Coalition of the unwilling...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews
State Dept. To Order Diplomats To Iraq
As Many as 50 Positions Are Expected to Be Open
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 27, 2007; Page A01
The State Department will order as many as 50 U.S. diplomats to take posts in Iraq next year because of expected shortfalls in filling openings there, the first such large-scale forced assignment since the Vietnam War.
On Monday, 200 to 300 employees will be notified of their selection as "prime candidates" for 50 open positions in Iraq, said Harry K. Thomas, director general of the Foreign Service. Some are expected to respond by volunteering, he said. However, if an insufficient number volunteers by Nov. 12, a department panel will determine which ones will be ordered to report to the Baghdad embassy next summer.
"If people say they want to go to Iraq, we will take them," Thomas said in an interview. But "we have to move now, because we can't hold up the process." Those on the list were selected by factors including grade, specialty and language skill, as well as "people who have not had a recent hardship tour," he said.
Those who receive the selection letters will have 10 days to file a written notice of objection. The review panel will consider the objections, but Thomas made clear that a serious, documented medical condition is likely to be the only valid excuse. The department has the authority to fire anyone who refuses to accept an assignment.
ad_icon
The union representing U.S. diplomats has officially objected to the Iraq call-up.
"We believe, and we have told the secretary of state, that directing unarmed civilians who are untrained for combat into a war zone should be done on a voluntary basis," said Steve Kashkett, vice president of the American Foreign Service Association. "Directed assignments, we fear, can be detrimental to the individual, to the post, and to the Foreign Service as a whole."
Kashkett said the association had contended in meetings with Rice and Thomas that a diplomatic draft is unnecessary and that "thousands" of diplomats have volunteered for Iraq over the past five years. "We're not weenies, we're not cowards, we're not cookie pushers in Europe," he said. "This has never been necessary in a generation."
IRAQ-Current Continuing Conflict
More horror from the Iraq catastrophe.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/stor ... 30,00.html
Undiagnosed brain injury - the hidden legacy of Iraq
MoD begins study amid fears that up to 20,000 soldiers may be affected
Matthew Taylor and Esther Addley
Saturday October 27, 2007
The Guardian
The Ministry of Defence is conducting a major study into brain injury in troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan amid fears that thousands of soldiers may have suffered damage after being exposed to high-velocity explosions.
The US army says as many as 20% of its soldiers and marines have suffered "mild traumatic brain injury" (mTBI) from blows to the head or shockwaves caused by explosions. The condition, which can lead to memory loss, depression and anxiety, has been designated as one of four "signature injuries" of the Iraq conflict by the US department of defence, which is introducing a large-scale screening programme for troops returning from the frontline.
Defence officials were reluctant to extrapolate directly from the US experience, arguing that the science is still inconclusive and that the US and UK experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has been different. But the Guardian has learned that the government has put in place a series of measures - including a comprehensive screening process - to deal with what could be a 20-fold increase in troops with mTBI. If the most alarming US predictions are accurate, as many as 20,000 UK troops could be at risk.
Kit Malia, a cognitive rehabilitation therapist who will oversee the programme to treat TBI at Headley Court military rehabilitation centre in Surrey, said: "I think the issue is that we don't know whether the Americans are correct. But if the American figures are correct, this is massive. Absolutely massive."
Surgeon commodore Lionel Jarvis, director of medical policy at the MoD, said the UK is doing all it can to improve diagnosis and treatment of the condition and is "running very, very much in parallel" with the US. He added: "The only significant difference is that there is a much higher political profile on this in the US."
He said the MoD had drawn up a list of measures to help deal with mTBI that included circulating information to all ranks in the field on what symptoms to look out for; plans to screen all service personnel when they return from combat; a four-stage treatment programme at Headley Court; and research into body armour to improve protection for the brain.
Liam Fox, the Conservative defence spokesman, said: "It is a dereliction of duty, a failure of duty of care. They are already well behind the US in terms of identifying this disease. We have to ask again why should US troops be getting better care than British troops?"
The mTBI injury can occur when a soldier gets a blow on the head or is in close proximity to an explosion. The increased use of improvised explosive devices (IEDS) - roadside bombs - in Iraq and Afghanistan means more troops are at risk than in previous conflicts, and experts say that even the most advanced helmets cannot protect the brain from the shock waves.
A US neurologist and former doctor at the US department of veterans affairs, P Steven Macedo, said: "The enemy combatants are not trying to put missiles or bullets into our troops - they are trying to blow up their vehicles with IEDs. But the vehicles and the men wear heavy armour so what goes through them in many cases is the blast wave and we are beginning to see the impact this is having on the neurological make-up of our troops. This is the first war since the first world war where the major cause of injuries is blasts."
Advances in brain scanning have revealed that soldiers can sustain bruising and blood clots on the brain, even if there is no visible injury. If the condition is not diagnosed it can lead to long-term problems - from depression and anxiety to violence and relationship break-up.
Dr Macedo said US army doctors are reporting that up to 20% of soldiers coming home from Iraq have "blast injuries", with 15% of those never recovering. "Someone suffering from this will still be able to use a knife and fork, still be able to talk and walk but they may struggle with bad moods, memory problems or become easily agitated. It is like a computer which is not running programmes properly: you can function but not as quickly or effectively as before."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/stor ... 30,00.html
Undiagnosed brain injury - the hidden legacy of Iraq
MoD begins study amid fears that up to 20,000 soldiers may be affected
Matthew Taylor and Esther Addley
Saturday October 27, 2007
The Guardian
The Ministry of Defence is conducting a major study into brain injury in troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan amid fears that thousands of soldiers may have suffered damage after being exposed to high-velocity explosions.
The US army says as many as 20% of its soldiers and marines have suffered "mild traumatic brain injury" (mTBI) from blows to the head or shockwaves caused by explosions. The condition, which can lead to memory loss, depression and anxiety, has been designated as one of four "signature injuries" of the Iraq conflict by the US department of defence, which is introducing a large-scale screening programme for troops returning from the frontline.
Defence officials were reluctant to extrapolate directly from the US experience, arguing that the science is still inconclusive and that the US and UK experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has been different. But the Guardian has learned that the government has put in place a series of measures - including a comprehensive screening process - to deal with what could be a 20-fold increase in troops with mTBI. If the most alarming US predictions are accurate, as many as 20,000 UK troops could be at risk.
Kit Malia, a cognitive rehabilitation therapist who will oversee the programme to treat TBI at Headley Court military rehabilitation centre in Surrey, said: "I think the issue is that we don't know whether the Americans are correct. But if the American figures are correct, this is massive. Absolutely massive."
Surgeon commodore Lionel Jarvis, director of medical policy at the MoD, said the UK is doing all it can to improve diagnosis and treatment of the condition and is "running very, very much in parallel" with the US. He added: "The only significant difference is that there is a much higher political profile on this in the US."
He said the MoD had drawn up a list of measures to help deal with mTBI that included circulating information to all ranks in the field on what symptoms to look out for; plans to screen all service personnel when they return from combat; a four-stage treatment programme at Headley Court; and research into body armour to improve protection for the brain.
Liam Fox, the Conservative defence spokesman, said: "It is a dereliction of duty, a failure of duty of care. They are already well behind the US in terms of identifying this disease. We have to ask again why should US troops be getting better care than British troops?"
The mTBI injury can occur when a soldier gets a blow on the head or is in close proximity to an explosion. The increased use of improvised explosive devices (IEDS) - roadside bombs - in Iraq and Afghanistan means more troops are at risk than in previous conflicts, and experts say that even the most advanced helmets cannot protect the brain from the shock waves.
A US neurologist and former doctor at the US department of veterans affairs, P Steven Macedo, said: "The enemy combatants are not trying to put missiles or bullets into our troops - they are trying to blow up their vehicles with IEDs. But the vehicles and the men wear heavy armour so what goes through them in many cases is the blast wave and we are beginning to see the impact this is having on the neurological make-up of our troops. This is the first war since the first world war where the major cause of injuries is blasts."
Advances in brain scanning have revealed that soldiers can sustain bruising and blood clots on the brain, even if there is no visible injury. If the condition is not diagnosed it can lead to long-term problems - from depression and anxiety to violence and relationship break-up.
Dr Macedo said US army doctors are reporting that up to 20% of soldiers coming home from Iraq have "blast injuries", with 15% of those never recovering. "Someone suffering from this will still be able to use a knife and fork, still be able to talk and walk but they may struggle with bad moods, memory problems or become easily agitated. It is like a computer which is not running programmes properly: you can function but not as quickly or effectively as before."
Turkey: We will make Kurd rebels grieve
ANKARA, Turkey - Turkey's top military commander promised Saturday to make Iraq-based Kurdish rebels "grieve with an intensity that they cannot imagine,"...
But Erdogan said his country could not be pinned down by dates in deciding whether to attack.
"We can't say when or how we will do it, we will just do it," he said.
ANKARA, Turkey - Turkey's top military commander promised Saturday to make Iraq-based Kurdish rebels "grieve with an intensity that they cannot imagine,"...
But Erdogan said his country could not be pinned down by dates in deciding whether to attack.
"We can't say when or how we will do it, we will just do it," he said.
Tony B.Liar did not "stand up" to Dubya, because he was too busy shining Dubya's shoes and spurs! As Dubya's deputy,Tonto,Sancho Panza,or whatever,the "Tiny Blur" by Dubya's side ,swept into Iraq along with Dubya eager for the (sp)"oils" of victory.So eager was he for his "victory",so that he could stand tall along with Maggie Thatcher,victor of the Falklands into the pages of British History.Unfortunately,his grovelling and chicanery in deceiving his own people has consigned him to the dustbin of History,despite his appointment as Middle East envoy of "peace"! Quote,"appointing Tony Blair as special envoy for Arab-Israeli peace is something like appointing the Emperor Nero to be the chief fireman of Rome."
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politi ... 106899.ece
Blair failed to handle Bush on Iraq, claims biographer
By Nigel Morris
Published: 29 October 2007
Tony Blair failed to stand up to George Bush over the invasion of Iraq, the former US secretary of state Colin Powell has claimed.
The damaging disclosure by an influential participant in the build-up to the war will undermine claims by Mr Blair's allies that he acted as a restraining influence on the president.
The observation is made in Blair Unbound, a new book about the former prime minister by the political biographer Anthony Seldon. Mr Powell recalled how he and Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, attempted to find ways of restraining the two leaders.
At one point Mr Straw even flew to the US by Concorde to hold secret talks with his American ally.
But Mr Powell told Dr Seldon: "In the end Blair would always support the president. I found this very surprising. I never really understood why Blair seemed to be in such harmony with Bush. I thought, well, the Brits haven't been attacked on 9/11. How did he reach the point that he sees Saddam as such a threat? Jack and I would get him all pumped up about an issue. And he'd be ready to say, 'Look here, George'. But as soon as he saw the president he would lose all his steam."
In extracts from the book in The Mail on Sunday, Dr Seldon also disclosed that two of Mr Blair's most senior Downing Street advisers, Sir David Manning and Baroness Sally Morgan, argued against the war.
According to the book, Mr Blair resolved to write to Mr Bush in 2002 to spell out his fears that the momentum for war was growing too fast in America.
But he "faltered and pulled his punches" and in effect told the president: "You know, George, whatever you decide to do, I'll be with you."
Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's former ambassador to Washington was horrified, asking Sir David: "Why in God's name has he said that again?
"'Well, we tried to stop him ... but we didn't prevail', came the weary response."
The book also claims Mr Straw was sidelined before the war and removed afterwards for not giving enough support to Mr Blair.
Dr Seldon writes that the former prime minister had private doubts about the strategy, but "as ever, Blair refrained from expressing his frustration in public" even towards the end of his days in Downing Street.
"We had been in there with him from the start and at this very late stage the Prime Minister did not want to be seen to fall out with George Bush," he is quoted as saying.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politi ... 106899.ece
Blair failed to handle Bush on Iraq, claims biographer
By Nigel Morris
Published: 29 October 2007
Tony Blair failed to stand up to George Bush over the invasion of Iraq, the former US secretary of state Colin Powell has claimed.
The damaging disclosure by an influential participant in the build-up to the war will undermine claims by Mr Blair's allies that he acted as a restraining influence on the president.
The observation is made in Blair Unbound, a new book about the former prime minister by the political biographer Anthony Seldon. Mr Powell recalled how he and Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, attempted to find ways of restraining the two leaders.
At one point Mr Straw even flew to the US by Concorde to hold secret talks with his American ally.
But Mr Powell told Dr Seldon: "In the end Blair would always support the president. I found this very surprising. I never really understood why Blair seemed to be in such harmony with Bush. I thought, well, the Brits haven't been attacked on 9/11. How did he reach the point that he sees Saddam as such a threat? Jack and I would get him all pumped up about an issue. And he'd be ready to say, 'Look here, George'. But as soon as he saw the president he would lose all his steam."
In extracts from the book in The Mail on Sunday, Dr Seldon also disclosed that two of Mr Blair's most senior Downing Street advisers, Sir David Manning and Baroness Sally Morgan, argued against the war.
According to the book, Mr Blair resolved to write to Mr Bush in 2002 to spell out his fears that the momentum for war was growing too fast in America.
But he "faltered and pulled his punches" and in effect told the president: "You know, George, whatever you decide to do, I'll be with you."
Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's former ambassador to Washington was horrified, asking Sir David: "Why in God's name has he said that again?
"'Well, we tried to stop him ... but we didn't prevail', came the weary response."
The book also claims Mr Straw was sidelined before the war and removed afterwards for not giving enough support to Mr Blair.
Dr Seldon writes that the former prime minister had private doubts about the strategy, but "as ever, Blair refrained from expressing his frustration in public" even towards the end of his days in Downing Street.
"We had been in there with him from the start and at this very late stage the Prime Minister did not want to be seen to fall out with George Bush," he is quoted as saying.
