Iraq Thread

[Godfather of Soul]

This thread is to compile information about Iraq, which is increasingly decending into complete and utter chaos.  If you have something, please contribute.  If the posts are sufficient enough in number, I will ask the admins to make this a child board.

To keep this thread organized, please put a BOLD heading at the top in one of the following categories;

1.  General Information/Reporting
2.  Opinion
3.  Analysis
3.  Personal Writing

Also, please cite all information that you post.

[Godfather of Soul]

General Information

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/24/iraq.main/index.html

Shiites torch Sunni mosques, houses
Story Highlights
•Two people wounded in Sadr City as U.S. copters hover over funerals.
•SomeSunnis burned to death as Shiites torch mosques in apparent revenge
•Shiite bloc warns of walkout if Iraq prime minister meets President Bush
•More than 200 killed Thursday in Sadr City incoordinated attacks on Shiites

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Enraged Shiites burned people to death, torched mosques and denounced Sunni leaders and the United States a day after a bloody assault on Sadr City, the Iraq capital's Shiite bastion.

That coordinated strike, which killed more than 200 and wounded more 250 Thursday, is considered the worst of the Iraq war, and Sunni militants are widely assumed to have carried it out.

Witnesses said Shiite gunmen on Friday attacked two mosques with rocket-propelled grenades and burned two other Sunni mosques in the largely Shiite area of Hurriya in northwestern Baghdad. (Watch as all-out civil war threatens to overtake IraqVideo)

They reported people attacking Sunni houses with hand grenades and rocket-propelled grenades. Shiite militiamen are also said to have doused Sunnis with kerosene and burned them, and shooting at other people.

One witness reported at least five people were killed. An official with the Association of Muslim Scholars, a Sunni group, said many more were killed and wounded but could not confirm numbers.

Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said clashes erupted between two groups in Hurriya. U.S. and Iraqi troops then arrived at the scene, set up checkpoints and restored control.

The U.S. military said it could not confirm the reports of people and mosques being torched.

In Sadr City itself, two people were hurt when U.S. helicopters fired on tents set up for funerals, police said. (Location of Sadr City)

Mourners said they were shooting weapons in the air to commemorate the dead -- not firing at the helicopters.

Two Sunni Arab neighborhoods -- Ghazaliya and Adhamiya -- also withstood a barrage of mortar fire that wounded 10 people earlier.

The new attacks and counterattacks threaten to bring Iraq to the brink of all-out civil war, a process that has escalated since the February bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra, north of Baghdad. Since then, thousands have fled their homes for other neighborhoods and countries in the face of Sunni-Shiite vendettas. (Watch for the divisions between Shiite and Sunni MuslimsVideo)

Thousands more have been slain. Sectarian violence has left its imprint with the daily discovery of tortured bodies around the capital despite U.S. and Iraqi military efforts to stem the brutality.
Al-Sadr bloc threatens walkout

The carnage came as anti-U.S. Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's bloc threatened to withdraw support for Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki should he meet President Bush as planned next week.

Such a move could jeopardize the stability of al-Maliki's administration, which has relied on the support of both the United States and fellow Shiites.

In a statement that aired on Iraqi TV, al-Sadr representative Salih al-Akeili blamed U.S.-led forces for fostering conditions that led to the massacre Thursday in Sadr City. (Watch how followers are attracted to al-Sadr's fiery anti-AmericanismVideo)

"We announce that if the security situation and the basic services do not improve, and if the prime minister goes ahead and meets with the criminal Bush in Amman, then we will suspend our memberships with the Iraqi parliament and the government," said al-Akeili, a member of al-Sadr's bloc in Iraq's parliament.

Al-Akeili said his bloc -- with 30 seats in the 275-member parliament andsix Cabinet ministries -- is demanding an end to the occupation and a withdrawal from Iraq, with a timetable for such a departure.

The White House said the talksin Jordan would go forward. Al-Maliki's office has not responded to the threat.

Meanwhile, the head of al-Sadr's bloc in parliament -- Falah Hassan Shnashel -- said that U.S. and Iraqi forces, backed by helicopters, swept into Sadr City on Friday.

Police said two people were wounded in Sadr City as U.S. helicopters sprayed funeral tents Friday. Mourners said they were shooting weapons in the air to commemorate the dead -- not firing at the helicopters.

U.S. commanders suspect al-Sadr's militia, the Mehdi Army, has been responsible for sectarian violence against Sunnis, although the cleric has denounced such attacks.
Al-Sadr challenge to Sunni leader

Meanwhile, al-Sadr challenged a top Sunni leader -- Sheikh Hareth al-Dhari, the head of the Association of Muslim Scholars -- to take steps to end the violence, including the issuance of fatwas, or Islamic decrees.

Speaking in the southern city of Kufa, near Najaf, during prayers Friday, al-Sadr said one fatwa should "prohibit the killing of all Shiite Muslims because this will save the blood of Muslims in Iraq."

Another should prohibit people from joining al Qaeda or any party "harboring hatred against the descendants of the Prophet Mohammed."

"We condemn and denounce the blasts," he said.

Police called the strikes the worst since the war began in 2003. The Iraqi Interior Ministry imposed a curfew for Baghdad on Thursday evening. It's unclear how long the curfew will last. Baghdad International Airport also was closed till further notice.

The bloodshed drew a strong denunciation from the United States.

"We condemn such acts of violence that are clearly aimed at undermining the Iraqi people's hopes for a peaceful and stable Iraq," said deputy White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.

Meanwhile, police reported a U.S. raid on al-Sadr's office in Baquba, a provincial capital northeast of Baghdad. Five people were detained, and weapons were seized. The U.S. military said it was checking the report.
Other violence

Also Friday, a suicide bomber killed 22 and wounded 30 after detonating explosives strapped to his body and in a car in the northern city of Tal Afar, authorities said.

The attacker parked his vehicle, got out and set off the car bomb in a car lot before detonating himself, police said. Tal Afar, a largely Turkmen city in Nineveh province, is about 250 miles (400 kilometers) north of Baghdad. Tal Afar has endured Sunni-Shiite sectarian fighting in the past, but it isn't clear what the motive was for Friday's attack.

In the southern city of Basra, a British soldier was shot dead Friday during a "search and detention operation," the British Defense Ministry said. The number of British military deaths in the Iraq war stands at 126.

CNN's Arwa Damon, Mohammed Tawfeeq and Michael Ware contributed to this report.

[Godfather of Soul]

Analysis

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/23/AR2006112301014.html

1,000 Iraqis a Day Flee Violence, U.N. Group Finds
Refugees Cite Lack of Security Along With the Growth of Armed Militias and Criminal Gangs

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 24, 2006; Page A13

More than 1,000 Iraqis a day are being displaced by the sectarian violence that began on Feb. 22 with the bombing of the Shiite Askariya shrine in Samarra, according to a report released this week by the Geneva-based International Organization for Migration, a U.N.-associated group.

This increasing movement of Iraqi families, caused by the lack of security and by the growth of armed local militias and criminal gangs, is adding to the already chaotic governmental situation in Baghdad, according to U.N., U.S. and non-governmental reports released over the past weeks.
   
Special Report
America at War

Washington Post stories and multimedia reports about Iraq, Afghanistan, the War on Terror and more.

• Faces of the Fallen
• Veterans: In Their Own Words
• Afghan Reconstruction

» FULL COVERAGE
Save & Share Article   What's This?
Digg
Google

del.icio.us
Yahoo!

Reddit
Facebook

When families who fled from Baghdad to Qadisiyah, a fairly safe district south of the capital, were questioned by the IOM about why they left their homes, "almost all said it was due to direct threats to their lives . . . letters, anonymous calls, graffiti on their homes or in their neighborhoods." All were Shiites.

The internal refugees are creating a growing humanitarian crisis that, the IOM report says, will primarily affect single women, children, and the sick and elderly as winter approaches. Security fears appear well-founded: A report Wednesday by the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq said the number of Iraqi civilians killed in October reached 3,709, a monthly high.

Many residents, especially professionals, are fleeing the country in larger numbers. The U.N.'s High Commissioner for Refugees said earlier this month that up to 2,000 Iraqis a day are going to Syria and an additional 1,000 a day to Jordan. Overall, the High Commissioner estimates that since the war began in March 2003, 1.6 million Iraqis have been displaced internally and up to 1.8 million are living outside the country.

At the same time, the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, burdened by political and sectarian differences and by corruption, has been unable to provide needed services or stem the continuing sectarian violence and the insurgency fueled by Iraqi and foreign militants.

"We pretend there is a national government, but it's a coalition in which ministries have been divided among the political parties," according to Anthony H. Cordesman, an intelligence specialist who holds the Arleigh Burke chair in strategy at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Ministries have become spoils, and since there is no civil service they hardly run at all," Cordesman said in an interview after a recent trip to Iraq.

When Maliki threatened earlier this month in a closed parliament session to reshuffle cabinet members to improve services and curb corruption, he also made clear that "he intends to maintain the political distribution of the current cabinet seats," according to the State Department's recent Iraq Weekly Status Report.

That report notes some advances in the economy and reconstruction, but it also shows the impact of the increased violence. Electrical service in the Nov. 8-14 week fell to 6.5 hours a day in Baghdad and 10.5 hours nationwide -- 3 percent below the same period a year earlier. Crude-oil production for the week ending Nov. 12, at 2.05 million barrels per day, was 275,000 barrels a day below the average for the previous month and far below the 2.5 million barrels a day that was the goal of the Oil Ministry.

The sectarian violence has flowed over into the ministries. The Ministry of Higher Education, one of the few led by a Sunni official, was raided last week by apparently Shiite gunmen dressed in police uniforms and claiming to be on an anti-corruption mission. Armed with "lists of wanted individuals," according to a State Department report, they kidnapped dozens, Shiites and Sunnis, many of whom have still not been found or released.

A subsequent kidnapping of an official of the Health Ministry, now run by Moqtada al-Sadr's Shiite party, and the attempted assassination of another health official, have been attributed to a Sunni death squad, as were the attacks last week on the ministry building.

In a report on Iraq's sectarian and ethnic violence released Wednesday, Cordesman notes that Maliki attempted to take a step toward cleaner government in late September by issuing arrest warrants for 88 former Iraqi officials wanted on corruption charges. Among those listed were 15 former ministers, including those for defense, electricity, labor, transportation and housing. The spokesman for Iraq's Public Integrity Commission announced that 61 of the 88 were "living as fugitives abroad."

In that same Center for Strategic and International Studies report, Cordesman describes Iraq's situation as "the war after the war, that threatens to divide the country and create a full scale civil war." He also put it in a broader context, saying Iraq "has become linked to the broader struggle between Sunni and Shia Islamist extremism and moderation and reform throughout the Islamic world."

The U.S. has urged Maliki to address widespread violence by disarming the major sectarian militias, the largest of which are related to major political parties. That has put Maliki, a Shiite, in a difficult position as he tries to placate various factions.

Cordesman said the job has become even harder. "We talk of the big militias, but they all have broken down into local groups," he said. The Badr Organization, associated with the Shiite SCIRI party, years ago was trained by Iranians, Cordesman said, "but today they are fragmented into groups with no central control."

He said a U.S. commander in Baghdad recently estimated that there were 21 to 23 militias operating inside the city, so splintered that it was difficult "for joint U.S.-Iraqi raids to isolate them." Earlier this month, Maliki appeared to make U.S. forces back down when they moved inside Baghdad against leaders of elements of Sadr's militia, known as the Mahdi Army -- some of whom were operating on their own.

Cordesman wrote in his report: "It was clear that al-Maliki was increasingly caught between the U.S. military's initiative against militias and the political influence that al-Sadr held in the tenuous government."

[Godfather of Soul]

Analysis

 Iraqi president to seek Iranian help

by Pierre Celerier 29 minutes ago

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani visits Iran this weekend for talks with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in a bid to secure the eastern neighbor's help in stabilizing war-torn Iraq.

It is his second visit to the Islamic republic, which the United States accuses of meddling and inciting sectarian violence in Iraq -- a charge Washington also levels at Syria.

Seeking to assert itself as a regional power, Iran said on Tuesday it had also invited Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to join the summit.

But on Thursday, apparently after either Baghdad or Damascus had rejected the offer, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said a three-way meeting was "not on the agenda".

Shiite-dominated Iran has extensive ties with Iraqi Shiite parties and politicians -- many of whom took refuge in Iran during former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's rule.

Western powers are concerned about Iran's influence with Shiite militia groups, the Badr Brigade -- linked with Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq -- and the Mahdi Army loyal to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

Washington demands that Iran cut off material and other support to Shiite militia who it says are involved in sectarian violence and attacks on US coalition troops.

It also insists that Syria stop the flow of anti-US insurgents over its border into Iraq.

But international and domestic pressure is mounting on the administration of US President George W. Bush to open dialogue with Syria and Iran to find a common approach to restoring stability in Iraq.

Washington's staunch ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, has called for greater involvement of Syria and Iran in efforts to secure peace in Iraq and the Middle East.

Tehran has so far snubbed calls to hold direct talks with Washington over Iraq, insisting the violence will stop if the US-led coalition forces leave Iraq.

"We believe that continued insecurity and occupation are two sides of the same coin in the Iraqi problem," Mottaki said on Thursday.

"We think that the two issues should be studied together to find a multilateral solution," the foreign minister added, without specifying whether the United States should be part of this examination.

Washington is locked in political conflict with Iran over Tehran's nuclear programme, which it suspects of being a cover for weapons development, and has insisted Tehran freeze nuclear work before bilateral ties can improve.

Iran insists its programme is purely civilian and that it has the right to pursue it.

Iran and Iraq fought a devastating war from 1980-88, but ties warmed after the fall of Saddam in 2003.

Six months after his election, Talabani was the first Iraqi head of state to visit Iran after Abdel Rahman Aref, Iraq's president between 1966 and 1968.

Talabani, whose Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) had in the past been backed by Tehran, wrapped up his landmark visit in November 2005 saying he had won Iranians' promises of support for his government's battle with insurgents.

"I predict that in this trip important agreements that are in both countries' interests, as well as regional interests, will be concluded," Mottaki said.

The Iraqi president is to arrive in Tehran on Saturday night and due to meet with his Iranian counterpart the following day.

[Godfather of Soul]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

News
Mortars set fire to U.S. base in Iraq

By BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 14 minutes ago

Two mortar rounds hit a U.S. military post in eastern Baghdad on Sunday, setting it on fire, police and witnesses said. A large cloud of black smoke was seen rising above Baladiyat, a predominantly Shiite area of capital, at about 3 p.m.

Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a U.S. military spokesman, confirmed that "indirect fire rounds" had landed in the vicinity of the coalition forward operating base, but he refused to describe the results of the attack, saying that would allow "the enemy" to assess its effectiveness.

He said the strike was launched from just outside nearby Sadr City, the Shiite slum where more than 200 people were killed on Thursday in an attack by Sunni Arab insurgents using car bombs and mortars.

No casualties were reported by Bleichwehl or by police Capt. Mohammed Abdul-Ghani, who said Iraqi security forces didn't have access to the U.S. military post.

Earlier on Sunday, Iraq's leaders promised to track down those responsible for the war's deadliest attack by insurgents, and urged the country's Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish politicians to stop fanning sectarian violence by arguing with one another.

