One of the great things about not being in school anymore is reading for pleasure.  Now that I don’t have a paper due tomorrow, I can tick off books that have long languished on my reading list and consume articles in newspapers and magazines (online, mind you, I’m not buying these things) when I want.  While I apologize to those still toiling away at their syllabi, to those getting their leisurely read on: keep livin’ the dream.

So in light of my new-found literary freedom, I’ve decided to offer a weekend installment of recommended reading.  So sit back, relax, and let yourself go. Take a break from what will surely be an underwhelming football game this afternoon and read a top Middle East-related read.

This weekend I am recommending a great piece written by Nir Rosen in last month’s Boston Review.  Rosen, an Iranian American and a fluent Arabic speaker who came to Iraq on his own in 2003, writes about the uneasiness of the peace that has settled in Iraq’s most troubled areas.  During the war, the areas in Baghdad that Rosen revisits were among the worst affected by the sectarian violence that raged uncontrollably through the country’s mixed communities like wildfire.  Rather than the surge that many hailed as the harbinger of peace in the war-torn land, Rosen argues persuasively through personal experiences with Americans and Iraqis that it was pure exhaustion and the effectiveness of the sectarian cleansing that actually ended the violence:

In fact, the subsiding of violence in Iraq in 2007 was evidence of that success: fewer people dying because there were fewer to kill; the cleansing had nearly been completed, with Sunnis and Shias separated in walled enclaves run by warlords who had consolidated control. The security gains American officials boasted about immediately after the Surge were largely the result of the expulsion of millions of Iraqis from their homes and the construction of walls to divide or imprison them.

He ends the piece by describing the new political order in Iraq:

Despite the relative calm, it was clear during my trips to Iraq in 2008 and 2009 that the post-civil war order was one of enshrined sectarianism. At the Ministry of Interior, I saw televisions in the lobby and waiting room tuned to Shia religious channels. Shia religious music blared from the radios of police vehicles. Shia religious banners hung on the Ministry of Interior and other ministries while Shia religious flags waved in the wind above the nearby Ministry of Oil and other government buildings. On the walls of the Baghdad Council there was a large mural of Shia pilgrims marching to Karbala. A confident expression of Shia identity, much as I saw at the airport in Basra, was now the most common manifestation of sectarianism. The state now belonged to the Shias.

Click here to read this excellent piece.

DUBAI, Sept 9 (Reuters) - Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh said on Wednesday Shi’ite rebels in the north were receiving funding from groups in Iran as well as from Iraqi Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

“We can’t accuse any official parties in Iran, but there are Iranians communicating with us and saying they are prepared to mediate … which means they are communicating with them (the rebels),” Saleh told Arabic broadcaster Al Jazeera.

“The same goes for Moqtada al-Sadr in Najaf in Iraq, he wants to become a mediator, which means they have links …this we can say with absolute transparency,” he said, referring to the populist Iraqi Shi’ite figure who is close to Iran.

Saleh also said two “cells” in Yemen’s security apparatus had received money from Iran, around $100,000, and would face prosecution, without giving details. Last month fresh fighting erupted between Zaydi Shi’ite Muslims in the Saada region and government forces. The conflict first broke out in 2004.

The rebels accuse Saudi Arabia, whose Wahhabi brand of Islam regards Shi’ites as heretics, of backing the government, while the government sees an Iranian hand behind the rebels.

An official statement quoted a military source as saying late on Tuesday that Yemeni security forces “inflicted great human losses” on rebels in Saada province in a two-day operation that included air strikes.

The rebels, often referred to as “Houthis” after the name of their tribal leader, said on Wednesday the authorities were preventing refugees from returning to their houses. A family in the Talh region were killed when their house was hit by rockets, they said in a statement.

Sanaa says the rebels want to restore a Shi’ite imamate overthrown in 1962, but the group says it wants more autonomy, and opposes the spread of Saudi-inspired Sunni Islam and Saleh’s ruling party.

More than 100,000 people, many of them children, have fled their homes during the surge in fighting, U.N. agencies said last month. [ID:nN2184004] U.N. agencies have launched an appeal in Geneva for $23.5 to help Yemen.

(Reporting by Raissa Kasolowsky, Tamara Walid and Mohammed Ghobari in Sanaa; Editing by Samia Nakhoul)

Die iranische Unterstützung für Hisbollah und Hamas könnte künftig mehr und mehr schwinden. So schreibt z.B Jeremy Binnie in Defence Weekly, dass die Revolutionsgarden und Basij-Milizen mit der Aufgabe, Ahmadinejads Macht zu erhalten, so sehr ausgelastet sind, dass die operativen Beziehungen zu den Terrorgruppen geschwächt werden. Ähnliches träfe auf die Mahdi-Armee Moqtada al-Sadrs zu.

Am Ende eines Demokratisierungsprozesses stünde eine Neuordnung der Kräfteverhältnisse in der Region, Risiken inklusive.

Der vollständige Text:

The power struggle in Iran sparked by the disputed re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is weakening the country’s ability to back Islamist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as Iraqi militants.

The main coordinator of support to these groups has been Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, whose Basij militia played a role in suppressing demonstrations against last month’s election results.

With the country still divided over the election, the Guards will focus on keeping their patron Ahmadinejad in office, said Jeremy Binnie, an analyst at Jane’s Defence Weekly in London.

“Their head guys would presumably at this stage be more worried about domestic opposition than they would be about regional scheming,” Binnie said.

A decline in support for Iran’s clients may facilitate President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy in two ways: by giving Syria an incentive to move closer to the U.S. and by encouraging American allies Saudi Arabia and Egypt to push Hamas toward a unity government with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that would hold peace talks with Israel.

“It could change the map of the region,” said Radwan Ziadeh, a fellow at Harvard University’s Carr Center of Human Rights in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Iran’s leaders will “have to focus more on the economy and internal issues” than on supporting regional surrogates, he said.

Hamas, Hezbollah

Support from Iran has helped Hamas stay in power in the Gaza Strip, and Iranian arms were used by Hezbollah in Lebanon during its 2006 war against Israel. Last year, Iran provided more than $200 million to Hezbollah and trained about 3,000 of its fighters in Iran, according to the U.S. State Department’s April 2009 report on global terrorism. It has also sent weapons to Iraqi militants fighting U.S. forces, the report said.

“Iran can become a constructive actor in the region if it stops threatening its neighbors and supporting terrorism,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a July 15 speech in Washington. The U.S. considers Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations.

Iran’s support for Islamic groups stems from the 1979 revolution that overthrew Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and brought Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to power. His call to Muslims to establish religious regimes has concerned Egypt and Jordan, which have suppressed domestic Islamist parties, and Saudi Arabia, whose Sunni rulers oversee a population that is about 15 percent Shiite, the sect that dominates Iran.

Street Protests

Khomeini’s successor as supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been facing the biggest challenge to the regime in its 30-year history. Hundreds of thousands took to the streets after the June 12 re-election of Khamenei ally Ahmadinejad, saying the vote was rigged. Protests continued this month and police used tear gas against opposition supporters who held a demonstration against Ahmadinejad after prayers in Tehran on July 17, the Associated Press reported.

Mir Hossein Mousavi, who lost to Ahmadinejad in the vote and spearheaded protests afterward, accused the president during the campaign of focusing on provocative foreign policies while neglecting Iran’s economy. Inflation reached 24 percent in January, according to the central bank, and unemployment was 10.5 percent in February, the most recent month available.

Syria and Iran

The turmoil in Iran may help the U.S. improve relations with Syria, which has a defense cooperation agreement with Iran and has been a conduit for Iranian arms to Hezbollah, said Josh Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma in Norman.