US soldiers shy from battle in Iraq
By Dahr Jamail
WATERTOWN, New York - Iraq war veterans now stationed at a base here in upstate New York say that morale among US soldiers in the country is so poor, many are simply parking their Humvees and pretending to be on patrol, a practice dubbed "search and avoid" missions.
Phil Aliff is an active duty soldier with the 10th Mountain Division stationed at Fort Drum. He served nearly one year in Iraq from August 2005 to July 2006, in the areas of Abu Ghraib and Fallujah, both west of Baghdad.
"Morale was incredibly low," said Aliff, adding that he joined the military because he was raised in a poor family by a single mother and had few other prospects. "Most men in my platoon in Iraq were just in from combat tours in Afghanistan."
According to Aliff, their mission was to help the Iraqi army "stand up" in the Abu Ghraib area of western Baghdad, but in fact his platoon was doing all the fighting without support from the Iraqis they were supposedly preparing to take control of the security situation.
"I never heard of an Iraqi unit that was able to operate on their own," said Aliff, who is now a member of the group Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW). "The only reason we were replaced by an Iraqi army unit was for publicity."
Aliff said he participated in roughly 300 patrols. "We were hit by so many roadside bombs we became incredibly demoralized, so we decided the only way we wouldn't be blown up was to avoid driving around all the time."
"So we would go find an open field and park, and call our base every hour to tell them we were searching for weapons caches in the fields and doing weapons patrols and everything was going fine," he said, adding, "All our enlisted people became very disenchanted with our chain of command."
Aliff, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), refused to return to Iraq with his unit, which arrived in Kirkuk two weeks ago. "They've already lost a guy, and they are now fostering the sectarian violence by arming the Sunnis while supporting the Shi'ites politically ... classic divide and conquer."
Aliff told Inter Press Service (IPS) he is set to be discharged by the military next month because they claim his PTSD "is untreatable by their doctors".
According to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the number of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans seeking treatment for PTSD increased nearly 70% in the 12 months ending on June 30.
The nearly 50,000 VA-documented PTSD cases greatly exceed the 30,000 military personnel that the Pentagon officially classifies as wounded in both occupations.
VA records show that mental health has become the second-largest area of illness for which veterans of the ongoing occupations are seeking treatment at VA hospitals and clinics. The total number of mental health cases among war veterans increased by 58%; from 63,767 on June 30, 2006, to 100,580 on June 30, 2007, according to the VA.
Other active duty Iraq veterans tell similar stories of disobeying orders so as not to be attacked so frequently.
"We'd go to the end of our patrol route and set up on top of a bridge and use it as an over-watch position," Eli Wright, also an active duty soldier with the 10th Mountain Division, told IPS. "We would just sit with our binoculars and observe rather than sweep. We'd call in radio checks every hour and say we were doing sweeps."
Wright added, "It was a common tactic, a lot of people did that. We'd just hang out, listen to music, smoke cigarettes, and pretend." The 26-year-old medic complained that his unit did not have any armored Humvees during his time in Iraq, where he was stationed in Ramadi, capital of the volatile al-Anbar province.
"We put sandbags on the floors of our vehicles, which had canvas doors," said Wright, who was in Iraq from September 2003 until September 2004. "By the end of our tour, we were bolting any metal we could find to our Humvees. Everyone was doing this, and we didn't get armored Humvees in country until after we left."
Other veterans, like 25-year-old Nathan Lewis, who was in Iraq for the invasion of March 2003 until June of that year while serving in the 214th field artillery brigade, complained of lack of training for what they were ordered to do, in addition to not having armored Humvees for their travels.
"We never got training for a lot of the work we did," he explained. "We had a white phosphorous mortar round that cooked off in the back of one of our trucks, because we loaded that with some other ammo, and we weren't trained how to do it the right way."
The "search and avoid" missions appear to have been commonplace around much of Iraq for years now.
Geoff Millard served nine years in the New York Army National Guard, and was in Iraq from October 2004 until October 2005 working for a general at a Tactical Operation Center.
Millard, also a member of IVAW, said that part of his duties included reporting "significant actions", or SIGACTS, which is how the US military describes an attack on their forces.
"We had units that never called in SIGACTS," Millard, who monitored highly volatile areas like Baquba, Tikrit and Samarra, told IPS. "When I was there two years ago, there were at least five companies that never had SIGACTS. I think 'search and avoids' have been going on there for a long time."
Millard told IPS "search and avoid" missions continue today across Iraq. "One of my buddies is in Baghdad right now and we email all the time," he explained, "He just told me that nearly each day they pull into a parking lot, drink soda and shoot at the cans. They pay Iraqi kids to bring them things and spread the word that they are not doing anything and to please just leave them alone."
(Inter Press Service)
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ26Ak07.html
By Dahr Jamail
WATERTOWN, New York - Iraq war veterans now stationed at a base here in upstate New York say that morale among US soldiers in the country is so poor, many are simply parking their Humvees and pretending to be on patrol, a practice dubbed "search and avoid" missions.
Phil Aliff is an active duty soldier with the 10th Mountain Division stationed at Fort Drum. He served nearly one year in Iraq from August 2005 to July 2006, in the areas of Abu Ghraib and Fallujah, both west of Baghdad.
"Morale was incredibly low," said Aliff, adding that he joined the military because he was raised in a poor family by a single mother and had few other prospects. "Most men in my platoon in Iraq were just in from combat tours in Afghanistan."
According to Aliff, their mission was to help the Iraqi army "stand up" in the Abu Ghraib area of western Baghdad, but in fact his platoon was doing all the fighting without support from the Iraqis they were supposedly preparing to take control of the security situation.
"I never heard of an Iraqi unit that was able to operate on their own," said Aliff, who is now a member of the group Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW). "The only reason we were replaced by an Iraqi army unit was for publicity."
Aliff said he participated in roughly 300 patrols. "We were hit by so many roadside bombs we became incredibly demoralized, so we decided the only way we wouldn't be blown up was to avoid driving around all the time."
"So we would go find an open field and park, and call our base every hour to tell them we were searching for weapons caches in the fields and doing weapons patrols and everything was going fine," he said, adding, "All our enlisted people became very disenchanted with our chain of command."
Aliff, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), refused to return to Iraq with his unit, which arrived in Kirkuk two weeks ago. "They've already lost a guy, and they are now fostering the sectarian violence by arming the Sunnis while supporting the Shi'ites politically ... classic divide and conquer."
Aliff told Inter Press Service (IPS) he is set to be discharged by the military next month because they claim his PTSD "is untreatable by their doctors".
According to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the number of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans seeking treatment for PTSD increased nearly 70% in the 12 months ending on June 30.
The nearly 50,000 VA-documented PTSD cases greatly exceed the 30,000 military personnel that the Pentagon officially classifies as wounded in both occupations.
VA records show that mental health has become the second-largest area of illness for which veterans of the ongoing occupations are seeking treatment at VA hospitals and clinics. The total number of mental health cases among war veterans increased by 58%; from 63,767 on June 30, 2006, to 100,580 on June 30, 2007, according to the VA.
Other active duty Iraq veterans tell similar stories of disobeying orders so as not to be attacked so frequently.
"We'd go to the end of our patrol route and set up on top of a bridge and use it as an over-watch position," Eli Wright, also an active duty soldier with the 10th Mountain Division, told IPS. "We would just sit with our binoculars and observe rather than sweep. We'd call in radio checks every hour and say we were doing sweeps."
Wright added, "It was a common tactic, a lot of people did that. We'd just hang out, listen to music, smoke cigarettes, and pretend." The 26-year-old medic complained that his unit did not have any armored Humvees during his time in Iraq, where he was stationed in Ramadi, capital of the volatile al-Anbar province.
"We put sandbags on the floors of our vehicles, which had canvas doors," said Wright, who was in Iraq from September 2003 until September 2004. "By the end of our tour, we were bolting any metal we could find to our Humvees. Everyone was doing this, and we didn't get armored Humvees in country until after we left."
Other veterans, like 25-year-old Nathan Lewis, who was in Iraq for the invasion of March 2003 until June of that year while serving in the 214th field artillery brigade, complained of lack of training for what they were ordered to do, in addition to not having armored Humvees for their travels.
"We never got training for a lot of the work we did," he explained. "We had a white phosphorous mortar round that cooked off in the back of one of our trucks, because we loaded that with some other ammo, and we weren't trained how to do it the right way."
The "search and avoid" missions appear to have been commonplace around much of Iraq for years now.
Geoff Millard served nine years in the New York Army National Guard, and was in Iraq from October 2004 until October 2005 working for a general at a Tactical Operation Center.
Millard, also a member of IVAW, said that part of his duties included reporting "significant actions", or SIGACTS, which is how the US military describes an attack on their forces.
"We had units that never called in SIGACTS," Millard, who monitored highly volatile areas like Baquba, Tikrit and Samarra, told IPS. "When I was there two years ago, there were at least five companies that never had SIGACTS. I think 'search and avoids' have been going on there for a long time."
Millard told IPS "search and avoid" missions continue today across Iraq. "One of my buddies is in Baghdad right now and we email all the time," he explained, "He just told me that nearly each day they pull into a parking lot, drink soda and shoot at the cans. They pay Iraqi kids to bring them things and spread the word that they are not doing anything and to please just leave them alone."
(Inter Press Service)
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ26Ak07.html
-
putnanja
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4668
- Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
- Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3
Is that why US casualties have been low over the past few months?Raymond wrote:US soldiers shy from battle in Iraq
By Dahr Jamail
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ26Ak07.html
Divide & conquer, old strategy, eh?
x-post Oil thread @ TEF.
http://in.reuters.com/article/businessN ... 29?sp=true
Reliance signs northern Iraq oil contract - source
http://in.reuters.com/article/businessN ... 29?sp=true
Reliance signs northern Iraq oil contract - source
Even as Turkish troops mass on the border of northern Iraq, India's Reliance signed a deal on Monday to explore for oil and gas in Iraq's Kurdish region, a senior company official said.
Reliance signed the production sharing contract for two exploration blocks with the semi-autonomous Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), the source said.
"To begin with we will be 100 percent stakeholders but later on Iraq can mandate a company to have a stake in the blocks after discovery in line with their new law," the company official, who declined to be named, said.
"They have been given to us on (a) negotiation basis."
A KRG government spokesman was not immediately available to respond to enquiries about the deal.
Turkey has massed up to 100,000 troops along the Iraqi border in readiness for a possible large scale incursion to hunt 3,000 guerrillas who use Iraq's Kurdish region as a base.
But the KRG is moving ahead with plans to attract international energy companies to explore for oil and gas in the region. It aims to boost oil output to 1 million barrels per day (bpd) in about five years from just a few thousand now.
A catastrophe of Biblical proportions,another flood awaits the long suffering Iraqi people to add to their current woes!
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/mid ... 112828.ece
Iraqi dam burst 'would drown 500,000'
By Patrick Cockburn in Arbil, Iraq
Published: 31 October 2007
A catastrophic failure of the largest dam in Iraq would send a wave 65ft high hurtling down the valley of the river Tigris, killing up to 500,000 people, US engineers warned yesterday.
The dam, which is near Mosul in the north of the country, was built in 1984 on a bed of water-soluble rock and is in imminent danger of collapse. "In terms of the internal erosion potential of the foundation, Mosul Dam is the most dangerous dam in the world," said a report by the US Army Corps of Engineers. "If a small problem [at] Mosul dam occurs, failure is likely." The collapse of the two-mile long, earth-filled dam would release eight billion cubic metres of water in the lake behind it in a giant wave which would flood Mosul – a city of 1.7 million people 20 miles downstream – to a depth of 60ft.
"A catastrophic failure of the Mosul Dam would result in flooding along the Tigris river all the way to Baghdad," the US military commander General David Petraeus and the US ambassador Ryan Crocker warned the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, in a letter on 3 May this year. "Assuming a worst-case scenario, an instantaneous failure of Mosul Dam filled to its maximum operating level could result in a flood wave 20m deep at the city of Mosul, which would result in a significant loss of life and property."
The frantic debate within the US and Iraqi governments over the failing dam was kept secret for months to avoid public panic and attracting the attention of insurgents. The US Army Corps of Engineers has tried to monitor the deterioration and undertake remedial action.
The state of the dam and the experts' belief that it is on the verge of collapse was first revealed by The Independent on 8 August. "It could go at any minute," a senior aid worker, who knew of the struggle by American and Iraqi engineers to save the dam, told this newspaper. "The potential for disaster is very great."
The Independent's storywas confirmed yesterday with the release of a report by the US Special Inspector for Iraq Reconstruction, which said that the dam's foundations could give away at any moment. It spells out publicly the degree of alarm felt by the Corps of Engineers, which has directed that American military equipment on the Tigris flood plain should be moved to higher ground. The main problem is that the dam was "built in the wrong place", according to Khasro Goran, the deputy governor of Nineveh province, of which Mosul is the capital. Construction of the dam, initially known as the Saddam Dam, began in 1980 and was completed four years later when the lake behind it began to fill.
"The dam was constructed on a foundation of marls, soluble gypsum, anhydrite and karstic limestone that is continuously dissolving," said a specialist at the US embassy in Baghdad. "The dissolution creates an increased risk of dam failure."
The flat, Mesopotamian plain was the site of the biblical flood where Noah launched his ark to escape the rising waters. Much of the story was drawn from the legend of Gilgamesh, the ancient Mesopotamian hero, which recounts the tale of a great inundation with details strikingly similar to those in Genesis.
For millennia,Iraq was prone to floods as melting winter snows in the mountains of Turkey filled the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. In the 20th century, flooding was brought under control by an elaborate system of dams and dykes. But these would be unable to cope with the vast quantities of water which would be released if the Mosul Dam bursts.
The Independent was first told of the impending disaster by a senior aid worker who feared that no one was doing much to prevent a disaster. "It is a time bomb waiting to go off," he said. "Everybody knows about the threat but they have other preoccupations and, in the case of foreigners, it is now conveniently in Iraqi hands." He added that some military radios issued to US personnel had panic buttons to press when the dam began to give way.
