Sign to FREE SPC BRADLEY MANNING NOW!
Free SPC Bradley Manning, Arrested for Exposing U.S. War Crimes in Iraq & Afghanistan
End the Occupations Now
Stop the Murder and Abuse of Civilians by U.S. and NATO Military
Sign the Petition Now:
http://www.iacenter.org/iraq/freebradleymanning
A 22 year old U.S. soldier, Bradley Manning, has been arrested on suspicion of leaking classified combat video footage and secret documents to a whistle-blower website. SPC Manning, from Potomac, Maryland, is assigned to the 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division and was stationed at Forward Operating Base Hammer, located east of Baghdad. SPC Manning was arrested in Iraq and is currently being held in Kuwait pending further investigations. The WikiLeaks website posted a video which shows U.S. occupation forces shooting civilians on a Baghdad street during 2007.
The video, which was filmed by the U.S. military, shows a horrendous massacre of unarmed civilians on the ground by a helicopter gunship, accompanied by crude and insensitive remarks by the crew and ground troops associated with the assault. A Reuters reporter and two children were also wounded in the assault. The Pentagon has not questioned the validity or authenticity of the video.
Two U.S. soldiers who were part of the ground unit which took part in the attack, Josh Stieber and Ethan McCord, have written and published a letter of apology to the Iraqi people for their actions.
But those who are really responsible for this war crime, the U.S. military, far from apologizing have chosen to track down and arrest the person whom they believe released the video, Bradley Manning.
If Bradley Manning did courageously leak the video, he is to be commended for exposing a war crime, not punished. According to international law, and even the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), combatants are required to report violations of rules of combat outlined in the Geneva Conventions first laid down in 1950. And those rules of combat explicitly list the intentional shooting of unarmed civilians as a war crime.
At the Nuremberg trials in 1946, Nazi war criminals were tried and punished, not only for their own despicable acts, but for remaining silent while others committed atrocities. The operable phrase was "silence equals consent".
Many of the mainstream press and other apologists for U.S. and NATO wars and occupations have attacked Bradley Manning as a threat to national security because the video was classified. It has long been known that the U.S. government routinely classifies not only information directly associated with weapons and tactics, but anything that might make them look bad, or call into question their attempts to justify unjust wars and occupations.
There have also been reports that other classified documents and videos may have been released by Manning. The existence of such material shows that this case goes beyond a single war crime incident. It points to a broad program of criminal planning and conspiracy to commit or to cover up war crimes by the U.S. Military.
Progressive and peace-loving people everywhere must rally to defend Bradley Manning, and condemn the war crimes which he is accused of revealing.
Sign the Petition Now: http://www.iacenter.org/iraq/freebradleymanning
Petition Text:
To: President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General Dana K. Chipman, Congressional leaders, U.N. Secretary General Ban, members of the U.N. Security Council, U.N. member states
cc: Major media representatives, International Red Cross
Free Bradley Manning!!
End the Wars and Occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan!
Bring the Troops Home Now!
Bring to Justice the U.S. Perpetrators of War Crimes, including the Pentagon
I am writing to demand that Bradley Manning, a courageous soldier deployed in Iraq, be immediately be released from custody, and that any and all charges against him be immediately dropped and that any administrative or military sanctions against him be suspended.
Bradley Manning is suspected of being responsible for the leak of a classified video filmed by the U.S. military, which shows in graphic detail the massacre of civilians by a U.S. helicopter gunship in Iraq in 2007.
Far from being punished, Bradley Manning should be commended. In fact, the Geneva Conventions of 1950, the Nuremberg war crimes trials of 1946, and even the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice, not only permit, but require that violations of international law and the rules of engagement be reported. Silence equals consent!
U.S. and NATO troops who are sent to fight and occupy other countries are placed in an impossible situation. They are forced to fight and die in unjustified wars and inevitably many come to regard the entire population as their enemy.
I therefore further demand that the United States stop its aggressive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring the troops home immediately.
I also demand that a commission independent of the U.S. government or its allies be established to thoroughly and publicly investigate the events portrayed by the video allegedly leaked by Bradley Manning.
Showing posts with label US Intervention. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Intervention. Show all posts
The Return of the Resistance
Dahr Jamail, truthout, May 31, 2009
At least 20 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq in May, the most since last September, along with more than 50 wounded. Iraqi casualties are, as usual - and in both categories - at least ten times that number.
Attacks against US forces are once again on the rise in places like Baghdad and Fallujah, where the Iraqi resistance was fiercest before so many of them joined the Sahwa (Sons of Iraq, also referred to as Awakening Councils), and began taking payments from the US military in exchange for halting attacks against the occupiers and agreeing to join the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq. In early April I wrote a column for this website that illustrated how ongoing Iraqi government and US military attacks against the Sahwa, coupled with broken promises of the Sahwa being incorporated into the government security apparatus or given civilian jobs, would likely lead to an exodus from the Sahwa and a return to the resistance.
Slowly, but surely, we are seeing that occur. While US liaison Col. Jeffrey Kulmayer has called this idea, along with the ongoing controversy from the Iraqi government - led by US-pawn Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki - not paying most of the Sahwa members, while continuing government arrests of and attacks on Sahwa members "overblown," this does not change reality. Let us recall the telling words of the reporter Caud Cockburn, father of journalist Patrick Cockburn, "Never believe anything until it's officially denied."
Not surprisingly, in direct contradiction to Kulmayer's comment, the Sahwa have warned the Iraqi government not to disregard its commitments to the fighters as far as providing them jobs and payment. On May 28, the independent Saudi-owned United Kingdom-based newspaper, al-Hayat, reported:
Simultaneously, the Iraqi Resistance, whose ranks are growing with disenfranchised Sahwa along with other Iraqis joining for the usual reasons: their countrymen and women being detained, tortured, and raped by occupation forces and their Iraqi collaborators, the destroyed infrastructure and the suffering that accompanies this, among a myriad of other reasons (like the fact that one in four Iraqis lives in poverty), are, at least verbally, preparing to resume full operations.
The Los Angeles Times recently reported that a commander in the Iraqi Resistance, who is also a member of the currently besieged Sahwa, said, "If we hear from the Americans they are not capable of supporting us ... within six hours we are going to establish our groups to fight against the corrupt government. There will be a war in Baghdad."
Having relied on the US military to fulfill their promises of assisting the Sahwa into the Iraqi political system, as well as for protection from ongoing attacks from the Maliki government security apparatus, their patience has just about run out.
A former military intelligence general, a resistance commander who heads a group called the Iraqi Liberation Army, and who is also a member of the Sahwa, told The Los Angeles Times in the same article, "If the Americans leave Baghdad in 24 hours, the street belongs to the resistance and the people. The people are boiling."
Violence has been escalating since January. April was the deadliest month for Iraqis in over a year. Daily we are watching Sahwa members leave their security posts. Rather than safeguarding the areas where they worked as security, many of them, in protest of government attacks and lack of payment, are rejoining the resistance. Simultaneously, they have effectively ceased targeting al-Qaeda operations in Iraq, which was also what the US had created the Sahwa for in the first place. Thus, when al-Janabi warns that the "government's disregard for the issue of the councils and their demands will have an adverse effect on the security situation," the "adverse effect" is two-fold. And this does not account for the future ramifications of having 100,000 fighters, who were allied with the occupation forces, turn completely against them again. Today, as aforementioned, we are getting a small, very small, taste of what that might look like.
Rivers of blood continue to flow in occupied Iraq. On May 25 a suicide bomber drove a car packed with explosives into a US patrol in Mosul, killing eight people and wounding another 26. The same day, in Hilla, 60 miles south of Baghdad, a gunman killed a Sahwa fighter who was manning a checkpoint.
On May 21, suicide bombers struck in two cities, killing three American soldiers and nearly two dozen Iraqis in a spasm of violence that took at least 66 lives in two days. That same day saw more attacks against the Sahwa, who in addition to being attacked by Iraqi government forces, are being attacked by al-Qaeda. Seven Sahwa members were killed in Kirkuk on May 21 as they waited in line at a military base to receive their salaries.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon is prepared to leave fighting forces in Iraq for as long as a decade, despite an "agreement" between the US and Iraq that would bring all US troops home by 2012. General George Casey, the Army chief of staff, recently stated that the Pentagon must plan for extended US combat and stability operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, saying, "Global trends are pushing in the wrong direction," he said, "They fundamentally will change how the Army works." It is important to note that at the moment, the US maintains 139,000 troops in Iraq, which is still a greater number than that which existed prior to the so-called "troop surge" of George W. Bush.
Many of these troops, along with nationalistic US citizens who blindly supported, and/or continue to support the criminal occupation of Iraq, believe it is a mandate from God that justifies the "might makes right" strategy of US Empire. Let us recall one of the better-known authors from the United States, Mark Twain. Better known for Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, Twain was quite anti-war. I certainly was never instructed to read Twain's "The War Prayer," part of which sardonically reads:
Dahr Jamail, an independent journalist, is the author of "Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq," (Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported from occupied Iraq for eight months as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over the last four years.
At least 20 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq in May, the most since last September, along with more than 50 wounded. Iraqi casualties are, as usual - and in both categories - at least ten times that number.
Attacks against US forces are once again on the rise in places like Baghdad and Fallujah, where the Iraqi resistance was fiercest before so many of them joined the Sahwa (Sons of Iraq, also referred to as Awakening Councils), and began taking payments from the US military in exchange for halting attacks against the occupiers and agreeing to join the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq. In early April I wrote a column for this website that illustrated how ongoing Iraqi government and US military attacks against the Sahwa, coupled with broken promises of the Sahwa being incorporated into the government security apparatus or given civilian jobs, would likely lead to an exodus from the Sahwa and a return to the resistance.
Slowly, but surely, we are seeing that occur. While US liaison Col. Jeffrey Kulmayer has called this idea, along with the ongoing controversy from the Iraqi government - led by US-pawn Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki - not paying most of the Sahwa members, while continuing government arrests of and attacks on Sahwa members "overblown," this does not change reality. Let us recall the telling words of the reporter Caud Cockburn, father of journalist Patrick Cockburn, "Never believe anything until it's officially denied."
Not surprisingly, in direct contradiction to Kulmayer's comment, the Sahwa have warned the Iraqi government not to disregard its commitments to the fighters as far as providing them jobs and payment. On May 28, the independent Saudi-owned United Kingdom-based newspaper, al-Hayat, reported:
"A number of the leaders of the awakening councils called on the Iraqi government to honor its commitments towards the members of the awakening councils by paying their salaries which are three months late. They warned that their fighters might rebel against the government if their demands for their financial rights continue to be disregarded which might have an adverse effect on the security situation. Sheikh Masari al-Dulaymi, one of the leaders of the council in Falahat al-Taji to the north of Baghdad, announced that the committee supervising the national reconciliation process warned the leaders of the councils in and around Baghdad that their salaries would be paid and that a form of cooperation will be agreed upon with the tribes to preserve the security in Baghdad."The paper added that al-Dulaymi also pointed out that many council fighters abandoned their duties in protecting their areas because of the delays in receiving their salaries, and "we don't want the crisis to grow any worse because the council members already distrust government promises." Al-Hayat also reported that Sheikh Khaled Yassine al-Janabi, a leader of the council in al-Latifiyah in southern Baghdad, warned that the "government's disregard for the issue of the councils and their demands will have an adverse effect on the security situation."
Simultaneously, the Iraqi Resistance, whose ranks are growing with disenfranchised Sahwa along with other Iraqis joining for the usual reasons: their countrymen and women being detained, tortured, and raped by occupation forces and their Iraqi collaborators, the destroyed infrastructure and the suffering that accompanies this, among a myriad of other reasons (like the fact that one in four Iraqis lives in poverty), are, at least verbally, preparing to resume full operations.
The Los Angeles Times recently reported that a commander in the Iraqi Resistance, who is also a member of the currently besieged Sahwa, said, "If we hear from the Americans they are not capable of supporting us ... within six hours we are going to establish our groups to fight against the corrupt government. There will be a war in Baghdad."
Having relied on the US military to fulfill their promises of assisting the Sahwa into the Iraqi political system, as well as for protection from ongoing attacks from the Maliki government security apparatus, their patience has just about run out.
A former military intelligence general, a resistance commander who heads a group called the Iraqi Liberation Army, and who is also a member of the Sahwa, told The Los Angeles Times in the same article, "If the Americans leave Baghdad in 24 hours, the street belongs to the resistance and the people. The people are boiling."