"We promise the great martyrs that we will chase the killers and criminals, the terrorists, Saddamists and Takfiri (Sunni extremists) for viciously trying to divide you," the country's top politicians said in a statement Sunday, referring to the 215 people who died when Sunni insurgents attacked Sadr City, the capital's main Shiite district, on Thursday.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh read the statement on national television as Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Sunni Parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani and Kurdish President Jalal Talabani stood around him.

Al-Maliki also urged his national unity government of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to curb the sectarian violence by stopping their public disputes.

"The crisis is political, and it is the politicians who must try to prevent more violence and bloodletting. The terrorist acts are a reflection of the lack of political accord," he said, after meeting with al-Mashhadani, Talabani and other members of Iraq's Political Council for National Security for a third day to discuss Iraq's crisis.

Al-Maliki is facing strong criticism from top Shiite and Sunni Arab leaders alike as he prepares for a summit meeting in neighboring Jordan with President Bush next week.

Shiite politicians loyal to the radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr have threatened to boycott parliament and the Cabinet if al-Maliki goes ahead with the planned summit on Wednesday and Thursday. The political bloc, known as Sadrists, is a mainstay of support for al-Maliki. The White House has said the meeting is still on.

Meanwhile, fierce fighting between Iraqi police and Sunni Arab insurgents erupted in Baqouba for a second day on Sunday, and the government partially lifted a 24-hour curfew it had imposed in the capital after the bombing and mortar attack in Sadr City.

At least 11 suspected militants were killed in Baqouba, according to a police official who spoke on condition of anonymity as Iraqi security forces often do in an area subjected to widespread fighting and revenge killings.

Few details were immediately available about the clashes, but during Saturday's fighting police killed at least 36 insurgents and wounded dozens after scores of militants armed with assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades attacked government buildings in the center of the city, police said.

The fighting raged for hours in Baqouba, which is 35 miles northeast of Baghdad. Iraqi police have reported no casualties.

On Saturday, Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obaidi; Gen. George Casey, Iraq's top U.S. commander in Iraq; and other officials met and decided to fire Diyala's police commander, saying he was unable to stop infiltration of the force by Sunni insurgents, two officials said on condition of anonymity.

One U.S. soldier was killed in Diyala on Saturday by a roadside bomb, the military said. That same day, two U.S. Marines were killed in Anbar province, the area of western Iraq where many Sunni-insurgent groups are based.

One of the main challenges that U.S. and British forces face in recruiting and training Iraqi military and police forces is that soldiers and police often are attacked by insurgents and militias fighting the coalition. Militants and militias also have infiltrated some security forces to kill and kidnap in disguise.

In Baghdad, some Iraqis went shopping at local vegetable and fruit markets Sunday after being confined to their homes for two full days. The markets often had only limited supplies since the curfew also banned vehicles and all commercial flights at Baghdad International Airport.

"The situation is better today because we can finally get out and buy food for the first time in two days," said Hussein Fadel, a Shiite civil servant, as he shopped in Sadr City, where Muslim memorial services were still being held for people killed in Thursday's attack. "I hope the city is less tense today."

No fighting was reported in the capital on Sunday morning, but several explosions occurred in central Baghdad near the Green Zone, where Iraq's government and the U.S. and British embassies are based. One sent up a large cloud of black smoke on the opposite side of the Tigris River, but no casualties were immediately reported.

The curfew's traffic ban remained in place, and the capital's streets were empty of all cars and trucks, except those being driven by Iraqi and U.S. security forces.

Elsewhere, a suicide car bomber slammed into an Iraqi police checkpoint on a highway near a Sunni mosque in Mahmoudiya city Sunday morning, killing five policemen and wounding 23, said police Capt. Muthanna Khalid Ali. The city of Shiites and Sunnis is about 20 miles south of Baghdad.

[Godfather of Soul]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/world/middleeast/01assess.html?hp&ex=1165035600&en=23288604c88e981a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

December 1, 2006
News Analysis
Idea of Rapid Withdrawal From Iraq Seems to Fade
By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 — In the cacophony of competing plans about how to deal with Iraq, one reality now appears clear: despite the Democrats’ victory this month in an election viewed as a referendum on the war, the idea of a rapid American troop withdrawal is fast receding as a viable option.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff are signaling that too rapid an American pullout would open the way to all-out civil war. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group has shied away from recommending explicit timelines in favor of a vaguely timed pullback. The report that the panel will deliver to President Bush next week would, at a minimum, leave a force of 70,000 or more troops in the country for a long time to come, to train the Iraqis and to insure against collapse of a desperately weak central government.

Even the Democrats, with an eye toward 2008, have dropped talk of a race for the exits, in favor of a brisk stroll. But that may be the only solace for Mr. Bush as he returns from a messy encounter with Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

In the 23 days since the election, the debate in Washington and much of the country appears to have turned away from Mr. Bush’s oft-repeated insistence that the only viable option is to stay and fight smarter. The most talked-about alternatives now include renewed efforts to prepare the Iraqi forces while preparing to pull American combat brigades back to their bases, or back home, sometime next year. The message to Iraq’s warring parties would be clear: Washington’s commitment to making Iraq work is not open-ended.

Yet if Mr. Bush’s words are taken at face value, those are options still redolent of timetables — at best, cut-and-walk. Standing next to Mr. Maliki on Thursday in Amman, Jordan, Mr. Bush declared that Iraqis need not fear that he is looking for “some kind of graceful exit out of Iraq.” But a graceful exit — or even an awkward one — appears to be just what the Iraq Study Group, led by James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, tried to design in the compromise reached by Republicans and Democrats on the panel on Wednesday.

The question now is whether Mr. Bush can be persuaded to shift course — and whether he might now be willing to define victory less expansively.

“What the Baker group appears to have done is try to change the direction of the political momentum on Iraq,” said Stephen P. Cohen, a scholar at the Israel Policy Forum. “They have made clear that there isn’t a scenario for a democratic Iraq, at least for a very long time. They have called into question the logic of a lengthy American presence. And once you’ve done that, what is the case for Americans dying in order to have this end slowly?”

In the days just after the Republican defeat on Nov. 7, Mr. Bush had suggested that he was open to new ideas about Iraq. “It’s necessary to have a fresh perspective,” he said in nominating Robert M. Gates to succeed the ousted Donald H. Rumsfeld as defense secretary.

But more recently, the president has, if anything, seemed to harden his position again. In Hanoi, Vietnam, nearly two weeks ago, he suggested that he would regard the recommendations from the Baker-Hamilton group as no more than a voice among many. In Riga, Latvia, two days ago he all but pounded the lectern as he declared, “There’s one thing I’m not going to do: I’m not going to pull the troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete.”

On the way home from Jordan, Mr. Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, said Mr. Maliki was told that the Baker-Hamilton report “was going to be one input” — a clear signal that no matter how senior the group’s members, no matter how bipartisan the group, no matter how close Mr. Baker is to the president’s father, the recommendations would not be regarded as sacrosanct.

In private, some members of the Iraq Study Group have expressed concern that they could find themselves in not-quite-open confrontation with Mr. Bush. “He’s a true believer,” one participant in the group’s debates said. “Finessing the differences is not going to be easy.”

The group never seriously considered the position that Representative John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who is a leading voice on national security issues, took more than a year ago, that withdrawal should begin immediately. The group did debate timetables, especially after a proposal, backed by influential Democratic members of the commission, that a robust diplomatic strategy and better training of Iraqis be matched up with a clear schedule for withdrawal. But explicit mention of such a schedule was dropped.

In statements on Thursday, Democrats from former President Bill Clinton to Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, seemed to agree that hard timelines could invite trouble. Nonetheless, some areas of potential conflict with Mr. Bush seem clear.

“I think that what’s clearly being implied in the study group’s report is what some of us have been saying for a while,” said Senator Jack Reed, a hawkish Democrat from Rhode Island with a military record, which has made him a spokesman for the party on Iraq. “A phased redeployment — one that begins in six months or so — is where we need to head. And what’s different now is that redeployment has become the consensus view,” save for inside the White House. “The debate is at what pace.”

There is evidence that more and more Republicans are likely to line up with the Iraq Study Group’s conclusions, even if some find the military prescriptions vague and the group’s idea of talking directly to Iran and Syria repugnant. After all, the Republicans have little interest in facing another election, in two years, where Iraq becomes the overarching issue.

But Mr. Bush faces no more elections. And he has not been one to back down, even when offered a “graceful exit.” He has staked his presidency on remaking Iraq, and with it, the Middle East. Every day, the chances of that seem more remote. With only two years left, this may be his last moment for a real change of strategy.

[Godfather of Soul]

Analysis

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=11550&sectionID=15

How to Stay in Iraq
The Iraq Study Group Rides to the Rescue
by Tom Engelhardt; TomDispatch; December 04, 2006

    Finally, the President and the New York Times agree. In a news conference with the Iraqi Prime Minister last week, George W. Bush insisted that there would be no "graceful exit" or withdrawal from Iraq; that this was not "realism." The next day the Times, in a front page piece (as well as "analysis" inside the paper) pointed out that, "despite a Democratic election victory this month that was strongly based on antiwar sentiment, the idea of a major and rapid withdrawal seems to be fading as a viable option."

     

    In fact, in the media, as in the counsels of James A. Baker's Iraq Study Group, withdrawal without an adjective or qualifying descriptor never arrived as a "viable option." In fact, withdrawal, aka "cut and run," has never been more than a passing foil, one useful "extreme" guaranteed to make the consensus-to-come more comforting.

     

    On Wednesday, at the end of a gestation period nearly long enough to produce a human baby, the Baker committee -- by now, according to the Washington Post's Robin Wright, practically "a parallel policy establishment" -- will hand over to the President its eagerly anticipated "consensus" report, its "compromise" plan that takes the "middle road," that occupies a piece of inside-the-Beltway "middle ground," and that will almost certainly be the policy equivalent of a still birth.

     

    Whatever satisfaction it briefly offers, it might as well be sent directly to the Baghdad morgue. At a length of perhaps 100 pages, evidently calling for an "aggressive" diplomatic engagement with neighboring Iran and Syria -- even unofficial American officials advocating diplomacy just can't seem to avoid some form of "aggression" -- it will also, Washington Post reporters Wright and Thomas Ricks assure us, call for "a major withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq" (no timetables, naturally).

     

    It will evidently suggest the following: Talk to those hostile neighbors; "embed" swarms of still-to-be-trained military advisors with Iraqi troops where, so far, they have had little luck except in generating scads of complaints; pull out (or back into our massive Iraqi bases) American "combat forces," except for those slated to be part of an in-country "rapid reaction force," not to speak of all those American trainers and logistics experts; and accomplish this by perhaps early 2008.

     

    All of this will be termed a "short" period of time to change U.S. policy and the path to be headed down will be labeled "phased withdrawal" or the beginning of an "exit strategy." Oh, and while we're at it, make sure to suggest that we embed many of those "redeployed" troops just "over the horizon," probably in Kuwait and some set of small Gulf states, where they can theoretically strike at will in Iraq if the government and military we plan to "stabilize" there turns out to be endangered (as, of course, it will be).

     

    Put in a nutshell, the Iraq Study Group plan -- should it ever be put into effect -- might accomplish the following: As a start, it would in no way affect our essential network of monumental permanent bases in Iraq (where, many billions of dollars later, concrete is still being poured); it would leave many less "combat" troops but many more "advisors" in-country to "stand up" the Iraqi Army (tactics already tried, at the cost of many billions of dollars, and just about sure to fail); many more American troops will find themselves either imprisoned on those vast bases of ours in Iraq or on similar installations in the "neighborhood" where they are likely to bring so many of our problems with them. And those aggressive chats with the neighbors, whose influence in Iraq is overestimated in any case, are unlikely to proceed terribly well because the Bush administration will arrive at the bargaining table, if at all, with so little to offer (except lectures).

     

    All of this should ensure that, well into 2008, at least 70,000 American military personnel will still be in Iraq, after which, in the midst of a presidential election season, will actual withdrawal finally appear on some horizon? In other words, the Baker Commission plan guarantees us at least another 3-5 years in Iraq.

     

    And, oh yes, here's something else no one is likely mention. Those Americans left behind after the phased withdrawers head for the horizon will surely be more vulnerable, which means, as in Vietnam during the Vietnamization years, the ratcheting up of American air power and far more sentences in news reports that read like this: "Two Apache helicopters firing anti-missile flares swooped over Fadhil neighborhood, a Sunni insurgent stronghold in one of the oldest parts of the capital, amid the slow thump of heavy machinegun fire, witnesses said."

     

    And, oh yes, during this "short" period of perhaps 12-14 months when we are supposed to be phasing away, based on present casualty rates, perhaps another 40,000 to 60,000 Iraqi civilians will die horrific deaths as will at least modest numbers of young Americans, reminding us that the definitions of "short," "remarkable consensus," and "horizon" -- after all, your horizon may be someone else's home -- are in the eye of the beholder. And just one more thing: all this will be directed out of the largest embassy in the world, a vast, nearly complete, nearly billion dollar complex set in the heart of Baghdad's Green Zone and armed with its own anti-missile system, which no "exit" strategy on any table in any foreseeable future is likely to mention.

     

    Talk about a plan being DOA, when it comes to changing policy, even before an adamant president has the chance to consider how to reject some of its essential parts! After all those endless months, this, it seems, is the best the present generation of Washington "wise men" (and one woman) can actually deliver. I think I can guarantee that, with eight months and a giant staff of experts at your beck and call, you and a small group of your neighbors -- with no ties to Washington, a cursory knowledge of our 1,347-plus days already embedded in Iraq, and... no, let's say with just eight days, or maybe eight minutes -- could have come up with a plan at least this hopeless.

     

    While the Iraqis were experiencing an actual civil war, combined with an actual insurgency, combined with actual American attacks from the air and the ground on actual city neighborhoods, combined with actual terrorist attacks, combined with actual widespread criminal activity, combined with the actual collapse of their economy, combined with the actual non-delivery of essential social services, combined with the actual flight of whole populations from ethnically cleansed or simply half-destroyed neighborhoods, combined with actual staggering death tolls, the American media and White House officialdom have passed through their own maelstrom over whether or not to apply the term "civil war" to the Iraqi situation. NBC and the Los Angeles Times have finally voted "yes"; others are waffling; the administration continues to deny that the "sectarian violence" in Iraq could possibly be a "civil war," which is evidently imagined inside the Oval Office as nothing short of Armageddon itself.

     

    While the media, politicians, and administration spokesmen fight over how exactly to characterize the mountains of dead Iraqis, the urban killing fields where militias now deposit tortured and murdered former human beings, and the stuffed morgues of Iraq's cities, there are perhaps a few other words and phrases passing around Washington that might be reconsidered.

     

    Let's start with "phased withdrawal." Withdrawal ("the act or process of withdrawing, a retreat or retirement") usually means sayonara, arrivederci, so long. And a "phase," of course, is a "stage." But put them together and, at least in the present collective Washingtonian imagination, we're still somehow embedded in Iraq the year after next with no actual plan for leaving in sight and none of our basic structures -- 5 or 6 bases the size of American towns and a goliath of an embassy -- in that country touched. Perhaps it's time to relabel this "option," something like "phased staying" or "phased permanency."

     

    In turn, the Iraq Study Group's findings, which, as James Fallows recently noted, have been layered into our world these last weeks via "obviously authoritative leaks," might be relabeled "phased recommendations." They may not, however, faze George W. Bush, who has already responded (or perhaps presponded) by ordering two other sets of reviews to be conducted, ensuring that Washington will be flooded with recommendations. We face a veritable war of the recommendations. All of this is a classic case of Washington fiddling while Baghdad burns.

