. Petraeus has only endorsed the study. We'll return to the hearing later in the snapshot. Yesterday Marcia wrote about Jene Newsome who was dischared from the Air Force for the 'crime' of being in a loving relationship with another woman. Robert Doody (ACLU's Blog Of Rights) provides background on how the police, while in Jene and Cheryl's home, saw their marriage certificate and dropped a dime on them with the Air Force. As Marcia rightly points out, this is NOT the compromise that was agree to in the early nineties. Don't Ask, Don't Tell needs to be tossed out (and all who want to serve should be able to). But it is the law now and it's not Don't Ask, Don't Tell, But Snitch. Jene's rights were violated under the policy. She did not go public with those she served with. She followed the policy and she's been punished for following the policy. Marcia notes this:
Congress.org has a page where you can contact your members of Congress to let them know where you stand on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Congress.org's Ryan Teague Beckwith provides an update, "After a week, more than 2,500 letters were sent, with 64 percent opposed to changing the policy and 36 percent in favor of ending it."
Between those numbers and the obvious reluctance on the part of many (put Petraeus on that list), the repeal is not a "done deal." And while it's in effect, it's not fair to expect Jene or anyone else to follow it but not demand that the superiors follow it. A snitch calls? So what. It's really not your business and, in order for you to make it your business, you have to be in violation of the policy because a 'tip' that leads to questioning means you violated the Don't Ask aspect of the policy.
Meanwhile 2011 looms around the corner. The Iraqi air force is not ready (as has been noted since 2007). The Congress continues to complain about the administration not sharing a withdrawal plan with them. (Michele Flournoy always offers such lovely excuses.) And people are beginning to grasp that if the US government wanted troops out of Iraq, they'd be out by now. Just last week, the Afghanistan War was debated on the House floor and the bill being voted on would have pulled all US troops out of Afghanistan by . . . the end of this year. And yet our 'antiwar' (or at least 'antidumbwar') Barry O's done damn little. Well that's not fair. He's done an amazing job of embracing and continuing the policies of George W. Bush. Michael Schwartz asks "Will the U.S. Military Leave Iraq in 2011?" (Huffington Post): Like so many others who have been following the recent developments in Iraq, I do not have a settled opinion on what will happen to the US military presence there between now and the end of 2011, when the Status of Forces Agreement calls for the withdrawal of all troops (not just "combat" troops). For me, the (so far) definitive statement on this question by Obama was his 2006 election campaign statement at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, where he firmly asserted the need to maintain a (approximately 50,000 strong) US "strike force" in or near Iraq to guarantee US interests in the Middle East, to allow Washington to move quickly against jihadists in the region, and to make clear to "our enemies" that the US will not be "driven from the region." (I am attaching that document, which I still think is the most explicit expression of his thinking on this issue.) In that statement he said that this force could be stationed in Iraq, perhaps in Kurdistan, or in a nearby country (despite the absence of nearby candidates). Since taking office he has neither reiterated nor repudiated this policy, but his actions have made it very clear that he is unwilling to sacrifice the 50k strike force, even while he has also said he would abide by the SOFA and remove all troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. In the meantime, Gates and various generals have released hedging statements or trial balloons (see the recent Tom Dispatch article by Engelhardt) saying that the 2011 deadline might be impractical and that various types of forces might stay longer, either to provide air power, to continue training the Iraq military, or to protect Iraq from invasion. Any or all of these could translate into the maintenance of the 50k strike force as well as the five (previously labeled as) "enduring bases."
Back to Congress on Iraq. The 'deadlines' for draw-downs and withdrawals were addressed in the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning in testimony from Gen David Petraeus. Also offering testimony was Adm Eric T. Olson. "By September 1st the US combat mission will end" in Iraq declared Committee Chair Carl Levin speaking of the planned draw-down. That something more might be coming was probably most noticeable with Petraeus' prepared remarks which, typed, ran 56 pages. Wait, he didn't read the whole thing outloud, did he? Olson noted that he'd submit his prepared remarks for the record and just make a few brief statements to which the Chair replied, "That'll be fine." Did Petraeus read his entire prepared remarks? No. He declared, "I too have submitted a written statement for the record and will summarize it here." He declared that. As opposed to everything else which he read word-for-word from a prepared statement. That is correct. Petraeus showed up with a 56 page statement and also with a written statement that was supposed to be more 'off the cuff' and 'brief.'
Brief? Eighteen minutes and thirty-four seconds after he began his opening remarks he used the phrase "In conclusion." A minute and sixteen seconds later, after referring to "our troopers" when he meant "troops" and "unvavering" when he meant "unwavering," he was finally done. Finally. Nearly 20 minutes for an opening statement?