Violence has been escalating since January. April was the deadliest month for Iraqis in over a year. Daily we are watching Sahwa members leave their security posts. Rather than safeguarding the areas where they worked as security, many of them, in protest of government attacks and lack of payment, are rejoining the resistance. Simultaneously, they have effectively ceased targeting al-Qaeda operations in Iraq, which was also what the US had created the Sahwa for in the first place. Thus, when al-Janabi warns that the "government's disregard for the issue of the councils and their demands will have an adverse effect on the security situation," the "adverse effect" is two-fold. And this does not account for the future ramifications of having 100,000 fighters, who were allied with the occupation forces, turn completely against them again. Today, as aforementioned, we are getting a small, very small, taste of what that might look like.
Rivers of blood continue to flow in occupied Iraq. On May 25 a suicide bomber drove a car packed with explosives into a US patrol in Mosul, killing eight people and wounding another 26. The same day, in Hilla, 60 miles south of Baghdad, a gunman killed a Sahwa fighter who was manning a checkpoint.
On May 21, suicide bombers struck in two cities, killing three American soldiers and nearly two dozen Iraqis in a spasm of violence that took at least 66 lives in two days. That same day saw more attacks against the Sahwa, who in addition to being attacked by Iraqi government forces, are being attacked by al-Qaeda. Seven Sahwa members were killed in Kirkuk on May 21 as they waited in line at a military base to receive their salaries.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon is prepared to leave fighting forces in Iraq for as long as a decade, despite an "agreement" between the US and Iraq that would bring all US troops home by 2012. General George Casey, the Army chief of staff, recently stated that the Pentagon must plan for extended US combat and stability operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, saying, "Global trends are pushing in the wrong direction," he said, "They fundamentally will change how the Army works." It is important to note that at the moment, the US maintains 139,000 troops in Iraq, which is still a greater number than that which existed prior to the so-called "troop surge" of George W. Bush.
Many of these troops, along with nationalistic US citizens who blindly supported, and/or continue to support the criminal occupation of Iraq, believe it is a mandate from God that justifies the "might makes right" strategy of US Empire. Let us recall one of the better-known authors from the United States, Mark Twain. Better known for Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, Twain was quite anti-war. I certainly was never instructed to read Twain's "The War Prayer," part of which sardonically reads:
"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle - be Thou near them! With them - in spirit - we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it - for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen."This is the slaughter and suffering that is being caused by the US occupation of Iraq. This is the death and suffering that is causing the Iraqi Resistance to once again form, gain strength, and prepare to resume full operations.
Dahr Jamail, an independent journalist, is the author of "Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq," (Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported from occupied Iraq for eight months as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over the last four years.
The Gaza Bombshell
After failing to anticipate Hamas’s victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, the author reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.
by David Rose, Vanity Fair, April 2008
The Al Deira Hotel, in Gaza City, is a haven of calm in a land beset by poverty, fear, and violence. In the middle of December 2007, I sit in the hotel’s airy restaurant, its windows open to the Mediterranean, and listen to a slight, bearded man named Mazen Asad abu Dan describe the suffering he endured 11 months before at the hands of his fellow Palestinians. Abu Dan, 28, is a member of Hamas, the Iranian-backed Islamist organization that has been designated a terrorist group by the United States, but I have a good reason for taking him at his word: I’ve seen the video.
It shows abu Dan kneeling, his hands bound behind his back, and screaming as his captors pummel him with a black iron rod. “I lost all the skin on my back from the beatings,” he says. “Instead of medicine, they poured perfume on my wounds. It felt as if they had taken a sword to my injuries.”
click here to read the full article
by David Rose, Vanity Fair, April 2008
The Al Deira Hotel, in Gaza City, is a haven of calm in a land beset by poverty, fear, and violence. In the middle of December 2007, I sit in the hotel’s airy restaurant, its windows open to the Mediterranean, and listen to a slight, bearded man named Mazen Asad abu Dan describe the suffering he endured 11 months before at the hands of his fellow Palestinians. Abu Dan, 28, is a member of Hamas, the Iranian-backed Islamist organization that has been designated a terrorist group by the United States, but I have a good reason for taking him at his word: I’ve seen the video.
It shows abu Dan kneeling, his hands bound behind his back, and screaming as his captors pummel him with a black iron rod. “I lost all the skin on my back from the beatings,” he says. “Instead of medicine, they poured perfume on my wounds. It felt as if they had taken a sword to my injuries.”
click here to read the full article
Gen. Dayton admits US is helping Fatah
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, Jerusalem Post, May 27, 2009
As violence raged this week in the Gaza Strip between Hamas and Fatah, US officials stressed the importance of American efforts to bolster forces loyal to the latter and said further help was necessary.
"This chaotic situation is why the USSC [United States security coordinator] is focused on the legal, legitimate security forces in our attempts to reestablish law and order," said Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton, the USCC working with the Palestinians, in testimony Wednesday before the House Subcommittee on the Middle East. But he added, "The legal security forces of the Palestinian president still lack what they need to achieve … law and order."
The State Department has in the past denied that America's non-lethal training of the presidential guard of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah - largely aimed at securing the Karni border crossing and protecting Abbas and other VIPs - amounted to the US taking sides in Fatah's fight with Hamas.
But at the hearing Dayton highlighted the US role in helping Fatah as it faces attacks from the Islamic radicals in Hamas.
"We are leading, through the acts of this Congress, the international effort to possibly affect this worrisome situation," he said. "The security assistance plan that you have authorized me to just begin to implement is pointing the way forward for all international and regional allies."
Congress recently allowed $59 million to be used to further Dayton's efforts at training the presidential guard of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah.
The money, however, didn't go through the normal appropriation process, as the White House took previously approved funds and simply reallocated them.
Dayton pushed the case for further US assistance to the Palestinian guard, despite months of efforts on the ground that have seemed to have little effect against the well-disciplined and well-supplied Hamas.
"We are entering a rough patch," Dayton acknowledged, "but all is not lost and our regional partners share that sentiment. However, it is critical that those who support the legitimate authority and forces represented by President Abbas receive the critical assistance they need."
Dayton is visiting the US from Israel, where he is based, and testified before the Middle East subcommittee at the behest of its chairman, Gary Ackerman (D-New York).
In response to a question about Israel's security raised by subcommittee ranking member Mike Pence (R-Indiana), Dayton assured the members, "Nothing we do to strengthen the Palestinian's security capability will be targeted against Israel … The presidential guard will not become a threat to Israel."
As violence raged this week in the Gaza Strip between Hamas and Fatah, US officials stressed the importance of American efforts to bolster forces loyal to the latter and said further help was necessary.
"This chaotic situation is why the USSC [United States security coordinator] is focused on the legal, legitimate security forces in our attempts to reestablish law and order," said Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton, the USCC working with the Palestinians, in testimony Wednesday before the House Subcommittee on the Middle East. But he added, "The legal security forces of the Palestinian president still lack what they need to achieve … law and order."
The State Department has in the past denied that America's non-lethal training of the presidential guard of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah - largely aimed at securing the Karni border crossing and protecting Abbas and other VIPs - amounted to the US taking sides in Fatah's fight with Hamas.
But at the hearing Dayton highlighted the US role in helping Fatah as it faces attacks from the Islamic radicals in Hamas.
"We are leading, through the acts of this Congress, the international effort to possibly affect this worrisome situation," he said. "The security assistance plan that you have authorized me to just begin to implement is pointing the way forward for all international and regional allies."
Congress recently allowed $59 million to be used to further Dayton's efforts at training the presidential guard of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah.
The money, however, didn't go through the normal appropriation process, as the White House took previously approved funds and simply reallocated them.
Dayton pushed the case for further US assistance to the Palestinian guard, despite months of efforts on the ground that have seemed to have little effect against the well-disciplined and well-supplied Hamas.
"We are entering a rough patch," Dayton acknowledged, "but all is not lost and our regional partners share that sentiment. However, it is critical that those who support the legitimate authority and forces represented by President Abbas receive the critical assistance they need."
Dayton is visiting the US from Israel, where he is based, and testified before the Middle East subcommittee at the behest of its chairman, Gary Ackerman (D-New York).
In response to a question about Israel's security raised by subcommittee ranking member Mike Pence (R-Indiana), Dayton assured the members, "Nothing we do to strengthen the Palestinian's security capability will be targeted against Israel … The presidential guard will not become a threat to Israel."
Iraq redux? Obama seeks funds for Pakistan super-embassy
By Saeed Shah and Warren P. Strobel, McClatchy Newspapers, May 27, 2009
ISLAMABAD — The U.S. is embarking on a $1 billion crash program to expand its diplomatic presence in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan, another sign that the Obama administration is making a costly, long-term commitment to war-torn South Asia, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
The White House has asked Congress for — and seems likely to receive — $736 million to build a new U.S. embassy in Islamabad, along with permanent housing for U.S. government civilians and new office space in the Pakistani capital.
The scale of the projects rivals the giant U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, which was completed last year after construction delays at a cost of $740 million.
Senior State Department officials said the expanded diplomatic presence is needed to replace overcrowded, dilapidated and unsafe facilities and to support a "surge" of civilian officials into Afghanistan and Pakistan ordered by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Other major projects are planned for Kabul, Afghanistan; and for the Pakistani cities of Lahore and Peshawar. In Peshawar, the U.S. government is negotiating the purchase of a five-star hotel that would house a new U.S. consulate.
Funds for the projects are included in a 2009 supplemental spending bill that the House of Representatives and the Senate have passed in slightly different forms.
Obama has repeatedly stated that stabilizing Pakistan and Afghanistan, the countries from which al Qaida and the Taliban operate, is vital to U.S. national security. He's ordered thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan and is proposing substantially increased aid to both countries.
In Pakistan, however, large parts of the population are hostile to the U.S. presence in the region — despite receiving billions of dollars in aid from Washington since 2001 — and anti-American groups and politicians are likely to seize on the expanded diplomatic presence in Islamabad as evidence of American "imperial designs."
"This is a replay of Baghdad," said Khurshid Ahmad, a member of Pakistan's upper house of parliament for Jamaat-e-Islami, one of the country's two main religious political parties. "This (Islamabad embassy) is more (space) than they should need. It's for the micro and macro management of Pakistan, and using Pakistan for pushing the American agenda in Central Asia."
In Baghdad and other dangerous locales, U.S. diplomats have sometimes found themselves cut off from the population in heavily fortified compounds surrounded by blast walls, concertina wire and armed guards.
"If you're going to have people live in a car bomb-prone place, your are driven to not have a light footprint," said Ronald Neumann, a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and the president of the American Academy of Diplomacy. Neumann called the planned expansions "generally pretty justified."
In Islamabad, according to State Department budget documents, the plan calls for the rapid construction of a $111 million new office annex to accommodate 330 workers; $197 million to build 156 permanent and 80 temporary housing units; and a $405 million replacement of the main embassy building. The existing embassy, in the capital's leafy diplomatic enclave, was badly damaged in a 1979 assault by Pakistani students.
The U.S. government also plans to revamp its consular buildings in the eastern city of Lahore and in Peshawar, the regional capital of the militancy plagued North West Frontier Province. The consulate in the southern megacity of Karachi has just been relocated into a new purpose-built accommodation.
A senior State Department official confirmed that the U.S. plan for the consulate in Peshawar involves the purchase of the luxury Pearl Continental hotel. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.
The Pearl Contintental is the city's only five-star hotel, set in its own expansive grounds, with a swimming pool. It's owned by Pakistani tycoon Sadruddin Hashwani.
Peshawar is an important station for gathering intelligence on the tribal area that surrounds the city on three sides and is a base for al Qaida and the Taliban. The area also will be a focus for expanded U.S. aid programs, and the American mission in Peshawar has already expanded from three U.S. diplomats to several dozen.
In all, the administration requested $806 million for diplomatic construction and security in Pakistan.
"For the strong commitment the U.S. is making in the country of Pakistan, we need the necessary platform to fulfill our diplomatic mission," said Jonathan Blyth of the State Department's Overseas Buildings Operations bureau. "The embassy is in need of upgrading and expansion to meet our future mission requirements."
A senior Pakistani official said the expansion has been under discussion for three years. "Pakistanis understand the need for having diplomatic missions expanding and the Americans always have had an enclave in Islamabad," said the official, who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the matter publicly. "Will some people exploit it? They will."