The failings of the dam became clear soon after it was built and, since the late 1980s, the main method used to strengthen the foundations has been to pump liquid cement into them, or grouting.Since May this year, the water level in the reservoir behind the dam has been lowered on the advice of an international committee of experts appointed by the Iraqi Ministry of Water Resources, which is now responsible for the project.
Latif Rashid, the minister in charge, continues to believe that disaster can be averted. But, if the dam does break, there is nothing to stop a 65ft wall of water drowning hundreds of thousands of people between Mosul and Baghdad.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/mid ... 112828.ece
Iraqi dam burst 'would drown 500,000'
By Patrick Cockburn in Arbil, Iraq
Published: 31 October 2007
A catastrophic failure of the largest dam in Iraq would send a wave 65ft high hurtling down the valley of the river Tigris, killing up to 500,000 people, US engineers warned yesterday.
The dam, which is near Mosul in the north of the country, was built in 1984 on a bed of water-soluble rock and is in imminent danger of collapse. "In terms of the internal erosion potential of the foundation, Mosul Dam is the most dangerous dam in the world," said a report by the US Army Corps of Engineers. "If a small problem [at] Mosul dam occurs, failure is likely." The collapse of the two-mile long, earth-filled dam would release eight billion cubic metres of water in the lake behind it in a giant wave which would flood Mosul – a city of 1.7 million people 20 miles downstream – to a depth of 60ft.
"A catastrophic failure of the Mosul Dam would result in flooding along the Tigris river all the way to Baghdad," the US military commander General David Petraeus and the US ambassador Ryan Crocker warned the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, in a letter on 3 May this year. "Assuming a worst-case scenario, an instantaneous failure of Mosul Dam filled to its maximum operating level could result in a flood wave 20m deep at the city of Mosul, which would result in a significant loss of life and property."
The frantic debate within the US and Iraqi governments over the failing dam was kept secret for months to avoid public panic and attracting the attention of insurgents. The US Army Corps of Engineers has tried to monitor the deterioration and undertake remedial action.
The state of the dam and the experts' belief that it is on the verge of collapse was first revealed by The Independent on 8 August. "It could go at any minute," a senior aid worker, who knew of the struggle by American and Iraqi engineers to save the dam, told this newspaper. "The potential for disaster is very great."
The Independent's storywas confirmed yesterday with the release of a report by the US Special Inspector for Iraq Reconstruction, which said that the dam's foundations could give away at any moment. It spells out publicly the degree of alarm felt by the Corps of Engineers, which has directed that American military equipment on the Tigris flood plain should be moved to higher ground. The main problem is that the dam was "built in the wrong place", according to Khasro Goran, the deputy governor of Nineveh province, of which Mosul is the capital. Construction of the dam, initially known as the Saddam Dam, began in 1980 and was completed four years later when the lake behind it began to fill.
"The dam was constructed on a foundation of marls, soluble gypsum, anhydrite and karstic limestone that is continuously dissolving," said a specialist at the US embassy in Baghdad. "The dissolution creates an increased risk of dam failure."
The flat, Mesopotamian plain was the site of the biblical flood where Noah launched his ark to escape the rising waters. Much of the story was drawn from the legend of Gilgamesh, the ancient Mesopotamian hero, which recounts the tale of a great inundation with details strikingly similar to those in Genesis.
For millennia,Iraq was prone to floods as melting winter snows in the mountains of Turkey filled the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. In the 20th century, flooding was brought under control by an elaborate system of dams and dykes. But these would be unable to cope with the vast quantities of water which would be released if the Mosul Dam bursts.
The Independent was first told of the impending disaster by a senior aid worker who feared that no one was doing much to prevent a disaster. "It is a time bomb waiting to go off," he said. "Everybody knows about the threat but they have other preoccupations and, in the case of foreigners, it is now conveniently in Iraqi hands." He added that some military radios issued to US personnel had panic buttons to press when the dam began to give way.
The failings of the dam became clear soon after it was built and, since the late 1980s, the main method used to strengthen the foundations has been to pump liquid cement into them, or grouting.Since May this year, the water level in the reservoir behind the dam has been lowered on the advice of an international committee of experts appointed by the Iraqi Ministry of Water Resources, which is now responsible for the project.
Latif Rashid, the minister in charge, continues to believe that disaster can be averted. But, if the dam does break, there is nothing to stop a 65ft wall of water drowning hundreds of thousands of people between Mosul and Baghdad.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2202152,00.html
Immunity offer to Blackwater security guards causes outrage
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Wednesday October 31, 2007
The Guardian
The Bush administration faced intense criticism yesterday after it emerged that the state department had offered immunity to Blackwater security guards allegedly involved in a shooting spree in Baghdad that left 17 dead.
The immunity offer was made by state department investigators in return for information about the September 16 killings. The offer does not mean a trial cannot be mounted but it would compromise any prosecution case and practically ensure there would be no convictions.
Blackwater, a Virginia-based company employed by the state department, was guarding a diplomatic convoy outside the relative safety of Baghdad's Green Zone when it said it came under fire from insurgents. But the Iraqi government says the security guards opened fire without provocation.
Private security firms have until now occupied a legal limbo, operating free from Iraqi and US law. The Iraqi cabinet yesterday approved draft legislation to end such impunity. But the US has no obligation to adhere to Iraqi law.
The state department initially carried out the investigation into the killings but, because of its involvement, passed responsibility to the FBI and the US justice department.
The state department spokesman, Sean McCormack, yesterday insisted that the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, still believed anyone responsible should be prosecuted. Her view was: "If the facts lead us to the conclusion that there are those who broke rules, laws or regulations, they must be held to account."
He sought to make a distinction between "limited" immunity offered in this case and "blanket" immunity. But the difference is probably academic because even limited immunity could complicate any evidence presented by a prosecution.
Henry Waxman, the Democratic chairman of the House oversight committee which has been investigating Blackwater, wrote to Ms Rice yesterday asking for details of the immunity offer, including who decided to grant it and whether she had known about it. He said: "This rash grant of immunity was an egregious misjudgment."
Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, said: "In this administration, accountability goes by the boards."
In a separate development, the US congressional investigator into billions of dollars allocated for Iraq reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, yesterday published a report that said a $27m US effort to help Iraq repair the Mosul dam, "has yet to yield significant improvements". There was a danger, he said, that the dam could burst, flooding large parts of Iraq.
Immunity offer to Blackwater security guards causes outrage
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Wednesday October 31, 2007
The Guardian
The Bush administration faced intense criticism yesterday after it emerged that the state department had offered immunity to Blackwater security guards allegedly involved in a shooting spree in Baghdad that left 17 dead.
The immunity offer was made by state department investigators in return for information about the September 16 killings. The offer does not mean a trial cannot be mounted but it would compromise any prosecution case and practically ensure there would be no convictions.
Blackwater, a Virginia-based company employed by the state department, was guarding a diplomatic convoy outside the relative safety of Baghdad's Green Zone when it said it came under fire from insurgents. But the Iraqi government says the security guards opened fire without provocation.
Private security firms have until now occupied a legal limbo, operating free from Iraqi and US law. The Iraqi cabinet yesterday approved draft legislation to end such impunity. But the US has no obligation to adhere to Iraqi law.
The state department initially carried out the investigation into the killings but, because of its involvement, passed responsibility to the FBI and the US justice department.
The state department spokesman, Sean McCormack, yesterday insisted that the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, still believed anyone responsible should be prosecuted. Her view was: "If the facts lead us to the conclusion that there are those who broke rules, laws or regulations, they must be held to account."
He sought to make a distinction between "limited" immunity offered in this case and "blanket" immunity. But the difference is probably academic because even limited immunity could complicate any evidence presented by a prosecution.
Henry Waxman, the Democratic chairman of the House oversight committee which has been investigating Blackwater, wrote to Ms Rice yesterday asking for details of the immunity offer, including who decided to grant it and whether she had known about it. He said: "This rash grant of immunity was an egregious misjudgment."
Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, said: "In this administration, accountability goes by the boards."
In a separate development, the US congressional investigator into billions of dollars allocated for Iraq reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, yesterday published a report that said a $27m US effort to help Iraq repair the Mosul dam, "has yet to yield significant improvements". There was a danger, he said, that the dam could burst, flooding large parts of Iraq.
Echoes of Pakistan's efforts to "liberate" Kashmir, except now the US is directly involved:
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11828
Who's Behind the PKK?
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11828
Who's Behind the PKK?
HA!HA! That was a good pic.However,with this report by this retd. general,Iraq ain't going to be any safer that Wacko Jacko's for the next 50 years!
Retired army general says conflicts could keep U.S. in Middle East for 50 years PITTSBURGH, Nov 1 (AP): It might take as long as half a century before U.S. troops can leave the volatile Middle East, according to retired Army General John Abizaid. “Over time, we will have to shift the burden of the military fight from our forces directly to regional forces, and we will have to play an indirect role, but we shouldn't assume for even a minute that in the next 25 to 50 years the American military might be able to come home,â€
Retired army general says conflicts could keep U.S. in Middle East for 50 years PITTSBURGH, Nov 1 (AP): It might take as long as half a century before U.S. troops can leave the volatile Middle East, according to retired Army General John Abizaid. “Over time, we will have to shift the burden of the military fight from our forces directly to regional forces, and we will have to play an indirect role, but we shouldn't assume for even a minute that in the next 25 to 50 years the American military might be able to come home,â€
-
Rahul Mehta
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 2577
- Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
- Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
- Contact:
.
The post belongs "Iraq - avenues of peace" thread, but I cant find that thread.
----
There is article in Gujarat Samachar supplement of Ahmedabad on 31/10/2007. I dont have any links.
As per the article, some 2400 US soldiers have married Iraqi women in refugee camps etc. This number, as the article says, was given by US military. No numbers are given on US civilians marrying Iraqi women or men.
Feel free to conclude whatever you want. But dont blame my posting news for conclusions you draw.
.
The post belongs "Iraq - avenues of peace" thread, but I cant find that thread.
----
There is article in Gujarat Samachar supplement of Ahmedabad on 31/10/2007. I dont have any links.
As per the article, some 2400 US soldiers have married Iraqi women in refugee camps etc. This number, as the article says, was given by US military. No numbers are given on US civilians marrying Iraqi women or men.
Feel free to conclude whatever you want. But dont blame my posting news for conclusions you draw.
.
What brave cowboys of the State Dept! Such heroic icons of the Pax Americana.What an indictment by their inaction and fear of the horror ,terror and destruction that their commander-in-chief has wrought upon the cradle of civilisation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/index.jhtml
US diplomats protest forced postings in Iraq
By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 2:34am GMT 02/11/2007
American diplomats have revolted against plans to force them to serve in Iraq, an assignment described by one as a "potential death sentence".
The one-year tours would be at the US embassy in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, which is often hit by mortar fire, or in civilian-military provincial reconstruction teams in one of the 18 regions.
About 250 members of staff were told this week that they were in a pool for 50 posts in Iraq for which no qualified candidates have volunteered, and risked losing their jobs if they did not accept.
Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, was forced yesterday to try to quell the protest. According to US officials, she will send a cable to state department employees to explain the rationale behind the decision to begin the largest diplomatic call-up since Vietnam.
Iraq is considered the most dangerous posting in living memory. Staff are unable to move around Baghdad without a substantial armed guard and have been regular targets for gunmen and bombers.
At an emotional meeting between several hundred staffers and bosses this week, Jack Crotty, nearing retirement after three decades of service, said: "I'm sorry, that's a potential death sentence and you know it."
Rachel Schneller, another staffer, said she returned from a tour of duty in Iraq wounded and in need of counselling for post-traumatic stress disorder, which the department had failed to provide. Employees' resentment has been fuelled by the war's general unpopularity among their ranks.
Many felt the department was sidelined during the planning for the war and the phase after Saddam Hussein was removed and is now being asked to do George W Bush's dirty work.
Harry Thomas, the department's director general, reminded staff that they had a contractual obligation to work anywhere in the world. "We cannot pick and choose where we go. We cannot shrink from our duty," he said.
The row came as a senior retired army general gave warning that US forces might need to be in the Middle East for up to 50 years.
Gen John Abizaid, the former US commander in the region, said the rise of extremist Sunni and Shia movements in Iraq and elsewhere, the Arab-Israeli conflict and global dependence on Middle East oil made it highly unlikely US troops would return home soon.
"We shouldn't assume even for a minute that in the next 25 to 50 years the American military might be able to come home, relax and take it easy, because the strategic situation in the region doesn't seem to show that as being possible," he said.
The US army also yesterday admitted it has fewer personnel for basic training this year than at any time since it became an all-volunteer service in 1973.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/index.jhtml
US diplomats protest forced postings in Iraq
By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 2:34am GMT 02/11/2007
American diplomats have revolted against plans to force them to serve in Iraq, an assignment described by one as a "potential death sentence".
The one-year tours would be at the US embassy in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, which is often hit by mortar fire, or in civilian-military provincial reconstruction teams in one of the 18 regions.
About 250 members of staff were told this week that they were in a pool for 50 posts in Iraq for which no qualified candidates have volunteered, and risked losing their jobs if they did not accept.
Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, was forced yesterday to try to quell the protest. According to US officials, she will send a cable to state department employees to explain the rationale behind the decision to begin the largest diplomatic call-up since Vietnam.
Iraq is considered the most dangerous posting in living memory. Staff are unable to move around Baghdad without a substantial armed guard and have been regular targets for gunmen and bombers.
At an emotional meeting between several hundred staffers and bosses this week, Jack Crotty, nearing retirement after three decades of service, said: "I'm sorry, that's a potential death sentence and you know it."
Rachel Schneller, another staffer, said she returned from a tour of duty in Iraq wounded and in need of counselling for post-traumatic stress disorder, which the department had failed to provide. Employees' resentment has been fuelled by the war's general unpopularity among their ranks.
Many felt the department was sidelined during the planning for the war and the phase after Saddam Hussein was removed and is now being asked to do George W Bush's dirty work.
Harry Thomas, the department's director general, reminded staff that they had a contractual obligation to work anywhere in the world. "We cannot pick and choose where we go. We cannot shrink from our duty," he said.