The State Department announced June 24 that it would send a U.S. ambassador to Damascus, resuming full relations for the first time in four years. Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad said this month that he would welcome an Obama visit to Damascus, and favored reviving the indirect peace talks with Israel that broke off in December when Israel attacked Gaza.

“The Obama team may see in the Iran events a vindication of its policy of dialogue and compromise,” Landis said. “It should give Obama greater courage to press forward with Arab- Israeli peace.”

Iran’s Lebanese protégé, Hezbollah, has been weakened by a June 7 election defeat at the hands of the country’s pro-Western coalition. Shiite religious parties in Iraq also lost support in January’s local elections, although the winner of that vote, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s Dawa party, is also Shiite- dominated and has ties with Iran.

Mahdi Army

Iran has backed militant groups in Iraq such as Moqtada al- Sadr’s Mahdi Army, which has fought against U.S. troops and Maliki’s government. While attacks on American forces in Iraq have lessened in the past two years and the U.S. has agreed to pull its troops out by 2011, the State Department report said that “Shiite militant groups’ ties to Iran remained a challenge and threat to Iraq’s long-term stability.”

A weakened Iran may also create opportunities for other sponsors of Hamas to increase their influence, said Theodore Karasik, director of research at the Dubai-based Institute of Near East and

Gulf Military Analysis

Saudi Arabia is one of Hamas’s two biggest sources of cash, along with Iran, according to the Washington-based research group GlobalSecurity.org. It and Egypt may now seek to push Hamas toward a unity government, Karasik said.

To contact the reporters on this story: Ben Holland in Istanbul at bholland1@bloomberg.net

Massoud A. Derhally in Amman, Jordan at mderhally@bloomberg.net.

Anti-US Protest Marks Start of U.S. Vice-President’s Trip to Iraq

Syndicated from Common Dreams

Promoted by blackandred on Fri, 2009-07-03 18:40.

In sections:

Anti-US Protest Marks Start of Biden’s Iraq Trip

By Agence France Presse – Friday, July 3, 2009

BAGHDAD – A fiery protest marked the start on Friday of US Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Iraq, with supporters of the Shiite anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr burning the Stars and Stripes.

Biden met General Ray Odierno, the top US officer in Iraq, and Christopher Hill, Washington’s ambassador in Baghdad, who briefed him on the military and political situation, three days after a major US troop pullback.

The vice president’s trip, aimed at bridging Iraq’s sectarian divide ahead of a complete American military pullout in 2011, comes just after President Barack Obama tasked Biden with overseeing the US departure.

A stark reminder of the legacy inherited by Obama’s administration, however, came in Sadr City, where hundreds of supporters of Sadr, who is in self-imposed exile, chanted anti-US slogans.

“No, no America, no, no occupation. Yes, yes Iraq,” they shouted as an American flag was reduced to ashes in the sprawling Baghdad Shiite district.

http://mostlywater.org/antius_protest_marks_start_bidens_iraq_trip

AFP

In Baghdad, tens of thousands of Iraqis crowded into Firdos Square on Thursday to mark the sixth anniversary of the fall of the Iraqi capital to American troops. Here, supporters of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr galther with signs and chant anti-US slogans. Karim Kadim

Tens of thousands of Sadr’s Shiite supporters expressed solidarity with Iraqi security forces while demanding an end to the US occupation.

from the April 9, 2009 edition

Agence France  Presse,  April 9, 2009

BAGHDAD – Thousands of supporters of the anti-US cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Thursday protested the occupation of Iraq, six years after the toppling of a Saddam Hussein statue symbolised the fall of his regime.

Crowds lined the streets leading to Firdos Square in Baghdad, where Saddam’s giant bronze sculpture was wrestled to the ground with the help of US Marines in 2003, an iconic image that signalled the end of his dictatorial rule. 

Many of the demonstrators chanted “No no America, Yes Yes Iraq” as others carried placards adorned with pictures of Sadr, the radical Shiite leader who became a key figure and symbol of resistance after the US-led invasion.

Some of the protestors waded through mud to reach the head of the procession after Baghdad was hit by a rare bout of rain, which peaked during the morning demonstration.

Many of those gathered had camped out overnight or sheltered in nearby mosques, having travelled to the capital from Iraq’s mainly Shiite south.

“I came yesterday with about 500 of my friends to demonstrate against the occupation and demand its end and to call for the unity of the Iraqi people,” said Raad Saghir, 28, from Kut, 175 kilometres (110 miles) south of Baghdad.

The sixth anniversary of the US-led coalition’s invasion on March 20 saw Sadr supporters use that day’s Friday prayers to call for an end to the occupation. But Thursday’s protest was bigger in scale.

The red, white and black colours of the Iraqi flag were prominent as thousands of people swarmed the streets in a crowd that stretched back hundreds of metres (yards).

“I came yesterday morning with about 100 Basra residents, to reject the occupation and ask for their withdrawal,” said Raad Muhsin, an unemployed 28-year-old from Iraq’s southern port city.

Sadr, currently believed to be in Iran, founded the feared Mahdi Army militia after Saddam’s fall, which was accused of kidnapping and killing Sunnis during the 2006 sectarian conflict that brought Iraq to the brink of civil war.

His movement, which draws broad support from poorer Shiites, has long been a staunch opponent of the US-led military presence in Iraq.

After prolonged unrest which reputedly culminated in fierce firefights in the shrine city of Karbala in August 2007, Sadr suspended militia activities for six months, a halt that was later extended.

But his miltia came under a severe crackdown from Iraqi forces in March, April and May 2008, in which hundreds of people were killed, prompting Sadr to declare a ceasefire after taking severe losses.

Under a security agreement signed between Washington and Baghdad last November during president George W. Bush’s tenure, US troops will withdraw from towns and cities by June 30 and from the whole country by the end of 2011.

New US President Barack Obama, however, used a visit to Baghdad on Tuesday to say that Iraq would soon have to defend itself, as the US troop contingent of about 140,000 begins to draw down its numbers ahead of a total pullout.

Obama met Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki at a US airbase outside the capital, and he promised to pull American troops out of the country as planned.

“We are strongly committed to an Iraq that is sovereign, stable and self-reliant,” the president said.

In February, Obama announced a new strategy that will see most combat troops withdraw from Iraq by August 2010, although a force of up to 50,000 will remain until the end of the following year.

Security has improved dramatically since 2007 when Iraqi and US forces launched offensives against Al-Qaeda militants with the help of local US-financed and trained Sahwa “Awakening” militias, also known as Sons of Iraq.

But insurgents are still able to strike with deadly results. A total of 252 Iraqis were killed in violence in March, almost the same tally as the previous month but up from January, when 191 Iraqis died in unrest.

Attacks in Baghdad on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday have seen at least 49 people die and 182 wounded.

In Mumbai this morning people woke up in a state of shock. People are mourning. And it’s not over yet. In the U.S. Americans woke up to a day off, a day when most “celebrate” a holiday called Thanksgiving. In theory, if this were merely a holiday where people had a day off to give thanks and spend quality time with their families I would certainly be able to get behind such a day. But that is not where it originates from. And that’s not really what it’s about. It’s the equivalent of celebrating genocide. Here is the real story of “Thanksgiving” or as Native Americans call it, a National Day of Mourning:

Thanksgiving in this country—and in particular in Plymouth—is much more than a harvest home festival. It is a celebration of pilgrim mythology.

According to this mythology, the pilgrims arrived, the Native people fed them and welcomed them, the Indians promptly faded into the background, and everyone lived happily ever after.