In Kabul, the U.S. government is negotiating an $87 million purchase of a 30- to 40-acre parcel of land to expand the embassy. The Senate version of the appropriations bill omits all but $10 million of those funds.
(Shah is a McClatchy special correspondent. Jonathan S. Landay contributed to this article.)
ISLAMABAD — The U.S. is embarking on a $1 billion crash program to expand its diplomatic presence in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan, another sign that the Obama administration is making a costly, long-term commitment to war-torn South Asia, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
The White House has asked Congress for — and seems likely to receive — $736 million to build a new U.S. embassy in Islamabad, along with permanent housing for U.S. government civilians and new office space in the Pakistani capital.
The scale of the projects rivals the giant U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, which was completed last year after construction delays at a cost of $740 million.
Senior State Department officials said the expanded diplomatic presence is needed to replace overcrowded, dilapidated and unsafe facilities and to support a "surge" of civilian officials into Afghanistan and Pakistan ordered by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Other major projects are planned for Kabul, Afghanistan; and for the Pakistani cities of Lahore and Peshawar. In Peshawar, the U.S. government is negotiating the purchase of a five-star hotel that would house a new U.S. consulate.
Funds for the projects are included in a 2009 supplemental spending bill that the House of Representatives and the Senate have passed in slightly different forms.
Obama has repeatedly stated that stabilizing Pakistan and Afghanistan, the countries from which al Qaida and the Taliban operate, is vital to U.S. national security. He's ordered thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan and is proposing substantially increased aid to both countries.
In Pakistan, however, large parts of the population are hostile to the U.S. presence in the region — despite receiving billions of dollars in aid from Washington since 2001 — and anti-American groups and politicians are likely to seize on the expanded diplomatic presence in Islamabad as evidence of American "imperial designs."
"This is a replay of Baghdad," said Khurshid Ahmad, a member of Pakistan's upper house of parliament for Jamaat-e-Islami, one of the country's two main religious political parties. "This (Islamabad embassy) is more (space) than they should need. It's for the micro and macro management of Pakistan, and using Pakistan for pushing the American agenda in Central Asia."
In Baghdad and other dangerous locales, U.S. diplomats have sometimes found themselves cut off from the population in heavily fortified compounds surrounded by blast walls, concertina wire and armed guards.
"If you're going to have people live in a car bomb-prone place, your are driven to not have a light footprint," said Ronald Neumann, a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and the president of the American Academy of Diplomacy. Neumann called the planned expansions "generally pretty justified."
In Islamabad, according to State Department budget documents, the plan calls for the rapid construction of a $111 million new office annex to accommodate 330 workers; $197 million to build 156 permanent and 80 temporary housing units; and a $405 million replacement of the main embassy building. The existing embassy, in the capital's leafy diplomatic enclave, was badly damaged in a 1979 assault by Pakistani students.
The U.S. government also plans to revamp its consular buildings in the eastern city of Lahore and in Peshawar, the regional capital of the militancy plagued North West Frontier Province. The consulate in the southern megacity of Karachi has just been relocated into a new purpose-built accommodation.
A senior State Department official confirmed that the U.S. plan for the consulate in Peshawar involves the purchase of the luxury Pearl Continental hotel. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.
The Pearl Contintental is the city's only five-star hotel, set in its own expansive grounds, with a swimming pool. It's owned by Pakistani tycoon Sadruddin Hashwani.
Peshawar is an important station for gathering intelligence on the tribal area that surrounds the city on three sides and is a base for al Qaida and the Taliban. The area also will be a focus for expanded U.S. aid programs, and the American mission in Peshawar has already expanded from three U.S. diplomats to several dozen.
In all, the administration requested $806 million for diplomatic construction and security in Pakistan.
"For the strong commitment the U.S. is making in the country of Pakistan, we need the necessary platform to fulfill our diplomatic mission," said Jonathan Blyth of the State Department's Overseas Buildings Operations bureau. "The embassy is in need of upgrading and expansion to meet our future mission requirements."
A senior Pakistani official said the expansion has been under discussion for three years. "Pakistanis understand the need for having diplomatic missions expanding and the Americans always have had an enclave in Islamabad," said the official, who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the matter publicly. "Will some people exploit it? They will."
In Kabul, the U.S. government is negotiating an $87 million purchase of a 30- to 40-acre parcel of land to expand the embassy. The Senate version of the appropriations bill omits all but $10 million of those funds.
(Shah is a McClatchy special correspondent. Jonathan S. Landay contributed to this article.)
Iraq car bomb blast kills five, including US soldier
AFP, Google News, May 27, 2009
BAGHDAD (AFP) — A roadside car bomb blast targeting a US patrol killed five people, including an American soldier, west of the Iraqi capital on Wednesday, an interior ministry official and the US military said.
Ten other civilians were wounded in the explosion as the US patrol passed in the town of Abu Ghraib, 15 miles (25 kilometres) from the capital, the official told AFP.
"The blast killed one US soldier," a US military spokesman said.
Separately, the US military announced that Navy Commander Duane G. Wolfe was among three Americans killed on Monday when the vehicle they were travelling in was hit by a roadside bomb near the western city of Fallujah.
The US military command had previously announced that an American soldier, a civilian employee of the State Department and a Defence Department worker were killed in Monday's blast.
The US embassy named the slain State Department employee as Terrence Barnich, deputy director of the Iraq Transition Assistance Office.
The men died on Monday when their car drove over a bomb while were returning from an inspection of a waste water treatment plant under construction in Fallujah, ambassador Christopher Hill said in the statement.
At least 21 US military personnel have been killed in May so far, making it the deadliest toll since September, when 25 American service members died.
The latest deaths brought to 4,303 the number of American soldiers killed since the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, according to an AFP count based on the independent website icasualties.org.
The US army is only a month away from pulling out of Iraqi urban areas ahead of a full-scale withdrawal by the end of 2011, as mandated by an accord between Baghdad and Washington.
Abu Ghraib was once a hotbed of Al-Qaeda and other insurgents and home to the infamous jail of the same name, which is now called Baghdad Central Prison.
The facility came under the international spotlight in 2006 after a scandal of prisoner abuse photographed by US jailers drew worldwide opprobrium on the US-led occupation.
Under Saddam Hussein's regime, the jail was notorious for torture and executions.
BAGHDAD (AFP) — A roadside car bomb blast targeting a US patrol killed five people, including an American soldier, west of the Iraqi capital on Wednesday, an interior ministry official and the US military said.
Ten other civilians were wounded in the explosion as the US patrol passed in the town of Abu Ghraib, 15 miles (25 kilometres) from the capital, the official told AFP.
"The blast killed one US soldier," a US military spokesman said.
Separately, the US military announced that Navy Commander Duane G. Wolfe was among three Americans killed on Monday when the vehicle they were travelling in was hit by a roadside bomb near the western city of Fallujah.
The US military command had previously announced that an American soldier, a civilian employee of the State Department and a Defence Department worker were killed in Monday's blast.
The US embassy named the slain State Department employee as Terrence Barnich, deputy director of the Iraq Transition Assistance Office.
The men died on Monday when their car drove over a bomb while were returning from an inspection of a waste water treatment plant under construction in Fallujah, ambassador Christopher Hill said in the statement.
At least 21 US military personnel have been killed in May so far, making it the deadliest toll since September, when 25 American service members died.
The latest deaths brought to 4,303 the number of American soldiers killed since the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, according to an AFP count based on the independent website icasualties.org.
The US army is only a month away from pulling out of Iraqi urban areas ahead of a full-scale withdrawal by the end of 2011, as mandated by an accord between Baghdad and Washington.
Abu Ghraib was once a hotbed of Al-Qaeda and other insurgents and home to the infamous jail of the same name, which is now called Baghdad Central Prison.
The facility came under the international spotlight in 2006 after a scandal of prisoner abuse photographed by US jailers drew worldwide opprobrium on the US-led occupation.
Under Saddam Hussein's regime, the jail was notorious for torture and executions.
Afghan plan would rely on innovative tactics, new rotations
by Barbara Starr, CNN.com, May 27, 2009
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon is considering new tactics in Afghanistan: deploying hundreds of troops using creative and nimble counterinsurgency techniques to fight the Taliban, a U.S. military source told CNN.
The change is based on a plan used in Iraq by Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is slated to become the next U.S. commander in Afghanistan if confirmed by the Senate.
"We want cohesive units, fleet of foot, specializing in counterinsurgency warfare," the official told CNN.
The plan is evolving as Defense Secretary Robert Gates expresses growing concern that public support for the war in Afghanistan will decline unless the Obama administration can demonstrate progress by the end of this year.
Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Gates believes "it's critically important" for both the U.S. and Afghan governments to make progress in the coming months.
Gates believes the Taliban has momentum in southern Afghanistan, Morrell said.
"People are willing to stay in the fight I believe, if they think we're making headway," Gates said in a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal. "If they think we're stalemated and having our young men and women get killed, then patience is going to run out pretty fast."
The new idea being considered calls for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of troops to train and deploy as a unique battlefield organization, specializing in counterinsurgency warfare.
Counterinsurgency strategies call for military, economic and political tactics to win support of local populations threatened by insurgencies.
Those troops could engage in operations ranging from combat to medical care, according to the official, who said the strategy was used to great effect on a smaller scale in Iraq under the Joint Special Command, which McChrystal headed.
After serving in the war zone, the units would stay together at their home bases and stay up to date on intelligence from the area of Afghanistan in which they served.
When it was time to return to the war zone, they'd go back to the same area -- with the goal being to develop troops with expertise in that particular region, the official said.
One complaint the U.S. military continues to hear from Afghans is that troops come to a region, serve a year, and then the Afghans never see them again. This puts incoming troops at a disadvantage in a culture that values ongoing personal interaction.
Under the proposed plan, units would build a level of confidence with local and provincial Afghan officials who would come to know them over time, the official told CNN.
Under one proposal, those troops would deploy more often but for shorter tours of duty.
That could put new strain on military families. The plan also could be difficult to implement and if troops only have career expertise in one area, it could hurt their chances for advancement within the military.
The official also said that, under McChrystal, the military will be "stepping up its intelligence game" in Afghanistan, gathering more intelligence on specific insurgent leaders and conducting more reconnaissance and surveillance.
The plan has not yet been approved by Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or by Gates, the source said.
But Mullen asked McChrystal several weeks ago to develop a new plan for Afghanistan, a senior military official told CNN.
The official briefed CNN on the plan, but declined to be named because the plan is in its early stages and many details are yet to be ironed out.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon is considering new tactics in Afghanistan: deploying hundreds of troops using creative and nimble counterinsurgency techniques to fight the Taliban, a U.S. military source told CNN.
The change is based on a plan used in Iraq by Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is slated to become the next U.S. commander in Afghanistan if confirmed by the Senate.
"We want cohesive units, fleet of foot, specializing in counterinsurgency warfare," the official told CNN.
The plan is evolving as Defense Secretary Robert Gates expresses growing concern that public support for the war in Afghanistan will decline unless the Obama administration can demonstrate progress by the end of this year.
Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Gates believes "it's critically important" for both the U.S. and Afghan governments to make progress in the coming months.
Gates believes the Taliban has momentum in southern Afghanistan, Morrell said.
"People are willing to stay in the fight I believe, if they think we're making headway," Gates said in a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal. "If they think we're stalemated and having our young men and women get killed, then patience is going to run out pretty fast."
The new idea being considered calls for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of troops to train and deploy as a unique battlefield organization, specializing in counterinsurgency warfare.
Counterinsurgency strategies call for military, economic and political tactics to win support of local populations threatened by insurgencies.
Those troops could engage in operations ranging from combat to medical care, according to the official, who said the strategy was used to great effect on a smaller scale in Iraq under the Joint Special Command, which McChrystal headed.
After serving in the war zone, the units would stay together at their home bases and stay up to date on intelligence from the area of Afghanistan in which they served.
When it was time to return to the war zone, they'd go back to the same area -- with the goal being to develop troops with expertise in that particular region, the official said.
One complaint the U.S. military continues to hear from Afghans is that troops come to a region, serve a year, and then the Afghans never see them again. This puts incoming troops at a disadvantage in a culture that values ongoing personal interaction.
Under the proposed plan, units would build a level of confidence with local and provincial Afghan officials who would come to know them over time, the official told CNN.
Under one proposal, those troops would deploy more often but for shorter tours of duty.
That could put new strain on military families. The plan also could be difficult to implement and if troops only have career expertise in one area, it could hurt their chances for advancement within the military.