The row came as a senior retired army general gave warning that US forces might need to be in the Middle East for up to 50 years.
Gen John Abizaid, the former US commander in the region, said the rise of extremist Sunni and Shia movements in Iraq and elsewhere, the Arab-Israeli conflict and global dependence on Middle East oil made it highly unlikely US troops would return home soon.
"We shouldn't assume even for a minute that in the next 25 to 50 years the American military might be able to come home, relax and take it easy, because the strategic situation in the region doesn't seem to show that as being possible," he said.
The US army also yesterday admitted it has fewer personnel for basic training this year than at any time since it became an all-volunteer service in 1973.
-
Rahul Mehta
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 2577
- Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
- Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
- Contact:
Philip wrote:What brave cowboys of the State Dept! Such heroic icons of the Pax Americana.What an indictment by their inaction and fear of the horror ,terror and destruction that their commander-in-chief has wrought upon the cradle of civilisation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/index.jhtml
US diplomats protest forced postings in Iraq
By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 2:34am GMT 02/11/2007
American diplomats have revolted against plans to force them to serve in Iraq, an assignment described by one as a "potential death sentence".
The one-year tours would be at the US embassy in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, which is often hit by mortar fire, or in civilian-military provincial reconstruction teams in one of the 18 regions.
About 250 members of staff were told this week that they were in a pool for 50 posts in Iraq for which no qualified candidates have volunteered, and risked losing their jobs if they did not accept.
Why dont they outsource these jobs to Bangalore?
.
Good heavens, this was a big, big boom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_PsyfHhEx4
Was this RDX, C4, or what?
Amazing that a truck can blow so much up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_PsyfHhEx4
Was this RDX, C4, or what?
Amazing that a truck can blow so much up.
Why outsource the "grunt" work to B'lore.Don't you know that we have the best bleedin' edge brains this side of the pond?I put it to all that the job of running the US of A should be outsourced to B'lore and elsewherei n India! We can then send Dubya Bush to Iraq to entertain the troops there with his Bushisms.
(Bushism of the week: “I fully understand those who say you can’t win this thing militarily. That’s exactly what the United States’ military says, that you can’t win this military.â€
(Bushism of the week: “I fully understand those who say you can’t win this thing militarily. That’s exactly what the United States’ military says, that you can’t win this military.â€
Gates: If Iran has stemmed weapons flow to Iraq, it is part of developing Iraq government relationship with Tehran. US is not involved
[quote]November 10, 2007, 12:41 PM (GMT+02:00)
It is too soon to tell whether these reports represent a credible trend, said the US defense secretary Robert Gates Friday. If so, it will reduce US and Iraqi deaths. But it does not involve the United States “and is not necessarily a signal to us.â€
[quote]November 10, 2007, 12:41 PM (GMT+02:00)
It is too soon to tell whether these reports represent a credible trend, said the US defense secretary Robert Gates Friday. If so, it will reduce US and Iraqi deaths. But it does not involve the United States “and is not necessarily a signal to us.â€
Gates' memoirs were titled "From the Shadows", and one of the best from the American side of the Cold War.shyamd wrote:Gates: If Iran has stemmed weapons flow to Iraq, it is part of developing Iraq government relationship with Tehran. US is not involved
One of the lessons he took to heart (in a way that most of the Neo-Conservatives did not; their actual experience in managing US efforts the cold war was minimal in comparison) was that while the nature of the threats in a in complex multi-sided conflict must be openly identified, the real action must be both decisive *and* behind the scenes, in the interests of retaining the initiative. Escalation to open warfare must be the absolute last option.
Rather than the preferred Neo-Conservative approach of largely open confrontation over IRGC support for Shi'a jihadis in Iraq Gates has used all of the 'black' special operations and intelligence resources freed up by Al-Anbar province's rejection of Al-Qaeda to pursue the Iranian Al-Quds network within Iraq, push Al-Sadr in to a pro-Maliki position, etc. Dozens of Iranian Al-Quds officers, and their Iraqi Shia allies have been captured or killed.
There really is a war in the shadows going on in Iraq which the Iranians have taken big his, and Gates coolly announces that the reductions in Iranian support are purely the result of Iraq-Iran dialogues. Nicely done.
If Gates' preferred approach could significantly set back the Iranian nuclear programme that would be a great achievement, but the odds are against it.
Two US security guards arrested by Iraqi forces after woman is shot
By Kim Gamel in Baghdad
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/mid ... 177072.ece
Published: 20 November 2007
Iraqi soldiers detained two US security guards along with other foreigners in a private convoy after the guards opened fire in Baghdad, wounding one woman.
US military and embassy officials had no immediate information about the report by the Iraqi military, which follows a series of recent shootings in which foreign security guards have allegedly killed Iraqis.
Brig-General Qassim al-Moussawi said the convoy was driving on the wrong side of the road in the central Baghdad neighborhood of Karradah when the shooting occurred. Those arrested included two US guards, along with 21 people from Sri Lanka, nine from Nepal and 10 Iraqis, the Baghdad military spokesman said.
"We have given orders to our forces to immediately intervene in case they see any violations by security companies. The members of this security company wounded an innocent woman and they tried to escape the scene, but Iraq forces arrested them," Brig-Gen Al-Moussawi said.
The role of private security guards has been highlighted following a shooting on 16 September in which Blackwater Worldwide guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians. The FBI is investigating the shootings, although the Iraqi government has concluded that the guards were unprovoked when they began shooting at Nisoor Square in west Baghdad.
The North Carolina-based company, the largest private security firm protecting US diplomats in Iraq, has said its convoy was under attack before it opened fire. The shootings occurred on a day in which at least 22 people were killed or found dead.
ABC News reported yesterday that a US grand jury has opened an investigation into the deaths of the 17 Iraqis. ABC said several Blackwater guards had been subpoenaed in the inquiry by the federal grand jury in Washington. US Justuce Department and Blackwater officials would not confirm the report. AP
By Kim Gamel in Baghdad
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/mid ... 177072.ece
Published: 20 November 2007
Iraqi soldiers detained two US security guards along with other foreigners in a private convoy after the guards opened fire in Baghdad, wounding one woman.
US military and embassy officials had no immediate information about the report by the Iraqi military, which follows a series of recent shootings in which foreign security guards have allegedly killed Iraqis.
Brig-General Qassim al-Moussawi said the convoy was driving on the wrong side of the road in the central Baghdad neighborhood of Karradah when the shooting occurred. Those arrested included two US guards, along with 21 people from Sri Lanka, nine from Nepal and 10 Iraqis, the Baghdad military spokesman said.
"We have given orders to our forces to immediately intervene in case they see any violations by security companies. The members of this security company wounded an innocent woman and they tried to escape the scene, but Iraq forces arrested them," Brig-Gen Al-Moussawi said.
The role of private security guards has been highlighted following a shooting on 16 September in which Blackwater Worldwide guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians. The FBI is investigating the shootings, although the Iraqi government has concluded that the guards were unprovoked when they began shooting at Nisoor Square in west Baghdad.
The North Carolina-based company, the largest private security firm protecting US diplomats in Iraq, has said its convoy was under attack before it opened fire. The shootings occurred on a day in which at least 22 people were killed or found dead.
ABC News reported yesterday that a US grand jury has opened an investigation into the deaths of the 17 Iraqis. ABC said several Blackwater guards had been subpoenaed in the inquiry by the federal grand jury in Washington. US Justuce Department and Blackwater officials would not confirm the report. AP
-
enqyoobOLD
- BRFite
- Posts: 690
- Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
- Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain
Oh, ATM! Now I understand all those stories of tens of thousands of casualties, that the Pentagon has been denying all this time. A year or 2 ago, I was in a presentation from someone from a certain agency, and an old guy sitting at the table across from me, wearing some strange ribbons, got up and ripped into the presenter in a way that completely stunned me. Turned out he was a highly decorated Brigadier, retired from the 82nd or 101st Airborne. A paratrooper.
He demanded to know whether it was true that some 20,000 men had really been seriously wounded in Iraq.... The presenter just cowered.
There was a story a few days ago on CNN, that featured a young veteran, who had been terribly wounded in an explosion. His face was essentially gone, and he had lost an eye, he had terrible wounds to his limbs, and he had suffered enormous brain damage. The Oiseules in the Veterans' Administration denied him benefits on the grounds that he had no brain injury - it took a Senator or someone like that to kick the asses and get him legitimate benefits (what can ever compensate someone for that kind of loss?)
Now read what the Oiseules in Duplee City have been doing.
I think a good case can be made for Capital Punishment for the mofos that are behind this outrage. I mean, HOW CAN any human sit there and deny fair benefits to a wounded veteran with brain injuries?
He demanded to know whether it was true that some 20,000 men had really been seriously wounded in Iraq.... The presenter just cowered.
There was a story a few days ago on CNN, that featured a young veteran, who had been terribly wounded in an explosion. His face was essentially gone, and he had lost an eye, he had terrible wounds to his limbs, and he had suffered enormous brain damage. The Oiseules in the Veterans' Administration denied him benefits on the grounds that he had no brain injury - it took a Senator or someone like that to kick the asses and get him legitimate benefits (what can ever compensate someone for that kind of loss?)
Now read what the Oiseules in Duplee City have been doing.
Pentagon Omits 20,000 Vets' Brain Injuries
At least 20,000 U.S. troops were not classified as wounded during combat.
Pentagon Tally Omits 20,000 Vets' Brain Injuries
Troops Not Classified as Wounded During Combat Have Been Found With Signs of Brain Injuries
By GREGG ZOROYA, USA Today
Nov. 23, 2007 —
At least 20,000 U.S. troops who were not classified as wounded during combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have been found with signs of brain injuries, according to military and veterans records compiled by USA TODAY.
The data, provided by the Army, Navy and Department of Veterans Affairs, show that about five times as many troops sustained brain trauma as the 4,471 officially listed by the Pentagon through Sept. 30. These cases also are not reflected in the Pentagon's official tally of wounded, which stands at 30,327.
HIDDEN WOUNDS: Marine didn't recognize signs of brain injury
The number of brain-injury cases were tabulated from records kept by the VA and four military bases that house units that have served multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.
One base released its count of brain injuries at a medical conference. The others provided their records at the request of USA TODAY, in some cases only after a Freedom of Information Act filing was submitted.
USA TODAY ARCHIVES: Brain injuries from war worse than thought
The data came from:
" Landstuhl Army Regional Medical Center in Germany, where troops evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan for injury, illness or wounds are brought before going home. Since May 2006, more than 2,300 soldiers screened positive for brain injury, hospital spokeswoman Marie Shaw says.
" Fort Hood, Texas, home of the 4th Infantry Division, which returned from a second Iraq combat tour late last year. At least 2,700 soldiers suffered a combat brain injury, Lt. Col. Steve Stover says.
" Fort Carson, Colo., where more than 2,100 soldiers screened were found to have suffered a brain injury, according to remarks by Army Col. Heidi Terrio before a brain injury association seminar.
" Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, where 1,737 Marines were found to have suffered a brain injury, according to Navy Cmdr. Martin Holland, a neurosurgeon with the Naval Medical Center San Diego.
" VA hospitals, where Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have been screened for combat brain injuries since April. The VA found about 20% of 61,285 surveyed -- or 11,804 veterans -- with signs of brain injury, spokeswoman Alison Aikele says. VA doctors say more evaluation is necessary before a true diagnosis of brain injury can be confirmed in all these cases, Aikele says.
Soldiers and Marines whose wounds were discovered after they left Iraq are not added to the official casualty list, says Army Col. Robert Labutta, a neurologist and brain injury consultant for the Pentagon.
"We are working to do a better job of reflecting accurate data in the official casualty table," Labutta says.
Most of the new cases involve mild or moderate brain injuries, commonly from exposure to blasts.
More than 150,000 troops may have suffered head injuries in combat, says Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., founder of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force.
"I am wary that the number of brain-injured troops far exceeds the total number reported injured," he says.
About 1.5 million troops have served in Iraq, where traumatic brain injury can occur despite heavy body armor worn by troops.
I think a good case can be made for Capital Punishment for the mofos that are behind this outrage. I mean, HOW CAN any human sit there and deny fair benefits to a wounded veteran with brain injuries?
Oh its easy - if you cant tell them that a specific IED at 2:04 AM on the 23rd of September 2004 at grid location xyxyxyxyxyxy went off and gave you "Mild Brain Trauma Injury" then they look at you apologetically and say I'm sorry sir, but the guidelines are very clear.
The reality for most soldiers and marines is that they might be exposed to multiple IEDs that have a cumulative effect.
It's the same thing with PTSD - you have to be able to tie it to a specific incident to qualify for the special programmes.
Muhammed Ali got the shakes after 20 years of boxing - its bloody obvious why. But if he was at the Veterans Administration he'd have to say which punch in which bout of what match was responsible.
A lot of the guys with MBTI are functional now, but in about 20 years they will probably be indistinguishable from a Parkinson's patient.
Right since it was founded after WWI the VA has been one of the worst-run departments of the USG, even though its always been one of the most generously funded. Waste, incompetance and yes fraud have usually been its hallmarks.
The amputees *usually* get very good treatment (there's 'only' about 750 from Iraq and Afghanistan) because of the media attention.
Its the others who really have to fight the system - soldiers with back injuries for example who are in one piece, but are in serious pain and cant work. The bureaucracy treats cases like that with real suspicion, the assumption being these guys are looking for a ticket to a life of ease, rather than wounded warriors collecting society's debt to them.
The reality for most soldiers and marines is that they might be exposed to multiple IEDs that have a cumulative effect.
It's the same thing with PTSD - you have to be able to tie it to a specific incident to qualify for the special programmes.
Muhammed Ali got the shakes after 20 years of boxing - its bloody obvious why. But if he was at the Veterans Administration he'd have to say which punch in which bout of what match was responsible.
A lot of the guys with MBTI are functional now, but in about 20 years they will probably be indistinguishable from a Parkinson's patient.