The pilgrims are glorified and mythologized because the circumstances of the first English-speaking colony in Jamestown were frankly too ugly (for example, they turned to cannibalism to survive) to hold up as an effective national myth.

The pilgrims did not find an empty land any more than Columbus “discovered” anything. Every inch of this land is Indian land. The pilgrims (who did not even call themselves pilgrims) did not come here seeking religious freedom; they already had that in Holland.

They came here as part of a commercial venture. They introduced sexism, racism, anti-lesbian and -gay bigotry, jails and the class system to these shores. One of the very first things they did when they arrived on Cape Cod—before they even made it to Plymouth—was to rob Wampanoag graves at Corn Hill and steal as much of the Indians’ winter provisions of corn and beans as they were able to carry.

They were no better than any other group of Europeans when it came to their treatment of the Indigenous peoples here. And, no, they did not even land at that sacred shrine called Plymouth Rock, a monument to racism and oppression which we are proud to say we buried in 1995.

The first official “Day of Thanksgiving” was proclaimed in 1637 by Governor [John] Winthrop. He did so to celebrate the safe return of men from the Massachusetts Bay Colony who had gone to Mystic, Conn., to participate in the massacre of over 700 Pequot women, children and men.

About the only true thing in the whole mythology is that these pitiful European strangers would not have survived their first several years in “New England” were it not for the aid of Wampanoag people. What Native people got in return for this help was genocide, theft of our lands and never-ending repression. We are either treated as quaint relics from the past or are, to most people, virtually invisible.

This is definitely not the story you will read about in most American history books. Certainly this is not how young American children learn about it. I was happy to read that there was an uproar in a Claremont, California school over children performing their usual ritual of dressing up like pilgrims and Native Americans to enshrine this devastating mythology into the minds of American youth.

There is also a call out in the Black Agenda Report asking people of African descent living in the U.S. to question their participation in this “holiday” given its meaning:

Maybe we don’t realize that Thanksgiving is literally the celebration of a massacre of a whole people. This is shown as a 1623 Thanksgiving sermon in Plymouth Massachusetts “gave special thanks to God for the devastating plague of smallpox that destroyed the majority of the Wampanoag Indians. He praised God for eliminating “chiefly young men and children, the very seeds of increase, thus clearing the forests to make way for a better growth.’” (Dr. Felipe de Ortego y Gasca, Thanksgiving in America, November 1991) The smallpox was intentionally passed to the Wampanoag, one of the earliest perpetrations of biological warfare.

Maybe African descendants in the US aren’t primarily responsible for the theft of land or the genocide of indigenous people. But to insinuate that what happened and is still happening to indigenous Americans is a relic of the past makes one an accomplice.

This year the National Day of Mourning is continuing its call to pardon and release Lakota Sioux political prisoner Leonard Peltier. Social justice activists have been pushing for his release for years to no avail. There was hope that at the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency that he would grant Peltier a pardon, but obviously he did not. And, ironically, today George Bush released his list of pardons, but Peltier was not on the list. Not that I expected any different, but it’s disappointing nevertheless. As is tradition, “Thanksgiving” is the day that the American president “pardons” a turkey. Interestingly, some activists used this occasion to protest the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza in front of the White House (mwah to Tamara):

These activists would rather that turkey be sent to Gaza after it is pardoned. While Americans stuff their faces today and then spend tomorrow shopping and spending extravagantly on mostly needless and ridiculous Christmas gifts, the people in Gaza continue to starve (well, maybe this year Americans will be cutting back. Here’s hoping…). But for people in Gaza, what is their “Thanksgiving” gift from America’s 51st state? Another closure.

Equally worth remembering today is the trial of Keetoowah Band Cherokee scholar Ward Churchill. I received this email from his wife earlier this week:

Dear friends,

We’re all excited about the prospect of change (or at least breathing a sigh of relief) with the Obama’s election. But many dangerous policies and precedents have been put in place over the last 8 years, and it will take real work on our part to ensure that these don’t prevail.

In that spirit, I wanted to alert you to the new website of the Ward Churchill Solidarity Network (www.wardchurchill.net), to let you know that Ward’s lawsuit against the University of Colorado is scheduled for trial March 9, 2007, and to ask for your help.

Why fight this particular injustice? We’re doing it because Ward has become of symbol of what academic freedom and the right to political dissent mean in this country, in these times.

If it were just about Ward’s job, we’d be happy to spend our time, energy, and money on other issues. But every week we hear of professors being fired, or intimidated into changing what they teach. And students who believe everything they hear on the TV “news.”

For real change to happen, the next generation will have to know how to think critically. That won’t happen – regardless of who’s in the White House – unless we defend the First Amendment in practice, not just in theory.

The chilling effect of CU’s [University of Colorado] actions are very real. If right wing forces don’t encounter resistance to this firing, they will consider it license to constrict freedom of expression even more.

A few facts: As you probably remember, in 2007 the Regents of the University of Colorado responded to political and financial pressure by overriding the recommendations of a faculty review panel and firing Ward Churchill.

This is a classic “pretext” case in which CU has come up with claims of “research misconduct” to fire Ward for speech protected by the First Amendment. Simply put:

(1) CU never would have investigated but for Ward’s “controversial” speech;
(2) CU didn’t have any actual complaints, so they solicited and invented them;
(3) the evidence didn’t support CU’s findings; and
(4) even if the allegations were true, they aren’t things tenured professors ever get fired for . . . except in politically motivated cases.

However, justice doesn’t always prevail. CU has apparently endless resources to throw at this case, while Ward & I are responsible for covering all the direct costs of bringing the lawsuit – deposition transcripts, plane tickets for witnesses, expert witness fees, trial transcripts. Our terrific lawyers aren’t charging for their time, but we’ve still got to raise about $50,000.

Please spread the word, and contribute what you can. Every $25 helps, but we hope you’ll consider donating a plane ticket for a witness, or sending $125 to transcribe a deposition. It’s easy – just click here: http://www.wardchurchill.net/donate.html

You can check out the new website while you’re there.

With appreciation, and in solidarity,
Natsu

The case against Churchill began after he delivered a speech shortly after 9/11. “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens,” the speech delivered by Churchill documented the various war crimes the U.S. was responsible for around the world and suggested that they got what was coming to them. As you can imagine, there was a great deal of outrage (and not so much academic freedom). His talk began with a reference to a famous comment by Malcolm X, which incidentally, created quite a maelstrom as well:

When queried by reporters concerning his views on the assassination of John F. Kennedy in November 1963, Malcolm X famously – and quite charitably, all things considered – replied that it was merely a case of “chickens coming home to roost.”

On the morning of September 11, 2001, a few more chickens – along with some half-million dead Iraqi children – came home to roost in a very big way at the twin towers of New York’s World Trade Center. Well, actually, a few of them seem to have nestled in at the Pentagon as well.

The Iraqi youngsters, all of them under 12, died as a predictable – in fact, widely predicted – result of the 1991 US “surgical” bombing of their country’s water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other “infrastructural” targets upon which Iraq’s civilian population depends for its very survival.

If the nature of the bombing were not already bad enough – and it should be noted that this sort of “aerial warfare” constitutes a Class I Crime Against humanity, entailing myriad gross violations of international law, as well as every conceivable standard of “civilized” behavior – the death toll has been steadily ratcheted up by US-imposed sanctions for a full decade now. Enforced all the while by a massive military presence and periodic bombing raids, the embargo has greatly impaired the victims’ ability to import the nutrients, medicines and other materials necessary to saving the lives of even their toddlers.