     

    "Redeploy," according to my dictionary means to "move (military forces) from one combat zone to another." That may turn out to be all too correct, if redeployment, or "a responsible redeployment outside of Iraq," or even (gulp) "phased redeployment" turns out to be the order of the day. Redeploying to, say, various Gulf statelets and Kuwait, we may indeed take our combat zones with us, as we did in the early 1990s when, in the wake of Gulf War I, American troops were plunked down in sizeable numbers in Saudi Arabia. (Does the missing-in-action name Osama bin Laden come to anyone's mind?)

     

    Don't confuse any of this, as often happens in the press, with an "exit strategy." An exit, my dictionary tells me, is "the act of going away or out; a passage or way out." Classically, critics have wondered whatever happened to Colin Powell's famed post-Vietnam dictum that no American war should be launched without its exit strategy in place. The answer was always that the Bush administration simply never imagined leaving Iraq. To a large extent, despite all the ado, this remains true even in Donald Rumsfeld's final, secret memo of options to the President.

     

    So here's a small hint. You'll know something's in the air when some serious panel gets together to sort out our future strategy in Iraq, and you start regularly seeing "withdrawal" surface in the media without an adjective attached, or when you see any sober discussion of permanent bases, American air power, or oil.

    Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com ("a regular antidote to the mainstream media"), where this article first appeared, is the co-founder of the American Empire Project and, most recently, the author of Mission Unaccomplished: Tomdispatch Interviews with American Iconoclasts and Dissenters (Nation Books), the first collection of Tomdispatch interviews.

[Godfather of Soul]

NEWS

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/international/ticker/detail/Iraq_war_costs_could_top_1_trillion.html?siteSect=143&sid=7326084&cKey=1165423190000

Iraq war costs could top $1 trillionAdd story to my swissinfo panel
 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Democratic co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group said on Wednesday that America's ability to resolve the crisis in Iraq is narrowing and the costs could rise to more than $1 trillion (508 million pounds).

At a news conference to release the bipartisan group's long-awaited report, former Rep. Lee Hamilton said, "The current approach is not working and the ability of the United States to influence events is diminishing."

"No course of action in Iraq (is) guaranteed to stop a slide towards chaos. Yet, in our view, not all options have been exhausted."

Hamilton also said the high-level panel concluded the U.S. costs "could well rise over a $1 trillion."

Reuters (IDS)

[Godfather of Soul]

Analysis

Why the Baker Report Leaves Iraqis Cold

Analysis: The Iraq Study Group's proposals contain much to like — for Shi'ite sectarians and al-Qaeda in Iraq
By APARISIM GHOSH/BAGHDAD

It's a shame there's no Arabic word for Duh! because that word would perfectly sum up the Iraqi reaction to the conclusions in the Iraq Study Group report. Nobody living in this country needs a high-powered bipartisan Washington committee to tell them that (a) the situation is "grave and dangerous"; (b) there's no "magic bullet" solution; (c) talking to Iran and Syria is the smart thing to do; and (d) the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki isn't up to scratch.

But many Iraqis will be alarmed by the ISG's proposal to change the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, essentially turning them into detached observers. Few people outside Baghdad's highly fortified Green Zone believe that Iraqi security forces are anywhere near ready to take over the primary security responsibility from the U.S. troops. They point to the utter failure of a massive security operation to stanch the sectarian bloodletting in the Iraqi capital — despite the presence of over 40,000 Iraqi soldiers (and 7,200 U.S. troops), the violence has grown substantially worse.

Far from being part of the solution, the Iraqi military and police forces are often part of the problem. The police, in particular, are thoroughly infiltrated by Shi'ite militias and are frequently complicit in the kidnapping and murder of Sunnis and the ethnic cleansing of mixed neighborhoods. If the U.S. mission in Iraq is, indeed, redefined along the lines suggested by the ISG, things are more likely to get worse than better.

Even so, talk of transferring responsibility to Iraqis and paving the way for a U.S. withdrawal will be welcomed by some Iraqis — those who stand to gain, whether in political terms or purely for propaganda. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, reduced to an isolated, fringe figure with little control of his unravelling country, has been talking up Iraqi control of the security operations in a desperate attempt to appear tough and decisive. Last week, he claimed his forces would be ready to take over as soon as next spring. If the Bush administration were to take the ISG's suggestion that the Iraqi government be forced to show that "it deserves continued support," it won't help Iraq's cause that its Prime Minister often seems in a state of denial.

Shi'ite politicians such as radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and President Bush's recent visitor, Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, are also keen to see the Americans back off. With U.S. forces no longer in charge, there will be no restraining the Shi'ite militias — including those controlled by al-Sadr and al-Hakim — from bullying and butchering the Sunni minority. In Washington, al-Hakim was careful to emphasize he doesn't want Americans to leave. But Shi'ite leaders want the U.S. to focus on defeating the Sunni insurgency, not on the Shi'ite militias.

Ironically, the other group likely to welcome the ISG report is al-Qaeda in Iraq. The terrorist organization would like nothing better than to see the back of the Americans so they can claim "victory" in their jihad — and then concentrate on slaughtering Shi'ites.

For Iraqis caught between the extremes, however, the report will simply add to the sense of impending doom.

[Jordan]

Hey i don't think i can compare to the other posts but The Iraq Study group is advising Bush not to pull out now because they will leave the citizens in a bloodbath and advised bush to sit and talk with the all crazy Iran government, who is also holding an anti-holocaust conference. Another thing about the Mideast, sorry a bit off topic, but Israel announced, finally, they have nuclear war heads,

[Akademik]

Off Topic.  Post moved here:

http://immortal-technique.com/forum/index.php/topic,575.0.html

[The Wiseman]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2076137.ece

Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war

By Colin Brown and Andy McSmith

12/15/06 "The Independent" --- -- The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."

Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained".

He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.

"At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."

He claims "inertia" in the Foreign Office and the "inattention of key ministers" combined to stop the UK carrying out any co-ordinated and sustained attempt to address sanction-busting by Iraq, an approach which could have provided an alternative to war.

Mr Ross delivered the evidence to the Butler inquiry which investigated intelligence blunders in the run-up to the conflict.

The Foreign Office had attempted to prevent the evidence being made public, but it has now been published by the Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs after MPs sought assurances from the Foreign Office that it would not breach the Official Secrets Act.

It shows Mr Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, "there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material" held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. "There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or the US," he added.

Mr Ross's evidence directly challenges the assertions by the Prime Minster that the war was legally justified because Saddam possessed WMDs which could be "activated" within 45 minutes and posed a threat to British interests. These claims were also made in two dossiers, subsequently discredited, in spite of the advice by Mr Ross.

His hitherto secret evidence threatens to reopen the row over the legality of the conflict, under which Mr Blair has sought to draw a line as the internecine bloodshed in Iraq has worsened.

Mr Ross says he questioned colleagues at the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence working on Iraq and none said that any new evidence had emerged to change their assessment.

"What had changed was the Government's determination to present available evidence in a different light," he added.

Mr Ross said in late 2002 that he "discussed this at some length with David Kelly", the weapons expert who a year later committed suicide when he was named as the source of a BBC report saying Downing Street had "sexed up" the WMD claims in a dossier. The Butler inquiry cleared Mr Blair and Downing Street of "sexing up" the dossier, but the publication of the Carne Ross evidence will cast fresh doubts on its findings.

Mr Ross, 40, was a highly rated diplomat but he resigned because of his misgivings about the legality of the war. He still fears the threat of action under the Official Secrets Act.

"Mr Ross hasn't had any approach to tell him that he is still not liable to be prosecuted," said one ally. But he has told friends that he is "glad it is out in the open" and he told MPs it had been "on my conscience for years".

One member of the Foreign Affairs committee said: "There was blood on the carpet over this. I think it's pretty clear the Foreign Office used the Official Secrets Act to suppress this evidence, by hanging it like a Sword of Damacles over Mr Ross, but we have called their bluff."

Yesterday, Jack Straw, the Leader of the Commons who was Foreign Secretary during the war - Mr Ross's boss - announced the Commons will have a debate on the possible change of strategy heralded by the Iraqi Study Group report in the new year.

[The Wiseman]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/16/wirq116.xml

Bush ready to send more troops to Iraq
By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 1:42am GMT 16/12/2006



Audio: Toby Harnden says Democrats will be furious if more troops are sent
President George W Bush is poised to increase troop numbers in Iraq as part of a dramatic new strategy designed to regain control of Baghdad and suffocate the Sunni insurgency.

   
Senator John McCain would favour an increase of 15,000 to 30,000 troops

 
Sending more soldiers and marines to Iraq would infuriate Democrats and be a slap in the face to James Baker, the former US secretary of state who co-authored the independent Iraq Study Group report, which recommended a draw down of all combat forces by early 2008.

But an advisor involved in White House discussions said of Mr Bush: "This is the direction he's moving in. He understands we have to win and to do that requires more troops."

Mr Bush is debating with his aides and outside advisors how many extra troops there should be and for what period. His options range from a temporary "surge" of 20,000 troops to a "big push" involving more than 50,000.

A version of the "big push" plan – also known as the "double-down gamble" option – is supported by Senator John McCain, who is fast becoming the Republican establishment's choice for the 2008 presidential nomination.

advertisement
Visiting Baghdad this week, Mr McCain described the situation as "very, very serious" and said he would favour an increase of 15,000 to 30,000 troops.

Details of the type of plan that Mr Bush, who is due to announce a new Iraq policy next month, now appears to be favouring were released this week by the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank with close ties to the White House. A paper entitled "Choosing Victory" was the result of a study by 21 scholars and retired officers.

Mr Baker and his team avoided the term "victory". But after meeting Pentagon generals this week, Mr Bush said pointedly: "I've heard some ideas that would lead to defeat. I reject those ideas." He has ruled out claims he is searching for a "graceful exit".

The most senior retired officer in the AEI study was General Jack Keane, a former US Army vice-chief of staff and influential member of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board. He was among a group of five retired officers and academics who met Mr Bush at the White House on Wednesday.

Another of the five was Stephen Biddle, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is an advocate of the "big push" option and told The Daily Telegraph: "My gut tells me big – 30,000 to 50,000 or more troops.

"If you are not prepared have a major, sustained increase [in troops] then the appropriate response is to get out as soon as it is militarily and logistically feasible.

"To squander lives in a long draw down simply to put a fig leaf over defeat is unsustainable."

The AEI report, co-authored with Frederick Kagan, formerly on the staff of the West Point military academy, proposed increasing troop strength by seven combat brigades or about 25,000 troops.

This would be achieved by extending by several months the tours of troops already in Iraq and sending in other troops earlier than they were due to deploy.

Five new brigades would be stationed in Baghdad to carry out "clear and hold" operations from small outposts in mixed Sunni-Shia areas.

The US mission would switch from building up Iraqi forces and fighting the enemy to providing security for the Iraqi people. The aim would be to stifle the Sunni insurgency while postponing tackling Shia militias and death squads.

At the same time, there would be a major economic reconstruction plan with the goal of increasing the confidence of Iraqis in their government's ability to improve their lives.

Two marine regimental combat teams, equivalent to US army brigades, would be sent to Anbar province to prevent insurgents melting away from Baghdad and re-basing there.

"The policy we have now has not succeeded," said Gen Keane. "It has failed. And if we want success you have to put the resources in the hands of the commanders and let them handle it.

"In every successful counter-insurgency, the basis for success has always been protecting the people."

Mr Biddle said a large troop increase would entail "great sacrifice" for Americans and tough choices for Mr Bush, who might have to abandon elements of his domestic agenda, but the president appeared to be leaning towards this.

"His public statements have all been consistent with a double-down, big push, try-real-hard option to make one last try to get this right."
 

[The Wiseman]

http://electroniciraq.net/news/2723.shtml

Where Next after the Iraqi Genocide?
by Anwar Darkazally 
 December 15, 2006
 
Six men burned alive, an entire government ministry kidnapped, over two hundred dead in a series of car bombs. Another week in Iraq. Nothing new and headline news.

We have become anaesthetised to the pain of the conflict in Iraq. The sheer scale of bloodshed has numbed our comprehension of what the violence means in human terms. What would have been termed "spectaculars" in the bad old days of the IRA are just day to day events in Iraq. Our perspective is becoming distorted through a kaleidoscope of laser-guided bombs and razor-sharp satellite images. The cemeteries are filling up and human lives are becoming numbers, or less.

So far in Iraq, America has nearly lost the same number of soldiers as civilians murdered in the 9/11 atrocity. Although images of the coffins of the American war dead are not allowed to be shown since the Bush administration banned them in March 2003, at least the Americans are granted the unseen dignity of being counted as individuals by the Department of Defence and borne home in flag-draped coffins. But Iraqi civilian deaths are not counted by the US government.

To armchair warriors in Washington ignoring Iraqi casualties is perhaps an extension of the de-humanising concept of collateral damage. To the Arab and Muslim world glued to their satellite TVs, the little limp bodies being rushed to hospitals in the Mickey Mouse T-shirts could be their children. That none of these Iraqi deaths will ever be officially recorded makes it hard for the viewer not to conclude that an American life is not equal to an Arab life.

John Hopkins School of Public Health has calculated Iraqi civilian deaths and their estimates vary between a third of a million to 900,000 dead. The lower fatality estimate is almost the same as the total number of British civilian and military fatalities in the Second World War (388,000). The higher Iraqi fatality figure is almost identical to the total number of British soldiers killed in the First World War (908,000).

The US and Britain have disputed these figures and this is not surprising. If these estimates are correct, or even in the right region, these fatality figures will have far-reaching consequences for a war started with questionable, at best, legitimacy. Fatality figures this high could make the US and British governments culpable for over-seeing the second genocide in the Middle East since the Armenian holocaust in which over a million were killed between 1915 and 1917.

The definition of genocide from Article 2 of the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is intent to wholly or partially destroy any religious, ethnic or national group through killing or causing bodily or mental harm. The wholesale sectarian slaughter between Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Shia undoubtedly qualifies as mutual attempts at genocide.

The first Middle Eastern genocide since 1917 was perpetrated by Saddam Hussein and became one of the justifications of the war after the Weapons of Mass Destruction were never found. In what Human Rights Watch rightly termed a "genocide" in 1993, between 50,000 and 182,000 Kurds were killed by Saddam. But if the figures are correct, and we have no other data to go on, then the current situation in Iraq dwarfs even the evil done by the Saddam regime.

Wilful failure to record the victims of the US-led and British-backed 2003 war is perhaps an attempt to not create evidence which could be used for war crimes and genocide prosecutions against the politicians responsible. But there is no statute of limitations on war crimes and the new generation of mass graves in the post-Saddam era can be excavated for the evidence.

The United States and Britain should recognise the terrible gravity of the situation they created and start recording the Iraqi victims of this war. These records may become part of eventual prosecutions for genocide, but the evidence is there anyway. What it will do is allow some dignity in death to the victims and their families.

Few predicted that the situation in Iraq would ever amount to murder on a genocidal scale. Every murdered soul makes it harder to see a way out or where the killing will lead next. An all-out regional war with millions of victims would have been unthinkable only three years ago. But in a world where Arab casualties are not counted, perhaps it is not such a distant possibility. As regional tensions rise, regional solutions must be pursued.