Right since it was founded after WWI the VA has been one of the worst-run departments of the USG, even though its always been one of the most generously funded. Waste, incompetance and yes fraud have usually been its hallmarks.
The amputees *usually* get very good treatment (there's 'only' about 750 from Iraq and Afghanistan) because of the media attention.
Its the others who really have to fight the system - soldiers with back injuries for example who are in one piece, but are in serious pain and cant work. The bureaucracy treats cases like that with real suspicion, the assumption being these guys are looking for a ticket to a life of ease, rather than wounded warriors collecting society's debt to them.
Pivotal US-Iraqi Deal Would Leave US Troop Presence in Iraq for Decades
[quote]US President George W. Bush made sure of a wall-to-wall Arab audience in Washington on Monday, Nov. 26, when, over a secure video-link, he signed a deal in principle with Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki for an “enduringâ€
[quote]US President George W. Bush made sure of a wall-to-wall Arab audience in Washington on Monday, Nov. 26, when, over a secure video-link, he signed a deal in principle with Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki for an “enduringâ€
-
enqyoobOLD
- BRFite
- Posts: 690
- Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
- Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain
More grist for future war crimes trials.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2223738,00.html
CIA destroyed video of 'waterboarding' al-Qaida detainees
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Friday December 7, 2007
The Guardian
The CIA destroyed video evidence of the coercive interrogation of al-Qaida operatives held under its secret rendition programme in order to shield agents from prosecution, it was revealed yesterday.
The decision to destroy two videotapes documenting the use of waterboarding against Abu Zubaydah and another high-value al-Qaida detainee was made in November 2005 - as American media were just beginning to focus on the existence of the secret CIA prison network.
"The tapes posed a serious security risk," the CIA's director, Michael Hayden, told agency employees in a statement yesterday. "Were they ever to leak, they would permit identification of your CIA colleagues who had served in the programme, exposing them and their families to retaliation from al-Qaida and its sympathisers."
Hayden's message to CIA employees went out a day after he learned that the New York Times planned to publish an article today about destruction of the videotapes.
The revelation is bound to reignite debate in Congress about the use of torture in the war on terror. But far more seriously for the Bush administration, it raises the prospect that the CIA withheld information from and obstructed the work of the commission investigating the September 11 attacks as well as lawyers for Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 11th hijacker. Officials from the September 11 commission told the New York Times yesterday they had formally requested from the CIA evidence of interrogations, and had been informed that all materials had been handed over.
The Washington Post, which also carried a story on its website yesterday about the destroyed videotapes, reported that the order to destroy the tapes came from Jose Rodriguez Jr, then the director of the CIA's clandestine operations.
The leaders of the house and Senate intelligence committees - which were then under Republican control - were aware of the existence of the footage and the CIA's decision to destroy the material, Hayden said in his memo. However, Democratic committee members who had long demanded that such interrogations be videotaped, were not made aware of the existence of the tapes, the Times reported.
Hayden said the interrogations were filmed in 2002 after George Bush authorised the use of harsh interrogation, including the controversial practice of controlled drowning, known as waterboarding, against al-Qaida suspects.
"The agency was determined that it proceed in accord with established legal and policy guidelines," Hayden wrote. "So, on its own, CIA began to videotape interrogations."
However, the CIA soon discontinued the practice, and it is believed that only two detainees were filmed while undergoing interrogation. It has long been believed that Abu Zubaydah, a Saudi believed to be a close associated of Osama bin Laden, was subjected to harsh treatment following his capture in Pakistan in March 2002.
The footage would have clarified what practices such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation - both of which a gravely wounded Abu Zubaydah was subjected to - involve.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2223738,00.html
CIA destroyed video of 'waterboarding' al-Qaida detainees
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Friday December 7, 2007
The Guardian
The CIA destroyed video evidence of the coercive interrogation of al-Qaida operatives held under its secret rendition programme in order to shield agents from prosecution, it was revealed yesterday.
The decision to destroy two videotapes documenting the use of waterboarding against Abu Zubaydah and another high-value al-Qaida detainee was made in November 2005 - as American media were just beginning to focus on the existence of the secret CIA prison network.
"The tapes posed a serious security risk," the CIA's director, Michael Hayden, told agency employees in a statement yesterday. "Were they ever to leak, they would permit identification of your CIA colleagues who had served in the programme, exposing them and their families to retaliation from al-Qaida and its sympathisers."
Hayden's message to CIA employees went out a day after he learned that the New York Times planned to publish an article today about destruction of the videotapes.
The revelation is bound to reignite debate in Congress about the use of torture in the war on terror. But far more seriously for the Bush administration, it raises the prospect that the CIA withheld information from and obstructed the work of the commission investigating the September 11 attacks as well as lawyers for Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 11th hijacker. Officials from the September 11 commission told the New York Times yesterday they had formally requested from the CIA evidence of interrogations, and had been informed that all materials had been handed over.
The Washington Post, which also carried a story on its website yesterday about the destroyed videotapes, reported that the order to destroy the tapes came from Jose Rodriguez Jr, then the director of the CIA's clandestine operations.
The leaders of the house and Senate intelligence committees - which were then under Republican control - were aware of the existence of the footage and the CIA's decision to destroy the material, Hayden said in his memo. However, Democratic committee members who had long demanded that such interrogations be videotaped, were not made aware of the existence of the tapes, the Times reported.
Hayden said the interrogations were filmed in 2002 after George Bush authorised the use of harsh interrogation, including the controversial practice of controlled drowning, known as waterboarding, against al-Qaida suspects.
"The agency was determined that it proceed in accord with established legal and policy guidelines," Hayden wrote. "So, on its own, CIA began to videotape interrogations."
However, the CIA soon discontinued the practice, and it is believed that only two detainees were filmed while undergoing interrogation. It has long been believed that Abu Zubaydah, a Saudi believed to be a close associated of Osama bin Laden, was subjected to harsh treatment following his capture in Pakistan in March 2002.
The footage would have clarified what practices such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation - both of which a gravely wounded Abu Zubaydah was subjected to - involve.
From the author of his new book,"Why they lost Iraq",comes this piece.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 02,00.html
The surge is a sideshow. Only total US pullout can succeed
When resistance leaders are given an assurance that the Iraq occupation will end completely, real negotiations can begin
Jonathan Steele
Friday December 7, 2007
The Guardian
If the gladdest tidings of this pre-Christmas season have been the US intelligence community's brilliant move to undermine a Bush attack on Iran by revealing there is no Iranian nuclear weapons programme, the worst news concerns US policy on Iraq. And it is not just the US announcement of plans to get the Iraqi government to agree to permanent US military bases and an open-ended occupation, thereby confirming what most analysts had long assumed was the Republicans' intention.
More alarming was the Democratic party's reaction and indeed that of the US media. The revelation produced no burst of headlines or commentaries, even though it rides roughshod over most Americans' wishes. A Pew Research poll two weeks ago found 54% wanted the troops home "as soon as possible".
Yet the Democratic contenders for the presidency barely murmured. The passion for a clear timetable of an early US troop pullout that was raging in large sections of the Democratic party last spring, in the weeks after it regained control of the House and Senate, has fizzled out.
Whatever effect Bush's "surge" of extra troops has had in Iraq, it has clearly worked in Washington. The Democrats are in retreat, and the Bush strategy of entrenching the Iraq occupation still further and handing the mess to his successor is proceeding virtually unopposed.
Hillary Clinton, in a recent article in the journal Foreign Affairs, pledged to maintain US troops in Iraq indefinitely to train and equip Iraqi forces, as well as keeping "specialised units" to protect the trainers and confront al-Qaida. She would also leave troops in the northern Kurdish regions. Barack Obama told the New York Times last month that he would need 16 months after taking office to withdraw all US combat troops from Iraq, and would retain a residual force on an open-ended basis "to counter terrorism". He might decide this force would be better based outside Iraq, he suggested, so his position is marginally better than Clinton's. Neither candidate is willing to propose a total US troop withdrawal, as the US agreed in Vietnam in 1973 when it finally resolved to end its disastrous involvement there.
The Democrats' new softness flows in part from the reduction in US combat deaths. The so-called Awakening movement by some Sunni tribal leaders to take arms and money from the Americans to turn against al-Qaida in Iraq has reduced the difficulties for US troops. There is also a perception, carefully nurtured in General David Petraeus's statistical charts and testimony to Congress in September, that the back of the Iraqi resistance has been broken. Now the Iraqi government is trumpeting the fact that thousands of Iraqi refugees are coming home as further proof of a turning security tide.
But none of these indicators is firm. The figures for returning refugees are contested, with the Iraqi government counting anyone who crosses into Iraq even though many had only gone abroad on short visits and were never refugees. Many genuine refugees leave Syria in desperation because their money or visas have run out, not because they feel safe in going back.
When I talked to families in a muddy bus station on the outskirts of Damascus last week as they set off home, I found only Shias. "Of course Sunnis are afraid to go. The buses are provided by the Shia-led Iraqi government and Iraqi police will check them at the border," an Iraqi Sunni told me later. His comment underlined the continuing depth of sectarian suspicions. Sunnis assume the Iraqi police, who are mainly Shias, are either in league with Shia militias and death squads or will behave just as badly. They fear being abducted or slaughtered on the way.
Sunni concerns over Shia militias also explain the Awakening movement. Although Sunni tribal leaders are taking US arms and cash, ostensibly to confront al-Qaida, they see value in getting organised to protect their suburbs from Shia raids. The Americans may be temporarily helping to reduce violence, but their tactics help to build up Sunni militias for possible attacks on Shias in the future. Once again the Americans are looking for a military solution to what is essentially a political problem. Without national reconciliation and dialogue between Sunni and Shia community leaders - a process which neither the government of Nuri al-Maliki nor General Petraeus seems able or willing to broker - the underlying issues remain unresolved.
The Iraqi resistance is also undimmed. The nationalist Shia cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, has called a unilateral ceasefire, which is largely holding while the US troop "surge" is under way. The Sunni resistance is doing much the same, though without formally declaring it. As I was told by a senior resistance spokesman in Damascus, many nationalist groups have reduced their attacks in western Baghdad and parts of Anbar province while regrouping and retraining.
A few weeks earlier I spoke to one of the spiritual fathers of the Sunni insurgency, Sheikh Harith al-Dhari, now in exile in Amman. The head of the Association of Muslim Scholars, he argued that the Awakening movement only represented a small proportion of Sunni tribal leaders. "The situation in Anbar is very bad, and many are out of work and impoverished. Some will work with anyone who pays them, whether it is al-Qaida or the US army. I agree the attacks on US forces in Anbar have gone down, but in a few months they may go up again. The US is building its hopes on a small trend. It doesn't follow it will continue," he said.
His remarks chimed with a poll conducted in mid-August for the BBC and ABC news. It found Anbar was still the strongest bastion of hostile anti-US opinion in Iraq. While criticising al-Qaida's attacks on civilians, every Anbar respondent supported attacks on US forces: 70% wanted them to leave immediately, a higher figure than in a March poll before the "surge".
One day Iraqi resistance leaders will have to be brought into negotiations. They are a legitimate factor in the complex Iraqi equation. National reconciliation which attempts to exclude people who have sacrificed so much in the struggle against foreign occupation has no chance of succeeding. The pre-condition - as happened when the Vietnam war ended - has to be a clear declaration by Washington that it is going altogether, with no bases or "residual forces" left behind. Only then will Iraqis come to the negotiating table seriously, and work out a future that does not leave an elephant in the room.
· Jonathan Steele's new book, Defeat: Why They Lost Iraq, is published next month.
j.steele@guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 02,00.html
The surge is a sideshow. Only total US pullout can succeed
When resistance leaders are given an assurance that the Iraq occupation will end completely, real negotiations can begin
Jonathan Steele
Friday December 7, 2007
The Guardian
If the gladdest tidings of this pre-Christmas season have been the US intelligence community's brilliant move to undermine a Bush attack on Iran by revealing there is no Iranian nuclear weapons programme, the worst news concerns US policy on Iraq. And it is not just the US announcement of plans to get the Iraqi government to agree to permanent US military bases and an open-ended occupation, thereby confirming what most analysts had long assumed was the Republicans' intention.
More alarming was the Democratic party's reaction and indeed that of the US media. The revelation produced no burst of headlines or commentaries, even though it rides roughshod over most Americans' wishes. A Pew Research poll two weeks ago found 54% wanted the troops home "as soon as possible".
Yet the Democratic contenders for the presidency barely murmured. The passion for a clear timetable of an early US troop pullout that was raging in large sections of the Democratic party last spring, in the weeks after it regained control of the House and Senate, has fizzled out.
Whatever effect Bush's "surge" of extra troops has had in Iraq, it has clearly worked in Washington. The Democrats are in retreat, and the Bush strategy of entrenching the Iraq occupation still further and handing the mess to his successor is proceeding virtually unopposed.
Hillary Clinton, in a recent article in the journal Foreign Affairs, pledged to maintain US troops in Iraq indefinitely to train and equip Iraqi forces, as well as keeping "specialised units" to protect the trainers and confront al-Qaida. She would also leave troops in the northern Kurdish regions. Barack Obama told the New York Times last month that he would need 16 months after taking office to withdraw all US combat troops from Iraq, and would retain a residual force on an open-ended basis "to counter terrorism". He might decide this force would be better based outside Iraq, he suggested, so his position is marginally better than Clinton's. Neither candidate is willing to propose a total US troop withdrawal, as the US agreed in Vietnam in 1973 when it finally resolved to end its disastrous involvement there.
The Democrats' new softness flows in part from the reduction in US combat deaths. The so-called Awakening movement by some Sunni tribal leaders to take arms and money from the Americans to turn against al-Qaida in Iraq has reduced the difficulties for US troops. There is also a perception, carefully nurtured in General David Petraeus's statistical charts and testimony to Congress in September, that the back of the Iraqi resistance has been broken. Now the Iraqi government is trumpeting the fact that thousands of Iraqi refugees are coming home as further proof of a turning security tide.