All told, Iraq has a population of about 18 million. The 500,000 kids lost to date thus represent something on the order of 25 percent of their age group. Indisputably, the rest have suffered – are still suffering – a combination of physical debilitation and psychological trauma severe enough to prevent their ever fully recovering. In effect, an entire generation has been obliterated.

Churchill understands what war, occupation, genocide, colonialism mean in the U.S. and when the U.S. acts abroad either covertly or overtly. Perhaps it is fitting then that today on this day of so-called “Thanksgiving” that commemorates the genocide of Native Americans and continued occupation of their land is also the day when the Iraqi parliament chose to formalize the American occupation of Iraq. While Americans seem to be celebrating this as evidence of Iraqi “democracy,” the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) will have horrible consequences for Iraqis. To be sure only 144 members of the 275 member parliament voted for this agreement. From the way most of the media reports this story it appears as if it will end the occupation in 2012. It won’t. Here is what Al Jazeera’s website had to say about it:

The measure would govern some 150,000 US troops stationed in over 400 bases when their UN mandate expires at the end of the year, giving the Iraqi government veto power over virtually all of their operations.

The agreement is similar to so-called Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) concluded with other US allies but marks a major turning point in the relations between the two countries, who have gone to war twice in the last 20 years.

….Should the Iraqi government decide to cancel the pact after the referendum it would have to give Washington one year’s notice, meaning that troops would be allowed to remain in the country only until the middle of 2010.

….Iraq won a number of concessions in the deal, including a hard timeline for withdrawal, the right to search US military cargo and the right to try US soldiers for crimes committed while they are off their bases and off-duty.

The agreement also requires that US troops obtain Iraqi permission for all military operations, and that they hand over the files of all detainees in US custody to the Iraqi authorities, who will decide their fate.

The pact also forbids US troops from using Iraq as a launch-pad or transit point for attacking another country, which may reassure Syria and Iran, according to the official Arabic version of the pact, translated by AFP.

But the English version has not been made public, and US officials in Washington said there may be a dispute between the two sides over the interpretation of certain parts of the agreement.

The accord has drawn fire from certain quarters, including followers of the hardline Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who reject any agreement with the United States and who protested at the accord in Baghdad on Friday.

As the voting on the pact began several Sadrist MPs pounded tables in a bid to hinder the vote, chanting “Yes, yes to Iraq… No, no, to the occupation,” but the 30-member bloc failed to defeat the agreement.

The story Al Jazeera presented on television was quite different than this. It presented it as it should be: as a sort of Oslo-ization of Iraq. That is my language not theirs. What I mean is this: in the same way Palestinians signed away their land and their rights in Oslo, thus normalizing the occupation and extending it, I believe Iraq will suffer the same consequences. The main difference, which is crucial, is that Iraq will be able to continue its armed resistance against Americans whereas doing so against Israelis remains challenging at best (witness the barrage of Qassam rockets from Gaza over the past few weeks: not one Israeli died and maybe one was injured). But what was discussed on Al Jazeera by Marwan Bishara, who is a brilliant commentator, is the following: 1/3 of the parliament boycotted the vote in protest. He also mentioned something very revealing: the official English version of the agreement has not even been released yet. So no one knows what it says or will say. Bishara said that this agreement allows Americans to continue to conduct military operations in Iraq and outside of Iraq from Iraq as a base (read: Iran) if it deems such operations necessary. In theory, the Americans have to get Iraqi permission to do so and they are only allowed to do so in “self defense.” But the problem is Americans define “self-defense” just like the Israelis do. Thus, what is really an offensive operation is always defined for the public as a defensive measure. Bishara also stated that in Article 12 of this agreement that Americans would be tried in Iraqi courts for crimes they commit, but only for “grave pre-meditated felonies.” And pre-meditation is the most difficult thing to prove in any court of law. Thus, we can expect Americans to continue to, quite literally, get away with murder. Instead, Bishara believes that Americans will translate this, in practice, into trying Americans in American courts (and just how many Americans have been tried for war crimes thus far?). As is clear Sadr opposes this agreement as do many Sunni groups who see this as only strengthening the American occupation (i.e., Osloization of Iraq). So supposedly Americans will leave in 2012. But what I want to know is this: does that only refer to the 150,000 American soldiers? What of the American military bases (recall Americans continue to occupy other places with its military bases like Germany, Japan and Korea after military conflict has concluded. What of the Green Zone? Mercenaries like Blackwater?

Importantly, Kurds in Iraq are not too happy with this agreement either, though for very different reasons:

Kurdish leaders’ support for the deal emanates from an assumption that the presence of U.S. forces in the country for a longer time will be in their interests. But ironically, there are provisions in the deal that can ensnare Kurds and jeopardise their political future. One such provision about preserving Iraq’s “territorial integrity” through U.S. assistance is believed by many Kurds to be clearly aimed at their independence-seeking tendencies.

Preserving “territorial integrity” has been the classic code-phrase various governments in the region have used to crush Kurdish secessionist movements, such as in Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria, where sizeable restive Kurdish populations live. No other force has ever been deemed as strong a threat to Iraq’s territorial integrity as Kurds since the establishment of the country in early 1920s.

Some Kurdish parliamentarians demanded that an “honour pact” be signed among all Iraqi factions that would prevent the central government or any faction from using force to determine the outcome of political disagreements.

So it seems that Iraqi Kurds will not be getting their state any time soon.

And things are not changing in Gaza either. This Carlos Latuff cartoon illustrates the situation in Gaza by ironically offering a parallel to the Warsaw Ghetto that imprisoned Jews during World War II. As Americans stuff themselves like no other population knows how (it is the capital of over consumption), Palestinians in Gaza have found themselves under closure yet again. The power grids are collapsing and need to be repaired, but don’t have the proper parts. There continues to be a shortage of food and yet the Israeli Terrorist Forces (ITF) refuse to return boats that they confiscated from fisherman.

And there is still the problem of the bread. I wonder how much bread Americans will consume today. How much flour they will use. How much cooking gas. Meanwhile in Gaza such simple acts like cooking bread remain elusive:

Mustafa al-Banna, 70 years old of Deir al-Balah, owns al-Banna Bakery, the largest bakery in central Gaza Strip. He explained that “We have been staying idle for the past three days as we are unable to bring cooking gas from nearby stations. Before this closure, we used to make 12,000 pieces of bread per hour, but in the past two weeks, our production capacity has become much less than half.”

The closure of bakeries impacts all sectors of society, as they also provide bread to hospitals, local community organizations, and schools. Mahdi Temraz, 32 years old, provides bread for 4,000 schoolchildren at two schools along Salah al-Din road, Gaza’s main thoroughfare. He complained of his inability to provide breads for the children stating that “For the third day consecutively now I come to this bakery and ask about bread, but there is none. Really I can not handle this situation as the children should have their morning meal, as designated by UNRWA [the UN agency for Palestine refugees].”

Or consider these people in Gaza searching for bread to buy for their families:

Abu-Samir Nafei is desperate. The father of seven toured Gaza City for hours trying to buy bread for his hungry children back home.

“I sought every single bakery around, and in each time the answer is the same: ’sorry no bread’,” he told IslamOnline.net. “It was like searching for a hidden treasure.”

Bread has become something of a rarity in the impoverished Gaza Strip, home to 1.6 million, under Israel’s stifling blockade of fuel, power and food supplies.

The majority of Gaza bakeries have shut down, and even those still powered are hit by severe shortages of wheat.

“About 30 of a total 47 bakeries in Gaza have closed,” said Abdul-Nasser Al Ajrami, head of the Association of Bakeries in the Gaza Strip.

“They started grinding secondary wheat, originally used for birds and animals, to meet the demands of the hungry population,” he added.