The official also said that, under McChrystal, the military will be "stepping up its intelligence game" in Afghanistan, gathering more intelligence on specific insurgent leaders and conducting more reconnaissance and surveillance.
The plan has not yet been approved by Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or by Gates, the source said.
But Mullen asked McChrystal several weeks ago to develop a new plan for Afghanistan, a senior military official told CNN.
The official briefed CNN on the plan, but declined to be named because the plan is in its early stages and many details are yet to be ironed out.
MOVIE: Afghan Women: A History Of Struggle
click here for screenings & movie trailer
Kathleen Foster’s latest film, Afghan Women: A History of Struggle, is a feature-length documentary that captures the resilience and courage of a group of remarkable women who risk their lives daily to stand up for their rights. Rare archival footage illustrates the disturbing and amazing stories of their struggle for equality, reflected in the history of this Central Asian country during the past quarter-century of political turmoil. The women shed light on the little-known story of the last battle of the Cold War that was played out on Afghan soil, and the role of the CIA in the creation of the terrorist groups that plague the world today.
The film goes inside a women's prison and records the drafting of an Afghan Women's Bill of Rights by women from across Afghanistan at a conference in Kandahar in 2003. In scenes like these, women debunk the commonly-held myth that the U.S. intervention and the fall of the Taliban brought Afghan women freedom, and expose "Operation Freedom" as a euphemism for U.S. domination of the region with its oil and gas reserves.
In its short history, Afghan Women: A History of Struggle has been very well received by the general public, generating interest even before it was completed. That attention led to several screenings, some followed by lively discussions with the audience.
click here for reviews, screenings, trailer, & more info
Kathleen Foster’s latest film, Afghan Women: A History of Struggle, is a feature-length documentary that captures the resilience and courage of a group of remarkable women who risk their lives daily to stand up for their rights. Rare archival footage illustrates the disturbing and amazing stories of their struggle for equality, reflected in the history of this Central Asian country during the past quarter-century of political turmoil. The women shed light on the little-known story of the last battle of the Cold War that was played out on Afghan soil, and the role of the CIA in the creation of the terrorist groups that plague the world today.
The film goes inside a women's prison and records the drafting of an Afghan Women's Bill of Rights by women from across Afghanistan at a conference in Kandahar in 2003. In scenes like these, women debunk the commonly-held myth that the U.S. intervention and the fall of the Taliban brought Afghan women freedom, and expose "Operation Freedom" as a euphemism for U.S. domination of the region with its oil and gas reserves.
In its short history, Afghan Women: A History of Struggle has been very well received by the general public, generating interest even before it was completed. That attention led to several screenings, some followed by lively discussions with the audience.
click here for reviews, screenings, trailer, & more info
Let’s rise against the war crimes of US and its fundamentalist lackeys!
RAWA Statement on Massacre of over 150 civilians in Bala Baluk of Farah Province by the U.S. - May 7, 2009
click here for photos
click here for report
As the US occupiers continue killing our innocent and sorrowed people without regret, this time they committed yet another horrible crime in Bala Baluk village of Farah Province. On 5th May 2009, the US airstrikes targeted people’s homes, killing more than 150, mostly women and children. This is another war crime but Pentagon shamelessly includes Taliban as the perpetrators too and announces the civilian deaths being only 12!
The so-called ‘new’ strategy of Obama’s administration and the surge of troops in Afghanistan have already dragged our ill-fated people in the danger zone and his 100-day old government proved itself as much more war-mongering than Bush and his only gifts to our people is hiking killings and ever-horrifying oppression. This administration is bombarding our country and tearing our women and children into pieces and from the other side, is lending a friendly hand towards the terrorist Gulbuddinis and Taliban -- the dirty, bloody enemies of our people-- and holding secret negotiations and talks with such brutal groups.
While our grieved people are burying the torn bodies of their loved ones in mass graves; the traitor lackey Said Tayeb Jawad, in his comfort in the USA, tries to dim the war crimes of his masters and about the killings of civilians, shamelessly salts people’s wounds saying, “this is a price we have to pay if we want security and stability in Afghanistan, the region and the world.”!
If his or other ignoble spies like him would lose their children and dear ones like the people of Bala Baluk, would they still become so stone-hearted and remain silent in the face of US/NATO war crimes in Afghanistan?
The only way our people can escape the occupant forces and their obedient servants is to rise against them under the slogans of: “Neither the occupiers! Nor the bestial Taliban and the criminal Northern Alliance; long live a free and democratic Afghanistan!”
click here for photos
click here for report
As the US occupiers continue killing our innocent and sorrowed people without regret, this time they committed yet another horrible crime in Bala Baluk village of Farah Province. On 5th May 2009, the US airstrikes targeted people’s homes, killing more than 150, mostly women and children. This is another war crime but Pentagon shamelessly includes Taliban as the perpetrators too and announces the civilian deaths being only 12!
The so-called ‘new’ strategy of Obama’s administration and the surge of troops in Afghanistan have already dragged our ill-fated people in the danger zone and his 100-day old government proved itself as much more war-mongering than Bush and his only gifts to our people is hiking killings and ever-horrifying oppression. This administration is bombarding our country and tearing our women and children into pieces and from the other side, is lending a friendly hand towards the terrorist Gulbuddinis and Taliban -- the dirty, bloody enemies of our people-- and holding secret negotiations and talks with such brutal groups.
While our grieved people are burying the torn bodies of their loved ones in mass graves; the traitor lackey Said Tayeb Jawad, in his comfort in the USA, tries to dim the war crimes of his masters and about the killings of civilians, shamelessly salts people’s wounds saying, “this is a price we have to pay if we want security and stability in Afghanistan, the region and the world.”!
If his or other ignoble spies like him would lose their children and dear ones like the people of Bala Baluk, would they still become so stone-hearted and remain silent in the face of US/NATO war crimes in Afghanistan?
The only way our people can escape the occupant forces and their obedient servants is to rise against them under the slogans of: “Neither the occupiers! Nor the bestial Taliban and the criminal Northern Alliance; long live a free and democratic Afghanistan!”
Hayden Criticizes MoveOn for being Silent on Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan; MoveOn Responds
by Tom Hayden, AlterNet, May 27, 2009
The most powerful grassroots organization of the peace movement, MoveOn, remains silent as the American wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan simmer or escalate.
The executive director of MoveOn, Justin Ruben, met with President Obama in February, told the president it was “the moment to go big,” then indicated that MoveOn would not be opposing the $94 billion war supplemental request, nor the 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, nor the increased civilian casualties from the mounting number of Predator attacks. [See Ari Melber, The Nation, Feb. 27, 2009]
What was MoveOn’s explanation for abandoning the peace movement in a meeting with a president the peace movement was key to electing? According to Ruben and MoveOn, it was the preference of its millions of members, as ascertained by house meetings and polls.
The evidence, however, is otherwise. Last December 17, 48.3 percent of MoveOn members listed “end the war in Iraq” as a 2009 goal, after health care [64.9%], economic recovery and job creation [62.1%], and building a green economy/stop climate change [49.6%, only 1.5% ahove Iraq.] This was at a moment when most Americans believed the Iraq War was ending. Afghanistan and Pakistan were not listed among top goals which members could vote on.
Then on May 22 MoveOn surveyed its members once again, listing ten possible campaigns for the organization. “Keep up the pressure to the end the war in Iraq” was listed ninth among the options.
Again, Afghanistan and Pakistan were not on the MoveOn list of options.
Nor was Guantanamo nor the administration’s torture policies. “Investigate the Bush Administration” was the first option.
MoveOn is supposed to be an Internet version of participatory democracy, but the organization’s decision-making structure apparently assures that the membership is voiceless on the question of these long wars.
What if they included an option like “demanding a diplomatic settlement and opposing a quagmire in Afghanistan and Pakistan?” Or “shifting from a priority on military spending to civilian spending on food, medicine and schools?”
This is no small matter. MoveOn has collected a privately-held list of five million names, most of them strong peace advocates. The organization’s membership contributed an unprecedented $180 million for the federal election cycle in 2004-2006. Those resources, now squelched or sequestered, mean that the most vital organization in the American peace movement is missing in action.
What to do? There is no point raving and ranting against MoveOn. The only path is in organizing a dialogue with the membership, over the Internet, and having faith that their voices will turn the organization to oppose these escalating occupations. The same approach is necessary towards other vital organs of the peace movement including rank-and-file Democrat activists and the post-election Obama organization [Organizing for America], through a persistent bottom-up campaign to renew the peace movement as a powerful force in civil society.
This is not a simple matter of an organizational oligarchy manipulating its membership, although the avoidance by MoveOn’s leadership is a troubling sign. There is genuine confusion over Afghanistan and Pakistan among the rank-and-file. The economic crisis has averted attention away from the battlefront. Many who voted for Obama understandably will give him the benefit of the doubt, for now.
Silence sends a message. The de facto MoveOn support for the $94 billion war supplemental reverberates up the ladder of power. Feeling no pressure, the Congressional leadership has abdicated its critical oversight function over the expanding wars, not even allowing members to vote for a Decmber report on possible exit strategies. In the end, a gutsy sixty voted against HR 2346 on May 14, but many defected to vote for the war spending, including Neil Abercrombie, Jerry Nadler, Obey, Xavier Becerra, Lois Capps, Maurice Hinchey, Jesse Jackson, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Patrick Kennedy, Charles Rangel, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Loretta Sanchez, Rosa De Lauro, Bennie Thompson, Jerry McNerney, Robert Wexler, and Henry Waxman. [Bill Delahunt, Linda Sanchez and Pete Stark were not recorded].
If there were significant pressures from networks like MoveOn in their Congressional districts, the opposition vote might have approached 85.
Appropriations chair David Obey in essence granted Obama a one-year pass to show results in Afghanistan. If the war appears to be a quagmire by then, he claimed, the Democrats will become more critical. Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered the same message; according to the Washington Examiner on May 6: “There won’t be any more war supplementals, so my message to my members is, this is it.” Pelosi’s words were carefully parsed, saying that the White House would not be allowed another supplemental form of appropriation, which is different from an actual pledge to oppose war funding.
This one-year pass means that the grass-roots peace movement has a few months to light a fire and re-awaken pressure from below on the Congress and president. In the meantime, here are some predictions for the coming year:
IRAQ: Will Obama keep his pledge to withdraw combat forces from Iraq on a 16-month timetable, and all forces by 2011? At this point, the pace is slowing, and the deadline being somewhat extended, under pressure from US commanders on the ground. Sunnis are threatening to resume their insurgency if the al-Maliki regime fails to incorporate them into the political and security structures. The President insists however, that he is only making adjustments to a timetable that is on track. Prognosis: precarious.
AFGHANISTAN: Will the Obama troop escalation deepen the quagmire or be a successful surge against the Taliban by next year? Another 21,000 troops and advisers are on their way to the battlefield. Civilian casualties are mounting, causing the besieged Karzai government to complain. Preventive detention of Afghans will only expand. US deaths, now over 600, are sure to increase this summer. Taliban may hold out and redeploy in order to stretch US forces thin. Prognosis: escalation into quagmire.
PAKISTAN: US policies have driven al Qaeda from Afganistan into Pakistan’s tribal areas, where US is attacking with Predators and turning Pakistan’s US-funded armed forces towards counterinsurgency. Public opinion is being inflamed against the US intervention. Prognosis: an expanding American war in Pakistan with greater threats to American security.
IRAN: With or without US complicity, Israel may attack Iran early next year, with unforeseeable consequences in Iraq and Afghanistan. Prognosis: crisis will intensify.
GLOBAL: US will fail to attract more combat troops to fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan from Europe or elsewhere, causing pressure to increase for a non-military negotiated solution. Prognosis: Obama still popular, US still isolated.
BUDGET PRIORITIES: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan will deeply threaten the administration’s ability to succeed on the domestic front with stimulus spending, health care, education and alternative energy. Prognosis: false hope for “guns and butter” all over again.
Editor's Note: Here's a response from MoveOn.org:
We appreciate Tom Hayden's attempt to start a discussion here about the progressive posture on security issues, and we even understand his attempt to use MoveOn as a foil. We agree that it's time to confront the organizing challenges of building an effective peace movement in the Obama era, and we expect MoveOn and MoveOn members to play an important role in this.