But none of these indicators is firm. The figures for returning refugees are contested, with the Iraqi government counting anyone who crosses into Iraq even though many had only gone abroad on short visits and were never refugees. Many genuine refugees leave Syria in desperation because their money or visas have run out, not because they feel safe in going back.
When I talked to families in a muddy bus station on the outskirts of Damascus last week as they set off home, I found only Shias. "Of course Sunnis are afraid to go. The buses are provided by the Shia-led Iraqi government and Iraqi police will check them at the border," an Iraqi Sunni told me later. His comment underlined the continuing depth of sectarian suspicions. Sunnis assume the Iraqi police, who are mainly Shias, are either in league with Shia militias and death squads or will behave just as badly. They fear being abducted or slaughtered on the way.
Sunni concerns over Shia militias also explain the Awakening movement. Although Sunni tribal leaders are taking US arms and cash, ostensibly to confront al-Qaida, they see value in getting organised to protect their suburbs from Shia raids. The Americans may be temporarily helping to reduce violence, but their tactics help to build up Sunni militias for possible attacks on Shias in the future. Once again the Americans are looking for a military solution to what is essentially a political problem. Without national reconciliation and dialogue between Sunni and Shia community leaders - a process which neither the government of Nuri al-Maliki nor General Petraeus seems able or willing to broker - the underlying issues remain unresolved.
The Iraqi resistance is also undimmed. The nationalist Shia cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, has called a unilateral ceasefire, which is largely holding while the US troop "surge" is under way. The Sunni resistance is doing much the same, though without formally declaring it. As I was told by a senior resistance spokesman in Damascus, many nationalist groups have reduced their attacks in western Baghdad and parts of Anbar province while regrouping and retraining.
A few weeks earlier I spoke to one of the spiritual fathers of the Sunni insurgency, Sheikh Harith al-Dhari, now in exile in Amman. The head of the Association of Muslim Scholars, he argued that the Awakening movement only represented a small proportion of Sunni tribal leaders. "The situation in Anbar is very bad, and many are out of work and impoverished. Some will work with anyone who pays them, whether it is al-Qaida or the US army. I agree the attacks on US forces in Anbar have gone down, but in a few months they may go up again. The US is building its hopes on a small trend. It doesn't follow it will continue," he said.
His remarks chimed with a poll conducted in mid-August for the BBC and ABC news. It found Anbar was still the strongest bastion of hostile anti-US opinion in Iraq. While criticising al-Qaida's attacks on civilians, every Anbar respondent supported attacks on US forces: 70% wanted them to leave immediately, a higher figure than in a March poll before the "surge".
One day Iraqi resistance leaders will have to be brought into negotiations. They are a legitimate factor in the complex Iraqi equation. National reconciliation which attempts to exclude people who have sacrificed so much in the struggle against foreign occupation has no chance of succeeding. The pre-condition - as happened when the Vietnam war ended - has to be a clear declaration by Washington that it is going altogether, with no bases or "residual forces" left behind. Only then will Iraqis come to the negotiating table seriously, and work out a future that does not leave an elephant in the room.
· Jonathan Steele's new book, Defeat: Why They Lost Iraq, is published next month.
j.steele@guardian.co.uk
Great British legacy in Iraq,second time round!
...David Miliband, the foreign secretary, who attended the handover ceremony, acknowledged that the territory was not "a land of milk and honey" and promised Britain would remain a "committed friend" of Iraq...
It was indeed a land of luscious dates and honey before the invaders destroyed it!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2228690,00.html
UK has left behind murder and chaos, says Basra police chief
Blunt assessment delivered as British hand over security to Iraqis
Mona Mahmoud, Maggie O'Kane and Ian Black
Monday December 17, 2007
The Guardian
British troops parade as the control of Basra province is handed back to the Iraqis. Photograph: MoD/Getty Images
The full scale of the chaos left behind by British forces in Basra was revealed yesterday as the city's police chief described a province in the grip of well-armed militias strong enough to overpower security forces and brutal enough to behead women considered not sufficiently Islamic.
As British forces finally handed over security in Basra province, marking the end of 4½ years of control in southern Iraq, Major General Jalil Khalaf, the new police commander, said the occupation had left him with a situation close to mayhem. "They left me militia, they left me gangsters, and they left me all the troubles in the world," he said in an in an interview for Guardian Films and ITV.
Khalaf painted a very different picture from that of British officials who, while acknowledging problems in southern Iraq, said yesterday's handover at Basra airbase was timely and appropriate.
Major General Graham Binns, who led British troops into the city in 2003, said the province had "begun to regain its strength". He added: "I came to rid Basra of its enemies and I now formally hand Basra back to its friends."
But in the film, to be broadcast on the Guardian Unlimited website and ITV News, Khalaf lists a catalogue of failings, saying:
· Basra has become so lawless that in the last three months 45 women have been killed for being "immoral" because they were not fully covered or because they may have given birth outside wedlock;
· The British unintentionally rearmed Shia militias by failing to recognise that Iraqi troops were loyal to more than one authority;
· Shia militia are better armed than his men and control Iraq's main port.
In the interview he said the main problem the Iraqi security forces now faced was the struggle to wrest control back from the militia. He appealed for the British to help him do that: "We need the British to help us to watch our borders - both sea and land and we need their intelligence and air support and to keep training the Iraqi police."
David Miliband, the foreign secretary, who attended the handover ceremony, acknowledged that the territory was not "a land of milk and honey" and promised Britain would remain a "committed friend" of Iraq.
But he insisted it was the right time to hand back control. "The key conditions for the transfer of security responsibility to the Iraqi security forces are whether they are up to it: do they have the numbers? Do they have the leadership and training to provide leadership for this province? And the answer to those three questions is yes," he said.
After the handover Des Browne, the defence secretary, praised British forces - 174 of whom have died since the start of the war in March 2003. "Their contribution has been outstanding and their courage inspiring," he said. A scaled-down UK force will remain in a single base at Basra airport, with a small training mission and a rapid reaction team on "overwatch".
Britain now has 4,500 troops in Iraq. The prime minister, Gordon Brown, has said numbers would shrink to 2,500 by mid-2008 though those released may be redeployed to Afghanistan.
Khalaf, who has survived 20 assassination attempts since he became police chief six months ago, said Britain's intentions had been good but misguided. "I don't think the British meant for this mess to happen. When they disbanded the Iraqi police and military after Saddam fell the people they put in their place were not loyal to the Iraqi government. The British trained and armed these people in the extremist groups and now we are faced with a situation where these police are loyal to their parties not their country."
He said the most shocking aspect of the breakdown of law and order in Basra was the murder of women for being unIslamic. "They are being killed because they are accused of behaving in an immoral way. When they kill them they put underwear and indecent clothes on them."
In his office Khalaf showed the Guardian a computer holding the files of 48 unidentified women. "Some of them have even been killed with their children because their killer says that they come out of an adulterous relationship," he said.
Vince Cable, the acting Lib Dem leader, called for a timetable to bring all British troops home from Iraq, adding: "If we are handing power back to the Iraqis, why are 4,500 British troops needed for what is essentially a training mission?"
· The General's Last Stand: a Guardianfilms/ITV News investigation can be seen now on the Guardian website and later tonight on ITV News at 6.30pm and 10.30pm
More here.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/mid ... 258008.ece
Britain bows out of a five-year war it could never have won
...The unpopularity of the British presence is underlined by the results of an opinion poll commissioned by the BBC showing that just 2 per cent of people in Basra believed that the British presence had had a positive effect on their province since 2003. Some 86 per cent said they saw British troops as having a negative impact. ..
...David Miliband, the foreign secretary, who attended the handover ceremony, acknowledged that the territory was not "a land of milk and honey" and promised Britain would remain a "committed friend" of Iraq...
It was indeed a land of luscious dates and honey before the invaders destroyed it!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2228690,00.html
UK has left behind murder and chaos, says Basra police chief
Blunt assessment delivered as British hand over security to Iraqis
Mona Mahmoud, Maggie O'Kane and Ian Black
Monday December 17, 2007
The Guardian
British troops parade as the control of Basra province is handed back to the Iraqis. Photograph: MoD/Getty Images
The full scale of the chaos left behind by British forces in Basra was revealed yesterday as the city's police chief described a province in the grip of well-armed militias strong enough to overpower security forces and brutal enough to behead women considered not sufficiently Islamic.
As British forces finally handed over security in Basra province, marking the end of 4½ years of control in southern Iraq, Major General Jalil Khalaf, the new police commander, said the occupation had left him with a situation close to mayhem. "They left me militia, they left me gangsters, and they left me all the troubles in the world," he said in an in an interview for Guardian Films and ITV.
Khalaf painted a very different picture from that of British officials who, while acknowledging problems in southern Iraq, said yesterday's handover at Basra airbase was timely and appropriate.
Major General Graham Binns, who led British troops into the city in 2003, said the province had "begun to regain its strength". He added: "I came to rid Basra of its enemies and I now formally hand Basra back to its friends."
But in the film, to be broadcast on the Guardian Unlimited website and ITV News, Khalaf lists a catalogue of failings, saying:
· Basra has become so lawless that in the last three months 45 women have been killed for being "immoral" because they were not fully covered or because they may have given birth outside wedlock;
· The British unintentionally rearmed Shia militias by failing to recognise that Iraqi troops were loyal to more than one authority;
· Shia militia are better armed than his men and control Iraq's main port.
In the interview he said the main problem the Iraqi security forces now faced was the struggle to wrest control back from the militia. He appealed for the British to help him do that: "We need the British to help us to watch our borders - both sea and land and we need their intelligence and air support and to keep training the Iraqi police."
David Miliband, the foreign secretary, who attended the handover ceremony, acknowledged that the territory was not "a land of milk and honey" and promised Britain would remain a "committed friend" of Iraq.
But he insisted it was the right time to hand back control. "The key conditions for the transfer of security responsibility to the Iraqi security forces are whether they are up to it: do they have the numbers? Do they have the leadership and training to provide leadership for this province? And the answer to those three questions is yes," he said.
After the handover Des Browne, the defence secretary, praised British forces - 174 of whom have died since the start of the war in March 2003. "Their contribution has been outstanding and their courage inspiring," he said. A scaled-down UK force will remain in a single base at Basra airport, with a small training mission and a rapid reaction team on "overwatch".
Britain now has 4,500 troops in Iraq. The prime minister, Gordon Brown, has said numbers would shrink to 2,500 by mid-2008 though those released may be redeployed to Afghanistan.
Khalaf, who has survived 20 assassination attempts since he became police chief six months ago, said Britain's intentions had been good but misguided. "I don't think the British meant for this mess to happen. When they disbanded the Iraqi police and military after Saddam fell the people they put in their place were not loyal to the Iraqi government. The British trained and armed these people in the extremist groups and now we are faced with a situation where these police are loyal to their parties not their country."
He said the most shocking aspect of the breakdown of law and order in Basra was the murder of women for being unIslamic. "They are being killed because they are accused of behaving in an immoral way. When they kill them they put underwear and indecent clothes on them."
In his office Khalaf showed the Guardian a computer holding the files of 48 unidentified women. "Some of them have even been killed with their children because their killer says that they come out of an adulterous relationship," he said.
Vince Cable, the acting Lib Dem leader, called for a timetable to bring all British troops home from Iraq, adding: "If we are handing power back to the Iraqis, why are 4,500 British troops needed for what is essentially a training mission?"
· The General's Last Stand: a Guardianfilms/ITV News investigation can be seen now on the Guardian website and later tonight on ITV News at 6.30pm and 10.30pm
More here.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/mid ... 258008.ece
Britain bows out of a five-year war it could never have won
...The unpopularity of the British presence is underlined by the results of an opinion poll commissioned by the BBC showing that just 2 per cent of people in Basra believed that the British presence had had a positive effect on their province since 2003. Some 86 per cent said they saw British troops as having a negative impact. ..
Britain "fleeing" says Al Q's number2!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.
Britain 'fleeing' Iraq, says Zawahiri
By Con Coughlin in Basra and Richard Holt
Last Updated: 9:00am GMT 17/12/2007Page 1 of 2
Al-Qa'eda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri has said Britain's decision to hand control of Basra to the Iraqi government shows that the insurgency is stronger than ever.
In a newly released video Osama bin Laden's deputy mocked the "decision of the British to flee" and said it follows the growing strength of the Mujahideen.
Zawahiri says Iraq insurgency is strengthening
He also claimed that coalition control in Iraq is deteriorating "despite their desperate attempts to deceive and mislead".
The 98-minute video with English subtitles, released to coincide with the formal handover of power, was sent by the terrorist group to a US intelligence group which tracks jihadist activities.
The formal handover has been seen by the coalition as a move that will pave the way for a dramatic reduction in the number of British troops stationed in Iraq next year.
In a simple ceremony conducted in the disused departure lounge of Basra airport, Major-General Graham Binns, the commander of British forces in Iraq, yesterday signed a memorandum of understanding that gives local Iraqi leaders responsibility for running the province.
advertisementThere was a brief moment of confusion when General Mohan al-Furaiji, the head of southern Iraq's security forces, insisted that he sign the agreement as well as Basra's provincial governor, Muhammad Wa'ili.
Previously it had been agreed that only Mr Wa'ili would sign the memorandum.
But after a short delay it was agreed that both men sign the document that formally brings to an end Britain's responsibility for administering the four Iraqi provinces placed under its control following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003.
In the video Zawahiri said: "No matter how much the gigantic propaganda machine in America tries to deceive the people, the reality is stronger and worse than all the deceptions."
He added: "Reports from Iraq point to the increasing power of the mujahideen and the deteriorating condition of the Americans. The decision of the British to flee is sufficient proof."
Basra has been the scene of some of the fiercest fighting between British forces and Iraqi militant groups, but Sunday's hour-long ceremony passed without incident.
Major General Graham Binns shakes hands with Mowafaq al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security adviser
Returning the province to Iraqi control Maj Gen Binns said the city had been pulled from the grip of its enemies.