“Ever since I have heard about this, I stopped even trying to search for bread,” said Salma, a civil servant.

“Words like tragedy and catastrophe cannot even come close to explaining our situation.”

Meanwhile Palestinian refugees from Iraq who are now in Syria (exiled first from Palestine, of course, now from Iraq), are looking for some sort of resolution. If they have the same point of view as those Palestinians who fled Iraq to Jordan they wanted to be allowed to return to Palestine. Of course, this was not allowed because the Zionists get to control even those Palestinians who want to live in the West Bank or Gaza. And, of course, the Americans–who are legally responsible for all Iraqi refugees under the Geneva Convention–will likely not be allowed into the U.S.

Having fled killings, kidnappings, torture, and death threats, about 3,000 Palestinian refugees from Iraq are currently stranded in three camps along the border between Syria and Iraq. Denied asylum and refugee rights, they are extremely vulnerable in poorly situated camps. The Syrian government and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) are both open to third country resettlement on humanitarian grounds and on the basis of individual choice. Therefore, the challenge now lies with both traditional and emerging resettlement countries, in collaboration with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, to accept these Palestinian refugees from Iraq for resettlement, allowing the inhospitable camps to be closed.

And let’s not forget the Congolese refugees fleeing in tremendous numbers:

Thousands of civilians have fled to Uganda over the past 48 hours to escape fresh fighting and brutal attacks on their villages in the Congolese province of North Kivu by armed assailants. More are on the way.

UNHCR staff at the south-west Ugandan border town of Ishasha said that since Tuesday afternoon an estimated 13,000 Congolese refugees had crossed the border from the eastern province’s Rutshuru district, including some 10,000 on Thursday.

The new arrivals bring to some 27,000 the number of Congolese civilians who have fled into Uganda since August to escape violence in the Rutshuru area of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Fighting between government troops and rebel fighters has displaced 250,000 people throughout the province since August.

Iraq deal does not end the war

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=16499

 by Simon Assaf

It is being hailed as an honourable end to a disreputable war, the Status of Forces Agreement signed by the Iraqi cabinet last weekend sets out a timetable for the withdrawal of US combat troops from cities by June 2009, and the whole country by December 2011.

But the deal, the full text of which is yet to be published, will not end the occupation.

 By signing the accord the Iraqi government is agreeing to a ten-year mandate for US troops to “guarantee the security of Iraq” against war, coup, rebellion or revolution.

The US will have the right to maintain 50 military bases, store military equipment, control Iraqi airspace, sail warships in its waters and continue its “supervision” of the interior and defence ministries. The military will also have the right to seize any Iraqi “working against US interests”.

The US has made small concessions over the prosecution of US soldiers or citizens who break Iraqi law while not on operation duty – but this can only be done in agreement with a US military panel.

The deadline for the withdrawal of troops can also be changed if the US or Iraqi government feels that the “situation on the ground” has changed.

Opposition to the agreement threatened to sink the deal. But after threats against the country, which included withdrawal of $50 billion in aid and the sequestration of its assets held in US banks, the Iraqi government caved in.

The powerful Shia religious establishment, headed by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, withdrew its opposition to the pact. All Iraqi parties that are allied to the occupation have also dropped their objections.

Britain hopes for a similar agreement guaranteeing its role in the south of the country.

The only voices of dissent to the accords are those of rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his supporters. Sadr has denounced the accords and called a protest on Friday of this week.

Far from ending the occupation, the Status of Forces Agreement would leave the US in almost total control of the country, and guarantee the future of the occupation.

Members of Iraq’s 37-member cabinet voted on Sunday to approve a security agreement setting conditions for the U.S. presence in Iraq.

The Latest Deal

The Iraqi Cabinet has agreed to a new pact with the US military. The terms of the pact are an agreement to place US troops in Iraq under the authority of the Iraqi government, the departure of US forces from the streets of Iraqi towns and villages in mid 2009, the transfer of US bases to Iraq during 2009, and that US forces may only raid Iraqi homes with the authority of an Iraqi judge and permission of the government. Part of the pact also includes provisions for investigating alleged crimes of US forces outside the bases to face the Iraqi justice system in accordance with a decision from a joint committee. The deal is set to go to the Parliament in the next week. Once approved in Parliament, it will have to be ratified by an Iraqi presidential council before PM Maliki and President Bush sign the deal. (BBC) The date for complete withdrawal, according to the text, will be in 2011 regardless of the situation on the ground, one Iraqi official has said. (Reuters)

The New York Times quotes a Brookings expert on what this means for Iraq:

This vote shows that the Iraqis have figured out how to stand up for themselves, to Iran and to the U.S…They will have stared in the face at the various options and concluded that none are ideal but the best for their security is an amount of ongoing but finite American cooperation, while also indicating their strong desire to run their own country on their own as soon as possible.

Its approval by the cabinet is a testimony to the negotiations between Iraqi Kuds and Shi’a. However, a widespread Sunni opposition could block the deal from passing in Parliament and further weaken its position of a national consensus. The approval also demonstrates how the Iraqi government has become increasingly confident in its ability to maintain law and order, though it still recognizes a need for the US military in combatting Sunni militants. If the agreement does not pass, the consequences would make US involvement in Iraq even more difficult.

Shi’a Reaction

The loudest protests against the agreement have come from influential Shi’a cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his followers, even though it offers them their much desired committment to withdrawal. They have called for mass demonstrations to oppose any agreement with the American “occupier”. Sadr has said the agreement is tantamount to putting the Iraqis up for sale. (Reuters) One follower is quoted as saying:

We don’t want an agreement with Israel. We don’t want an agreement with Iran. They (the government) should work towards reinforcing the gallant Iraqi army. We fully and totally reject this security pact. (BBC)

Another influential Shi’a cleric, Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, did not oppose the pact as it met his conditions of “full Iraqi sovereignty, transparency and majority support”. His approval has been key to the success of the deal amongst the Shi’a community.

Iran, a Shi’ite country, has also opposed the agreement, but may be inclined to ease its stance once it is passed. (Reuters) This may very well be due to a section of the pact bars the US from launching attacks against Iraq’s neighbors. Some analysts also credit this “softening” to the election of Barack Obama and its impact on Iran’s perceptions in dealing with the US. An analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace is quoted as saying:

If George Bush’s presidency were going to continue on through 2012, I think people would be a lot more concerned…Having [the Obama] administration really lightens the blow for the Iranians. (NYT)

Sunni Reaction

Many Sunnis have opposed the pact for the opposite of Sadr’s reasoning: “they worry that without the Americans, they could be at the mercy of Iraq’s majority Shiite population and, behind it, the Iranians”. The largest Sunni bloc in Parliament, however, appears to be divided. Approximately a fourth of its members have said they will vote in favor while the largest member party demands a referendum, which is unlikely to happen. It is possible that the Sunnis will adopt an anti-American stance for future political benefit. (NYT)

Analysis

For a while I had remained undecided on whether or not a timetable for American withdrawal was a good idea. Its become a topic of heated debate amongst politicians discussing American foreign policy, and of course that didn’t help me decide any quicker. Well, now I think have. Isn’t it convenient that I make up my mind once it appears that it is in fact going to happen and its making a lot of people very happy?

Convenience aside, the timetable appears to have a very positive impact on restoring confidence in Iraqi sovereignty and possibly America’s committment to a sovereign and democratic Iraq as well. Obviously, there are those who are not thrilled by the text of the agreement, but if Iran can live with it then I think the others can deal. Sadr, it appears, will protest anything that even mentions the US so I honestly don’t take his opposition very seriously. Sadr and his followers should be taken seriously, but their stance on this issue seems very uninformed. The Sunnis may be brought around if more is done to assure them that they will not suffer at the hands of the Kurds and the Shi’a. I think more should be done to build confidence between all interest groups in Iraq anyhow, but it should be done in conjuction with the proposed pact.