The door to regional peace in the Middle East is in Jerusalem and it can and must be pushed open - it is in everyone's best interests, including Israel. The US has pressured its allies before. Let us not forget that George Bush senior was the President who forced Israeli participation in the Madrid Process through threatening to withhold loan guarantees. Peace for Palestine may not stop the bloodshed in Iraq, but it will go a good way for the US and Britain to start winning back the Arab people and perhaps prove to them that Arab lives do count.

 

Anwar Al Darkazally is a political analyst an was the legal adviser to the Negotiations Support Unit (NSU) of the PLO with responsibility for the Jerusalem file in final status negotiations.

[The Wiseman]

http://www.counterpunch.org/arnove12162006.html

Act III in a Tragedy of Many Parts
The US Occupation of Iraq
By ANTHONY ARNOVE

The tragedy unleashed by the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq defies description. According to the most recent findings of the Lancet medical journal, the number of "excess deaths" in Iraq since the U.S. invasion is more than 650,000. "Iraq is the fastest-growing refugee crisis in the world," according to Refugee International: nearly two million Iraqis have fled the country entirely, while at least another 500,000 are internally displaced. Basic foods and necessities are beyond the reach of ordinary Iraqis because of massive inflation. "A gallon of gasoline cost as little as 4 cents in November. Now, after the International Monetary Fund pushed the Oil Ministry to cut its subsidies, the official price is about 67 cents," the New York Times notes. "The spike has come as a shock to Iraqis, who make only about $150 a month on average-if they have jobs," an important proviso, since unemployment is roughly 60­70 percent nationally.

October 2006 proved to be the bloodiest month of the entire occupation, with more than six thousand civilians killed in Iraq, most in Baghdad, where thousands of additional U.S. troops have been sent since August with the claim they would restore order and stability in the city, but instead only sparked more violence. United Nations special investigator Manfred Nowak notes that torture "is totally out of hand" in Iraq. "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein." The number of U.S soldiers dead is now more than 2,900, with more than 21,000 wounded, many severely.

The underlying trend is clear: each day the occupation continues, life gets worse for most Iraqis. Rather than stemming civil war or sectarian conflict, the occupation is spurring it. Rather than being a source of stability, the occupation is the major source of instability and chaos.

All of the reasons being offered for why the United States cannot withdraw troops from Iraq are false. The reality is, the troops are staying in Iraq for much different reasons than the ones being touted by political elites and a still subservient establishment press. They are staying to save face for a U.S. political elite that cares nothing for the lives of Iraqis or U.S. soldiers; to pursue the futile goal of turning Iraq into a reliable client state strategically located near the major energy resources and shipping routes of the Middle East, home to two-thirds of world oil reserves, and Western and Central Asia; to serve as a base for the projection of U.S. military power in the region, particularly in the growing conflict between the United States and Iran; and to maintain the legitimacy of U.S. imperialism, which needs the pretext of a global war on terror to justify further military intervention, expanded military budgets, concentration of executive power, and restrictions on civil liberties. The U.S. military did not invade and occupy Iraq to spread democracy, check the spread of weapons of mass destruction, rebuild the country, or stop civil war. In fact, the troops remain in Iraq today to deny self-determination and genuine democracy to the Iraqi people, who have made it abundantly clear, whether they are Shiite or Sunni, that they want U.S. troops to leave Iraq immediately; feel less safe as a result of the occupation; think the occupation is spurring not suppressing sectarian strife; and support armed attacks on occupying troops and Iraqi security forces, who are seen not as independent but as collaborating with the occupation.

It is not only the Iraqi people who oppose the occupation of their country and want to see the troops leave. A clear majority of people in the United States have expressed the same sentiment in major opinion polls and in the mid-term Congressional elections, which swing both houses of Congress and the majority of state governorships to the Democrats, in a clear vote against the imperial arrogance of Bush's "stay the course" approach to the disaster in Iraq. The public did not vote for more money for the Pentagon (as incoming Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada immediately promised, announcing a plan to give $75 billion more to the Pentagon), for more "oversight" of the war (the main Democratic Party buzzword these days), or for more troops (as Texas Democrat Representative Silvestre Reyes, the incoming chair of the House Intelligence Committee, has demanded), but to begin bringing the troops home. A clear majority of active-duty U.S. troops want the same thing, as a much-ignored Zogby International poll found in early 2005, with 72 percent saying they wanted to be out of Iraq by the end of 2006.

But Bush's response to the groundswell of opposition to the war, which has led not only to his setbacks in the midterm elections but to even further erosion in his already abysmal approval ratings (with approval of his handling of the war reaching a new low of 27 percent), is to insist that the sun still revolves around the earth. "Absolutely, we're winning," Bush told reporters. "I know there's a lot of speculation that these reports in Washington mean there's going to be some kind of graceful exit from Iraq," Bush said. "This business about a graceful exit just simply has no realism to it whatsoever," he added. "We're going to stay in Iraq to get the job done." In a similar vein, Vice President Cheney said, "I know what the President thinks. I know what I think. And we're not looking for an exist strategy.We're looking for victory."

After the midterm elections Bush was forced to jettison his deeply unpopular defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, but nominated in his place someone who is unlikely to oversee any fundamental shift in U.S. strategy. Robert Gates, an old CIA hand, is a dedicated Cold Warrior who advocated, among other enlightened policies, the bombing of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua for daring to challenge the corrupt order of death squad dictatorships in Latin America. Bush also dropped UN ambassador John Bolton, a man who embodies everything that the world hates about U.S. foreign policy today.

Perhaps most significantly, though, in the face of the failures in Iraq, Congress resorted to the old strategy of bringing in the "wise men" to repackage a failing war, convening the Iraq Study Group (ISG), with Bush family fixer James Baker III, former Indiana representative Lee Hamilton, and other foreign policy establishment figures with little or no knowledge of Iraq. The commission was never going to advocate any radical reversal of U.S. policy in Iraq, but even so, Bush has hedged his bets from the outset, setting up two different internal military review committees to make suggestions to the White House about the next steps in Iraq (much as he had overseen a separate intelligence operation to create the evidence that would be used to sell the invasion in the first place). Indeed, when the report's findings were made public on December 6, Bush immediately distanced himself from its highly limited recommendations. As the New York Sun noted, "Barely 24 hours old, the bipartisan report has been placed on a high shelf to gather dust, its principle function having been to take the heat off the president for a time while allowing him to gather his resolve to press on" with the same course as before. Bush immediately rejected the report's call to negotiate with Iran and Syria, the Wall Street Journal reported: "A senior administration official said the White House doesn't feel bound by the report and is unlikely to implement many of its recommendations, especially regarding calls for diplomatic outreach to U.S. foes Syria and Iran." In addition, "The White House has rejected mounting calls for a course correction in Iraq, insisting it would maintain the current number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq indefinitely."

But even if the Bush administration sought to immediately implement every recommendation of the Iraq Study Group report, it would only be a recipe for more death, displacement, and despair. The ISG report explicitly rejects setting any deadline or timetable for withdrawal, asserts the need for a "considerable military presence in the region, with our still significant force in Iraq and with our powerful air, ground, and naval deployments in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar, as well as an increased presence in Afghanistan" for years to come, and basically repackages the Bush Doctrine of "as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down," that is "Iraqization" of the conflict, much as "Vietnamization" was presented as the solution in Vietnam.
It is worth briefly reviewing the various options now being considered by the Bush administration, none of which offers any real alternative:

Sending in more troops in the short term

The idea that sending in more troops would provide stability and improve the situation in Iraq ignores the fact that the U.S. is the main source of violence and instability. More troops breed both more opposition and more sectarian violence. Observes Michael Schwartz, "Instead of entering a violent city and restoring order, [U.S. forces] enter a relatively peaceful city and create violence. The accurate portrait of this situationis that the most hostile anti-American cities like Tal Afar and Ramadi have generally been reasonably peaceful when U.S. troops are not there." Even the ISG notes that Operation Together Forward II, which redeployed thousands of U.S. troops to Baghdad in August 2006, achieved the opposite of its stated goal: "Violence in Baghdad-already at high levels-jumped more than 43 percent between the summer and October 2006." Schwartz also explains the way in which the higher presence of U.S. combat troops exacerbates sectarian violence:

American patrols in Shia neighborhoods immobilize the local defenses and make the community vulnerable to jihadist attack; while American invasions of Sunni communities are even more damaging. They not only immobilize the local defense forces, but almost always involve the introduction of Iraqi Army units, made up mainly of Shia soldiers (since the army being stood up by the Americans is largely a Shia one). What results is violence in the form of battles between a Shia military (as well as militia-infiltrated Shia police forces) and Sunni resistance fighters defending their communities. These attacks generate immense bitterness among Sunni, who see them as part of a Shia attempt to use the American military to conquer and pacify Sunni cities. The result is a wealth of new jihadists anxious to retaliate by sacrificing their lives in terrorist or death-squad-style attacks on Shia communities-which, in their turn, energize the Shia death squads in an escalating cycle of brutalizing violence.

The U.S, in addition, cannot add more troops without straining an already badly overtaxed military and relying on greater use of backdoor draft measures that are provoking more opposition at home and within the military to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, another failing occupation.


We'll stand down as they stand up

The idea that training Iraqi troops can be improved, a major recommendation of the ISG report, suggests that there's a technical solution that the U.S. faces in Iraq. But the root of resistance to U.S occupation is political. As long as the U.S. remains an occupying power, the police and military will continue to be seen as collaborators and illegitimate. Resistance groups in Iraq, meanwhile, face no such training problems, and are carrying out increasingly sophisticated operations, including direct military battles with U.S. troops, because their fighters are politically motivated and have a defined goal that has widespread support.


Engage Iran and Syria

The idea behind this strategy, another major thrust of the ISG report, is that the root of resistance to U.S. occupation in Iraq is foreign, rather than indigenous-much as we were told that the popular resistance of the Vietnamese to U.S. state terrorism was directed by Moscow and Beijing. In this delusional worldview, Iran and Syria, and groups such as al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, are the sources of violence in Iraq. This baseless theory then leads to the equally baseless idea that the U.S. will somehow stabilize Iraq through talks with two governments it is committed to overthrowing. As the Financial Times observes, there is little reason to think Bush "would be willing to follow advice that contradicts his deeply held belief that the U.S. should not talk toIran and Syria" because doing so would "reward bad behavior." Bush has repeatedly said that a precondition for talking to Iran is a suspension of the country's legal nuclear enrichment program, something that Iran has no reason to agree to in advance of negotiations. At any rate, even if talks do take place, Iran and Syria are not the masters of events in Iraq, which are driven by the internal politics and the dynamics of the U.S. occupation.


Gradual withdrawal

Proposals for gradual withdrawal with no timetable are a recipe for pursuing an infinitely receding horizon. The idea behind gradual withdrawal was put accurately, if cynically, by Donald Rumsfeld in a secret leaked memo, written November 6, just a few days before his resignation: "Recast the U.S. military mission and U.S. goals (how we talk about them)-go minimalist." In other words, change the rhetoric while lowering expectations, but pursue the same goals. "Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not 'lose.'"

Redeployment

A frequent buzzword in discussions of the occupation of Iraq today, especially among Democrats, is redeployment. On November 14, 2006, Senator Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat considered to be at the extreme left end of the party's elected officials, introduced a bill "requiring U.S. forces to redeploy from Iraq by July 1, 2007." But the plan itself calls for keeping troops in Iraq. "My legislation would allow for a minimal level of U.S. forces to remain in Iraq for targeted counterterrorism activities, training of Iraqi security forces, and the protection of U.S. infrastructure and personnel." In other words, redeployment envisions U.S. bases, U.S. troops, and U.S. occupation, while merely shifting some personnel to other military bases in the region-where they can be quickly mobilized to strike when necessary-and most likely shifting to greater reliance on air power in Iraq and in the region to pursue U.S. imperial objectives.


Partition

One plan that the ISG did not recommend, and which Bush has also criticized, but which remains a real possibility as the crisis in Iraq unfolds, is partition. The deteriorating situation on the ground has encouraged some analysts and politicians-including incoming Democrat Joseph Biden, the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair-to call for the breakup of Iraq into three independent countries or three relatively autonomous territories within a loosely federated state. Such a division of Iraq, however, could only be accomplished by massive ethnic cleansing. The largest urban concentration of Kurds in Iraq is not in the northern zone that would likely make up a future Kurdish enclave or state, but in Baghdad. Most cities described by reporters as "Sunni strongholds" or "Shiite townships" have mixed populations with significant minorities of Sunni, Shiite, Turkmen, Kurds, or Assyrians. In addition, any predominantly Sunni state in central and western Iraq that emerged from a tripartite division of the country would be significantly impoverished compared to its oil-rich southern and northern neighbors.


The iron fist

Another option-one with a long history in Iraq and the Middle East-remains support for a new "iron fist." Eliot A. Cohen, Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, suggests that "A junta of military modernizers might be the only hope of a country whose democratic culture is weak, whose politicians are either corrupt or incapable," a narrative that is gaining much more popularity in the establishment press and among pundits and politicians seeking an explanation for the disaster in Iraq that avoids looking at its real roots. This is a refurbishing of an old idea-a Saddam-style regime without Saddam-that became impossible as soon as the Bremer administration in Iraq dismantled the army and the Baath party, the only political and administrative basis on which such a dictatorship could have been established.

Expansion

Despite the ISG's recommendations of direct talks with Iran and Syria, and the caution of Robert Gates and others about the pitfalls of pursuing Iran militarily, the threat of the U.S. expanding the war in Iraq remains very real. In summer 2006, Washington sponsored the disastrous and bloody Israeli invasion of Lebanon, hoping to gain some tactical advantage in the region and hence in Iraq. The gamble failed miserably, but some feel another such gamble is necessary. As Seymour Hersh writes in the New Yorker, "many in the White House and the Pentagon insist that getting tough with Iran is the only way to salvage Iraq. 'It's a case of "failure forward,"' a Pentagon consultant said. 'They believe that by tipping over Iran they would recover their losses in Iraq-like doubling your bet.'"

Whatever Bush's new plan for Iraq may be, a major clash of expectations is likely to come about as the Democrats fail to pose any real challenge to the war. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stressed "bipartisanship" the moment the results were announced, adding that impeachment of Bush was "off the table." Pelosi and the new Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also said they would take off the table the greatest power the Democrats have in Congress, the ability to cut off funds for prolonging the occupation. As Alexander Cockburn wrote in the Nation: "It'sthe role of elections in properly run western democracies to remind people that things won't really change at all. Certainly not for the better. You can set your watch by the speed with which the new crowd lowers expectations and announces What is Not To Be Done."

Out now

Indeed, the one option that remains truly off the table in Iraq is the only sensible one: complete and unconditional immediate withdrawal, followed by reparations to the Iraqi people for the massive harm the occupation-and before that the sanctions, the Gulf and Iran-Iran Wars, and years of supporting the dictatorship-have caused. According to the New York Times, "In the cacophony of competing plans about how to deal with Iraq, one reality now appears clear: despite the Democrats' victoryin an election viewed as a referendum on the war, the idea of rapid American troop withdrawal is fast receding as a viable option."