"I now formally hand it back to its friends," he said. "We will continue to help train Basra security forces. But we are guests in your country, and we will act accordingly."
David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, who was present at the ceremony, said that Britain remained committed to helping the Iraqis with the political and economic reconstruction efforts: "Our aim is to see an Iraq run by Iraqis for all Iraqis."
But he acknowledged that Britain was not handing "a land of milk and honey" to the Iraqis, and conceded that the region had several problems which needed to be tackled.
"This remains a violent society whose tensions need to addressed, but they need to be addressed by Iraqi political leaders and it is politics that is going to have to come to the fore in the months and years ahead," he said.
Mowafaq al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security adviser, said his country was ready to take on the burden of governing Basra province independently.
"The security improvements didn't come from nothing, but were the result of huge efforts from both the government and Iraqi people in fighting terrorism, extremism, militias and outlaws," he said.
Locals voice their opinions on the handover of power to Iraqi forces
An indication of the continuing threat of violence in the province came the previous night when insurgents fired 13 mortar rounds at the air base on the city outskirts which is now the main headquarters for British forces.
A few hours later several Iraqi insurgents were reported killed when they were hit by an American air strike as the prepared to launch another attack on the air base.
But Mr Miliband, who is making his first visit to Iraq since becoming Foreign Secretary last summer, said he was hopeful that local Iraqi political leaders were now more interested in pursuing political dialogue than fighting each other.
Frontline: Our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq advertisement
In his speech accepting responsibility for running Basra, Governor Wa'ili said he extended the "hand of friendship" to all the militias in the city, and called on them to lay down their arms.
Welcoming the gesture, Mr Miliband said the future of Iraq needed to be sorted by the Iraqis, not the military.
"This is an opportunity for them to do something positive, and I hope they will take it."
The dramatic drop in violence in Basra since British forces withdrew to the air base last September means that the government will now be able to press ahead with its plans to reduce the 5,000-strong British force by half next year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.
Britain 'fleeing' Iraq, says Zawahiri
By Con Coughlin in Basra and Richard Holt
Last Updated: 9:00am GMT 17/12/2007Page 1 of 2
Al-Qa'eda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri has said Britain's decision to hand control of Basra to the Iraqi government shows that the insurgency is stronger than ever.
In a newly released video Osama bin Laden's deputy mocked the "decision of the British to flee" and said it follows the growing strength of the Mujahideen.
Zawahiri says Iraq insurgency is strengthening
He also claimed that coalition control in Iraq is deteriorating "despite their desperate attempts to deceive and mislead".
The 98-minute video with English subtitles, released to coincide with the formal handover of power, was sent by the terrorist group to a US intelligence group which tracks jihadist activities.
The formal handover has been seen by the coalition as a move that will pave the way for a dramatic reduction in the number of British troops stationed in Iraq next year.
In a simple ceremony conducted in the disused departure lounge of Basra airport, Major-General Graham Binns, the commander of British forces in Iraq, yesterday signed a memorandum of understanding that gives local Iraqi leaders responsibility for running the province.
advertisementThere was a brief moment of confusion when General Mohan al-Furaiji, the head of southern Iraq's security forces, insisted that he sign the agreement as well as Basra's provincial governor, Muhammad Wa'ili.
Previously it had been agreed that only Mr Wa'ili would sign the memorandum.
But after a short delay it was agreed that both men sign the document that formally brings to an end Britain's responsibility for administering the four Iraqi provinces placed under its control following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003.
In the video Zawahiri said: "No matter how much the gigantic propaganda machine in America tries to deceive the people, the reality is stronger and worse than all the deceptions."
He added: "Reports from Iraq point to the increasing power of the mujahideen and the deteriorating condition of the Americans. The decision of the British to flee is sufficient proof."
Basra has been the scene of some of the fiercest fighting between British forces and Iraqi militant groups, but Sunday's hour-long ceremony passed without incident.
Major General Graham Binns shakes hands with Mowafaq al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security adviser
Returning the province to Iraqi control Maj Gen Binns said the city had been pulled from the grip of its enemies.
"I now formally hand it back to its friends," he said. "We will continue to help train Basra security forces. But we are guests in your country, and we will act accordingly."
David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, who was present at the ceremony, said that Britain remained committed to helping the Iraqis with the political and economic reconstruction efforts: "Our aim is to see an Iraq run by Iraqis for all Iraqis."
But he acknowledged that Britain was not handing "a land of milk and honey" to the Iraqis, and conceded that the region had several problems which needed to be tackled.
"This remains a violent society whose tensions need to addressed, but they need to be addressed by Iraqi political leaders and it is politics that is going to have to come to the fore in the months and years ahead," he said.
Mowafaq al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security adviser, said his country was ready to take on the burden of governing Basra province independently.
"The security improvements didn't come from nothing, but were the result of huge efforts from both the government and Iraqi people in fighting terrorism, extremism, militias and outlaws," he said.
Locals voice their opinions on the handover of power to Iraqi forces
An indication of the continuing threat of violence in the province came the previous night when insurgents fired 13 mortar rounds at the air base on the city outskirts which is now the main headquarters for British forces.
A few hours later several Iraqi insurgents were reported killed when they were hit by an American air strike as the prepared to launch another attack on the air base.
But Mr Miliband, who is making his first visit to Iraq since becoming Foreign Secretary last summer, said he was hopeful that local Iraqi political leaders were now more interested in pursuing political dialogue than fighting each other.
Frontline: Our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq advertisement
In his speech accepting responsibility for running Basra, Governor Wa'ili said he extended the "hand of friendship" to all the militias in the city, and called on them to lay down their arms.
Welcoming the gesture, Mr Miliband said the future of Iraq needed to be sorted by the Iraqis, not the military.
"This is an opportunity for them to do something positive, and I hope they will take it."
The dramatic drop in violence in Basra since British forces withdrew to the air base last September means that the government will now be able to press ahead with its plans to reduce the 5,000-strong British force by half next year.
Gays retreat to shadows in new Iraq
BAGHDAD: In a city and country where outsiders are viewed with deep suspicion and attracting attention can imperil one's life, Mohammed could never blend in, even if he wanted to.
Mohammed, 37, has been openly gay for much of his adult life. For him, this has meant growing his hair long and taking estrogen. In the past, he said, that held little danger. As is true throughout the Middle East, men have always been publicly affectionate here.
But, at least until recently, Mohammed and many of his gay friends went one step further, slipping into lovers' houses late at night. And, until the American invasion, they said, Iraqi society had quietly accepted them.
But being openly gay is not an option in the new Iraq, where the rise of religious extremism has left Mohammed and his gay friends feeling especially vilified.
In January, a United Nations report described the increased persecution, torture and extrajudicial killing of Iraqi lesbians and gay men. In 2005, Iraq's most revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, issued a fatwa, or religious decree, calling for gay men and lesbians to be killed in the "worst, most severe way." He lifted it a year later, but neither that nor the recent ebb in violence has made Mohammed or his friends feel safe. They yearn to leave Iraq, but do not have the money or visas. They agreed to be interviewed on the condition that their last names not be used.
They described an underground existence, eked out behind drawn curtains in a dingy safe house in southwestern Baghdad. Five people share the apartment — four gay men and one woman, who says she is bisexual. They have moved six times in the last three years, just ahead, they say, of neighborhood raids by Shiite and Sunni death squads. Even seemingly benign neighborhood gossip can scare them enough to move.
"We seem suspicious because we look like a cell of terrorists," said Mohammed, nervously fingering the lapel of his shirt. "But we can't tell people what we really are. A cell, yes, but of gays."
His hand drifted to his newly shorn hair. He had lopped it off days earlier. There had been reports of extremists stopping long-haired men, shearing their hair and forcing them to eat it.
It is impossible to say how many gay men and women face persecution in Iraq. According to an Iraqi gay rights group, run by a former disc jockey in Baghdad named Ali Hili who now lives in London, 400 people have been killed in Iraq since 2003 for being gay.
Set against the many thousands of civilians and soldiers killed in the war, the number is small. But for Hili, and Mohammed and his friends, it is a painful barometer of just how far Iraq has shifted from its secular past.
For a brief, exhilarating time, from the mid-1980s until the early 1990s, they say, gay night life flourished in Iraq. Whereas neighboring Iran turned inward after its Islamic revolution in 1979, Baghdad allowed a measure of liberation after the end of the Iran-Iraq war.
Abu Nawas Boulevard, which hugs the Tigris River opposite what is now the Green Zone, became a promenade known for cruising. Discos opened in the city's best hotels, the Ishtar Sheraton, the Palestine and Saddam Hussein's prized Al-Rasheed Hotel, becoming magnets for gay men. Young men with rouged cheeks and glossed lips paraded the streets of Mansour, an affluent neighborhood in Baghdad.
"There were so many guys, from Kuwait, from Saudi Arabia, guys in the street with makeup," said Hili, who left Iraq in 2000. "Up until 1991, there was sexual freedom. It was a revolutionary time."
Then came the Gulf war, and afterward Saddam Hussein put an end to nightclubs. Iraq staggered under the yoke of economic sanctions. While antigay laws were increasingly enforced, Mohammed and Hili said they still felt safe. Homosexuality seemed accepted, as long as it was practiced in private. And even when it was not tolerated, prison time could be evaded with a well-placed bribe.
The American invasion was expected to usher in better times.
"We thought that with the presence of Americans, life would become paradise, that Iraq would be Westernized," Mohammed said. "But unfortunately the way things were before was so much better than where we are now."
One night shortly after Saddam Hussein fell, American soldiers burst into the apartment that Mohammed shared with his two brothers. They were looking for insurgents, but took one look at Mohammed, with his long hair and shapely body wrapped in a robe, and teased him, he said.
"What are you, a lady man?" he remembered them barking. "A boy? Or a girl?" They turned to one of Mohammed's brothers, "Who is this?" they asked, "Your girlfriend?"
The news raced through Mohammed's building. "All my neighbors came to know that I was gay," he said. "My brother said, 'Mohammed, leave the house; you can't live here anymore.'"
He rented another apartment, and was soon joined by some gay friends. They moved nine months later, after suspicious neighbors began to talk. Nine months after that, they moved again. They came to rely on remittances sent by Hili, who raises money for them in London.
Hili taps a network of acquaintances in Baghdad to ferret out safe houses, and pays extra for landlords to alert him to possible trouble. He says he supports about 32 people.
Few work, though one of Mohammed's roommates, Amjad, who is 33 and has manicured eyebrows and feathered hair, said he sometimes sleeps with an older man for money. "He loves me, but I hate him," Amjad said. "He is jealous and ugly."
One of Mohammed's friends, a 25-year-old law student named Rafi, said he was especially desperate to get out of Iraq. It is a sentiment shared by millions of Iraqis, but Rafi believes his future here is especially bleak. The influence from Iran is growing, he said. And in Iran, homosexuality is often punishable by death.
"I want to get out, but not just out of Iraq, out of the Middle East," Rafi said, "to a country that has respect for human rights. And for us."
He paused, casting his eyes downward. "It will never be possible here."
-
Rudranathh
- BRFite
- Posts: 227
- Joined: 17 Nov 2007 20:06
Skanda wrote:Gays retreat to shadows in new Iraq
Mohammed, 37, has been openly gay for much of his adult life.
Western Conspiracy?
Let the fatwas start raining on the IHT.
This is one of the most shocking videos I have ever seen on the internet. Did those guys survive.....that blast was massive....Sanjay M wrote:Good heavens, this was a big, big boom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_PsyfHhEx4
Was this RDX, C4, or what?
Amazing that a truck can blow so much up.
A great way to run a war by deceiving your own troops! However,as from revealed evidence about WW2,this has been the classic case with the British Foreign Office and its political bosses hiding matters from the MOD.Cannon fodder has been the staple diet of British wars ever since WW1 and the bloody fields of Flanders.
Iraq cover-up claims: MPs call for inquiry
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2232039,00.html
UK security firm accused of failing to pass on intelligence to army in Basra
Henry McDonald, Duncan Campbell and Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday December 24, 2007
The Guardian
MPs called yesterday for a full parliamentary inquiry into the British security company ArmorGroup after allegations made about its operations in Iraq by former employees. Two MPs have issued the call in response to claims that an employee had been told to withhold intelligence from the British armed forces and that the company had exaggerated the numbers of its employees on the ground.
ArmorGroup vigorously contested the claims and said yesterday they were either too vague to be checked or were old and had already been dealt with. The company said it had the best ethical record of any security firm working in the field and had offered the MPs full cooperation in investigating their claims since they were first aired earlier this year.
The most serious allegations have been made by Colin Williamson, 44, a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (now the Police Service of Northern Ireland) who joined ArmorGroup in December 2004.
He was in Iraq until summer 2005. As someone who had been used to liaising with the British army during his time with the RUC, he said he was shocked at the way the operation was run.
"My role was to go to certain Iraqi police stations daily in the Basra area. But we were told not to report back any intelligence we picked up there, not to hand it to the British military. Why? Because our bosses and probably, in turn, the FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] didn't want to expose how corrupt and infiltrated by the militia the police were."
Williamson claims he was instructed not to pass on information to the British army even though he believes such intelligence could have been vital. He said he tried to raise the issues with the government on his return from his time in Iraq but had had no success.
Williamson told the Guardian he had an "impeccable source" in the Iraqi police. "He was so well informed that one occasion when he rang he said 'you are about to be attacked at any moment' and before he could put down the phone the mortars came in."
While the Iraqi insurgency was gathering pace and ferocity in the Baghdad area, Basra, in the British-occupied south, was going through a period of relative calm at the time Williamson was in the region.
Earlier in 2004 British troops had had several serious clashes with hundreds of Iraqi militiamen loyal to the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and a series of bomb blasts at police stations and the police academy had killed 74 people.
But by November UK commanders had felt able to send a unit of the Black Watch north to Baghdad to free up American troops for the assault on the insurgency stronghold of Fallujah.