In order to have a productive conversation, however, we have to make sure the facts are correct. Tom's characterization of our democratic process is inaccurate; the Top 10 issues we focus on were both nominated by and chosen by MoveOn members. Even more erroneous is Tom's description in the lead of his piece of Justin's conversation with the President. Our Executive Director, Justin Ruben, never "indicated that MoveOn would not be opposing the $94 billion war supplemental request, nor the 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, nor the increased civilian casualties from the mounting number of Predator attacks." The article by Ari Melber which Tom referenced as a source does not say that Justin said this. That particular conversation was about MoveOn members' current organizing focus on energy, health care, and the economy. And our belief that the administration should "go big" on progressive policies in these arenas.
****************
Tom Hayden was a leader of the student, civil rights, peace and environmental movements of the 1960s. He served 18 years in the California legislature, where he chaired labor, higher education and natural resources committees. He is the author of ten books, including "Street Wars" (New Press, 2004). He is a professor at Occidental College, Los Angeles, and was a visiting fellow at Harvard's Institute of Politics last fall.
The most powerful grassroots organization of the peace movement, MoveOn, remains silent as the American wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan simmer or escalate.
The executive director of MoveOn, Justin Ruben, met with President Obama in February, told the president it was “the moment to go big,” then indicated that MoveOn would not be opposing the $94 billion war supplemental request, nor the 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, nor the increased civilian casualties from the mounting number of Predator attacks. [See Ari Melber, The Nation, Feb. 27, 2009]
What was MoveOn’s explanation for abandoning the peace movement in a meeting with a president the peace movement was key to electing? According to Ruben and MoveOn, it was the preference of its millions of members, as ascertained by house meetings and polls.
The evidence, however, is otherwise. Last December 17, 48.3 percent of MoveOn members listed “end the war in Iraq” as a 2009 goal, after health care [64.9%], economic recovery and job creation [62.1%], and building a green economy/stop climate change [49.6%, only 1.5% ahove Iraq.] This was at a moment when most Americans believed the Iraq War was ending. Afghanistan and Pakistan were not listed among top goals which members could vote on.
Then on May 22 MoveOn surveyed its members once again, listing ten possible campaigns for the organization. “Keep up the pressure to the end the war in Iraq” was listed ninth among the options.
Again, Afghanistan and Pakistan were not on the MoveOn list of options.
Nor was Guantanamo nor the administration’s torture policies. “Investigate the Bush Administration” was the first option.
MoveOn is supposed to be an Internet version of participatory democracy, but the organization’s decision-making structure apparently assures that the membership is voiceless on the question of these long wars.
What if they included an option like “demanding a diplomatic settlement and opposing a quagmire in Afghanistan and Pakistan?” Or “shifting from a priority on military spending to civilian spending on food, medicine and schools?”
This is no small matter. MoveOn has collected a privately-held list of five million names, most of them strong peace advocates. The organization’s membership contributed an unprecedented $180 million for the federal election cycle in 2004-2006. Those resources, now squelched or sequestered, mean that the most vital organization in the American peace movement is missing in action.
What to do? There is no point raving and ranting against MoveOn. The only path is in organizing a dialogue with the membership, over the Internet, and having faith that their voices will turn the organization to oppose these escalating occupations. The same approach is necessary towards other vital organs of the peace movement including rank-and-file Democrat activists and the post-election Obama organization [Organizing for America], through a persistent bottom-up campaign to renew the peace movement as a powerful force in civil society.
This is not a simple matter of an organizational oligarchy manipulating its membership, although the avoidance by MoveOn’s leadership is a troubling sign. There is genuine confusion over Afghanistan and Pakistan among the rank-and-file. The economic crisis has averted attention away from the battlefront. Many who voted for Obama understandably will give him the benefit of the doubt, for now.
Silence sends a message. The de facto MoveOn support for the $94 billion war supplemental reverberates up the ladder of power. Feeling no pressure, the Congressional leadership has abdicated its critical oversight function over the expanding wars, not even allowing members to vote for a Decmber report on possible exit strategies. In the end, a gutsy sixty voted against HR 2346 on May 14, but many defected to vote for the war spending, including Neil Abercrombie, Jerry Nadler, Obey, Xavier Becerra, Lois Capps, Maurice Hinchey, Jesse Jackson, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Patrick Kennedy, Charles Rangel, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Loretta Sanchez, Rosa De Lauro, Bennie Thompson, Jerry McNerney, Robert Wexler, and Henry Waxman. [Bill Delahunt, Linda Sanchez and Pete Stark were not recorded].
If there were significant pressures from networks like MoveOn in their Congressional districts, the opposition vote might have approached 85.
Appropriations chair David Obey in essence granted Obama a one-year pass to show results in Afghanistan. If the war appears to be a quagmire by then, he claimed, the Democrats will become more critical. Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered the same message; according to the Washington Examiner on May 6: “There won’t be any more war supplementals, so my message to my members is, this is it.” Pelosi’s words were carefully parsed, saying that the White House would not be allowed another supplemental form of appropriation, which is different from an actual pledge to oppose war funding.
This one-year pass means that the grass-roots peace movement has a few months to light a fire and re-awaken pressure from below on the Congress and president. In the meantime, here are some predictions for the coming year:
IRAQ: Will Obama keep his pledge to withdraw combat forces from Iraq on a 16-month timetable, and all forces by 2011? At this point, the pace is slowing, and the deadline being somewhat extended, under pressure from US commanders on the ground. Sunnis are threatening to resume their insurgency if the al-Maliki regime fails to incorporate them into the political and security structures. The President insists however, that he is only making adjustments to a timetable that is on track. Prognosis: precarious.
AFGHANISTAN: Will the Obama troop escalation deepen the quagmire or be a successful surge against the Taliban by next year? Another 21,000 troops and advisers are on their way to the battlefield. Civilian casualties are mounting, causing the besieged Karzai government to complain. Preventive detention of Afghans will only expand. US deaths, now over 600, are sure to increase this summer. Taliban may hold out and redeploy in order to stretch US forces thin. Prognosis: escalation into quagmire.
PAKISTAN: US policies have driven al Qaeda from Afganistan into Pakistan’s tribal areas, where US is attacking with Predators and turning Pakistan’s US-funded armed forces towards counterinsurgency. Public opinion is being inflamed against the US intervention. Prognosis: an expanding American war in Pakistan with greater threats to American security.
IRAN: With or without US complicity, Israel may attack Iran early next year, with unforeseeable consequences in Iraq and Afghanistan. Prognosis: crisis will intensify.
GLOBAL: US will fail to attract more combat troops to fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan from Europe or elsewhere, causing pressure to increase for a non-military negotiated solution. Prognosis: Obama still popular, US still isolated.
BUDGET PRIORITIES: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan will deeply threaten the administration’s ability to succeed on the domestic front with stimulus spending, health care, education and alternative energy. Prognosis: false hope for “guns and butter” all over again.
Editor's Note: Here's a response from MoveOn.org:
We appreciate Tom Hayden's attempt to start a discussion here about the progressive posture on security issues, and we even understand his attempt to use MoveOn as a foil. We agree that it's time to confront the organizing challenges of building an effective peace movement in the Obama era, and we expect MoveOn and MoveOn members to play an important role in this.
In order to have a productive conversation, however, we have to make sure the facts are correct. Tom's characterization of our democratic process is inaccurate; the Top 10 issues we focus on were both nominated by and chosen by MoveOn members. Even more erroneous is Tom's description in the lead of his piece of Justin's conversation with the President. Our Executive Director, Justin Ruben, never "indicated that MoveOn would not be opposing the $94 billion war supplemental request, nor the 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, nor the increased civilian casualties from the mounting number of Predator attacks." The article by Ari Melber which Tom referenced as a source does not say that Justin said this. That particular conversation was about MoveOn members' current organizing focus on energy, health care, and the economy. And our belief that the administration should "go big" on progressive policies in these arenas.
****************
Tom Hayden was a leader of the student, civil rights, peace and environmental movements of the 1960s. He served 18 years in the California legislature, where he chaired labor, higher education and natural resources committees. He is the author of ten books, including "Street Wars" (New Press, 2004). He is a professor at Occidental College, Los Angeles, and was a visiting fellow at Harvard's Institute of Politics last fall.
Army chief says US ready to be in Iraq 10 years
By TOM CURLEY, AP, May 26, 2009
WASHINGTON – The Pentagon is prepared to leave fighting forces in Iraq for as long as a decade despite an agreement between the United States and Iraq that would bring all American troops home by 2012, the top U.S. Army officer said Tuesday.
Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, said the world remains dangerous and unpredictable, and the Pentagon must plan for extended U.S. combat and stability operations in two wars. "Global trends are pushing in the wrong direction," Casey said. "They fundamentally will change how the Army works."
He spoke at an invitation-only briefing to a dozen journalists and policy analysts from Washington-based think-tanks. He said his planning envisions combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade as part of a sustained U.S. commitment to fighting extremism and terrorism in the Middle East.
Casey's calculations about force levels are related to his attempt to ease the brutal deployment calendar that he said would "bring the Army to its knees."
Casey would not specify how many combat units would be split between Iraq and Afghanistan. He said U.S. ground commander Gen. Ray Odierno is leading a study to determine how far U.S. forces could be cut back in Iraq and still be effective. Casey said his comments about the long war in Iraq were not meant to conflict with administration policies.
President Barack Obama plans to bring U.S. combat forces home from Iraq in 2010, and the United States and Iraq have agreed that all American forces would leave by 2012. Although several senior U.S. officials have suggested Iraq could request an extension, the legal agreement the two countries signed last year would have to be amended for any significant U.S. presence to remain.
As recently as February, Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterated the U.S. commitment to the agreement worked out with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
"Under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011," Gates said during an address at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. "We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned."
The United States currently has about 139,000 troops in Iraq and 52,000 in Afghanistan.
Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq war as quickly as possible and refocusing U.S. resources on what he called the more important fight in Afghanistan.
That will not mean a major influx of U.S. fighting forces on the model of the Iraq "surge," however. Obama has agreed to send about 21,000 combat forces and trainers to Afghanistan this year. Combined with additional forces approved before former President George W. Bush left office, the United States is expected to have about 68,000 troops in Afghanistan by the end of this year. That's about double the total at the end of 2008, but Obama's top military and civilian advisers have indicated the number is unlikely to grow much beyond that.
Casey said several times that he wasn't the person making policy, but the military was preparing to have a fighting force deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come. Casey said his planning envisions 10 combat brigades plus command and support forces committed to the two wars.
When asked whether the Army had any measurement for knowing how big it should be, Casey responded, "How about the reality scenario?"
This scenario, he said, must take into account that "we're going to have 10 Army and Marine units deployed for a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Casey stressed that the United States must be ready to take on sustained fights in the Middle East while meeting other commitments.
Casey reiterated statements made by civilian and military leaders that the situation in Afghanistan would get worse before it gets better. "There's going to be a big fight in the South," he said.
Casey added that training of local police and military in Afghanistan was at least a couple years behind the pace in Iraq, and it would be months before the U.S. deployed enough trainers. There's a steeper curve before training could be effective in Afghanistan, requiring three to five years before Afghanis could reach the "tipping point" of control.
He also said the U.S. had to be careful about what assets get deployed to Afghanistan. "Anything you put in there would be in there for a decade," he said.
As Army chief of staff, Casey is primarily responsible for assembling the manpower and determining assignments. He insisted the Army's 1.1-million size was sufficient even to handle the extended Mideast conflicts.
"We ought to build a pretty effective Army with 1.1 million strength," Casey said. He also noted that the Army's budget had grown to $220 billion from $68 billion before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
He said the Army is two-thirds of the way through a complete overhaul from the Cold War-era force built around tanks and artillery to today's terrorist-driven realities. The Army has become more versatile and quicker by switching from division-led units to brigade-level command.
Casey said the Army has moved from 15-month battlefield deployments to 12 months. His goal is to move rotations by 2011 to one year in the battlefield and two years out for regular Army troops, and one year in the battlefield and three years out for reserves. He called the current one-year-in-one-year-out cycle "unsustainable."
WASHINGTON – The Pentagon is prepared to leave fighting forces in Iraq for as long as a decade despite an agreement between the United States and Iraq that would bring all American troops home by 2012, the top U.S. Army officer said Tuesday.
Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, said the world remains dangerous and unpredictable, and the Pentagon must plan for extended U.S. combat and stability operations in two wars. "Global trends are pushing in the wrong direction," Casey said. "They fundamentally will change how the Army works."