In his written remarks and read-aloud-but-written (opening statement) remarks, he gave what he always gives. For example, does he ever speak of Iraq without offering "but the gains there remain fragile and reversible"? Senator Joe Lieberman noted that phrase as well. And during his exchange with Lieberman the issue of the draw-down was raised. "[. . .]" indicates I'm not interested in Joe Lieberman's Happy Talk of the illegal war and have edited him out.
Senator Joe Lieberman: [. . .] whether it is still going to be possible or we should desire to draw down to 50,000 American troops in Iraq by September 1st of this year? It's obviously not a goal, a draw down required by the Status Of Forces Agreement with Iraq. It's a good goal but I'm sure -- you'd say -- you'd be the first to say, we don't want to arbitrarily go to it if we think there's risk of a reversal as a result. So give me your sense at this moment of whether we'll be able to get down to the 50,000 by September 1st?
Gen David Petraeus: I think we will be able to do that, Senator. I think that in fact we may reconfigure the force a bit over what we were originally were thinking it would look like say four months or so ago. We're constantly tinkering with it There's a possibility we may want to keep an additional brigade headquarters, as an example, but then slim out some of its organic forces and some of the other organic forces elsewhere. Headquarters really matter in these kinds because they're the the element of engagement. And if indeed we think there's a particularly fragile situation say in a certain area in the north, we might do that. And that's something we are looking at. But we still believe we will be able to stay on track to get down to that 50,000 figure.
Lieberman stated that would mean there would be a 7th Brigade headquarters and Petraeus agreed and that it would be somewhere around Kirkuk. Kat 's going to cover some of the hearing at her site and Wally will cover another exchange on the numbers in Iraq at Rebecca's site tonight.
Switching to Suzy Sority, the New York Times' Matthew Longo. A pampered child who, like all the brown nosers who came before him, goes for the easy applause from the adults by attacking other students. (Let's hope those undergraduates caught what the prissy grad student had to say about them.) Apathy, Matthew Longo has discovered it and it's here, in River City, right here in River City, with the young! They're apathetic and so disconnected from the war, unlike him, Longo wants you to know. It's the apathy of the young, he insists. So much easier to blame the people than to offer a media critique, right? Iraq disappeared from the media radar some time ago and only resurfaced in the last two weeks as a means for gas bagging over the (unknown) election outcome. But blame the people and not the media. What the brown noser can't find, Cindy Sheehan (Cindy's Soapbox) sees in DC:
Well, I have good news for all these people who have been lamenting over the lack of young people in our Peace Movement: they are out here at Camp OUT NOW on the lawn of the Washington Monument.
We set up our Peace Camp today (Obama flew over us in his helicopter twice) with very little glitches, except a few involving our permit and the Park Police. For the very first, very cold day, we had a solid 50 people, and the best news is, 25 of them are college students, and one of my organizers is a senior at Catholic University.
Today as I observed the young people interacting with each other and the other activists, I felt such energy and a renewed sense of real hope. For some people, the struggle for peace has lasted decades, even for me. I have been working so hard for almost six years now.
Students for a Democratic Society aren't apathetic. They released the following last week:
Funk the War 9: Bad Romance Student power against Obama's recession empire
Funk the War, light the bed on fire, and break free from this bad romance! Washington, DC. March 19, the 7th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. Student mutiny against the War on Terror: Fund Education, Not War & Occupation.
Obama's got us singing like Lady Gaga, "I want your love and all your lover's revenge." Thousands of anti-war youth fell in love with Obama and dropped everything to build his campaign. He seduced us with promises of hope and change from Bush's abuses, all the while refusing to give up his lust for the War on Terror.
We've been together a while now and Obama keeps expanding the War on Terror in the Middle East and Central Asia. He's taking advantage of record youth unemployment and skyrocketing college costs to drag young people into a war we've got nothing to gain from. More soldiers trapped in the War on Terror are committing suicide than ever before. Obama, "Baby, you're sick."
March 19th is the 7th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq and the occupation's going strong. It's time to Funk the War, light the bed on fire, and break free from this bad romance.
"Walk, walk, fashion baby, work it!" DC SDS is calling for a massive student power dance party against empire to disrupt the corporate-political war machine in streets of the capital city. We refuse to let another year of war in Iraq and war on our youth pass by without resistance. Join us in the streets and help build an unstoppable student & youth anti-war movement in 2010.
Assemble your crew, practice your moves, and throw on them dancing shoes. We'll be hosting anti-imperialist education events, direct action trainings, dance floor mayhem, and smaller actions in the lead up to March 19th. Get in touch if you'd like to attend or host an event or if we can help support your resistance efforts: strategic planning, action trainings, logistical support, we'd love to help. We'll see you in the streets.
Upcoming events in Washington, DC:
[. . .]