The debate today in Washington remains one largely over tactics, not strategy or principles. In fact, the one debate over principles that is taking place is a racist one: more and more "experts" now question whether Bush's folly was in thinking he could bring democracy to Arab or Muslim people, who, we are told, "have no tradition of democracy," are from a "sick society," a "broken society." In a much-lauded speech, Barack Obama, the great hope of the Democrats, couched his criticism of the Bush administration's policy by saying there should be "No more coddling" of the Iraqi government: the United States "is not going to hold together this country indefinitely," he explained, adding that "we should be more modest in our belief that we can impose democracy." Richard Perle, former chair of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, one of the main neoconservative enthusiasts of the invasion of Iraq, in explaining why things had gone so contrary to his glorious predictions, now says he "underestimated the depravity" of the Iraqis. And the ISG report chides that "the Iraqi people and their leaders have been slow to demonstrate their capacity or will to act," and therefore the U.S. "must not make an open-ended commitment" to them. In other words, blame the victim. As Sharon Smith wrote on CounterPunch, "Within a few short weeks, the Washington 'consensus' has rewritten the history of the U.S. invasion of Iraq-as if Iraqis invited the U.S. to invade their sovereign nation in 2003 and now have failed to live up to their end of the bargain."

As the crisis in Iraq unfolds, we can expect these arguments to gain even wider traction, providing more cover for the real U.S. objectives in the Middle East.

The tragedy unfolding in Iraq is still far from over. In Act I of the tragedy, we were told that Washington would invade Iraq, quickly topple the dictatorship, install a stable client government, and then-having radically changed the balance of power in the Middle East-march on from Baghdad to confront the regimes of Iran and Syria. With that dream in tatters, the United States commenced Act II: the manipulation of sectarian divisions in Iraq to form a Shiite and Kurdish coalition government that would isolate the Sunnis (though it would seek to co-opt as much of their political leadership as possible) and serve the intended client role, if less effectively than Washington had hoped, allowing the U.S. to gain at least some foothold in Iraq and claim victory. By mid-2006, the failures of this strategy could no longer be ignored, however. Having invaded Iraq intending to weaken Iran and Syria, to strengthen its position and that of Israel and its Arab allies in the region, the United States instead achieved the opposite. (Of course, all of this ignores the many stages of the tragedy authored by the United States before the March 2003 invasion, through its support of the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein, its nefarious role in the Iran-Iraq War and then the 1991 Gulf War, and the more than twelve years of sanctions and bombing that followed.)

Acts I and II in the tragedy of the Iraq occupation have now come to a close. But Act III has only just begun. All the signs suggest that the endgame in Iraq is likely to be long and very bloody. Iraq and the Middle East are so strategically important to the United States that neither party is willing to withdraw and admit defeat; such an outcome would be more disastrous for the United States than its defeat in Vietnam.
But there is one factor in the Iraq tragedy that we should not discount. The question of how long this war lasts, whether it will expand to Iran and Syria, whether more troops will be sent to needlessly kill and be killed for profit and power, does not only depend on the decisions and internal conflicts of the ruling class. It also depends on the level of public opposition in Iraq, at home, and within the military itself. Groups like Iraq Veterans Against the War are already playing a leading role in the struggle to end the occupation. But we are still only at the beginning of organizing the kind of opposition we need to affect the course of the war decisively.

The U.S. war against Vietnam was lost by 1968, if not sooner, but continued for years after, with millions of lives lost as a consequence. We cannot allow a repeat of that tragic history. The Vietnam War, though, also has another lesson to teach us: that when people speak out and organize, they can deter even the most powerful and reckless government. The war against the people of Indochina would certainly have lasted even longer-and might have spread even farther-had concerted opposition at home and internationally not forced the United States to retreat. That is a lesson we badly need to relearn-and put into practice-today.

Anthony Arnove is the author of Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal, just published in an updated paperback edition, with a foreword by Howard Zinn, in the American Empire Project (Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt). He is on the editorial boards of Haymarket Books and International Socialist Review. This article appears in the January­February issue of the ISR.

[The Wiseman]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=LEN20061215&articleId=4153

Omissions In the Iraq Study Group Report


by Stephen Lendman
 
Global Research, December 15, 2006
 


 Email this article to a friend
 Print this article


 

Noted historian Eric Foner in a December 7 article on OpEd News.com calls George Bush "the worst president in US history....(who) in his first six years in office....managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors." Equally noted historian Gabriel Kolko agrees, and along with his other comments, calls the Bush administration "the worst set of incompetents ever to hold power in Washington." And referring specifically to the war in Iraq, Kolko colorfully describes what former Reagan administration National Security Agency (NSA) chief General William Odom calls "....the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States" by saying the Bush administration "shocked and awed....itself." Hard to say it better than that.

Enter James Baker and the Iraq Study Group (ISG) that reported its findings publicly on December 6 after most of it was leaked well in advance making its release and full-court corporate media press hyping and griping anti-climactic as well as disappointing and disturbing. The ISG was formed in March with at least four crucial aims:

--to avoid a perceived inevitable political and fiscal train wreck caused by the disastrous Bush administration policy over the past six years.

-- to buy time for the failed and discredited Bush administration attempting to save it along with the family's name and reputation.

-- to devise a scheme to assure US dominance in the Middle East, fast slipping away, is restored and maintained going forward so this country doesn't lose control over what a State Department spokesperson in 1945 called a "stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history -(the region's oil)."

-- to be a (thinly-veiled) attempt to assuage public anger over a war gone sour, that's illegal, can't be won, is taking a terrible toll, and never should have been waged.

The ISG did it by proposing 79 recommendations supposedly comprising a change of course strategy that, in fact, amounts to little more than moving the existing chess pieces around the Iraq board, ending up almost where we are now - in a hopeless unresolvable quagmire approaching an apocalypse with no possibility of winning an unwinnable war and no high-level policy-makers thinking we can save for a president mired in a state of denial.

He's out of touch with reality, and according to Capitol Hill Blue editor Doug Thompson from insider reports he's getting calling the president "a dangerous cornered animal" he writes: Bush is a man "living on the edge" growing "more sullen and moody with each passing day....his paranoia....increasing to manic levels as he launches into tirades about traitors in his own party, in the press and among his allies (and) feels betrayed by....James Baker (whose ISG report he feels humiliated his administration)." The president, hasn't a clue that Jim Baker didn't do this. George Bush did a very thorough job of it himself.

What the ISG Should Have Addressed but Didn't

That said and well reported, what's most striking about the ISG report isn't what it says but what it leaves out. Beginning in 1991, the US conducted an unending war of aggression in two phases, with a dozen years of punishing and unjustifiable sanctions sandwiched between them, against a country posing no threat to us or its neighbors following its long and costly war in the 1980s with Iran (that the US urged Saddam to wage and supported him throughout) from which it needed financial help to recover but hadn't gotten enough to make a significant difference. It began after Saddam misread US intentions regarding his troubled relations with Kuwait, allowing himself to be deceived by the first Bush administration into believing we had no interest in how he chose to settle his justifiable dispute which Washington had a hand in creating.

With US urging, Kuwait demanded repayment of $14 billion in outstanding loans incurred to help finance Saddam's war with Iran, it also helped keep oil prices low when Iraq needed them higher to oblige, and it was slant drilling into Iraqi territory and provokingly refusing to negotiate a reasonable settlement to all disputes. Finally, Iraq took matters into its own hands to do by invasion what it couldn't achieve through months of failed diplomacy but only with de facto US approval it thought it got that proved not to be.

Saddam fell into the trap, and the rest is history. He's now still in the dock after one conviction, was sentenced to be hanged by the US-administered kangaroo court after the first of his trials, his country is occupied and in ruins, and his people are living in a state of out-of-control violence and desparation because of an illegal and brutal occupation that must end unconditionally for them to have any hope for a normal life again.

The ISG report ignores this history and the reasons we went to war with Iraq in the first place. It began with Saddam's misguided invasion of Kuwait in August, 1990 with the US then claiming it would liberate the country forcibly even though he was willing to negotiate a settlement and pull out his forces. But once the trap was baited with Saddam in it, there was no turning back from a war the US wanted. Events were unstoppable which was clear from GHW Bush's belligerent language saying "(Saddam's) Naked aggression will not stand" and refusing all his overtures to negotiate and his willingness to remove his occupying forces wanting only reasonable redress.

GWH Bush got the war he wanted, but the US plan wasn't to liberate Kuwait. It was to remove or fatally weaken a leader we couldn't dominate and liberate his nation's oil and sovereignty from his control to ours. It was also a way to accomplish what GHW Bush said at war's end six weeks after it began on January 17, 1991: "It's a proud day for America - and, by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all," but he failed to explain what he meant was this now gave the US license to attack and invade another country any time henceforth it could convince the public a threat existed to justify it. Given the power and complicity of the corporate-controlled media, that hasn't been a problem since.

So faced with the syndrome's resurgence from the disaster today in Iraq, the ISG is waging a frontal attack to contain it deceiving the public to believe a new course is at hand hoping to assuage its anger so essentially the same failed policy can continue unabated. It's also to buy enough time for George Bush to get through the next two years, hold together his failed administration slowly coming apart for lack of public support, and keep the ship of state from being wrecked on the shoals of the administration's ineptness and arrogance extreme enough for a growing number of former adherents to walk away not wanting the taint of it to tarnish them any more than it already has.

It doesn't matter what was proposed on December 6 or that there's no chance it can work any better than current policy. That's for the next administration in 2009 to worry about. What does matter is to convince the public it's a new course, even though it's only smoke and mirrors, and one sensible enough to work that will end the US occupation and involvement in the country but at an unspecified time left unstated because there is none or any intention to leave the country or give up control of its oil treasure. Just like in the run-up to the March, 2003 attack and invasion, the public again has been had, and it remains to be seen how long it will take for it to catch on and continue opposing an illegal war of aggression that never should have been waged in the first place.

Other Omissions in the ISG Report

Start with its members and the interests they represent. Overall it's an assemblage of high-level elitists from past government service working with their counterparts in the military and ideologically-driven right wing think tank experts brought together to find a way to assure the US imperial agenda stays on track meaning despite what its report said, the US is in Iraq to stay as long as there's enough oil in the region to make it worthwhile as that's why we came in the first place along with neutering Saddam to remove Israel's main obstacle to its regional hegemony.

Jim Baker led the group along with his co-chair and leading figure of the 9/11 commission whitewash, former Democrat congressman Lee Hamilton, who's another long-standing loyal servant of empire and serial abuser of the public trust. They and the others on the Commission share another dubious attribute. Like George Bush and his administration co-conspirators, these figures, too, are war criminals along with their other abuses of the public trust that should have put them in the dock of justice and made them be held to account along with George Bush, Dick Cheney and their band of neocon rogues. They never will be in a nation ruled by victor's justice meaning none at all for the law-breakers and a whole lot of injustice for its victims.

Jim Baker's association with crime and scandal is long-standing, but he's always emerged unscatched, his reputation, in fact, enhanced, with each new episode of lawlessness he's played a central role in while navigating safely through each of them. He's done it almost without breaking a sweat in his role as a man at the center of power since the inception of the Reagan administration in 1980. Outside the Bush family, no one is closer or more important to the president's father and former president than Baker. And no one has more influence with him or with other major players in the nation's power establishment, at least on the dominant Republican side. It's why, along with others of his status, he's able to get away with murder and most anything else.

From 1985 - 1988, he was Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Treasury after serving as the president's influential White House Chief of Staff from inception (as part of the Baker, Ed Meese, Michael Deaver power troika) till he took over the treasury post. While there, he, more than anyone else (but with a lot of co-conspiratorial help), bore responsibility for the grand theft of over $100 billion in the notorious Savings and Loan scandal that allowed the looting of deregulated banks to take place throughout the country, especially in his home state of Texas where anything goes as long as there's a buck in it for the power elite. He then served as GHW Bush's Secretary of State from 1989 - 1992 playing a major role in crafting administration policy leading to the Gulf war and the unjustifiable sanctions of aggression at its conclusion.

Baker formed his own think tank in 1993 after leaving the Bush administration, the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy in Houston, where the former president happens to live when he's not at his summer home in Maine. It supports "oil and petrodollar conquest" policies, played a major role in post 9/11 policy and the fraudulent "war on terror" making it possible, and is also a prominent attorney connected with the notorious Carlyle Group that's profited enormously from all things connected to the defense establishment and uses the services of GHW Bush in the role of "senior consultant" and master rainmaker/fixer-arranger at a very high price for his services.

Baker also engineered the theft of the 2000 presidential election for the younger Bush by assuring he got the necessary 25 Florida electoral votes and not Al Gore who won them and the presidency he never got because George Bush was chosen for the role regardless of the will of the electorate. Five complicit US Supreme Court justices went along with the scheme to seal the deal and in so doing abrogated their constitutional duty to uphold the law of the land. One of them was commission member Sandra Day O'Connor, now rewarded for her participation in the infamous judicial coup d'etat giving her an encore performance as legal advisor and expert law twister/subverter for the interests of wealth and power she swears allegiance to like all the other members of the "Gang of Ten" co-conspirators.

Baker is their leader and is presented as an respected diplomat and elder statesman sent to rescue the ship of state and Bush administration to keep it afloat and him in the White House at least for another two years. What he is, in fact, is a master criminal/manipulator/schemer, a dangerous and ruthless power broker deserving no public trust who should be made to answer for his malfeasance according to the law he doesn't respect or acknowledge unless he can twist it to serve his interests or those of his clients.

More Omissions - Trashing International Law Including the UN Charter and US Constitution to Wage An Illegal War of Aggression

How could a nation born as a great democratic experiment rebelling against the divine right of monarchs become instead now one worshipping the divine right of capital and capable of being even more repressive. Ben Franklin warned about this early on saying "(The US Constitution) is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism....when the people shall become so corrupted as to need (or not be vigilant enough to prevent) despotic government, being incapable of any other."

Much earlier, Roman historian Tacitus explained what then happens: "They (pillage) the world. When the land has nothing left for men who ravage everything, they scour the sea. They....are greedy....they crave glory....They covet wealth....They plunder, they butcher, they ravish, and call it....'empire.' They make a desert and call it peace." Today they pillage, destroy and enslave in serfdom and call it democracy. They believe it's their right, divine or otherwise, and their cause is just. They lead this nation, and the rest of the world trembles and suffers dearly as long as they rule. The Iraq conflict is just their latest excursion to satisfy their insatiable lust for more wealth, power and glory.

The initial Bush-led "shock and awe" attack against that afflicted country didn't start on March 18, 2003. It began in small, incremental steps continuing the intermittent harassing mostly below-the-radar strikes that went on throughout the 1990s and picked up again after 9/11 as violence in the so-called No-Fly Zone increased and the Washington anti-Saddam demonization rhetoric was rolled out prepping the public for the Iraq war the Bush administration wanted as soon as it came to town.

It only reached full fury in the opening days of the war that began in mid-March, 2003. It's now gone on longer than WW II with no resolution in sight, despite all the lofty disingenuous talk and one over-hyped commission practicing the Sun Tzu Art of War deception on the US public in its cooked up reworked version of the same failed policy of aggressive war and permanent occupation. It has no chance to end the resistance to it unless or until all our forces are unconditionally withdrawn, something this country won't ever agree to but, in the end, will be forced to do just like it had to acknowledge defeat and leave Southeast Asia in 1975. History has a way of repeating for those failing to learn its lessons. This time the price being paid looks a lot stiffer and more painful than the last misadventure, but the full amount won't be known until the current exercise in futility finally ends.