He spoke at an invitation-only briefing to a dozen journalists and policy analysts from Washington-based think-tanks. He said his planning envisions combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade as part of a sustained U.S. commitment to fighting extremism and terrorism in the Middle East.
Casey's calculations about force levels are related to his attempt to ease the brutal deployment calendar that he said would "bring the Army to its knees."
Casey would not specify how many combat units would be split between Iraq and Afghanistan. He said U.S. ground commander Gen. Ray Odierno is leading a study to determine how far U.S. forces could be cut back in Iraq and still be effective. Casey said his comments about the long war in Iraq were not meant to conflict with administration policies.
President Barack Obama plans to bring U.S. combat forces home from Iraq in 2010, and the United States and Iraq have agreed that all American forces would leave by 2012. Although several senior U.S. officials have suggested Iraq could request an extension, the legal agreement the two countries signed last year would have to be amended for any significant U.S. presence to remain.
As recently as February, Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterated the U.S. commitment to the agreement worked out with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
"Under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011," Gates said during an address at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. "We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned."
The United States currently has about 139,000 troops in Iraq and 52,000 in Afghanistan.
Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq war as quickly as possible and refocusing U.S. resources on what he called the more important fight in Afghanistan.
That will not mean a major influx of U.S. fighting forces on the model of the Iraq "surge," however. Obama has agreed to send about 21,000 combat forces and trainers to Afghanistan this year. Combined with additional forces approved before former President George W. Bush left office, the United States is expected to have about 68,000 troops in Afghanistan by the end of this year. That's about double the total at the end of 2008, but Obama's top military and civilian advisers have indicated the number is unlikely to grow much beyond that.
Casey said several times that he wasn't the person making policy, but the military was preparing to have a fighting force deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come. Casey said his planning envisions 10 combat brigades plus command and support forces committed to the two wars.
When asked whether the Army had any measurement for knowing how big it should be, Casey responded, "How about the reality scenario?"
This scenario, he said, must take into account that "we're going to have 10 Army and Marine units deployed for a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Casey stressed that the United States must be ready to take on sustained fights in the Middle East while meeting other commitments.
Casey reiterated statements made by civilian and military leaders that the situation in Afghanistan would get worse before it gets better. "There's going to be a big fight in the South," he said.
Casey added that training of local police and military in Afghanistan was at least a couple years behind the pace in Iraq, and it would be months before the U.S. deployed enough trainers. There's a steeper curve before training could be effective in Afghanistan, requiring three to five years before Afghanis could reach the "tipping point" of control.
He also said the U.S. had to be careful about what assets get deployed to Afghanistan. "Anything you put in there would be in there for a decade," he said.
As Army chief of staff, Casey is primarily responsible for assembling the manpower and determining assignments. He insisted the Army's 1.1-million size was sufficient even to handle the extended Mideast conflicts.
"We ought to build a pretty effective Army with 1.1 million strength," Casey said. He also noted that the Army's budget had grown to $220 billion from $68 billion before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
He said the Army is two-thirds of the way through a complete overhaul from the Cold War-era force built around tanks and artillery to today's terrorist-driven realities. The Army has become more versatile and quicker by switching from division-led units to brigade-level command.
Casey said the Army has moved from 15-month battlefield deployments to 12 months. His goal is to move rotations by 2011 to one year in the battlefield and two years out for regular Army troops, and one year in the battlefield and three years out for reserves. He called the current one-year-in-one-year-out cycle "unsustainable."
Roadside blast kills 3 Americans in western Iraq
By ROBERT H. REID, AP, May 26, 2009
BAGHDAD – A roadside bomb blasted a U.S. convoy west of Baghdad, killing three Americans, including a top reconstruction official who once headed the Illinois Commerce Commission, U.S. authorities said Tuesday.
The attack occurred Monday on the eastern outskirts of Fallujah, which used to be the main stronghold of Sunni insurgents until U.S. troops overran the city in November 2004 in the bitterest urban fighting of the Iraq war.
Since then, Fallujah, 40 miles (70 kilometers) west of Baghdad in Anbar province, has been among the most heavily guarded cities in Iraq. A fatal attack in such an area illustrates the resilience of the insurgents despite major setbacks on the battlefield during the past two years.
Those killed in the blast included Terrence "Terry" Barnich, 56, deputy director of the State Department office that oversees U.S. reconstruction projects in Iraq, as well as a U.S. soldier and a Defense Department employee working for the U.S. Embassy, according to a U.S. statement.
Two other people were wounded, the U.S. said. None of the victims except Barnich was identified.
"We and all who are working for a brighter future for Iraq condemn this terrible attack in the strongest possible terms," U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill said in a statement. "We remain committed as ever to helping Iraqis achieve the peace, stability and prosperity that will make such acts of terror a thing of the past."
At least four U.S. civilians have been killed in Iraq since Friday, when a defense contractor died in a rocket or mortar attack near the U.S. Embassy and another was found stabbed in his car. No arrests have been announced in the stabbing.
Barnich's sister, Rochelle Barnich, described her brother as a person with a great sense of humor who had been fascinated with politics since they were children. Barnich's family was notified of his death Monday.
Barnich served as chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission from 1989 to 1992. He also worked as chief counsel to former Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson and as a campaign manager for Republican candidate Judy Baar Topinka when she ran for governor in 2006.
"He wanted to make the world and everything around him better," Topinka said. "He was so looking forward to going over there and making a difference. To have this happen to him is just such a waste."
Barnich moved to Iraq in 2007 and was an adviser to the Ministry of Electricity until he was hired as deputy director of the Iraq Transition Assistance Office in Baghdad.
Barnich had planned to stay in Iraq for 11 months but extended his stay because he loved the work, according to an associate, Craig Clausen. He planned to return to the United States in July and assume his former job as CEO of the Chicago consulting company New Paradigm Resources Group, according to Clausen.
The convoy was returning to Baghdad after inspecting a waste water treatment plant under construction in Fallujah, the largest and most complex U.S. government-funded project in Anbar province.
The project has been long-delayed by a litany of problems, including deficient contracting and administration, suspected sectarian discrimination by the Iraqi central government and poor contractor performance.
Insurgents once held sway over Fallujah and the rest of Anbar, the largest of Iraq's 18 provinces. The city gained notoriety in 2004 when insurgents killed four employees of the Blackwater security firm and hung their bodies from a bridge.
Fighting raged in Anbar even after U.S. troops captured Fallujah. But violence fell off dramatically two years later when Sunni tribesmen turned against al-Qaida in Iraq and joined forces with American troops.
Last year, the U.S. military withdrew from most of Anbar's cities, including Fallujah, well ahead of a June 30 deadline for U.S. troops to leave Iraq's urban areas.
Like many cities in Iraq, Fallujah has a number of U.S.-supported reconstruction projects, many of them aimed at improving essential services and promoting businesses.
At least five other State Department employees have been killed in Iraq, including Steven Farley, who died in a June 2008 bombing at an Iraqi council building in Baghdad's Sadr City.
As of Monday, at least 4,301 members of the U.S. military had died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
___
Associated Press Writers Matthew Lee in Washington and Carla K. Johnson in Chicago contributed to this report.
BAGHDAD – A roadside bomb blasted a U.S. convoy west of Baghdad, killing three Americans, including a top reconstruction official who once headed the Illinois Commerce Commission, U.S. authorities said Tuesday.
The attack occurred Monday on the eastern outskirts of Fallujah, which used to be the main stronghold of Sunni insurgents until U.S. troops overran the city in November 2004 in the bitterest urban fighting of the Iraq war.
Since then, Fallujah, 40 miles (70 kilometers) west of Baghdad in Anbar province, has been among the most heavily guarded cities in Iraq. A fatal attack in such an area illustrates the resilience of the insurgents despite major setbacks on the battlefield during the past two years.
Those killed in the blast included Terrence "Terry" Barnich, 56, deputy director of the State Department office that oversees U.S. reconstruction projects in Iraq, as well as a U.S. soldier and a Defense Department employee working for the U.S. Embassy, according to a U.S. statement.
Two other people were wounded, the U.S. said. None of the victims except Barnich was identified.
"We and all who are working for a brighter future for Iraq condemn this terrible attack in the strongest possible terms," U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill said in a statement. "We remain committed as ever to helping Iraqis achieve the peace, stability and prosperity that will make such acts of terror a thing of the past."
At least four U.S. civilians have been killed in Iraq since Friday, when a defense contractor died in a rocket or mortar attack near the U.S. Embassy and another was found stabbed in his car. No arrests have been announced in the stabbing.
Barnich's sister, Rochelle Barnich, described her brother as a person with a great sense of humor who had been fascinated with politics since they were children. Barnich's family was notified of his death Monday.
Barnich served as chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission from 1989 to 1992. He also worked as chief counsel to former Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson and as a campaign manager for Republican candidate Judy Baar Topinka when she ran for governor in 2006.
"He wanted to make the world and everything around him better," Topinka said. "He was so looking forward to going over there and making a difference. To have this happen to him is just such a waste."
Barnich moved to Iraq in 2007 and was an adviser to the Ministry of Electricity until he was hired as deputy director of the Iraq Transition Assistance Office in Baghdad.
Barnich had planned to stay in Iraq for 11 months but extended his stay because he loved the work, according to an associate, Craig Clausen. He planned to return to the United States in July and assume his former job as CEO of the Chicago consulting company New Paradigm Resources Group, according to Clausen.
The convoy was returning to Baghdad after inspecting a waste water treatment plant under construction in Fallujah, the largest and most complex U.S. government-funded project in Anbar province.
The project has been long-delayed by a litany of problems, including deficient contracting and administration, suspected sectarian discrimination by the Iraqi central government and poor contractor performance.
Insurgents once held sway over Fallujah and the rest of Anbar, the largest of Iraq's 18 provinces. The city gained notoriety in 2004 when insurgents killed four employees of the Blackwater security firm and hung their bodies from a bridge.
Fighting raged in Anbar even after U.S. troops captured Fallujah. But violence fell off dramatically two years later when Sunni tribesmen turned against al-Qaida in Iraq and joined forces with American troops.
Last year, the U.S. military withdrew from most of Anbar's cities, including Fallujah, well ahead of a June 30 deadline for U.S. troops to leave Iraq's urban areas.
Like many cities in Iraq, Fallujah has a number of U.S.-supported reconstruction projects, many of them aimed at improving essential services and promoting businesses.
At least five other State Department employees have been killed in Iraq, including Steven Farley, who died in a June 2008 bombing at an Iraqi council building in Baghdad's Sadr City.
As of Monday, at least 4,301 members of the U.S. military had died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
___
Associated Press Writers Matthew Lee in Washington and Carla K. Johnson in Chicago contributed to this report.
U.S. holds journalist without charges in Iraq
Reuters cameraman Ibrahim Jassam has been held since September. The U.S. military rejected a court order to release him, saying he is a 'high security threat.' No evidence has been presented.
By Liz Sly, Los Angeles Times, May 24, 2009
Reporting from Baghdad -- The soldiers came at 1:30 a.m, rousing family members who were sleeping on the roof to escape the late-summer heat.
They broke down the front door. Accompanied by dogs, American and Iraqi troops burst into the Jassam family home in the town of Mahmoudiya south of Baghdad.
"Where is the journalist Ibrahim?" one of the Iraqi soldiers barked at the grandparents, children and grandchildren as they staggered blearily down the stairs.
Ibrahim Jassam, a cameraman and photographer for the Reuters news agency, stepped forward, one of this brothers recalled. "Take me if you want me, but please leave my brothers." The soldiers rifled through the house, confiscating his computer hard drive and cameras. And then they led him away, handcuffed and blindfolded.
That was Sept. 2.
Jassam, 31, has been in U.S. custody ever since. His case is the latest of a dozen detentions the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists has documented since 2001.
No formal accusations have been made against Jassam, and an Iraqi court ordered in November that he be released for lack of evidence. But the U.S. military continues to hold him, saying it has intelligence that he is "a high security threat," said Maj. Neal Fisher, spokesman for detainee affairs.
The Obama administration harshly criticized Iran for its imprisonment of Roxana Saberi, the U.S.-Iranian journalist who was convicted of espionage and sentenced to eight years in prison before being freed two weeks ago. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized Iran's treatment of Saberi as "non-transparent, unpredictable and arbitrary."
Washington also has called upon North Korea to expedite the trial of two U.S. journalists being held on spying charges.