* March 19: Funk the War: Bad Romance * March 20: Mass march against the war; Funk the War post-action meet-up
More information: visit us on the interwebs at dc-sds.org email: funkthewar9@gmail.com phone: Sam 202-436-2075; Rachel 609-529-6415
Most likely, the problem isn't the students Matthew Longo encounters; the problem's Longo himself. March 20th, in DC, San Francisco and Los Angeles, marches against Obama's continued wars will take place. The wars continue. In an essay entitled "Changing the Dynamic" (World Can't Wait), Debra Sweet nails it. By refusing to force Bush out of office in disgrace -- he didn't even have the threat of impeachment hanging over his head (thanks, Nancy Pelosi) -- we're now stuck with this cloud of 'normalcy' lingering over his policies which Barack Obama has embraced and continued. Read the essay. We'll note this from it on what you can do:
You can join in and support this resistance now.
Sustain World Can't Wait's work! Help spread this national movement.
Join in protest Saturday March 20, marking the 7th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. Washington DC, noon, The White House, or other cities nationwide.
Become a War Crimes Watcher; help bring the Bush era war criminals to justice by protesting wherever they appear publicly.
Get involved with the We Are Not Your Soldiers Tour, bringing Iraq & Afghanistan war veterans into high schools to help students resist recruiters.
Finally, TV note. NOW on PBS begins airing Friday on most PBS stations (check local listings):
There are places in the world where the success of a soap opera is measured not just in TV ratings, but in human lives. On March 19 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), NOW travels to Kenya, where ambitious producers and actors hope one such TV show, "The Team", can help foster peace amongst the country's 42 official tribes. During presidential elections two years ago, tribalism-influenced protests in Kenya left almost 1,500 dead and nearly 300,000 displaced. Tensions continue today over issues including extreme poverty and widespread corruption.In "The Team", soccer players from different tribes work together to overcome historic rivalries and form a common bond. The hope is that commonalities portrayed in fiction can inspire harmony in the real world. Early reaction to the show's inaugural season is promising. "I was very surprised to see how Kenyans want change, how they want to live in peace and the way the responded to us," Milly Mugadi, one of the show's stars, noted during a local screening. "There were people from different tribes talking about peace and how to reconcile with each other... they opened up their hearts."John Marks, whose organization Common Ground produces versions of "The Team" in 12 different countries, is cautiously hopeful. "You don't watch one of our television shows and drop your submachine gun," explains Marks, who says he was inspired by the influence of "All in the Family" on American culture. "But you can change the environment so it becomes more and more difficult to be in violent conflict."Can this soap opera for social change really make a difference in stopping violence? Next on NOW.
iraq
nprmorning editionquil lawrence
the huffington post michael schwartz
cindy sheehan
the new york times
alsumaria tv
richard gizbertlistening post
mcclatchy newspapers
hannah allam
the christian science monitor
the world cant waitdebra sweet
pbsnow on pbs
Monday, March 15, 2010
Joanna Newsom in concert March 23rd
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Fall On Your Swords For Prince Barry" and let's make it an arts post. That gives me a chance to note my favorite album of the year so far, Have One On Me. And the artist? This is from NPR:
When Joanna Newsom first emerged on the musical landscape in 2004 with her debut album, The Milk-Eyed Mender, a lot of people thought she was a novelty act. She sang with a whimsical, childlike voice, and the songs had precious titles such as "Peach, Plum, Pear" and "Sprout and the Bean." And, of course, Newsom plucked a classical harp instead of a guitar. But this year, the singer returned with a stunningly ambitious, three-disc collection called Have One on Me. Newsom's voice has matured; the orchestrations are richer and the themes darker. It's a breathtaking musical adventure you can hear performed live in concert when NPR Music webcasts Newsom's performance from Washington, D.C., on March 23. The show, from the Sixth and I Synagogue, will begin streaming on NPR.org at approximately 9 p.m. ET.
That's a Tuesday. Mark the calendars.
"Wait, wait, Kat, it will be rebroadcast or be available online."
You like to think that. But, for example, Aimee Mann's Saturday concert never made it up at NPR. They had technical difficulties. I think our plane was late and when we landed the concert was being broadcast. And I just told myself, "I'll listen tomorrow since it's almost over." But I went in the next day and they didn't have it. And they never did.
So if you love Joanna Newsom, your best bet on this concert will be listening to it live.
And while you wait, you might try streaming a new album that NPR's got up currently. Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, March 15, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, over the weekend 2 US service members were killed, fraud allegations grow louder in the Iraqi elections, a kidnapped victim's integrity is attacked by . . . his admitted kidnappers, the US Army releases suicide data, being the wife of the Joint Chiefs of Staff doesn't mean the military provides you with answers, why did Nouri go into hiding, and more.