Opinionize!

As is the case with my “(re)discovering” of Iraq, my views are subject to change. So feel free to influence that change and give me your comments.

Do you think US troops should be given a timetable for withdrawal?

Do you think US troops should be subject to the authority of the Iraqi government as described above?

Thanks for all of your answers in advance, and rest assured I will not allow for any derogatory comments in response to anyone’s expression of their views.

References

1. BBC News, “Iraq cabinet backs US troops deal“
2. New York Times, “Pact, Approved in Iraq…“
3. Reuters, “Iraq cabinet backs pact..“

see:

http://www.alqanat.com/news/shownews.asp?id=99704

Eric Martin over at American Footprints has a good piece on recent goings on in Iraq and the broader question of Maliki and his view of power.

It has been asserted by some of the brighter lights in the progressive foreign policy firmament that, due to this dynamic [ed: unconditional troop presence], the US must begin to remove forces (and threaten, credibly, a complete withdrawal) in order to focus the mind of Iraq’s leadership on addressing grievances of minority groups that it could previously afford to ignore – by virute of the presence of those US forces.  However, Reidar Visser argues that The Surge may have rendered even this bit of hoped-for leverage impotent.  Maliki might not view the threat of withdrawal with the same sense of urgency that he would have at some point in the past…

Indeed I think Visser is quite accurate.  To answer David Petraeus’ question way back when “How does this end?” only one of three ways:

1. A new dictator/strongman (call that The Maliki Option)
2. The Lebanonization of Iraq.
3. Federalization/Full Partition of the Country (The Yugoslavization of Iraq)

#3 is already partially the case with the Kurdistan as a separate country de facto (not de jure at this point).

So any discussion of the future of Iraq is always already a discussion of the non-Kurdish parts of Iraq. i.e. Even if Maliki becomes dictator it’s only of the non-Kurdish parts of Iraq.

Martin (via Visser) is discussing the possibility of number 1.  [Martin quoting Visser discusses some potential manuevers to stop this reality none of which I think would work--but give them a look you might find them possibly effective].

#2 involves the US leaving and the civil war re-ignitng but this time–unlike in #3 or the First Iraqi Civil War from 2004 to 2006–there are cross-ethnic/cross-sectarian alliances a la the Lebanese Civil War.  The Mahdi Army folks could hook up potentially against with the Sunni Tribesmen in an alliance of convenience against the Iraqi Army/Badrists.  Or the Kurds could be fighting Sunnis one day (on the Kirkuk side) while fighting the Shia government the next (potential flashpoints on the more eastern flank of the country).  Alliances woud shift, be temporary, and it would be hard to figure who is fighting who, good guys and bad guys and all the rest.  The net result of which would be a hollowed out state and the proliferation of militias (a la Hezbollah) that become de facto states-within-states with a weak central government, though the country still formally holds together, and is played by the neighboring powers (Iran as Syria in this analogy and the Saudis as well the Saudis in this analogy) in their quest for regional dominance.

Number three would be more like what we saw in the first phase of the Iraqi Civil War prior to the Surge.  Ethinc cleansing of the Sunni from Baghdad, refugees, and the Shia controllling the country.

But I see no way that the proposals of holding the country together as a democratic state make any sense in this regard.  There is no way these populations can be held together under the current circumstances under democratic rule.  Maliki could become a strongman who allows a more open economic situation–if he can get a handle on the violence–bring in foreign investment etc and try to make Iraq a kind of Malaysia/Singapore of the Middle East.

My general sense is that #2 and/or #3 is more likely.  But Maliki got more time with how the Surge has gone than I thought he would.  But the Tribesmen at the end of the day want a Sunni government and it ain’t gonna happen.  Maliki, Sistani, the Iranians their entire plan is based on one aim and one aim only–to keep the Shia in power.  No pressure from the US is going to change those aims.  Those aims are in direct conflict.  Not to mention Sadr and his aims (which are of a different sort still).

At the end of the day, I just don’t see a way in which Maliki’s future is tied to a deal with the Sunni.  Now that the Tribesmen are armed, seems to me he will have to defeat them before any such peace could be gained.

Is the democratic process going to continue after the US leaves?  Interestingly the only one who seems to be putting his chips in that pot is Sadr.  He could run a nationalist, pro-democratic, Hezbollah-like campaign in the event of a Lebanon-like reality in Iraq.

]]> http://merryabla64.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/deal-on-american-presence-in-iraq-close-to-collapse/ Sun, 26 Oct 2008 08:25:06 +0000 merryabla64 http://merryabla64.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/deal-on-american-presence-in-iraq-close-to-collapse/

by Marie Colvin

Senior Iraqi politicians have warned that a crucial deal between Baghdad and Washington governing the presence of American troops in the country is doomed to failure after eight months of talks.

“The Sofa [Status of Forces Agreement] is dead in the water,” said one Iraqi politician close to the talks.
He added that Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, believed that signing it would be “political suicide”.

The collapse of the deal would severely undermine American policy. An agreement is needed to put America’s presence on a legal basis after the United Nations mandate for its 154,000 troops in Iraq expires on December 31.

Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, claimed last week that the deal was “mostly done”.

The draft pact, painstakingly negotiated in Baghdad by Ryan Crocker, the American ambassador, and US generals, calls for a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq’s main cities by the end of 2009 and a complete withdrawal by 2011.

The Americans made what they considered to be a significant compromise by agreeing to Iraqi jurisdiction over any troops who committed “serious crimes” while off duty.

They also agreed that American soldiers acting on their own would no longer be able to arrest suspected insurgents. They would need Iraqi permission to make arrests.

Despite the concessions it emerged this weekend that Maliki, who has grown in stature as the Iraqi armed forces have taken control of security in the main cities of Baghdad, Basra and Mosul in the past year, would block the deal.

Two other serving members of Maliki’s government confirmed his view. Iraqi politics is focused on the forthcoming provincial elections, due early next year. Maliki also faces a general election in a year’s time.

Open support for the American presence is seen as a vote-loser, even though most Iraqis tacitly acknowledge the need for troops to remain in the country until their own army can enforce order.
An unofficial poll of MPs last week revealed that the deal would fall far short of gaining majority support in parliament.

“It is absolutely impossible under any circumstances that we will accept this booby-trapped agreement,” said Nasser al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the opposition group of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shi’ite cleric.
“This is an agreement which takes Iraq out of direct occupation and puts it under colonialism with the help of the government of Iraq. It only serves the occupier,” said Rubaie, who is also an MP.

That view was echoed across the political spectrum. Politicians also pointed out that they saw no reason to sign such a contentious accord with the lame duck administration of President George W Bush.

“From a political point of view, how is it possible to sign an agreement with an administration which only has a few days left in power, taking into consideration the changes that will possibly take place if the Democrats were to come to power?” said Hussein al-Falluji, an MP for Iraqi Accord, a Sunni party.

If the deal fails the Americans may be forced to ask Iraq to return to the UN security council for a temporary renewal of their mandate, but the legal status of many of their actions will become uncertain.

Additional reporting: Ali Rifat in Amman
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article5014584.ece

CNN Politics.com

updated 2:40 p.m. EDT, Wed October 22, 2008

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama’s foreign policy positions could encourage America’s enemies to test it during the early days of an Obama administration, Sen. John McCain said Wednesday…

Why Won’t Enemies Test John McCain?