Yet the U.S. has routinely used the arbitrary powers it assumed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism attacks to hold journalists without charge in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Committee to Protect Journalists said.
None of the detained journalists has been convicted of any charge, undermining the United States' reputation when it comes to criticizing other countries on issues of press freedom, committee executive director Joel Simon said.
"The U.S. has a record of holding journalists for long periods of time without due process and without explanation," he said. "Its standing would be improved if it addressed this issue."
Reuters has expressed disappointment over Jassam's detention and has said there is no evidence against him.
Sami Haj, a cameraman for the TV network Al Jazeera, was detained by Pakistani authorities as he tried to cross into Afghanistan in 2001 to cover the offensive against the Taliban. He was turned over to the U.S. military, which held him for six years at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He was accused him of being a courier for militant Islamic organizations, but was never charged. He was released a year ago.
In Iraq, Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein was held for two years without trial before being released in April 2008 on the orders of an Iraqi judge under the terms of an amnesty law. The U.S. military maintained that Hussein had links to insurgents, but the AP said the allegations were based on nothing more than the Pulitzer Prize-winning photographs of insurgents that he had taken on the streets of Ramadi, in western Iraq.
Jassam is the only Iraqi journalist still in U.S. custody, the last to be detained under wartime rules that predated a U.S.-Iraqi security agreement signed in December. Under the new accord, U.S. forces must obtain a warrant before they can arrest an Iraqi citizen.
Jassam was detained without a warrant "as the result of his activity with a known insurgent organization," Fisher said.
No evidence against Jassam was presented at his court hearing in November, Fisher said, because the military intelligence against him had not yet been verified.
Under the wartime rules in place at the time, he said, "there was no requirement to link the military intelligence with rule of law type of evidentiary procedures."
After the court ordered Jassam's release, Fisher said, new evidence came to light that suggested he was a "high security threat."
The CPJ's Simon said it was possible for someone to use the cover of journalism to conduct other activities.
"No one is suggesting that journalists should have a get- out-of-jail-free card," he said. "But if you accuse someone of something there needs to be a fair legal process. That's what we said in the Roxana Saberi case, and that's what we say in the Ibrahim Jassam case."
Jassam will have to wait for the requirements of the security pact to play out before he gets another day in court or his freedom. The agreement states that the U.S. is to release low-threat detainees in a "safe and orderly" way and refer "high threat" cases to the Iraqi Justice Ministry for review.
The decision to release him or transfer him to the Iraqi legal system will be made by the Iraqi government. The only timetable for that step is "by the end of the year," Fisher said. By that time, Jassam will have been in custody for more than a year.
Jassam's brother, Walid, visited him recently in Camp Bucca, the desolate, tented U.S. prison camp in the desert in southern Iraq, and found him close to the breaking point.
"He used to be handsome, but now he's pale and he's tired," said Walid, who says his brother had no ties to insurgents. "Every now and then while we were talking, he would start crying. He was begging me: 'Please do something to get me out of here. I don't know what is the charge against me.'
"I told him we already tried everything."
liz.sly@latimes.com
Times Staff Writer Saif Hameed contributed to this report.
By Liz Sly, Los Angeles Times, May 24, 2009
Reporting from Baghdad -- The soldiers came at 1:30 a.m, rousing family members who were sleeping on the roof to escape the late-summer heat.
They broke down the front door. Accompanied by dogs, American and Iraqi troops burst into the Jassam family home in the town of Mahmoudiya south of Baghdad.
"Where is the journalist Ibrahim?" one of the Iraqi soldiers barked at the grandparents, children and grandchildren as they staggered blearily down the stairs.
Ibrahim Jassam, a cameraman and photographer for the Reuters news agency, stepped forward, one of this brothers recalled. "Take me if you want me, but please leave my brothers." The soldiers rifled through the house, confiscating his computer hard drive and cameras. And then they led him away, handcuffed and blindfolded.
That was Sept. 2.
Jassam, 31, has been in U.S. custody ever since. His case is the latest of a dozen detentions the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists has documented since 2001.
No formal accusations have been made against Jassam, and an Iraqi court ordered in November that he be released for lack of evidence. But the U.S. military continues to hold him, saying it has intelligence that he is "a high security threat," said Maj. Neal Fisher, spokesman for detainee affairs.
The Obama administration harshly criticized Iran for its imprisonment of Roxana Saberi, the U.S.-Iranian journalist who was convicted of espionage and sentenced to eight years in prison before being freed two weeks ago. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized Iran's treatment of Saberi as "non-transparent, unpredictable and arbitrary."
Washington also has called upon North Korea to expedite the trial of two U.S. journalists being held on spying charges.
Yet the U.S. has routinely used the arbitrary powers it assumed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism attacks to hold journalists without charge in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Committee to Protect Journalists said.
None of the detained journalists has been convicted of any charge, undermining the United States' reputation when it comes to criticizing other countries on issues of press freedom, committee executive director Joel Simon said.
"The U.S. has a record of holding journalists for long periods of time without due process and without explanation," he said. "Its standing would be improved if it addressed this issue."
Reuters has expressed disappointment over Jassam's detention and has said there is no evidence against him.
Sami Haj, a cameraman for the TV network Al Jazeera, was detained by Pakistani authorities as he tried to cross into Afghanistan in 2001 to cover the offensive against the Taliban. He was turned over to the U.S. military, which held him for six years at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He was accused him of being a courier for militant Islamic organizations, but was never charged. He was released a year ago.
In Iraq, Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein was held for two years without trial before being released in April 2008 on the orders of an Iraqi judge under the terms of an amnesty law. The U.S. military maintained that Hussein had links to insurgents, but the AP said the allegations were based on nothing more than the Pulitzer Prize-winning photographs of insurgents that he had taken on the streets of Ramadi, in western Iraq.
Jassam is the only Iraqi journalist still in U.S. custody, the last to be detained under wartime rules that predated a U.S.-Iraqi security agreement signed in December. Under the new accord, U.S. forces must obtain a warrant before they can arrest an Iraqi citizen.
Jassam was detained without a warrant "as the result of his activity with a known insurgent organization," Fisher said.
No evidence against Jassam was presented at his court hearing in November, Fisher said, because the military intelligence against him had not yet been verified.
Under the wartime rules in place at the time, he said, "there was no requirement to link the military intelligence with rule of law type of evidentiary procedures."
After the court ordered Jassam's release, Fisher said, new evidence came to light that suggested he was a "high security threat."
The CPJ's Simon said it was possible for someone to use the cover of journalism to conduct other activities.
"No one is suggesting that journalists should have a get- out-of-jail-free card," he said. "But if you accuse someone of something there needs to be a fair legal process. That's what we said in the Roxana Saberi case, and that's what we say in the Ibrahim Jassam case."
Jassam will have to wait for the requirements of the security pact to play out before he gets another day in court or his freedom. The agreement states that the U.S. is to release low-threat detainees in a "safe and orderly" way and refer "high threat" cases to the Iraqi Justice Ministry for review.
The decision to release him or transfer him to the Iraqi legal system will be made by the Iraqi government. The only timetable for that step is "by the end of the year," Fisher said. By that time, Jassam will have been in custody for more than a year.
Jassam's brother, Walid, visited him recently in Camp Bucca, the desolate, tented U.S. prison camp in the desert in southern Iraq, and found him close to the breaking point.
"He used to be handsome, but now he's pale and he's tired," said Walid, who says his brother had no ties to insurgents. "Every now and then while we were talking, he would start crying. He was begging me: 'Please do something to get me out of here. I don't know what is the charge against me.'
"I told him we already tried everything."
liz.sly@latimes.com
Times Staff Writer Saif Hameed contributed to this report.
Mourning the Victims of Empire: Day of the Dead
By CINDY SHEEHAN, CounterPunch, May 25, 2009
I was on an airplane flying to Orange County from Sacramento to attend the al-Awda Conference; which is a Palestinian Right's Conference. Al-Awda translates to "The Returning," when the Pilot's voice filled the cabin to make an announcement that I think went unnoticed by most of my fellow passengers, but I heard it.
As the plane was on the approach to John Wayne airport, the Captain came on the intercom to remind us all to "remember our brave troops who have died for our freedom." Even in this post 9-11 paranoid paradigm, if I wasn't belted in for landing, I would have popped out of my seat at 13D and charged up to the cockpit to let the pilot know that my son was killed in Iraq and not one person anywhere in this world is one iota more free because he is dead.
As a matter of fact, the people of Iraq, the foreign country thousands of miles away where my oldest child's brains, blood, and life seeped into the soil, are not freer, unless one counts being liberated from life, liberty and property being free. If you consider torture and indefinite detention freedom, then the Pilot may have been right, but then again, even if you do consider those crimes freedom, it does not make it so.
Here in America we are definitely not freer because my son died, as a matter of fact, our nation can spy on us and our communications without a warrant or just cause and we can't even bring a 3.6 ounce bottle of hand cream into an airport or walk through a METAL detector with our shoes on. Even if we do want to exercise our Bill of Rights, we are shoved into pre-designated "free speech" (NewSpeak for; STFU, unless you are well out of the way of what you want to protest and shoved into pens like cattle being led to slaughter) zones and oftentimes brutally treated if you decide you are entitled to "free speech" on every inch of American soil.
If you watch any one of the cable news networks this weekend between doing holiday weekend things, you will be subjected to images of row upon row of white headstones of dead US military lined up in perfect formation in the afterlife as they were in life. Patriotic music will swell and we will be reminded in script font to "Remember our heroes," or some such BS as that.
Before Casey was killed, a message like that would barely register in my consciousness as I rushed around preparing for Casey's birthday bar-be-que that became a family tradition since he was born on Memorial Day in 1979. If I had a vision of how Memorial Day and Casey's birthday would change for my family, I would have fled these violent shores to protect what was mine, not this murderous country's. Be my guest, look at those headstones with pride or indifference. I look at them, now with horror, regret, pain and a longing for justice.
I can guarantee what you won't see this holiday weekend are images of the over one million Iraqi dead. Say we assign, in an arbitrary way for purely illustrative purposes, an average height of 5 feet for every person killed in Iraq and then lined those people up from head to toe. That gruesome line would stretch from Los Angeles to Portland, Oregon…950 driving miles up Interstate 5. If we count the Iraqis who have been forced to flee, we would have to go back and forth between L.A. and Portland another four times.
There are obscene amounts of people who have been slaughtered for the US Profit Driven Military Empire who do not count here in America on any day. People in Vietnam are still dying from the toxins dumped on their country by the US, not to mention the millions who died during that war. Let the carnage escalate in Afghanistan while we protect our personal images by turning a blind eye to Obama's war crimes. Are you going to feel a lump of pride in your bosom when the coffins start to be photographed at Dover for this imperial crime of aggression? Will you look at those flag-draped boxes of the lifeless body of some mother's child and think: "Now, I am free." Is it better to be dead when Obama is president?
A tough, but real, aspect of this all to consider is, how many of the soldiers buried in coffins in military cemeteries killed or tortured innocent people as paid goons for Empire? To me, it is deeply and profoundly sad on so many levels. If I have any consolation through all of this, I learned that my son bravely refused to go on the mission that killed him, but he was literally dragged onto the vehicle and was dead minutes later before he was forced to do something that was against his nature and nurture.
Casey will always be my hero but he was a victim of US Imperialism and his death should bring shame, not pride, as it did not bring freedom to anyone. I will, of course, mourn his senseless death on Memorial Day as I do everyday.
However, we do not need another day here in America to glorify war which enables the Military Industrial Complex to commit its crimes under the black cloak of "Patriotism."
From Palestine to Africa to South America, our quest for global economic domination kills, sickens, maims or oppresses people on a daily basis and about 25,000 children per day die of starvation. I am not okay with these facts and I am not proud of my country.
I will spend my reflective time on MD to mourn not only the deaths of so many people all over the world due to war, but mourn the fact that they are the unseen and uncared for victims of US Empire.
click here to listen to the weekly show Cindy Sheenhan's Soapbox
I was on an airplane flying to Orange County from Sacramento to attend the al-Awda Conference; which is a Palestinian Right's Conference. Al-Awda translates to "The Returning," when the Pilot's voice filled the cabin to make an announcement that I think went unnoticed by most of my fellow passengers, but I heard it.