Sunday Reuters reported the US base in Baquba was attacked Saturday, two US service members were wounded and a third was killed. But there were two deaths. Margaret Griffis (Antiwar) explains there were two deaths, "One U.S. soldier was killed and two others were wounded during a mortar attack on a base in Diyala province. Another U.S. soldier died of non-combat causes in Ninewa province." The US military has still not posted any press release on the deaths. The two deaths bring the total number of US service members killed in the Iraq War to 4384.
Renowned journalist Robert Fisk speaks to the Iraqi elecitons, "Well first of all I rather suspect that the battle is between Iran and the West not between Iran and Arab Nationalism and the Arab fold as you put it. It was very interesting, wasn't it, that when Maliki's people and basically -- let's be sectarian for a moment, I'm sorry to say -- the Shia tried to stop Ba'athists who -- people with Ba'athists backgrounds from participating in the elections. This was very similar, was it not, to the Committee of Experts in Iran who also have the right to ban for various reasons certain candidates and elections. I thought that was a bit chilling. Although I notice that none of the commentators or analysts covering the election -- this election -- actually chose to mention this."
Robert Fisk was speaking on the latest Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera) where he, the National Endowment for Democracy's Laith Kubba and Iraqi Foundation for Development and Democracy director Ghassan Aityyah joined host Jasim Azzawi.
Jasim al-Azawi: Robert, let me start with you. Your recent article about Iraq, you praise Iraqis for going to the polls while bombs exploding all over Iraq. And yet you cast a measure of doubt -- and perhaps even cynicism -- on whether Iraqis or more importantly the leaders of the Iraqi political blocs will be able to translate this good will this good gesture by Iraqis into reality and into progress.
Robert Fisk: Yes. I think there are two things here. First of all, by the way, when the Americans have "withdrawn," they're still leaving 50,000 troops behind. But I think there's a danger, you know, that we're going to get caught up in what was the Constitutionality of this and how many, what was the percentage swing here and there' -- as if this is an ordinary, European-style election. My doubts are that you can really have a serious election when you're under foreign occupation. And the Iraqis are -- with tens and tens of thousands of foreign troops on their soil. The same applies to Afghanistan. The same applies to the French way back when back in Lebanon. The British did it in Cyprus and in Northern Ireland. My suspicion and my fear is that however "democratic" the vote may be. It will be sectarian if it is under foreign occupation. And that the issues at the end of the day here are always going to be: When are the Americans going to go? Not the "combat" troops but all the troops. And I think that that is very much what we're talking about. And, for example, Iran wants to see the Americans out of Iraq. The Dawa Party was nurtured in Iran. We forget now that the wonderful Dawa Party to which we bow at the knee of respect and democracy was not that many years ago seizing Western hostages in Beruit, trying to blow up the Emir of Kuwait, attacking the American embassies -- the American and French embassies in Kuwait. And this is a grouping which has direct umbililcal links with Iran. I don't actually think Iran wants to overthrow or create chaos, anarchy in Iraq, but that connection remains there. And as along as the Americans remain, these will be the strings and the issues with which we have to contend with. Sectarianism, sectarianism, sectarianims is already there. That's what the election was about. That's what the election in Afghansitan was about. And then we have to pretend it was fair even though we know it was false.
Jasim al-Azawi: Laith Kubba, the American presence in Iraq notwithstanding to what extent, as Robert Fisk said, Iraqis will be able to escape the sectarianism? Is sectarianism and sectarian quotas going to be the destiny of Iraqis for generations to come?
Laith Kubba: Well all the points that Robert raised are valid. I think we need to keep an eye on the big picture. In the big picture, there has been a real transformation -- slow, painful, full of risks, true -- but there has been real transformation in Iraqi political landscape. I think voters have been awakened over the last five years. I think initially voters were all polarized by sectarian-ethnic identities. We're seeing an awakening of the voters. That was not only manifested itself in the provincial elections [2009] but I think even politicians like Maliki and others have fine-tuned their message rhetoric. New alliances emerged. I think, by and large, we're seeing voters pushing the political elite towards a national, central, moderate position. We do not hear the rhetoric of the Dawa Party on anything to do with Islamic state or anything to do with a broad Islamic agdena. We're seeing politics. Maybe raw, maybe rough, but I think we're seeing politics. I would argue sectarianism has not disappeared but it is on its way out. We're moving slowly and painfully towards real politics in Iraq and I think Iraqis deserve a lot of credit despite bombs -- over 130 bombs went off the day of the elections.
Jasim al-Azawi: Ghassan Aityyah. is this a genuine transformation among Iraqi political groups and political leaders? Or this is basically changing the tune simply because the provincial elections last year indicated that enough is enough?