Unstated in any part of the ISG report or in any Washington or mainstream commentary on Iraq policy since the confrontation with Saddam began in January, 1991, is that the US planned and carried out a war of illegal aggression now near completing its 16th year. Early on, this country got some UN-cover by dint of its high-pressure to shape Security Council policy to fit its own. That process, however, broke down in the run-up to the current conflict beginning in March, 2003 when the US pretext for war was so outrageous, enough countries with clout and Security Council veto power opposed us forcing Washington to go it alone with an embarrassing "coalition of the willing." Those countries in it became shameless co-conspirators by agreeing to join in partnership with the US defiantly flaunting international laws and norms as participants in this exercise of lawlessness.

You won't find any of that hinted at in the ISG report. It's not mentioned that this country began by violating Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution that gives the power to declare war solely to the Congress, although it hasn't exercised it since it declared war against the Axis powers in WW II. It also ignores our violating what the Nuremberg Tribunal trying Nazi war criminals called the "supreme international crime" stating: "To initiate a war of aggression....is not only an international crime, it is the supreme crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." And it doesn't mention this country violated the UN Charter that's international law this country is bound by. It allows a nation the right to use force in its self-defense only under two conditions: when authorized to do it by the Security Council or under Article 51 that permits the "right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member....until the Security council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security."

By attacking Iraq without provocation and with no Security Council authorization for it prior to March, 2003, the US violated this sacred covenant it's a signatory to. It also violated the US Constitution that says...."all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." The Bush administration flaunts that law, but the ISG is unperturbed, allows this elephant in our face to go unmentioned, by its silence supports its continuance, and is unwilling to act responsibly to assure going forward this country abides by all laws and standards as a first prerequisite to resolving the conflict in Iraq and most important to preventing future ones.

It can't do it, because if it does it would then have to acknowledge this country attacked, invaded and now occupies Iraq in violation of international laws and norms, must now end its illegal occupation, and those responsible must be held to account for what they've done in the world and national bodies established to deal with these type crimes of war and against humanity. It would also have to acknowledge that all the commission members have their own closets filled with disturbing skeletons including, of course, the former High Court justice exposed above whose judicial act of infamy allowed this holocaust to happen and never spoke out publicly against it indicating she finds mass slaughter and destruction quite acceptable by her legal and moral standards - the same rogue standards all commission members and those in the Bush administration endorse so they act co-conspiratorially to cover for each other.

The ISG also ignored other international laws this country is legally bound to obey but didn't and won't ever under a Bush administration that mocks them. Nonetheless, the US can't hide its use of banned chemical and poisonous depleted uranium weapons outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Convention Gas Protocol and various succeeding Geneva Conventions banning the use of chemical and biological weapons in any form for any reason in war. In addition, under various UN Conventions and Covenants that are binding international law for its signatories, the use of any weapons that cause harm after the battle including away from the battlefield, harm the environment, or kill, wound or cause harm inhumanely are illegal and banned.

In the Gulf war and thereafter, the US military routinely used illegal weapons including depleted uranium munitions for 16 years in Iraq that spread deadly toxic irremediable radiation over a vast area of the country. These weapons are poisonous under international law and violate all the above conditions. The Pentagon also willfully violated international statutes by using an array of banned and questionable weapons with no restraint including against non-military civilian targets as a tactical strategy, a practice prohibited by these codes of law.

By its silence, the ISG tacitly endorses these practices as well as the administration's use of torture outlawed by various binding international statutes including the significant 1984 UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) that includes rape and the kinds of sexual abuse routinely used in US-administered prisons in Iraq as part of the interrogation, dehumanizing and terror-inducing social control process authorized by the December 18 departing Secretary of Defense and unindicted war criminal Donald Rumsfeld.

Jim Baker and the other commission members also are comfortable with the way the US military treats the thousands of prisoners it holds even though they're denied all rights guaranteed them under the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 (GCIII) that provides for humane treatment including an array of services like enough proper food and medical care and prohibits the kinds of abusive practices the US routinely engages in. The ISG report also ignores any change of policy regarding the rights of civilians guaranteed under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (GCIV) that covers a range of protections routinely denied them as another part of the Bush administration's flaunting of all international laws that prohibit whatever practices it wishes to engage in, law or no law. No problem for Jim Baker and his "Gang of Ten" including the former High Court justice member who understands the law and was sworn to uphold it while on the bench, domestic and international that's binding US law under the Constitution.

Omissions About the Human Cost in Iraq

The few ISG findings deserving mention and discussion have largely been ignored in the corporate-controlled media because doing so would be embarrassing to the Bush administration trying to cover them up as further evidence of its failure in Iraq that can only be characterized as criminal, disastrous and hopeless short of a full and unconditional US withdrawal not in the cards.

One of them at the end of the long report mentions a "significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq." It's part of the cover-up from the White House and Department of Defense the commission says acts "as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases (to distort) events on the ground." It cites an example that last July the Pentagon report of 93 attacks one day was distorted to hide the reality that "a careful review of the reports....brought to light 1,100 acts of violence (on that day, or a slight 11-fold greater amount of it)."

Noting that is fine as far as it goes, but it's not near enough as the ISG's mini-revelation hides the greater truth about the US-inflicted holocaust against the Iraqi people that began in January, 1991, continues unabated and won't end until the occupation does. That's the key "reality" the ISG report suppresses as does the corporate-controlled media including parts buried deep in it they're silent on.

For 16 years, the US created a living hell in Iraq. It willfully and illegally destroyed essential infrastructure like power generating stations and clean water and sanitation facilities vital to health, welfare and public safety. It wantonly targeted and slaughtered many thousands of civilians. It unjustifiably imposed a dozen years of punishing economic sanctions causing the deaths of as many as 1.5 million innocent Iraqis two UN heads of humanitarian relief resigned in protest over, being unwilling to participate in a US-imposed policy one of them characterized as "genocide."

Even today, little, if anything meaningful, has been done to ameliorate a hopeless situation on the ground in most of the country. The ISG report ignores US war crimes in destroying a once prosperous nation, leaving in its wake a surreal lawless armed camp wasteland with few or no essential services by design including electricity, clean water, medical care, fuel and most everything else needed for sustenance and survival.

The commission report is also silent on the shocking 2006 Lancet study that accurately assessed the human toll of the war since 2003 using statistically reliable random household "cluster sampled" personal interviews with death certificate verifications in most cases. It estimated 655,000 violent deaths since March, 2003 attributable to the war stating the true number might be as high as 900,000 as interviewers were unable to survey the most violent parts of the country like Fallujah and Ramadi in al Anbar province (comprising one-third of the country) where mass killing still goes on daily as well as to include in the study the thousands of families in which all its members were killed. By its silence, the ISG is willfully participating in the cover-up of this massive crime against humanity and by its failure to offer redress is co-conspiratorially part of it.

The ISG also ignores the true cost to US forces in Iraq that began in the Gulf war and continues today. One-third or more of the 696,841 military personnel who served in the Gulf from August 2, 1990 to July 31, 1991 have filed claims for or have been reported by the Veteran's Administration (VA) to be on some form of disability in 2004, most likely from the deadly effects of depleted uranium (DU) or other toxic poisoning the Pentagon tries to suppress and deny.

Today the situation is far worse, but it'll be years before the final human toll is known. The effects of DU poisoning alone may be much more devastating now than in the Gulf war. In this conflict, the DU used in munitions is much more toxic than the kind used earlier. In addition to U-238 used earlier, today's DU weapons contain plutonium (the most toxic of all known substances), neptunium, and the highly radioactive uranium isotope U-236. According to a 1991 study by the UK Atomic Energy Authority, these elements are 100,000 times more dangerous than the U-238 in DU. It takes only the most minute, nearly unmeasurable, amount of this substance in one's body (that can easily be inhaled or otherwise ingested) to be fatal.

Further, the situation today is exacerbated by the current war having been ongoing for over three and one-half years (longer now than WW II) compared to the earlier six week one in 1991. Also, twice as many US forces have been engaged in this toxic environment for extended multiple tours of duty setting up the possibility for an enormous human calamity in years ahead as more of them return home, their bodies poisoned, and their lives and future health put seriously at risk.

In addition, daily life on the ground has been difficult to unbearable for US forces. Many have been ill-equipped with weapons, vehicles, ordinance, body armor and most everything else being consumed and not replaced. It's even worse for Forward Operating Bases often unable to get enough drinking water and other necessities such as proper food, clean clothes, a daily shower and a comfortable bed to sleep in. The effects of conflict and conditions on the ground have taken a devastating toll already with many there increasingly stressed and terrified out of their minds from physical and/or psychological trauma often ignored by commanders.

Most disturbing is the cover-up of the true death and injury toll already that's far higher than the published figures that are phony to avoid likely public anger if they were known. One incident suppressed happened on October 10, 2006 when Forward Base Falcon was attacked by mortars and rockets causing huge stocks of fuel and ammunition to explode most of the night killing or wounding hundreds of the 3,000 troops based there. Pictures gotten out show how extensive the damage was that leveled buildings to the ground explaining why the Pentagon wanted none of this to get out. It did but not in the major media and not in the ISG report.

Despite public disclosures, more accurate data overall is quietly coming out of the Pentagon, unreported in the corporate media, and unmentioned in the ISG report that shows the number of US forces killed is about four times the "official" total, and the number wounded may be about twice the official figure. Almost never mentioned is that many injuries include loss of limbs, brain and severe psychological damage and pain and other debilitations that will scar those affected and their families for the rest of their lives if after treatment and recovery they even survive.

None of this bothers the "Gang of Ten" commission members whose families are safe from this carnage and whose verdict rendered in their report effectively is to let the war go on without end, the enormous and rising human toll on Iraqis and Americans notwithstanding. For them, it's a price worth paying as it serves the interests of empire in which human beings are just another commodity to extract value from and then discard when no longer of further use. That's how the Bush administration and ISG members think and act.

Omissions on the Domestic Front Related to the Iraq War and the "War on Terror" Allowing It to Happen

Domestic and foreign affairs are inextricably linked, and when the nation goes to war, or is planning to, everything is fair game on the home front, but don't expect it will serve the public interest. Ordinary people always pay dearly and gain nothing beyond the right to make the weapons and pay the bills that in the current conflict are huge enough at the least to put an enormous strain on the economy and over time as the out-control costs mount may endanger the nation's economic health. The ISG report doesn't address this reckless endangerment that Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz believes may have an eventual price tag of well over $2 trillion exacerbating already massive budget deficits far higher ($760 billion in 2005, not the "official" $318.5 billion) than the phony numbers reported to hide how bad things really are and on top of an alarming current account deficit now in the range of $800 billion a year and climbing.

It also is unperturbed by the grim picture economist Laurence Kotlikoff presented in a recent detailed report for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis in which he stated, by some measures, the US is already bankrupt and unable to pay its creditors. Professor Kotlikoff believes US fiscal policy is so out-of-control, including for the reckless spending for wars, that the country's debt is rising exponentially and will reach an incomprehensible and unmanageable $65.9 trillion creating a fiscal calamity forcing the nation to default on its debt obligations. He later updated his figures and now believes the country's future overall liability may reach the $80 trillion level that will trigger an inevitable economic meltdown if it happens.

Spending hundreds of billions annually and rising for "defense" including all the off-the-books (but out of taxpayers' pockets) allocations for Iraq will only speed up the pace to the future apocalypse Kotlikoff potentially foresees ahead. No problem for the Baker collective who operate with tunnel vision, and like those three monkeys, hear no, see no, and neither speak nor write anything beyond their re-flavored stay the course agenda for Iraq disguised to look like a new drawdown policy it isn't.

Other Domestic Front Omissions - The Destruction of Democracy and Loss of Personal Freedoms

The ISG was formed to serve US imperial interests including its wars of aggression for wealth and power. It doesn't matter how destructive they are to the public welfare or how they're allowing the nation to pass from a republic to tyranny. For every blow the US military strikes against the people of Iraq (and Afghanistan), the political establishment here and its "homeland security" enforcers inflict a similar amount of damage in kind against the body politic at home, not through the barrel of a gun (yet) but by the destruction of our civil liberties and human rights that stand in the way of the grandiose schemes people like Jim Baker and his "Gang of Ten" allies hope to pull off - to gain total imperial control over planet earth and the heavens above it with ordinary working people everywhere just more commodity inputs for their production meat grinder to be chewed up for profit and then discarded.

So for Baker and the ISG team, keeping mum about the war at home is part of the scheme to let it go on largely under the radar until the time comes to strip off the mask and send the jackboots and tanks to the streets making them look like the ones in Baghdad and with some of the same horrific fallout as things get ugly. For their plan to work, they must crush the last remnants of a free society and create the Orwellian vision he described saying: "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." The ISG is trying to do with guile and deceit what George Bush already did in the new legislation he signed into law on October 17 giving himself what noted British journalist John Pilger calls "the power of unrestricted lawlessness" with scant public awareness it even happened.

On that day, with ISG tacit blessing and approval by its silence, Bush signed into law the infamous Military Commissions Act effectively giving himself the power to subvert the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The bill authorizes the use of torture and allows the president the right to call anyone an enemy of the state on his say alone with no corroborating evidence and strips the accused of all constitutional rights. It means anyone can be arrested, interrogated, tortured and incarcerated in a secret prison anywhere in the world, subject to the justice of a military tribunal like in Iraq or Guantanamo, with no competent defense or habeas right of appeal. It makes everyone an "enemy combatant" subject to the will of a man willing to use his power recklessly with no concern for its consequences.

George Bush went further that day privately and quietly signing into law a provision revising the Insurrection Act of 1807 that along with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the use of federal and National Guard troops for law enforcement inside the country except as allowed by the Constitution or expressly authorized by Congress in times of a national emergency like an insurrection.

No longer. The new Public Law 109-364 (HR 5122) allows the president the right to claim a public emergency, effectively declare martial law on his say alone, and send the jackboots to the streets to suppress whatever he calls public disorder that may include peaceful protests to redeem our constitutional rights now lost.

These new repressive laws add to the ones already on the books including infamous repressive Patriot Acts I and II and the National ID Act that will enable the government to track and control everyone in the country in the "Big Brother" fashion George Orwell foresaw in his dystopian book Nineteen Eighty-Four depicting a totalitarian national security police state society the US has now become. This act alone legalizes tyranny, but it's only one among others including the president having given himself unlimited power by designating himself a "unitary executive" with the right to circumvent the law in the name of national security on his say alone that a threat exists, with no evidence needed to warrant it or congressional approval.

The Congress approves, and again silence from the ISG members plotting their own schemes while watching the country's founding principles being destroyed making it all the easier for them to pull off their heist of the republic to go along with controlling Iraq and the rest of the Middle East and its oil treasure they'll go to any lengths to hold onto - and that's only for starters.

What Chance for ISG Success

The Commission members believe their plan can succeed, but don't be deceived by their (thin) veneer of confidence. Other insiders aren't so sure, and according to the New York Times on December 9 the report "exposed deep fissures among Republicans over how to manage a war that many fear will haunt their party - and the nation - for years to come." From the hard right, critics call the ISG report a shameful retreat while moderate party voices expressed hope George Bush would adopt the Commission's principle recommendations and "begin a process of disengagement from the long and costly war." In the middle, White House officials concluded their own initial assessment of Baker's work saying many of its proposals are "impractical or unrealistic."

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page had its own ideologically-driven say. As expected, it wants no part of engaging Iran and Syria and supports the Israel Lobby position instead. It called the report "a bipartisan strategic muddle ginned up for domestic political purposes." The Journal editorial writers do have a way with words leaving nothing to their readers' imagination.