Senator John McCain says enemies won’t test me. And Senator McCain let it be known that he is not President George W. Bush. That could mean that Senator McCain’s foreign policy performance might differ from President Bush’s foreign policy performance which could raise the question of why Senator McCain’s enemies would know not to test his unknown foreign policy while testing Barack Obama’s foreign policy.

Did enemies learn not to test Senator John McCain via his rhetoric?

President George W. Bush, appeared to keep his foreign policy  planning “close to his vest”. Even the senior Bush’s offer to help out during Iraq’s chaos, was not publicly accepted. Just how do enemies know not to test Senator John McCain?

Senator McCain did not make it perfectly clear why enemies won’t test him.

Senator McCain Said – Speaking of Obama:

“And the thing that probably may encourage them a little is that Sen. Obama has been wrong,”

Most of the world should know by now that neocons are never wrong – not if there is someone else around to blame. The buck never stopped at the desk of a powerful neocon. It did not stop for the yellowcake fiasco of the Iraq war. Ditto for Katrina. And ditto for the  atrocious behavior of a civilized country to totally forget chivalry and good government to expose the CIA job status of a CIA operative.

And the neocons – via their TELL AMERICA PRESS made light of that misbehavior. The Bush team’s TELL AMERICA PRESS seems to have taken a stake in attempting to reset America’s ethic’s standards to a lower level.

Being wrong is a part of being active. America has been active for hundreds of years. America is now a “warehouse” full of experience that its leaders can choose  to select from or choose to ignore.

Or, as in the case of neocons – a government can go off on an experimental and risky “trickle down” effect on its way to its “free market” concept. Who would control the “free market”? No one? Righttttttt.

The one with the most money would likely control the “free market”. Not even in America do farmers have much control over the price of their produce. Farmers in other parts of the world would likely have even less control. Farmers would likely fit into the labor category. And labor and the neocons don’t get along “too good”.

“Foot on the neck” of labor while lassie faire behavior for financial management has been the M.O. of the neocons. And now the world’s economy suffers. Have the neocons been wrong in the financial area? No! This economic “thingy” is not a  r-e-c-e-s-s-i-o-n. And this economic “thingy” is not a d-e-p-r-e-s-s-i-o-n. So, the neocon resume has not even been impacted.

Was a neocon wrong about anything connected with the economic meltdown? No. According to one source the economic meltdown was caused by minority home buyers! “Nobody didn’t even know that minority home buyers had world wrecking financial power”!

Senator McCain Said Senator Obama Was Wrong About the SURGE

“He was wrong about the surge in Iraq. He still fails to acknowledge that he was wrong. I mean, remarkable,” the Republican presidential nominee continued.

Peace and quiet did not come to Iraq when the SURGE(too little, too late) arrived. Peace and quiet did come to Iraq when Moqtada Al-Sadr declared a ceasefire and stopped shooting and bombing.

But to get on the same “wavelength” as Senator McCain, one might need to suspend  the “common sense” process while allowing the “political faith” process to plant Senator McCain’s ideas. This might be similar to allowing the “political faith” process to plant the Niger-Iraq yellowcake connection idea.

One would need to believe that two six month contiguous cease fires called by and observed by Moqtada Al-Sadr was of little or no consequence to Iraq’s quiet. A force of 60,000 fighters, who stopped fighting(but they retained their weapons) had little or no impact on peace and quiet in Iraq?

And there may have been a background “process” impacting the SURGE. Bob Woodward of the Washington Post revealed something going on during the SURGE that has not been made public by the Bush team. Bob Woodward wrote of that process, but the Bush team, while putting the SURGE “front and center” has not spoken of what Bob Woodward revealed.You can read Bob Woodward’s story here:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/09/09/iraq.secret/index.html

[*** I typed Bob Woodward's URL directly into my WordPress blog editor. Sorry but you will need to copy and paste any URL that I directly type into my wordpress blog editor. The WordPress blog editor lost its capability to recognize URLs typed directly into it long ago. At one time my WordPress editor's URL recognition and mouse-over URL feature were both working - but not anymore.***]

After you are done accepting Senator  McCain’s Surge(too little, too late) comments,  remember to restart your “common sense” process prior to venturing out on the sidewalk.

Senator McCain Said About Georgia:

“He was wrong when he said Georgia should show restraint. He was wrong when he said he would sit down across the table from Ahmadinejad, Chavez and the Castro brothers. He was wrong about those. So I can understand why the American people might be concerned.”

High risk behavior is practically a trademark of neocons. But Senator McCain is not a neocon – is he? President Bush called him a true conservative but his behavior is quite similar to the behavior of neo-conservatives. Neocons have been warring and saber rattling all over the globe. That is EXPENSIVE and risky behavior. Trying to be the world’s policeman has to be expensive but it is a trademark of the neocons. However Senator McCain is not a neocon – is he?  He is a true conservative. RIGHT?

During the Cuban missile crisis, America considered Russia’s behavior high risk,when Russia installed missiles in Cuba. Cuba is ninety miles away from America and has never been a part of America. America confronted Russia. But President Kennedy was not a neocon so the crisis was settled via negotiation – thus leaving WWIII as a toy for the neocons to play with during their Middle East “PEACE” posturing.

Now, with neocons in charge of America’s government – America initiates the high risk behavior. Georgia is in Russia’’s domain.

Antiwar, October 18, 2008

At least 50,000 Iraqis joined a protest in the streets of Baghdad today, organized by followers of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, chanting anti-US and anti-occupation slogans and waving banners opposing the controversial Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which would keep US troops in Iraq through 2011.

Though Sadr was not personally present at the rally, he did address the crowd in a message directed at Iraqi lawmakers, read by Sheik Abdul-Hadi al-Mohammadawi. In the statement he urged Iraq’s parliament to “champion the will of the people over that of the occupier” and oppose the pact. He also cautioned that passing the deal “will stigmatize Iraq and its government for years to come.”

Sadr is just one of many influential religious leaders, both Sunni and Shi’ite, speaking out against the SOFA. The high attendance for the rally underscores a growing popular hostility for the deal, which faces a long battle for approval in the Iraqi government.

Though it is unclear at this point whether the terms of the deal are finalized, officials reported this was the case earlier in the week though White House Press Secretary Dana Perino denied it yesterday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari says it would be “difficult to reopen the text” and that it was time for parliament to either ratify or reject the deal. He added that “the next few days are very crucial for Iraqi leaders to decide.”

Popular and religious opposition to the deal as well as a splintering coalition government will make it extremely difficult for Iraq’s parliament to pass the deal. And even though a simple majority is all that is required for passage, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki reportedly intends to submit it for consideration only if he is confident it will receive a two-thirds majority, fearing criticism if the vote is close.

Related Stories

• Iraqi Clerics Speak Out Against SOFA
• SOFA Faces Increasingly Thorny Path in Iraqi Parliament
• US, Iraqi Negotiators Finalize SOFA, Pact Still Faces Long Road to Final Approval
• With SOFA Looking Increasing Unlikely, Will UN Renew Mandate?

I was very pleased to see this article as the main headline on the BBC News website this morning. However one may feel about Shi’a cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his followers, it is imperative that nonviolent actions in Iraq be publicized and positively acknowledged.The group may condone violence, but to only talk about their expressed grievances and goals when they engage in violence only serves to reinforce the idea that this is how they will be heard.

In that spirit, I will go so far as to commend the cleric and his followers for choosing to express their opposition to an extension of the US mandate in Iraq by a mass demonstration. It is my sincere hope that more efforts like this will be done so that the Shi’a do not get left out of negotiations and that less US soldiers, contractors, and Iraqi citizens will die for political strife.The opposition itself may be unpleasant, but we must always accept an opposition when it expresses itself nonviolently.