Ghassan Aityyah: Jassim, to start with, Iraq is still not out of the wood. The problem are there and the American realize this. The question is the incremental changes that will bring stability to Iraq. As an Iraqi, as any ordinary Iraqi, he thinks in terms of stability where he can have his job, he can go along, he is not thinking in big slogans. The fact that the election took place no doubt better than [20]05. Logistically and the way, the manner it was done, this is a plus. Second question, will the party concerned in this election accept the result if it is not to their liking or are we going to see a repetition of the Iranian scene when the opposition defied the result and accused the government of rigging it? This is, we cannot tell unless we know exactly the result. The other thing: Iraqi is bascially divided and sectarian. This is a fact. The question how to deal with it? How to help Iraq survive and grow on on this situation? By simply cursing the-the darkness is not a solution. The Palestinian had election under the occupation and the election was considered fiar and acceptable. Other countries in Japan and in Germany, they had elections under occupation. So this is not a question really. The question is you have to take according to the Iraq situation.
Last Sunday, voting completed in Iraq and as Tom Petty (and the Heartbreakers) put it so well, "The waiting is the hardest part." Jackie Lyden spoke to Quil Lawrence Saturday on Weekend Edition (link has audio and transcript): LYDEN: So, how are Iraqis reacting to this long wait and what are the politicians doing in the meantime? LAWRENCE: It seems to kind of depend on who people voted for whether they said this wait is okay. I've talked to a lot of people who support sitting Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the capital. They say they think it's going fine. Similar results in Basra. But up in Mosul, for example, it's a bit more worrisome. People are saying that they think there might be attempts at fraud during this delay, but they are still convinced that they'll win, meaning that they're Sunni supported list probably Ayad Allawi will win. I can tell you right now that list is not going to win a majority. No one expects that to be the winner. So, it's a little bit disturbing to hear from the still the most troubled and violent part of the country saying they're confident they're going to win and it makes you wonder what they're going to say when the results do come out.
Saturday Al Jazzera reported that partial election results are in from 10 provinces but that it is "too close to call six days after the March 7 vote." Marc Santora (New York Times) notes that the counting continues and that "no clear winners likely to emerge anytime soon" leading to some frustration/anger over the counting. NBC's Richard Engel was back in Iraq for the elections. Last week, he blogged at MSNBC about Iraqis attempting to handicap their elections:None of the guests at the villa thought Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would win enough votes to form a new government on his own. Everyone agreed that he will have to join his main rivals in a coalition. But how? When? Who's in? Who's out? How will it play out? No one knew, but everyone was happy to speculate.After four hours, I was stuffed -- and twitching from so much coffee -- and utterly confused. One thing, however, was clear: it will take weeks, or more likely months, to put together a new government.
Sunday Oliver August (Times of London) reported that his paper had "a high-level Iraqi report" -- put together by the Tammuz Organization for Social Development, the Election Integrity Monitoring Team and Shams Network for Monitoring Elections -- which listed "violations across the country and includes evidence of the army and police interfering direclty with voting on March 7. Based on testimony compiled by three non-governmental agencies, the report says that in some Iraqi provinces 'security forces were urging people to vote for a specific list'." Alsumaria TV notes the European Union's delegation from parliament is led by Struan Stevenson who states that they will present evidence of "widespread fraud" in the Iraqi elections. Andrew North (BBC News) adds, "Evidence his supporters have presented includes ballot papers marked for his Iraqqiya list but allegedly found discarded outside polling stations. They say many of their supporters couldn't find their names on electoral lists, preventing them from voting, and that workers at the Baghdad election centre tampered with the count."
Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reports that Nouri al-Maliki is busy attempting to form power-sharing coalitions. She leaves out the fact that were it not for the media presenting him as a 'winner' (when results are still unknown), he wouldn't be able to do that. She leaves out the part where the Western press goes from observers to participants. On this week's Listening Post (Al Jazeera), Richard Gizbert observed, "As they scan their new media landscape, Iraqis are under no illusions about what they see. They know the channels covering the elections had their favorite candidates as did the newspapers." And presumably all Iraqis following the Western media were clearly attuned to the fact that the elections was being thrown to Nouri. As the Western media has rushed to portray him as the 'winner' (as early as last Monday for NPR -- before even any tally -- partial or otherwise -- was released), the message was sent to Iraqis that the US government wants Nouri al-Maliki as Prime Minister. Is that true? It doesn't matter. It's the message. In Iraq, the political parties control the media. As they watch Western media and see it mimic their own (as opposed to doing what reporters should have done which was to have covered other stories and not engaged in the horse race and gas baggery), they will conclude that the US media represents that country's government. Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) points out, "Maliki's opponents and independent political observers, however, cautioned against calling the election just yet because the tallies so far are incomplete and, in some provinces, based on just 10 percent of votes counted." Marc Santora and Stephen Farrell (New York Times' At War blog) share photos of ballot counting and video of Santora inside while ballots are counted. The US Embassy in Iraq has photos of Iraqis voting at this webpage. The US Embassy also offers statements on the election from US Senator Richard Lugar and the Iraqi Ambassador to the US Samir Sumaida'ie. (Other statements are there as well but those statements appeared on other US government sites and were noted last week.)