Unmentioned in the Times story is the unreported view from the Pentagon high command that apparently is much different from its public stance agreeing with the blunt mid-October assessment of Britain's Army Chief of Staff General Richard Dannatt who stated (in contradiction to the Blair government) the presence of UK forces in Iraq "exacerbates the security problems (and they should) get out some time soon" - meaning as soon as possible.

In simple terms, General Dannett and the Pentagon brass believe what most every honest observer understands - that the presence of an occupying force in Iraq is the cause of the problem, not its solution. The longer it remains, the more unstable and intolerable conditions will become. Increasing the force size and/or reshuffling the deck with fewer combat troops and more trainer/advisors will only increase the level of Iraqi resistance against them and ultimately elevate public opposition at home once people catch on and realize they've again been had and the Baker plan is just another scheme to keep our forces in Iraq in perpetuity to maintain the country as a colony and the region's oil under US control.

Middle East expert and scholar Gilbert Achcar states in his new book Perilous Power, co-authored with Noam Chomsky, that the longer US forces remain in the region, the worse things will get, no matter what role they adopt that's just cover for the US to maintain tight control. Achcar says the Bush administration since March, 2003 has been "stupid" and "will go down in history....as the undertaker of US interests in the region." It doesn't get any clearer, stronger, or more on the mark than that, and it goes to the heart of the problem the ISG was formed to deal with - maintaining US control over Middle East oil now in jeopardy and getting the US public to go along.

If the US occupation of Iraq ever ends without a reliable client state government in place, it will create the possibility of Washington's worst nightmare - a majority Shiite ruled Iraq allied with Shiite Iran that might link with the Saudi Shias located in the bordering oil-rich part of the kingdom. If that Tripartite Shia Middle East alliance forms, it will control most of the world's oil supply. It might then choose to align with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) formed to compete with the US for control of Central Asia's huge energy reserves and whose core members are China and Russia giving those countries a chance for a leg up on the US at least for access to Middle East oil. The ISG and Bush administration will do all in its power to prevent this from happening, but the US has lost so much credibility in the region, they face a daunting task and long odds for success.

The ISG report mentions none of this, but does stress the importance of Iraq's oil by mentioning it 63 times and calling for the US to help Iraq privatize its state-owned oil industry, opening it up to Big Oil foreign exploitive investment and the profits from it. If or when the US ends its occupation without leaving a reliable client state in place, it would be hard to imagine Iraq will quickly forgive and forget and be willing to conduct business as usual with oil or other corporations from the country that laid waste to it and only left in humiliation and defeat.

It shows how hard it will be for the US to get out of this mess, and it's likely to prove more than Jim Baker, his high-powered team, and "all the king's horses and men" are up to. They stand virtually no chance to implement a coherent, workable plan for success short of the only operable one they'll never agree to until they no longer have a choice - a full and unconditional withdrawal. It only remains to be seen how long it will take for them and whatever administration is in power in Washington to draw that conclusion and how much time the public's willing to give them, the Bush administration and the majority Democrats in the Congress elected to chart a new course they've so far indicated no intention of doing.

It all adds up to an exercise in deception and futility, but in the end things will end up where they all began in 1990 before the long US assault against Iraq started. When it does, that country will again be free from a foreign occupier but will face a long, expensive and painful struggle to mend and rebuild. As happened when the US left Vietnam, this country will leave it to the Iraqis to recover and regenerate from the carnage and misery on their own that may take a generation or more to achieve and that for most now alive may never be possible.

This will be the legacy of the US invasion and occupation and tainted presidency of George Bush and his corrupted notion of moral superiority, claiming to have brought democracy, liberation and the benefits of western civilization to this blighted country but having to do it through the barrel of a gun. This time things unraveled faster than usual, but it only showed the people of Iraq reject what too many at home still believe - that the US is a benevolent democratic republic serving the will and needs of its people and supporting the rights and sovereignty of free people everywhere to live in peace and security. It's an illusion understood by most others around the world and gaining recognition at home as being just as hollow here as on the streets of Baghdad and Kabul.

It remains to be seen how long it will take for a mass awakening to occur to arouse the public at home, as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan, making them no longer willing to put up with the kind of abuse and neglect they've so far failed to resist. If history is a guide, it will happen, and when it does it may signal the denouement of another repressive imperial state succumbing to the arrogance of its own overreach, excess, hubris and disregard for the needs of its own people demanding redress. It can't come soon enough for the many around the world oppressed by it crying out "freedom now" and beginning to do something about getting it.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also, visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com.
 

[The Wiseman]

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2799/Abduction_of_Women_on_the_Rise

Abduction of Women on the Rise

By Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily
Iraq's "democracy" gave women seats in parliament, but little protection
BAGHDAD (IPS) – Women face increased risk of abduction by militias and criminal gangs as lawlessness takes over the country.

Nobody is safe. Taysseer Al-Mashadani, the Sunni woman minister from the al-Tawafuq political party was abducted by members of the Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mehdi army militia July 1 this year. After being held for nearly three months, she was only released after much pressure was applied from both the U.S. and Iraqi governments.

Thousands of other women have not been so lucky. Many have been executed, assaulted, or released only after their families paid considerable ransom money.

Few women like to talk about what they have to go through. “I was taken by Americans for three days recently,” Um Ahmed told IPS in Baghdad. “They told me they would rape me if I didn’t tell them where my husband was, but I really didn’t know.”

She said that she was turned over to the Iraqi National Guard “who were even worse than the Americans.”

Her husband eventually surrendered to the U.S. military, but she continued to be held “to apply pressure on him to confess things he never did,” she said. “They told him they would rape me right in front of him if he did not confess he was a terrorist. They forced me to watch them beat him hard until he told them what they wanted to hear.”

The Organisation for Women’s Freedom in Iraq has estimated from anecdotal evidence that over 2,000 Iraqi women have gone missing in the period from the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 until spring 2006.

But numbers are not always reliable here. Thousands of cases of abduction of women are never reported for fear of public disgrace.

According to a study published by the Washington-based Brookings Institute Dec. 4, between 30 to 40 Iraqis were being kidnapped every day as of March this year. “The numbers on this table may be lower than the actual number of kidnappings as the Iraqi Police suggest wide underreporting,” the study noted.

These estimated numbers have drastically increased from a reported rate of two kidnappings a day in Baghdad in January 2004, and are up from the 10 a day reported in the capital city in December 2004 according to this study.

Untold numbers of women, believed by many to be in the thousands, have been abducted for money, and others have been abducted for sectarian reasons. “My family had to pay 30,000 dollars to have me released,” a 25 year-old woman told IPS, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Several abducted women have later been found dead, sometimes beheaded. Others are never seen again.

Fifty-two-year-old Um Wasseem from Baghdad was abducted by U.S. force
and held at the Baghdad airport detention camp, her family said. She was eventually released after political pressure from family and friends who had some political muscle.

“I wish she had not been released,” her 20-year-old son told IPS. “Militias then abducted her, and we found her body torn to pieces in March this year.”

Many Iraqi academics and aid workers say most of those being kidnapped now are women.

“Women in Iraq used go to work, participate in social activities and even take part in politics,” sociologist Shatha al-Dulaimy told IPS in Baghdad. “Iraqi women studied and worked side by side with men, and they formed at least 35 percent of the national working power in various fields of work until the U.S. occupation came. The occupation has brought nothing but suffering, death or kidnapping to women here now.”

The U.S. administration promised Iraqi women a better life with new opportunities, but the reality after three-and-a-half years of occupation is far different. Iraqi women were promised 25 percent of the seats in parliament. As it turned, out, the Iraqi National Assembly has 85 women in a total of 275 members following elections held Dec. 15, 2005. But that has not translated into more rights for women across Iraq.

“We are just a part of the décor arranged by Americans who wanted to convince the world of the ‘tremendous’ change in Iraq,” a female member of the Iraqi parliament told IPS on condition of anonymity. “Our (women’s) voice is never heard inside or outside parliament.”

Female members of the new Iraqi Parliament take little part in major political decisions or when it comes to forming committees. Many female members were elected for religious or tribal reasons, she said.

The MP expressed concern over a rise in “religious extremism” because people are being “led by clerics who spent their lives learning how to make women obey their orders and present them with the best services at home.” Such extremism has been a large factor in the rising number of women being kidnapped, she said.

“What women’s rights,” said 38-year-old schoolteacher Assmaa Fadhil. “Those who talk about it are ignorant people who want women to be slaves and concubines rather than partners in life. They are using old traditions to crush women and keep them away from any real participation in society.”

Fadhil says lack of respect for women’s rights has increased the threat of women getting abducted simply as they step out of their homes.

“Most of us now stay at home unless we absolutely must go out for food,” Fadhil said. “Because we know so many women who have been kidnapped, it is only a matter of time for us if we continue traveling around the city.”

Denial of rights for women in the name of Islam is not what Islam is all about, Sheikh Ahmed of the Sunni religious group, the Association of Muslim Scholars, told IPS. “Muslim women are granted full rights of work and social participation. It is tradition that limits women’s activity nowadays, rather than religion.”

Most Iraqi women are fearful about their future as long as the country is led by Islamists.

(c)2006 Dahr Jamail.

For more dispatches from Dahr Jamail, see DahrJamailIraq.com.

[The Wiseman]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16234949/

U.S. preparing surge of forces into Iraq?
Brigade's upcoming deployment may mark short-term boost in troops

Updated: 7:36 p.m. ET Dec 16, 2006
WASHINGTON - After one of the deadliest months yet for American troops in Iraq, the U.S. military could be preparing for a short-term surge of forces to stabilize the violence.

The 2nd Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division is expected in Kuwait shortly after the new year, a senior Defense Department official told The Associated Press on Friday. The official requested anonymity because the plans had not yet been announced.

The 2nd Brigade, made up of roughly 3,500 troops, is based at Fort Bragg, N.C., and would be deployed in Iraq early next year if needed, the official said. The move would be part of an effort to boost the number of U.S. troops in Iraq for a short time, the official said. The plan was first reported by CBS News.

Senior administration officials say the option of a major surge in troop strength is gaining ground as part of the administration’s strategy review, The New York Times reported on its Web site Friday night. Military planners and budget analysts have been asked to provide President Bush with options for increasing U.S. forces in Iraq by 20,000 or more, the newspaper reported.

More than 50 Americans have been killed in Iraq in December, nearly half of them in the volatile Anbar province west of Baghdad.

National reconciliation conference
In a half-hour video conference with Bush on Friday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki outlined plans for the national reconciliation conference taking place in Baghdad on Saturday. Al-Maliki cited the desire of many people in Iraq for a larger core of Iraqi political leaders to come together for the common objective of stabilizing the country and promoting the rule of law, National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in describing the conversation.

Al-Maliki also talked with Bush about providing greater security, in particular in Baghdad, by going after all sources of violence, including insurgents and militias, Johndroe said. Bush reiterated his support for al-Maliki and said he was encouraged by the meetings he had recently with Iraq’s Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, and with the leader of the largest Shiite bloc in Iraq’s parliament, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim.

In assessing the state of the war in Iraq, Bush has been meeting this week with top generals and other advisers. The military options being considered include an increased effort to train and equip Iraqi forces.

Meanwhile, the commander of U.S. forces in the strife-ridden Iraqi province of Diyala said Friday that tribal leaders and some political groups in the province are turning to terrorists and insurgents for protection rather than trust Iraqi soldiers and police.

“This sort of unity only worsens the sectarian divide and encourages further violence,” said Col. David Sutherland, commander of the 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division. He spoke to reporters at the Pentagon by a satellite video connection from his headquarters near the city of Baqouba, northeast of Baghdad.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[The Wiseman]

IRAQI HOSPITALS AILING
UNDER OCCUPATION
Dahr Jamail

Dahr Jamail reports on the struggling health care situation in Iraq. The report surveys 13 Iraqi Hospitals, examines the actions taken by US military against hospitals and care workers that constitute war crimes as defined by the Geneva conventions, discusses and documents cases of US medical personnel complicit in torture through failures to document the visible signs of torture on their patients, and much more.

http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/reports/HealthcareUnderOccupationDahrJamail.pdf
http://www.brusselstribunal.org/DahrReport.htm

Bechtel's Dry Run: Iraqis Suffer Water Crisis

Dahr Jamail was the primary contributor to this report concerning the failure of Bechtel to reconstruct/rehabilitate the water treatment plants it mentioned in its contract. Released by Public Citizen last Spring, the report was sent to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense as well as the Members of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/bechteliniraq.pdf

[The Wiseman]

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/15/1432233

Authors of Lancet Study, Middle East Analyst Juan Cole Testify at Kucinich Hearing on Civilian Casualties in Iraq

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3       
Watch 128k stream       Watch 256k stream       Read Transcript
Help      Printer-friendly version       Email to a friend      Purchase Video/CD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One day before announcing his presidential bid, Ohio lawmaker Dennis Kucinich held a Congressional briefing on a topic seldom publicly discussed on Capitol Hill - the Iraqi civilian death toll. Kucinich invited the authors of the recent study that found about 650,000 Iraqi civilians have died in Iraq since the war began as well as Middle East analyst Juan Cole. We play excerpts. [includes rush transcript]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich announced earlier this week he is again running for president. Kucinich accused the leadership of the Democratic Party of not pushing hard enough to end the Iraq war.
One day before announcing his presidential bid, Kucinich held a Congressional briefing on a topic seldom publicly discussed on Capitol Hill - the Iraqi civilian death toll.

Kucinich invited the authors of the recent study that found about 650,000 Iraqi civilians have died in Iraq since the war began. The study was published in October in the prestigious British medical journal Lancet. The Middle East scholar and University of Michigan professor Juan Cole was also invited to speak. We play excerpts of the hearing.


Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D - OH), 2008 presidential candidate.
Les Roberts, author of Lancet study on Iraq civilian casualties.
Juan Cole Professor of History at the University of Michigan. He runs an analytical website called "Informed Comment" where he provides a daily round-up of news and events in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Dennis Kucinich opened the hearing.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: We are rapidly approaching the grave number of 3,000 dead US service members. But as painful as that is -- and it's very painful -- the estimated 650,000 deaths attributed to hostilities in Iraq is an overwhelming number to comprehend. While it is natural and appropriate for Americans to first focus upon the deaths of American service members in Iraq, it's astounding to consider that for every service member killed, 200 Iraqi civilians have been killed.

According to the United Nations, the population of Iraq was 25 million in 2003, and we have now learned that since then an estimated 650,000 have perished to violence. Now, if such a rate of violence were to be inflicted against the US, we would have lost about 7.8 million Americans. Such level of violence is unimaginable, but this is the level of violence that the civilians in Iraq are subjected to.

Consider the massive psychological impact the 9/11 attacks and resulting deaths have had on our nation. Imagine the impact we'd feel as a nation if, over a period of three years, 7.8 million of our citizens died in ongoing, uncontrollable violence. Consider the political impact of violence at that scale. Are we closer to a stable transition in Iraq, or are we closer to collapse? How would we react if this was happening here?

With the help of Congressman Paul, I've assembled a panel of experts to help us grasp the civilian situation in Iraq and its impact on Iraq's society. I hope to explore many vexing questions by leading a discussion with the experts who are here with us today. What confidence do we have in the US administration responses on the number of Iraqi fatalities? Who is getting killed by whom, and why? What does this violence do to the prospects of peace in Iraq? What are the short-term and long-term implications of this massive number of deaths to Iraqi civil society? Will the millions of Iraqi children who have lost a parent ever forgive our country for igniting this violence? How do we make peace with the generations of Iraqis severely harmed by this unnecessary war of choice?