Supporters of Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr have staged a mass demonstration in Baghdad in protest against plans to extend the US mandate in Iraq.

An estimated 50,000 protesters chanted slogans such as “Get out occupier!”.

Iraqi and US negotiators drafted the deal after months of talks but it still needs approval from Iraq’s government.

Under the agreement US troops would withdraw by 2011, and Iraq would have the right to prosecute Americans who commit crimes while off-duty.

The UN mandate for US-led coalition forces expires at the end of this year. About 144,000 of the 152,000 foreign troops deployed there are US military personnel.

Political battle

Chanting slogans and waving banners, tens of thousands of Shias, mainly young men, marched on the eastern suburb of Sadr City towards the centre of Baghdad.

Iraq regards blanket immunity for US troops as undermining its sovereignty

The BBC’s Jim Muir in Baghdad says Moqtada Sadr’s militant opposition to the US presence has strong grassroots support among many Shias – and this was a physical manifestation of that opposition.

He says leaders of the 30-strong Sadr bloc in the Iraqi parliament will have expressed that rejection at a meeting of Iraq’s Political Council for National Security late on Friday.

The meeting of top political leaders and the heads of parliamentary factions was convened to discuss the draft agreement covering the US military presence after its mandate expires.

No decisions were taken but the Council is to meet again to hear back from military experts on what is a very complex and detailed document.

Our correspondent says its passage through parliament may follow naturally if it is approved by the Council, but this is by no means assured and a tough political battle is already shaping up.

In Washington, US defence chief Robert Gates has been courting support for the deal from key members of Congress – although their approval is not mandatory.

According to journalist/activist Peter Tatchell, an Iraqi gay activist was murdered yesterday morning in a barbershop.  This article had already gone to press before that happened.  It details the harrowing situation for gay Iraqis, now subject to the murderous whims of Islamist death squads.  They did not have to deal with this under Saddam.  This is one of those situations where we have to be able to hold two thoughts in our heads at once — Saddam was bad, but the new situation, in many ways, and for many groups, is worse:

The “improved” security situation in Iraq is not benefiting all Iraqis, especially not those who are gay. Islamist death squads are engaged in a homophobic killing spree with the active encouragement of leading Muslim clerics, such as Moqtada al-Sadr, as Newsweek recently revealed.

One of these clerics, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, issued a fatwa urging the killing of lesbians and gays in the “most severe way possible“.

(snip)

It is a death sentence in today’s “liberated” Iraq to love a person of the same sex, or for a woman to have sex outside of marriage, or for a Muslim to give up his or her faith or embrace another religion.

The reality on the ground is that theocracy is taking hold of the country, including in Basra, which was abandoned by the British military. In place of foreign occupation, the city’s inhabitants now endure the terror of fundamentalist militias and death squads.

Those who are deemed insufficiently devout and pure are liable to be assassinated.

(snip)

Large parts of Iraq are now under the de facto control of the militias and their death squad units. They enforce a harsh interpretation of sharia law, summarily executing people for what they denounce as “crimes against Islam”. These “crimes” include listening to western pop music, wearing shorts or jeans, drinking alcohol, selling videos, working in a barber’s shop, homosexuality, dancing, having a Sunni name, adultery and, in the case of women, not being veiled or walking in the street unaccompanied by a male relative.

(snip)

Two militias are doing most of the killing. They are the armed wings of major parties in the Bush and Brown-backed Iraqi government. The Mahdi army is the militia of Moqtada al-Sadr, and the Badr organisation is the militia of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), which is the leading political force in Baghdad’s governing coalition. Both militias want to establish an Iranian-style religious dictatorship. The allied occupation of Iraq is bad enough. But if the Mahdi or Badr militias gain in influence and strength, as seems likely in the long-term, it could result in a reign of religious terror many times worse.

Saddam Hussein was a bloody tyrant. I campaigned against his blood-stained misrule for nearly 30 years. But while Saddam was president, there was certainly no danger of gay people being assassinated in their homes and in the street by religious fanatics.

Since his overthrow, the violent persecution of lesbians and gays is much worse. Even children suspected of being gay are abducted and later found shot in the head.

Please read the whole article.  I excerpted a lot, but there is so much more.

One of the pervasive ignorant myths among people who have supported this war is that George W. Bush was telling the truth when he said he meant to “liberate Iraq.”  He has merely exchanged one bloody tyrant, a secular dictator, for the bloody tyranny of religious rule.  He has created a burgeoning fundamentalist Islamist republic where before there was none, and more people are suffering for it.  There have been many occasions where stupidly ignorant Americans have tried to tell me that, under Saddam Hussein, women couldn’t go to school, blah blah blah, that we were “freeing them.”  It never was true.  Americans are an incurious people who have assumed that Iraq was interchangeable with Afghanistan or Iran in terms of human rights.  Americans didn’t want to know any better.  In many ways, they still don’t.

In the article, Tatchell refers to a film called Gay Life, Gay Death In Iraq. You can and should watch it:

(Queerty)

UN Envoy: Iraq Reconciliation Key to Sustaining Security Gains

By Margaret Besheer
United Nations
21 January 2008

The top U.N. Iraq envoy told the Security Council that recent security gains can only be sustained through political consensus among Iraqi leaders. From U.N. headquarters in New York, VOA’s Margaret Besheer has more.

“We cannot ignore recent improvements both in the security and political situation in Iraq,” said Staffan de Mistura. “The notable decline in hostile activities can be credited to the cumulative effect of increased deployment of MNF-I [multi-national forces in Iraq] troops, the cease-fire declared by Moqtada al-Sadr [and we hope it will be reconfirmed and we all work for that], the role of the [Sunni Arab] Awakening Councils, and increased cooperation with neighbors on security-related issues.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-01/2008-01-21-voa46.cfm?CFID=40587803&CFTOKEN=45046734

Petraeus Says Cleric Helped Curb Violence
Defense Secretary Sees Extended 15-Month Iraq Tours Continuing Until Next Fall

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 7, 2007; A26

BAGHDAD, Dec. 6 — Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, said Thursday he applauds Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr for helping, through a cease-fire, to reduce violent attacks in Iraq by 60 percent since June. It was unusual praise by a U.S. official for a relentless critic of the American role here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/06/AR2007120602822_pf.html

updated 33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The dramatic drop in violence in Iraq is due in large part to a secret program the U.S. military has used to kill terrorists, according to a new book by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Bob Woodward.

The program — which Woodward compares to the World War II era Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb — must remain secret for now or it would “get people killed,” Woodward said Monday on CNN’s Larry King Live.

“It is a wonderful example of American ingenuity solving a problem in war, as we often have,” Woodward said.

In “The War Within: Secret White House History 2006-2008,” Woodward disclosed the existence of secret operational capabilities developed by the military to locate, target and kill leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgent leaders.

National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, in a written statement reacting to Woodward’s book, acknowledged the new strategy. Yet he disputed Woodward’s conclusion that the “surge” of 30,000 U.S. troops into Iraq was not the primary reason for the decline in violent attacks…

“It was the surge that provided more resources and a security context to support newly developed techniques and operations,” Hadley wrote.

Woodward, associate editor of the Washington Post, wrote that along with the surge and the new covert tactics, two other factors helped reduce the violence. Watch Bob Woodward explain the strategy »

One was the decision of militant cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s to order his Mahdi Army to cease fire. The other was the “Anbar Awakening” movement that saw Sunni tribes aligning with U.S. troops to battle al Qaeda in Iraq…

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/09/09/iraq.secret/index.html