Anthony Shadid and Sam Dagher (New York Times) report that the appointed (and ceremonial) President of Iraq position is becoming an issue. They describe Jalal Talabani as "avuncular" and deserve credit for that. (He's grossly overweight, under doctor's orders to lose weight that he's never lost, regularly comes to the US for treatment and, in the US, passed out at a bookstore and his bodyguards had to struggle to lift him and carry him out of the store.) Jalal, of course, angered Kurds by saying an independent Kurdish region was 'just a dream'. After that infamous remark, Jalal announced he would not attempt to seek the presidency again (and that infamous remark also impacted his political party's showing in the July 2009 elections). But, in the tradition of H. Ross Perot, Jalal attempted to walk back the remark and now wants to continue as President of Iraq. You would too if you needed the intense health care because you refuse to follow doctor's guidelines. The reporters note (previous remarks are my own and not in the report) that Tareq al-Hashimi, currently one of Iraq's two vice-presidents, wants the post. Again, it's a ceremonial post.
Meanwhile Nouri al-Maliki surfaced yesterday -- no word as to whether or not his saw his own shadow. Tim Arrango (New York Times) reports Nouri had a cyst removed from his stomach Wednesday. Or maybe it was from his hand. Or maybe it was a kidney stone. From his hand? Or maybe it was a bullet from an assassination attempt. No one's really sure of much of anything except that he "went through a surgical operation" and that when Ahmed Chalabi (said to have set up his own deal for the Iraqi prime minister post with the Iranian government) heard the news he "smiled and shook his head".
Violence continued in Iraq today.
Reuters notes a Falluja car bombing which claimed 7 lives and left twenty people injured, a Baghdad sticky bombing which injured three people, a Khaldiya bombing which claimed the life of Imam Abdul-Rahman al-Karbouli, a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and another Mosul bombing which injured "one policeman and two girls"
Turning to England where a former hostage is being verbally attacked . . . by his kidnappers. May 29, 2007, in Baghdad, Peter Moore and four other British citizens were kidnapped by the League of Righteous. Of the other four, three corpses were turned over: Jason Crewswell, Jason Swindelhurst and Alec Maclachlan. The whereabouts and status of Alan McMenemy are unknown. The British government has stated their belief that he is dead while the family continues to hold out hope. The kidnapping is mentioned in the State Dept's just released "2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices:"Five British men (a computer expert and four bodyguards) were kidnapped in 2007. Peter Moore, the computer expert, was released unharmed on December 30, while the bodies of three of the four bodyguards were returned on June 19 and September 3 to the United Kingdom. The whereabouts of the fifth man remained unknown at year's end. Fifteen Americans, four South Africans, four Russian diplomats, and one Japanese citizen who were abducted since 2003 remained missing. There was no further information on the 2007 kidnapping of the Ministry of Science and Technology acting undersecretary, Samir Salim al-Attar.
Last week Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reported that Moore states "he was hung by his arms from a door as a punishment and doused in water by his captors . . . he also told of a series of mock executions." Today Matthew Weaver (Guardian) reports that the League of Righteous is offended and insisting, "We deny the lies he said and assure all that we had treated him well." Oh, okay. If you say so. It's not like the group ever killed anyone . . . Oh, wait they did. They killed at least 3 British citizens and they also killed 5 US service members. Let's go to the June 9th snapshot:This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."
Meanwhile the efforts at revisionary history never cease when it comes to the Iraq War. And they're coming from all over including the US government. This US State Dept page is home to lies and errors. Lies? Try this one: "Citing Iraq's failure to comply with UN inspections, a U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq in March-April 2003 and removed the Ba'ath regime, leading to the overthrow of the dictator Saddam Hussein." The US FAILED to comply with UN inspections which is why you saw the inspectors fleeing while Bully Boy Bush was trying to cowboy-up with his "Get out of Iraq" threat to Saddam. It's really amazing that when 'antiwar' and 'peace' Barry O is in the White House, no one's bothered to correct the lie on a page that has multiple post-2009 US inuaguration additions to it. When our 'changed' federal government can't get it right, maybe we shouldn't be surprised that so many others struggle? Last week at Truth/Slant, Allison Kilkenny took on Thomas Friedman and today she takes on Ross Douthat:
There are no shades of gray when it comes to the Bush administration's lie that Saddam had WMDs. Douthat tries his damnedest to "complex-up" the ether: Nothing was the same after 9/11, Dubya didn't know what he was doing, George H.W. let things "fester" in the Middle East too long, Saddam was a real bad guy! That doesn't change the fact that the lie is a lie, and a bad thing. Trying to rationalize the Saddam-Al Qaeda link postmortem is called revisionism. And it's not -- as Douthat writes -- "reductionism" or "glib scapegoating" to hold public officials accountable for their actions, particularly when they are the illegal actions of the Bush administration. "Bush lied, people died" isn't just a catchy slogan. It's the truth.