We have to ask these questions. We have to understand what the Iraqi citizenry thinks and feels to understand why this violence has escalated far beyond our control.

Now, I have no doubt that the best course of action for our nation is to extract ourselves from Iraq as fast as possible, while enabling the United Nations to establish a peacekeeping force. Such action would remove our troops from harm's way, remove the largest impetus for the violence and begin the healing process, which will take decades to complete.

Our president does not seem to understand the necessity to get out of Iraq. Thus, it is imperative that Congress do the one thing the Constitution of the United States provides for: Congress must cut off future war funds and demand that the President use the current funds in the pipeline from the October 1st $70 billion appropriation to bring the troops home.

AMY GOODMAN: Presidential hopeful, Congressmember Dennis Kucinich. Dr. Les Roberts of Johns Hopkins University, one of the co-authors of the Lancet study on Iraqi civilian casualties, also spoke at the briefing.

DR. LES ROBERTS: What if what Gil Burnham just described is correct; that is, what if 600,000 Iraqis have died because of this preemptive venture? Would Congress have approved this had they known in advance?

Can the press pretend they've done even a credible job of reporting in Iraq, if they have consistently downplayed the number of deaths by a factor of ten? Can we in academia and in those think tanks around Washington pretend that we add value to discourse in society, if something almost identical in magnitude to the Rwandan genocide could more or less go unnoticed by our society?

[…]

According to the United Nations, the Iraqi government surveillance network reported exactly zero violent deaths from Anbar province in the month of July, in spite of all the contradictory evidence we saw if we watched CNN. The most widely cited sources -- IBC, the United Nations, Brookings -- report about 80% of all violent deaths coming from Baghdad. And as Dr. Burnham mentioned, Baghdad actually is only about as violent as the nation on average.

So here it is -- one-fifth of the country reporting four-fifths of all violent deaths, and we know their rate of violent deaths isn't any higher than the rest. Something is wrong with those sources.

Similar incompleteness has been noted by the coalition surveillance activities. The Baker-Hamilton report of last week on page 95 said, and I quote, "For example, on one day in July of 2006, there were 93 attacks or significant acts of violence reported, yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 violent acts."

We feel our estimate is by far the best available, in spite of considerable imprecision. We also feel that in terms of understanding the situation in Iraq, in terms of moving forward, it's important to know, has one in seven houses in Iraq lost a loved one, or one in a hundred, as Iraqi body counts would suggest.

You know, we're the society that eradicated smallpox from the face of the earth primarily by setting up surveillance networks, including during really violent conflicts in East Pakistan and Somalia and Biafra. We're the society that produced most of the medical developments that are taught in medical schools around the world. We gave the world the internet. As a nation of information excellence, it is, I think, beneath our dignity and, I hope, not in keeping with the compassion of the American people to have US government officials consistently downplaying the number of dead in Iraq by a factor of ten and fifteen.

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Les Roberts of Johns Hopkins University, one of the co authors of the study. University of Michigan professor and Middle East scholar, Juan Cole, criticized the media’s coverage of the Iraqi civilian casualties.

JUAN COLE: I've been dismayed as someone who's followed these events on a daily basis from the Arabic and Persian press, from Western wire services, from talking to Iraqis on the ground. I've been dismayed for the past three-and-a-half years at the way in which the seriousness of this problem was downplayed by politicians in Washington and by the US media, both the print and the television and radio press.

This was a situation that was clearly out of control and very dangerous already in the summer of and fall of 2003, at a time when we were being told by Washington that there was no guerrilla war in Iraq, and it is still being disputed in Washington -- in the face of these enormous numbers -- that there is no civil war in Iraq. I can't tell you exactly why the state of constant denial should be with us. I am glad to see that NBC News is now using the words "civil war" and dismayed to see that it's controversial at this point. I don't know what else you would call a conflict producing these kinds of casualties, where you have militias attacking one another every day.

And the sheer horror of this war is something that we miss. When it's reported in the news that 50 bodies were found in Baghdad -- do you realize that there's actually a corpse patrol in the Iraqi police, that this is one of the duties if you're a policeman, that you get up in the morning and you go around looking for the bodies that are showing up in the streets that day? And the UN reports that these bodies show signs of drilling, of chemical exposure, of torture of various sorts, and then typically they have a bullet behind the ear, Mafia style.

And 50, 60 of them every day are showing up in Baghdad, and then more are showing up in places like Baqubah and elsewhere. And even in Mosul now you begin to see some of these statistics emerging.

And this is the tip of the iceberg. It was thrown up against the Lancet report that, well, it implies that there are 500 deaths around the country a day from political and criminal violence. How could that be?

Well, I mean, the news reports that we're getting, if you consider them to be the tip of the iceberg, if you just think about, well, what are the forces that are producing these results on a daily basis, it's obvious that only a small number of the deaths that actually occur are being reported in the wire services. I see deaths reported in the Arabic press all the time that never surface in the English-language wire services.

So I agree with Professor Roberts that, you know, a sense of contrition, a recognition of the reality here, of what the actions of the United States have done to an entire country, to -- really to a civilization, is in order. And we cannot debate what should be done in Iraq unless we have a clear-eyed vision of what has been done in Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, the War and Peace Report. Back to the hearing in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We continue with the briefing held by Ohio congress member and presidential hopeful, Dennis Kucinich. He asked University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole if he believes the results of the Lancet study are further evidence of a civil war in Iraq.

JUAN COLE: There isn't any doubt that there is a civil war in Iraq. My colleague at the University of Michigan, David Singer, ran a project on the statistics and correlates of war and developed the most widely used measurement of what a civil war is. And his team specified that if you have multiple -- at least two parties contending for power -- and in Iraq, you have the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement and you have the Shiite militias -- and if they produce a least a thousand casualties of war a year, and if in battles between the insurgents and the central government, the insurgents equip themselves relatively well -- and this happens in Iraq -- then you have a civil war.

So Iraq is a civil war magnified many times over; by these criteria, many much smaller conflicts have been called civil war by social scientists.

In Iraq, I think we have something that goes beyond civil war. This is one of the great civil conflicts of the past few years. I mean, one really has to go to Cambodia and Afghanistan to find similar sorts of proportional numbers of deaths.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Let's go to a moment with your background and history in the region. You've seen the high mortality rates that Doctors Burnham and Roberts talk about with respect to young men. Let's talk for a moment about the implications of the high mortality rate for young men.

JUAN COLE: Well, the high mortality rate for young men is probably being produced by their having joined these guerrilla groups and militia movements, and they have joined these movements for a number of reasons. First of all, there's very high rates of unemployment in Iraq. It's difficult to know exactly what the figure is; anything from 30% to 60% is reported. But certainly, there are very large numbers of families that simply have no real source of income. And these militias get funding in various ways -- through petroleum smuggling, through antiquities smuggling, through monies coming in from neighboring countries from donors. And so getting a job as a militiaman for a young man is actually a source of income, and many young men who might not otherwise prefer this way of life are forced into it by unemployment and poverty.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, if you have so many young males lost in a society, how does the loss the young males affect Iraqi society in terms of long-term impact?

JUAN COLE: Well, obviously, this is the cohort that will be the backbone of the society in the future, ordinarily. These are the young people that would go on to lead productive lives, to be workers, to be professionals, and their lives are being lost. In Iraq, which is a relatively traditional society, it is a patriarchal society, women haven't traditionally been in the workforce very much, so a lot of these young men would have been the breadwinners for their family, as there's not a strong social security mechanism from the government, so as the head of the household ages, retires, it would be his sons who would be supporting the family. So many families are losing those precise younger men who would bring in an income.

So the implications for throwing large numbers of Iraqis into poverty are very high. Of course, many of the young men who are being killed are already married, so it's producing widows with children without means of support. Prostitution and various forms of coercion for women have increased as a result. Very large numbers of women have been forced to flee to Jordan or Syria, where they end up working as dancing girls or as prostitutes.

So the situation is really quite horrible for those families that are losing their breadwinners.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Cole said it's plausible 650,000 Iraqi civilians have died violently in Iraq since the war began.

JUAN COLE: Let me just give you some case studies to show what I'm talking about, because it's often -- the report has been criticized with regard to statistics to reported deaths that appear in the press. I want to emphasize to you that the press just isn't reporting very many of the actual deaths in Iraq.

For instance, security clearly collapsed in the southern Shiite city of Basra, population 1.3 million, in spring of 2006. Iraqi officials maintained in April that for the previous month, one Iraqi had been assassinated each hour. This is in the city of Basra, one city. These some 750 deaths had gone completely unreported in both the Iraqi and the Western press. If you go back and do a Lexis search for Basra in March and April of 2006, you won't see any deaths reported at all there.

It is not clear that the al-Maliki government's deployment to Basra of the 10th Army Division this past summer made much of a difference in the violence, which is committed by militias and tribal mafias fighting turf wars over petroleum smuggling and other sources of wealth. It is entirely possible that the 750 a month are still dying in Basra, but that these deaths are going unreported. Again, if you just look at the daily wire service reports coming out of Iraq, these kinds of deaths for Basra are not being mentioned.

Families are often afraid to draw attention to themselves by publicly reporting deaths in guerrilla violence, and sometimes they're even afraid to retrieve the body of a loved one from the morgue, lest morgue officials report them to the guerrillas for a bribe.

The estimate given by the Iraqi Health Ministry on November 9th, 2006, of 150,000 Iraqis killed since the war began by -- actually, according to what the Health Minister said, was with regard to deaths caused by Sunni Arab insurgents. He was very specific in the cause of the death that he was announcing. So it wasn't a global estimate of 150,000. As I understood it, it was from that particular source. So we add in the number of deaths from criminal activity -- and there's quite a lot in Iraq -- from Shiite militias, which the Ministry of Health didn't refer to, and from US military action. Actually, the Health Ministry is probably pretty close to the Lancet estimate, if you extrapolate it out.

Let's just consider the humanitarian disaster in a place like Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad. This is a mixed region near to Iran with a population of 1.3 million. It has a Sunni Arab preponderance, but it has Shiites and Kurds. In the provincial elections of January 2005, the Sunnis boycotted the polls. As a result, the provincial council consists of 20 Shiites, 14 Sunnis and seven Kurds. The Shiites have the predominance on the council, and they therefore have brought in their guys in the police, in the army and so forth. So the governor and the police chief of Baqubah, the capital of the province, are Shiites. The Shiite-dominated local police have been supported in recent weeks by the 5th Army Division, which is Shiite and commanded by a Shiite officer.

Sunni Arabs have organized local militias in their districts to keep the police and army out. This is being coded as lawlessness by the US press and military, but it is actually a rejection of dominance by the new elected Shiite political elite. And the US military is careful to say that it is not supporting one side or another in the sectarian violence in Diyala; it says we're just supporting the elected government. Well, as it happens, the elected government is mainly Shiite, so the US military actually is supporting one side.

The reports coming out from Baqubah and Diyala generally through November show a steady drumbeat of violence. On Sunday, November 5th, in response to the announcement of the death sentence for Saddam Hussein, hundreds or perhaps thousands of unarmed Sunni Arab protestors gathered in Baqubah carrying posters of Saddam. They also raised banners criticizing the al-Maliki government. It's often alleged by the Shiites that Baqubah is a hotbed for al-Qaeda, but here we have the Sunni Arabs showing support for the secular Saddam. Local police fired into the crowd, allegedly killing 20 and wounding 23. These are largely Shiite police firing on Sunni Arab protesters. The Times of Baghdad, al-Zaman, branded the repression a “massacre."

And most days through November, you find reports like that on November 13th. CBS News reported 50 bodies were found, discarded like trash in Baqubah. On the same day, 40 bodies that had accumulated in the morgue and not been claimed were buried. On November 15th, AP reported that Iraqi police, backed by US forces, discovered the bodies of ten kidnap victims found blindfolded with gunshots in a house in Baqubah.

And then major violence broke out in mid-November. On Saturday, November 18th, Sunni Arab guerrillas in Baqubah attacked a police checkpoint, killing two policemen and wounding two others, and then opened fire on residents -- these are Shiite residents -- after pulling them from their homes or automobiles. They shot at Shiite seasonal workers returning to Baghdad from orchards in the east of Baqubah, killing eight. In response, US and Iraqi army forces fought the guerrillas for many hours in the street. And again, the Iraqi army that's been deployed to Baqubah is the 5th Division, which is largely Shiite.

Rocket-propelled grenades and light-arms fire caromed through the city, leaving 18 persons dead and 19 wounded. It was unclear how many of the casualties were guerrillas. On Sunday, the curfew was lifted, but the main street was closed off. The guerrillas still had control over four districts in Baqubah. They attacked another police checkpoint. The police said that in a separate incident, guerrillas loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr set fire to numerous shops in the market in revenge for attacks on their own offices in the city. Al-Zaman's correspondent in Baqubah -- this a major Iraqi newspaper -- wrote on Monday, November 20th, that the city, he said, "is living through a powerless security situation. Police patrols disappear from the principal streets early in the day, and various armed groups thereafter have enormous sway." Reuters reported the same day that a senior police officer who declined to be named said, quote, "There is not a day that passes without dozens of people being killed either from bombs, shootings or assassinations. This has been going on for months."

And I want to underline that no newspaper or wire service is reporting dozens of daily deaths in Baqubah. That so many are being missed lends credence to the higher estimates for the deaths in the Lancet study. Many days, no deaths at all are reported, sometimes only one or two make the news. But this senior police officer, an eyewitness, maintains that dozens are dying every day.

And this story that I'm telling goes on through November into December. And reports are coming in from little towns around Baqubah; it's not just the capital. On November 26th, it was reported that police found 21 bodies of Shiites in Balad Ruz, a mainly Sunni city. On November 26th, AFP reported that guerrillas in the small town of Kanaan in Diyala, 12 miles south of Baqubah, kidnapped at least 20 Iraqis of mixed tribe and sect. Usually the kidnapped don't show back up alive. On November 27th, it was reported in the Arabic press that Sunni Arab guerrillas fought a pitched battle with police in the city of Buhriz near Baqubah, defeated them, chased them out of their headquarters, and set it on fire and completely took over the city. So the guerrillas pushed the police out.

Now, this story that I'm telling you could be told for other areas of Iraq, not just Diyala. The so-called "Triangle of Death" in Babil province, just south of Baghdad, which includes towns like Yusufiya, Mahmudiyah, Iskandariyah, Latifiyah, see similar kinds of daily grind of violence. A lot of the killing seems to be just people shooting people down. The press tends to favor reports of car bombings, but car bombings produce a relatively small percentage of the deaths. It's mostly just sniping and gunfire at one another.

Newsgathering in contemporary Iraq is extremely dangerous and difficult. The collection and publication of social statistics has been affected by the violence and the anxieties that it spawns. Scientifically weighted household surveys are one instrument to supplement the desultory and staccato news reports about casualties in Iraq. It is clear that the level of sectarian violence and reprisals has increased substantially since February of 2006, when Sunni Arab guerrillas blew up the Askariya shrine in Samarra, among the holiest of the sites for the Shiites.

The violence is now being pursued at the neighborhood and clan level, often at night or in dense urban tenements, such that the US military appears unable to stop it. Indeed, the presence of so many US troops in Iraq and the way in which they're often dragged willy-nilly into sectarian fights, such as Diyala, is probably impeding the natural process whereby Iraqis would be forced to compromise with one another.

AMY GOODMAN: Juan Cole, professor of Middle East Studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.