Jeffrey Donaldson, the Democratic Unionist Party MP for Lagan Valley, and Dr Phyllis Starkey, the Labour MP for Milton Keynes South West, have already raised their concerns with Foreign Office minister Lord Malloch Brown. The call comes as ArmorGroup faces commercial problems, partly as a result of publicity over the operations in Iraq of the American security company Blackwater.
"We have expressed our views to the Foreign Office that there has to be a full parliamentary inquiry," Donaldson told the Guardian yesterday. "I am satisfied that the issues raised are so serious that they warrant such an inquiry. I know some of the ex-RUC officers and former British soldiers who worked for the ArmorGroup in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"These sources are, in my view, credible individuals; they are people who have served their country in the past. That is why what they are saying is of such a serious nature that they must be examined fully."
Donaldson, whose brother, Kingsley, has served as a company commander with the Royal Irish Regiment in Iraq, added: "I am troubled and very concerned about these claims over Armor's alleged behaviour especially in relation to allegations that employees were told to withhold intelligence from the British armed forces. Dr Starkey and I intend to pursue this matter vigorously."
Starkey, whose constituent, a Thames Valley police officer named John Braithwaite, has also complained about his treatment by the company, also called for a full investigation.
"I do feel very concerned about the way in which ArmorGroup have been operating," she said. "Not just in the case of my constituent but also in relation to the much more serious allegations which I have been aware of from others who have worked for ArmorGroup in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Christopher Beese, chief administrative officer of ArmorGroup, said there was "no policy in place" that would prohibit important intelligence being passed on and that Williamson would have had many channels open to him to express his concerns. He denied that the company ever exaggerated its numbers.
"A lot of what he [Donaldson] has said is conjecture,"said Beese. A parliamentary inquiry "seems like a massive waste of public money". The company had an excellent ethical record, he added.
Iraq cover-up claims: MPs call for inquiry
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2232039,00.html
UK security firm accused of failing to pass on intelligence to army in Basra
Henry McDonald, Duncan Campbell and Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday December 24, 2007
The Guardian
MPs called yesterday for a full parliamentary inquiry into the British security company ArmorGroup after allegations made about its operations in Iraq by former employees. Two MPs have issued the call in response to claims that an employee had been told to withhold intelligence from the British armed forces and that the company had exaggerated the numbers of its employees on the ground.
ArmorGroup vigorously contested the claims and said yesterday they were either too vague to be checked or were old and had already been dealt with. The company said it had the best ethical record of any security firm working in the field and had offered the MPs full cooperation in investigating their claims since they were first aired earlier this year.
The most serious allegations have been made by Colin Williamson, 44, a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (now the Police Service of Northern Ireland) who joined ArmorGroup in December 2004.
He was in Iraq until summer 2005. As someone who had been used to liaising with the British army during his time with the RUC, he said he was shocked at the way the operation was run.
"My role was to go to certain Iraqi police stations daily in the Basra area. But we were told not to report back any intelligence we picked up there, not to hand it to the British military. Why? Because our bosses and probably, in turn, the FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] didn't want to expose how corrupt and infiltrated by the militia the police were."
Williamson claims he was instructed not to pass on information to the British army even though he believes such intelligence could have been vital. He said he tried to raise the issues with the government on his return from his time in Iraq but had had no success.
Williamson told the Guardian he had an "impeccable source" in the Iraqi police. "He was so well informed that one occasion when he rang he said 'you are about to be attacked at any moment' and before he could put down the phone the mortars came in."
While the Iraqi insurgency was gathering pace and ferocity in the Baghdad area, Basra, in the British-occupied south, was going through a period of relative calm at the time Williamson was in the region.
Earlier in 2004 British troops had had several serious clashes with hundreds of Iraqi militiamen loyal to the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and a series of bomb blasts at police stations and the police academy had killed 74 people.
But by November UK commanders had felt able to send a unit of the Black Watch north to Baghdad to free up American troops for the assault on the insurgency stronghold of Fallujah.
Jeffrey Donaldson, the Democratic Unionist Party MP for Lagan Valley, and Dr Phyllis Starkey, the Labour MP for Milton Keynes South West, have already raised their concerns with Foreign Office minister Lord Malloch Brown. The call comes as ArmorGroup faces commercial problems, partly as a result of publicity over the operations in Iraq of the American security company Blackwater.
"We have expressed our views to the Foreign Office that there has to be a full parliamentary inquiry," Donaldson told the Guardian yesterday. "I am satisfied that the issues raised are so serious that they warrant such an inquiry. I know some of the ex-RUC officers and former British soldiers who worked for the ArmorGroup in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"These sources are, in my view, credible individuals; they are people who have served their country in the past. That is why what they are saying is of such a serious nature that they must be examined fully."
Donaldson, whose brother, Kingsley, has served as a company commander with the Royal Irish Regiment in Iraq, added: "I am troubled and very concerned about these claims over Armor's alleged behaviour especially in relation to allegations that employees were told to withhold intelligence from the British armed forces. Dr Starkey and I intend to pursue this matter vigorously."
Starkey, whose constituent, a Thames Valley police officer named John Braithwaite, has also complained about his treatment by the company, also called for a full investigation.
"I do feel very concerned about the way in which ArmorGroup have been operating," she said. "Not just in the case of my constituent but also in relation to the much more serious allegations which I have been aware of from others who have worked for ArmorGroup in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Christopher Beese, chief administrative officer of ArmorGroup, said there was "no policy in place" that would prohibit important intelligence being passed on and that Williamson would have had many channels open to him to express his concerns. He denied that the company ever exaggerated its numbers.
"A lot of what he [Donaldson] has said is conjecture,"said Beese. A parliamentary inquiry "seems like a massive waste of public money". The company had an excellent ethical record, he added.
A great way to run a war by deceiving your own troops! However,as from revealed evidence about WW2,this has been the classic case with the British Foreign Office and its political bosses hiding matters from the MOD.Cannon fodder has been the staple diet of British wars ever since WW1 and the bloody fields of Flanders.
Iraq cover-up claims: MPs call for inquiry
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2232039,00.html
UK security firm accused of failing to pass on intelligence to army in Basra
Henry McDonald, Duncan Campbell and Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday December 24, 2007
The Guardian
MPs called yesterday for a full parliamentary inquiry into the British security company ArmorGroup after allegations made about its operations in Iraq by former employees. Two MPs have issued the call in response to claims that an employee had been told to withhold intelligence from the British armed forces and that the company had exaggerated the numbers of its employees on the ground.
ArmorGroup vigorously contested the claims and said yesterday they were either too vague to be checked or were old and had already been dealt with. The company said it had the best ethical record of any security firm working in the field and had offered the MPs full cooperation in investigating their claims since they were first aired earlier this year.
The most serious allegations have been made by Colin Williamson, 44, a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (now the Police Service of Northern Ireland) who joined ArmorGroup in December 2004.
He was in Iraq until summer 2005. As someone who had been used to liaising with the British army during his time with the RUC, he said he was shocked at the way the operation was run.
"My role was to go to certain Iraqi police stations daily in the Basra area. But we were told not to report back any intelligence we picked up there, not to hand it to the British military. Why? Because our bosses and probably, in turn, the FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] didn't want to expose how corrupt and infiltrated by the militia the police were."
Williamson claims he was instructed not to pass on information to the British army even though he believes such intelligence could have been vital. He said he tried to raise the issues with the government on his return from his time in Iraq but had had no success.
Williamson told the Guardian he had an "impeccable source" in the Iraqi police. "He was so well informed that one occasion when he rang he said 'you are about to be attacked at any moment' and before he could put down the phone the mortars came in."
While the Iraqi insurgency was gathering pace and ferocity in the Baghdad area, Basra, in the British-occupied south, was going through a period of relative calm at the time Williamson was in the region.
Earlier in 2004 British troops had had several serious clashes with hundreds of Iraqi militiamen loyal to the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and a series of bomb blasts at police stations and the police academy had killed 74 people.
But by November UK commanders had felt able to send a unit of the Black Watch north to Baghdad to free up American troops for the assault on the insurgency stronghold of Fallujah.
Jeffrey Donaldson, the Democratic Unionist Party MP for Lagan Valley, and Dr Phyllis Starkey, the Labour MP for Milton Keynes South West, have already raised their concerns with Foreign Office minister Lord Malloch Brown. The call comes as ArmorGroup faces commercial problems, partly as a result of publicity over the operations in Iraq of the American security company Blackwater.
"We have expressed our views to the Foreign Office that there has to be a full parliamentary inquiry," Donaldson told the Guardian yesterday. "I am satisfied that the issues raised are so serious that they warrant such an inquiry. I know some of the ex-RUC officers and former British soldiers who worked for the ArmorGroup in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"These sources are, in my view, credible individuals; they are people who have served their country in the past. That is why what they are saying is of such a serious nature that they must be examined fully."
Donaldson, whose brother, Kingsley, has served as a company commander with the Royal Irish Regiment in Iraq, added: "I am troubled and very concerned about these claims over Armor's alleged behaviour especially in relation to allegations that employees were told to withhold intelligence from the British armed forces. Dr Starkey and I intend to pursue this matter vigorously."
Starkey, whose constituent, a Thames Valley police officer named John Braithwaite, has also complained about his treatment by the company, also called for a full investigation.
"I do feel very concerned about the way in which ArmorGroup have been operating," she said. "Not just in the case of my constituent but also in relation to the much more serious allegations which I have been aware of from others who have worked for ArmorGroup in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Christopher Beese, chief administrative officer of ArmorGroup, said there was "no policy in place" that would prohibit important intelligence being passed on and that Williamson would have had many channels open to him to express his concerns. He denied that the company ever exaggerated its numbers.
"A lot of what he [Donaldson] has said is conjecture,"said Beese. A parliamentary inquiry "seems like a massive waste of public money". The company had an excellent ethical record, he added.
Iraq cover-up claims: MPs call for inquiry
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2232039,00.html
UK security firm accused of failing to pass on intelligence to army in Basra
Henry McDonald, Duncan Campbell and Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday December 24, 2007
The Guardian
MPs called yesterday for a full parliamentary inquiry into the British security company ArmorGroup after allegations made about its operations in Iraq by former employees. Two MPs have issued the call in response to claims that an employee had been told to withhold intelligence from the British armed forces and that the company had exaggerated the numbers of its employees on the ground.
ArmorGroup vigorously contested the claims and said yesterday they were either too vague to be checked or were old and had already been dealt with. The company said it had the best ethical record of any security firm working in the field and had offered the MPs full cooperation in investigating their claims since they were first aired earlier this year.
The most serious allegations have been made by Colin Williamson, 44, a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (now the Police Service of Northern Ireland) who joined ArmorGroup in December 2004.
He was in Iraq until summer 2005. As someone who had been used to liaising with the British army during his time with the RUC, he said he was shocked at the way the operation was run.
"My role was to go to certain Iraqi police stations daily in the Basra area. But we were told not to report back any intelligence we picked up there, not to hand it to the British military. Why? Because our bosses and probably, in turn, the FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] didn't want to expose how corrupt and infiltrated by the militia the police were."
Williamson claims he was instructed not to pass on information to the British army even though he believes such intelligence could have been vital. He said he tried to raise the issues with the government on his return from his time in Iraq but had had no success.
Williamson told the Guardian he had an "impeccable source" in the Iraqi police. "He was so well informed that one occasion when he rang he said 'you are about to be attacked at any moment' and before he could put down the phone the mortars came in."
While the Iraqi insurgency was gathering pace and ferocity in the Baghdad area, Basra, in the British-occupied south, was going through a period of relative calm at the time Williamson was in the region.
Earlier in 2004 British troops had had several serious clashes with hundreds of Iraqi militiamen loyal to the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and a series of bomb blasts at police stations and the police academy had killed 74 people.
But by November UK commanders had felt able to send a unit of the Black Watch north to Baghdad to free up American troops for the assault on the insurgency stronghold of Fallujah.
Jeffrey Donaldson, the Democratic Unionist Party MP for Lagan Valley, and Dr Phyllis Starkey, the Labour MP for Milton Keynes South West, have already raised their concerns with Foreign Office minister Lord Malloch Brown. The call comes as ArmorGroup faces commercial problems, partly as a result of publicity over the operations in Iraq of the American security company Blackwater.
"We have expressed our views to the Foreign Office that there has to be a full parliamentary inquiry," Donaldson told the Guardian yesterday. "I am satisfied that the issues raised are so serious that they warrant such an inquiry. I know some of the ex-RUC officers and former British soldiers who worked for the ArmorGroup in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"These sources are, in my view, credible individuals; they are people who have served their country in the past. That is why what they are saying is of such a serious nature that they must be examined fully."
Donaldson, whose brother, Kingsley, has served as a company commander with the Royal Irish Regiment in Iraq, added: "I am troubled and very concerned about these claims over Armor's alleged behaviour especially in relation to allegations that employees were told to withhold intelligence from the British armed forces. Dr Starkey and I intend to pursue this matter vigorously."
Starkey, whose constituent, a Thames Valley police officer named John Braithwaite, has also complained about his treatment by the company, also called for a full investigation.
"I do feel very concerned about the way in which ArmorGroup have been operating," she said. "Not just in the case of my constituent but also in relation to the much more serious allegations which I have been aware of from others who have worked for ArmorGroup in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Christopher Beese, chief administrative officer of ArmorGroup, said there was "no policy in place" that would prohibit important intelligence being passed on and that Williamson would have had many channels open to him to express his concerns. He denied that the company ever exaggerated its numbers.
"A lot of what he [Donaldson] has said is conjecture,"said Beese. A parliamentary inquiry "seems like a massive waste of public money". The company had an excellent ethical record, he added.
Is the Surge working?
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/ ... 80102.aspx
What's this concept of "clear, hold, build" about?
It seems self-explanatory, but can anyone give a little more background on it?
Has India ever done anything like this?
Say, in Chattisgarh, for example?
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/ ... 80102.aspx
What's this concept of "clear, hold, build" about?
It seems self-explanatory, but can anyone give a little more background on it?
Has India ever done anything like this?
Say, in Chattisgarh, for example?