Thursday, the US Defense Dept issued the latest monthly data on suicides in the Army:
The Army released suicide data today for the month of February. Among active-duty soldiers, there were 14 potential suicides: one has been confirmed as suicide, and 13 remain under investigation. For January, the Army reported 12 potential suicides among active duty soldiers. Since the release of that report, two have been confirmed as suicides, and ten remain under investigation.
During February, among reserve component soldiers who were not on active duty, there were five potential suicides: all five remain under investigation. For January, among that same group, there were 15 potential suicides. Of those, seven were confirmed as suicides and eight are pending determination of the manner of death.
"In our continuing efforts to sharpen our current focus on suicide prevention, we are conducting a comprehensive review of existing programs Army-wide, related to health promotion, risk reduction and suicide prevention," said Col. Chris Philbrick, director, Army Suicide Prevention Task Force. "We will use the results of this review to increase the effectiveness of our efforts."
"Because suicide affects every member of our Army family and no one is immune to depression, anxiety and stress; we are also expanding our training resources and support programs to address these issues with our Department of the Army civilians and family members," Philbrick said.
The Army's comprehensive list of Suicide Prevention Program information is located at http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/suicide/default.asp.
Army leaders can access current health promotion guidance in newly revised Army Regulation 600-63 (Health Promotion) at: http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r600_63.pdf and Army Pamphlet 600-24 (Health Promotion, Risk Reduction and Suicide Prevention) at http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/p600_24.pdf.
Suicide prevention training resources for Army families can be accessed at http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/suicide/training_sub.asp?sub_cat=20 (requires Army Knowledge Online access to download materials).
Soldiers and families in need of crisis assistance can contact Military OneSource or the Defense Center of Excellence (DCoE) for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury Outreach Center. Trained consultants are available from both organizations 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and 365 days a year.
The Military OneSource toll-free number for those residing in the continental U.S. is 1-800-342-9647; their Web site address is http://www.militaryonesource.com Overseas personnel should refer to the Military OneSource Web site for dialing instructions for their specific location.
The DCoE Outreach Center can be contacted at 1-866-966-1020, via electronic mail at Resources@DCoEOutreach.org and at www.dcoe.health.mil.
Michelle Tan (Army Times) reports, "Of the 14 active duty soldiers who died in February, 13 were male. Eighter were married and six were single. Seven were noncomissioned officers, three were specialists, two were privates first class and two were privates. Four of them had never deployed; 10 had been deployed once, including four who were deployed when they died." Last Tuesday, Jed Boal (KSL 5 News -- link has text and video) reported that Hill Air Force Base in Salt Lake City has also seen a rise in civilian suicides with 2 civilian employees committing suicide since the start of the year "and one Airman" while, since 2006, a total of 25 Hill Air Force employees have taken their own lives. In a suicide prevention packet the ROTC distributes, they quote from a soldier's suicide note: "The Army will help if you know how to help yourself. That's the problem, I don't know how to help myself." Speaking at a DoD - VA Suicide Prevention Conference in DC last January, Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen noted how the army had just begun a $50 million, 5-year study (link has text and video) -- which may indicate a greater concern for the problem than the Army's 1990 ROTC packet. We noted Adm Mullen in January and now we'll note these comments his wife Deborah Mullen made at the conference:
I know that we're also looking how to assist family members who are survivors, who have had family members commit suicide, and I think that's very important. But there's another side to this and that's family members who commit suicide. I had a recent meeting with several of the leadership individauls from the Marines and the Army, and I asked about whether they track family member suicide. And the Army did say that they did; that they had nine family members last year who had committed suicide. I did not get a response out of the Marines. I don't think -- my understanding is that they don't generally track suicides because it tends to be left to the civilian investigators, and often, people don't really want to talk about the fact that someone has committed suicide, so we really may not have our arms around that figure. I asked about the number of suicide attempts by family members. And I was stunned when I was told that there are too many to track. So if you have a family, and let's say it's a spouse who has attempted suicide and her husband or the wife is serving overseas and we're not tracking this, are there children in the home that we are not aware of that we may need to be doing interventions with? I know that if that number is that large ust in -- this was the Army -- we realy don't have an idea of the scope of the problem with attempts by spouses in any of the other services. So we don't know how many children out there are at increased risk. Also, just the fact of a family who has someone serving downrange, if the mother or father has attempted suicide here in the States, this is a crisis -- this is a family in crisis -- and it's our responsibility; these are our family members. We have got to find a way to track them. I don't know if they're attempting this because this is the only way they feel they can get mental health, emotional health care. We don't really have any answers and I think we need to understand the answers. We know there's a stigma. Spouses tell me all the time that they would like to get mental health assistance but they really do believe, as incorrect as this is, but they really do believe that if they seek help, that it will have a negative impact on their spouse's military career. We have to to be -- this stigma is not just with the service member getting help. Recently, there was a spouse who -- I think it's been finalized that she did commit suicide. When I was reading about this, they believed it was suicide in Germany. And one of the things that the spouses talked about was there is no training for suicide prevention for spouses. There is suicide training but it's focused specifically on -- in the military, it's on the service member. I think we need to start to recognize that we have families that are under such great stress.
The Iraq War continues and hits the seventh year anniversary mark this week. Oren Dorell (USA Today) reports:Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan is restarting her campaign against wars in Iraq and Afghanistan today, setting up tents and teaching protest seminars near the Washington Monument.Dubbed "Camp OUT NOW," the protest is geared to pressure President Obama and Democrats, whom Sheehan says have abandoned the anti-war cause now that they have control of the White House and Congress."Obama said there'd be one combat battalion coming home per month, and that has not happened," Sheehan says. "We still have significant troops in Iraq, and he's ramped up in Afghanistan."I don't think this is what people understood they were voting for. I think they were voting for a change."For more information, you can visit Cindy Sheehan's website and Peace of the Action -- the latter of which explains:The only way to peace is through the people. Camp OUT NOW is the boldest and bravest action ever envisioned by and for peace. Camp OUT NOW's stated objective is to: "Clog Washington, DC every week day through diffuse Civil Resistance (CR) actions to have the effect of tampering with 'business as usual' in the Capital of the United States of America." Our demands are simple: * Troops out of the Middle East, which includes drones, permanent bases, contractors and torture/detention facilities. * Reparations for the peoples of these war torn regions and a fully funded VA system to reintegrate our soldiers healthfully into our society. Most of the rest of the world is aware that the US is a Military/Corporate Empire and that the spread of this Empire is harmful globally to peace, the environment, and economic health. Part of Camp OUT NOW's mission is to bring awareness to Americans about the profound cost to all of us from this Empire. We need as many people as possible who realize that time is running short for us to truly affect change by commitment and dedication to humanity through the end to the US Empire (and its subsidiaries). Beginning March 1[5]th, we will erect a tent city on the grounds of the Washington Monument as a base camp for our actions, community gathering and activites.Your commitment can range from the entire action: Until our demands are met; or any other chunk of time that you are available. Acts of civil resistance will begin on Monday, March 22nd and we will end when the troops start to come home. Individual commitment will entail an at least a once a week CR mission and support to the group at large through contributing to the running and infrastructure of our encampment and the care and feeding of activists.
Finally, TV note. NOW on PBS begins airing Friday on most PBS stations (check local listings):
There are places in the world where the success of a soap opera is measured not just in TV ratings, but in human lives. On March 19 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), NOW travels to Kenya, where ambitious producers and actors hope one such TV show, "The Team", can help foster peace amongst the country's 42 official tribes. During presidential elections two years ago, tribalism-influenced protests in Kenya left almost 1,500 dead and nearly 300,000 displaced. Tensions continue today over issues including extreme poverty and widespread corruption.In "The Team", soccer players from different tribes work together to overcome historic rivalries and form a common bond. The hope is that commonalities portrayed in fiction can inspire harmony in the real world. Early reaction to the show's inaugural season is promising. "I was very surprised to see how Kenyans want change, how they want to live in peace and the way the responded to us," Milly Mugadi, one of the show's stars, noted during a local screening. "There were people from different tribes talking about peace and how to reconcile with each other... they opened up their hearts."John Marks, whose organization Common Ground produces versions of "The Team" in 12 different countries, is cautiously hopeful. "You don't watch one of our television shows and drop your submachine gun," explains Marks, who says he was inspired by the influence of "All in the Family" on American culture. "But you can change the environment so it becomes more and more difficult to be in violent conflict."Can this soap opera for social change really make a difference in stopping violence? Next on NOW.
iraq
antiwar.commargaret griffis
al jazeera
inside iraq
jasim al-azzawi
nprweekend editionjackie lydenquil lawrence
nbc newsrichard engel
alsumaria tv
the times of londonoliver august
the washington postleila fadelrichard gizbertlistening post
bbc newsandrew north
the new york times
stephen farrellmarc santoraanthony shadid
usa today oren dorellcindy sheehan
the times of londondeborah haynes
true/slantallison kilkenny pbsnow on pbs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)