As the plane was on the approach to John Wayne airport, the Captain came on the intercom to remind us all to "remember our brave troops who have died for our freedom." Even in this post 9-11 paranoid paradigm, if I wasn't belted in for landing, I would have popped out of my seat at 13D and charged up to the cockpit to let the pilot know that my son was killed in Iraq and not one person anywhere in this world is one iota more free because he is dead.
As a matter of fact, the people of Iraq, the foreign country thousands of miles away where my oldest child's brains, blood, and life seeped into the soil, are not freer, unless one counts being liberated from life, liberty and property being free. If you consider torture and indefinite detention freedom, then the Pilot may have been right, but then again, even if you do consider those crimes freedom, it does not make it so.
Here in America we are definitely not freer because my son died, as a matter of fact, our nation can spy on us and our communications without a warrant or just cause and we can't even bring a 3.6 ounce bottle of hand cream into an airport or walk through a METAL detector with our shoes on. Even if we do want to exercise our Bill of Rights, we are shoved into pre-designated "free speech" (NewSpeak for; STFU, unless you are well out of the way of what you want to protest and shoved into pens like cattle being led to slaughter) zones and oftentimes brutally treated if you decide you are entitled to "free speech" on every inch of American soil.
If you watch any one of the cable news networks this weekend between doing holiday weekend things, you will be subjected to images of row upon row of white headstones of dead US military lined up in perfect formation in the afterlife as they were in life. Patriotic music will swell and we will be reminded in script font to "Remember our heroes," or some such BS as that.
Before Casey was killed, a message like that would barely register in my consciousness as I rushed around preparing for Casey's birthday bar-be-que that became a family tradition since he was born on Memorial Day in 1979. If I had a vision of how Memorial Day and Casey's birthday would change for my family, I would have fled these violent shores to protect what was mine, not this murderous country's. Be my guest, look at those headstones with pride or indifference. I look at them, now with horror, regret, pain and a longing for justice.
I can guarantee what you won't see this holiday weekend are images of the over one million Iraqi dead. Say we assign, in an arbitrary way for purely illustrative purposes, an average height of 5 feet for every person killed in Iraq and then lined those people up from head to toe. That gruesome line would stretch from Los Angeles to Portland, Oregon…950 driving miles up Interstate 5. If we count the Iraqis who have been forced to flee, we would have to go back and forth between L.A. and Portland another four times.
There are obscene amounts of people who have been slaughtered for the US Profit Driven Military Empire who do not count here in America on any day. People in Vietnam are still dying from the toxins dumped on their country by the US, not to mention the millions who died during that war. Let the carnage escalate in Afghanistan while we protect our personal images by turning a blind eye to Obama's war crimes. Are you going to feel a lump of pride in your bosom when the coffins start to be photographed at Dover for this imperial crime of aggression? Will you look at those flag-draped boxes of the lifeless body of some mother's child and think: "Now, I am free." Is it better to be dead when Obama is president?
A tough, but real, aspect of this all to consider is, how many of the soldiers buried in coffins in military cemeteries killed or tortured innocent people as paid goons for Empire? To me, it is deeply and profoundly sad on so many levels. If I have any consolation through all of this, I learned that my son bravely refused to go on the mission that killed him, but he was literally dragged onto the vehicle and was dead minutes later before he was forced to do something that was against his nature and nurture.
Casey will always be my hero but he was a victim of US Imperialism and his death should bring shame, not pride, as it did not bring freedom to anyone. I will, of course, mourn his senseless death on Memorial Day as I do everyday.
However, we do not need another day here in America to glorify war which enables the Military Industrial Complex to commit its crimes under the black cloak of "Patriotism."
From Palestine to Africa to South America, our quest for global economic domination kills, sickens, maims or oppresses people on a daily basis and about 25,000 children per day die of starvation. I am not okay with these facts and I am not proud of my country.
I will spend my reflective time on MD to mourn not only the deaths of so many people all over the world due to war, but mourn the fact that they are the unseen and uncared for victims of US Empire.
click here to listen to the weekly show Cindy Sheenhan's Soapbox
For Displaced Iraqis, 'No Life'
Camp Residents in Kurdish No Man's Land Are Left Without Aid
By Nada Bakri, Washington Post, May 24, 2009
click here for more photos
SULAYMANIYAH, Iraq -- Mohammad Jaffar cast his eyes toward a barren patch of land he calls home.
"There is no life here," Jaffar said. "No life."
Jaffar and 400 other Iraqi Arabs have lived here in a squalid camp, along a road that seems to lead nowhere, since they were driven from their homes in the sectarian bloodshed that plunged the country into chaos in 2006 and 2007.
The camp illustrates some of the problems Iraq faces as it attempts to build the institutions of a modern state: Although there is a semblance of peace, the country remains riddled with fault lines of sect and ethnicity, and saddled with competing authorities. Jaffar and his neighbors live at the intersection of those realities. They cannot return home, and they cannot rebuild their lives, a situation that threatens to make a temporary solution permanent.
Iraq has witnessed many tragedies, with tens of thousands dead in what amounted to a civil war. But added to the hardship of these displaced Iraqis is a feeling of helplessness. In a no man's land in the suburbs of this city in the Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq, the families deem themselves the victims of Kurdish officials who have no interest in helping them and a distant government in Baghdad whose authority falls too short to provide assistance here. Humanitarian agencies complain that they encountered difficulties when they tried to help.
"This is what the war did to us," said Intissar Saadou, whose tent is next to Jaffar's.
An unbearable stench hung over the brown, blue and yellow tents, aggravated by an occasional wind. But perhaps because of their past, none of the refugees seemed bothered by it. In September 2006, soon after the onset of some of the worst sectarian killing, they boarded minivans and buses that took them through perilous territory. By their own account, they arrived breathless.
Jaffar was one of the first to come.
A few weeks earlier, masked gunmen had knocked on his family's door in the Zayouna neighborhood of Baghdad. They threatened to kill the family members and burn the house down if they did not leave in two days, Jaffar said. The family stayed put. Three days later, gunmen killed his father as he headed to a nearby mosque for the dawn prayer. They found his corpse at noon, thrown on the side of a street, with three bullets in his head.
His mother was next. Days after her husband's death and caught in crossfire between militiamen and government security forces, she was killed as she hurried from one room of the house to another. Shortly afterward, Jaffar and his brother left, each buying a $10 bus ticket to Sulaymaniyah.
Although they are registered with the government in Baghdad, residents say that unlike others displaced by the fighting, most of them have received no financial assistance. In Sulaymaniyah, employment is almost impossible without a local sponsor. Some find work as day laborers; others beg on the city streets or go door to door asking for food and clothes.
There is no electricity. Water is trucked in, and garbage is strewn across the camp. Attempts by aid agencies to install latrines were blocked by local officials.
"Local authorities were not welcoming them," said Charles Lynch, head of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees office in Irbil, capital of the Kurdish region. "They did not want them there."
Kurdish officials seemed to agree. "It is political," said Hiwa Jaff, a spokesman for the Kurdish government in Sulaymaniyah. "The central government does not want to help them. I think they should take care of them."
That sense of abandonment, heightened by the sometimes arbitrary realities of geography and politics, courses through the camp.
"We get nothing from the government of Kurdistan and nothing from the government of Baghdad," said Nashwan Hassan, 20, who lost eight relatives during the sectarian killing, which he calls "al-ahdath," the events.
Saadou, Jaffar's neighbor, sat cross-legged on the shabby beige mattress on the floor of her tent. With her husband's lighter, she started a rickety burner on a kerosene tank and placed a frying pan on top. She waited a few minutes to hear the oil crackle, then added fresh fish caught from a nearby river.
"It is much better here," she said. "I am happy to endure this hard life than go back and get killed."
Her husband, Yass Khodayr, a former policeman, said that in 2007, gunmen in a village in Diyala province asked him for $15,000. They said they would kill his family, he recalled, if he failed to pay. He asked for two days to gather the money. The next morning, he fled to the camp with Saadou and their daughter, Hoda, then 2 years old. Their other child, Mohammed, was born in the tent. Khodayr now works in construction, earning $15 a day, half of which he spends on food and cigarettes.
Although a fragile normalcy has returned to Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, memories shape Khodayr's perspective. He remains scared.
"If I know it is safe, if the government was strong, I would go back this minute," he said. "For now, we will remain stranded here. There is nowhere to go and no one to help us."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/23/AR2009052301786.html?wprss=rss_nation/science
By Nada Bakri, Washington Post, May 24, 2009
click here for more photosSULAYMANIYAH, Iraq -- Mohammad Jaffar cast his eyes toward a barren patch of land he calls home.
"There is no life here," Jaffar said. "No life."
Jaffar and 400 other Iraqi Arabs have lived here in a squalid camp, along a road that seems to lead nowhere, since they were driven from their homes in the sectarian bloodshed that plunged the country into chaos in 2006 and 2007.
The camp illustrates some of the problems Iraq faces as it attempts to build the institutions of a modern state: Although there is a semblance of peace, the country remains riddled with fault lines of sect and ethnicity, and saddled with competing authorities. Jaffar and his neighbors live at the intersection of those realities. They cannot return home, and they cannot rebuild their lives, a situation that threatens to make a temporary solution permanent.
Iraq has witnessed many tragedies, with tens of thousands dead in what amounted to a civil war. But added to the hardship of these displaced Iraqis is a feeling of helplessness. In a no man's land in the suburbs of this city in the Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq, the families deem themselves the victims of Kurdish officials who have no interest in helping them and a distant government in Baghdad whose authority falls too short to provide assistance here. Humanitarian agencies complain that they encountered difficulties when they tried to help.
"This is what the war did to us," said Intissar Saadou, whose tent is next to Jaffar's.
An unbearable stench hung over the brown, blue and yellow tents, aggravated by an occasional wind. But perhaps because of their past, none of the refugees seemed bothered by it. In September 2006, soon after the onset of some of the worst sectarian killing, they boarded minivans and buses that took them through perilous territory. By their own account, they arrived breathless.
Jaffar was one of the first to come.
A few weeks earlier, masked gunmen had knocked on his family's door in the Zayouna neighborhood of Baghdad. They threatened to kill the family members and burn the house down if they did not leave in two days, Jaffar said. The family stayed put. Three days later, gunmen killed his father as he headed to a nearby mosque for the dawn prayer. They found his corpse at noon, thrown on the side of a street, with three bullets in his head.
His mother was next. Days after her husband's death and caught in crossfire between militiamen and government security forces, she was killed as she hurried from one room of the house to another. Shortly afterward, Jaffar and his brother left, each buying a $10 bus ticket to Sulaymaniyah.
Although they are registered with the government in Baghdad, residents say that unlike others displaced by the fighting, most of them have received no financial assistance. In Sulaymaniyah, employment is almost impossible without a local sponsor. Some find work as day laborers; others beg on the city streets or go door to door asking for food and clothes.
There is no electricity. Water is trucked in, and garbage is strewn across the camp. Attempts by aid agencies to install latrines were blocked by local officials.
"Local authorities were not welcoming them," said Charles Lynch, head of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees office in Irbil, capital of the Kurdish region. "They did not want them there."
Kurdish officials seemed to agree. "It is political," said Hiwa Jaff, a spokesman for the Kurdish government in Sulaymaniyah. "The central government does not want to help them. I think they should take care of them."
That sense of abandonment, heightened by the sometimes arbitrary realities of geography and politics, courses through the camp.
"We get nothing from the government of Kurdistan and nothing from the government of Baghdad," said Nashwan Hassan, 20, who lost eight relatives during the sectarian killing, which he calls "al-ahdath," the events.
Saadou, Jaffar's neighbor, sat cross-legged on the shabby beige mattress on the floor of her tent. With her husband's lighter, she started a rickety burner on a kerosene tank and placed a frying pan on top. She waited a few minutes to hear the oil crackle, then added fresh fish caught from a nearby river.
"It is much better here," she said. "I am happy to endure this hard life than go back and get killed."
Her husband, Yass Khodayr, a former policeman, said that in 2007, gunmen in a village in Diyala province asked him for $15,000. They said they would kill his family, he recalled, if he failed to pay. He asked for two days to gather the money. The next morning, he fled to the camp with Saadou and their daughter, Hoda, then 2 years old. Their other child, Mohammed, was born in the tent. Khodayr now works in construction, earning $15 a day, half of which he spends on food and cigarettes.
Although a fragile normalcy has returned to Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, memories shape Khodayr's perspective. He remains scared.
"If I know it is safe, if the government was strong, I would go back this minute," he said. "For now, we will remain stranded here. There is nowhere to go and no one to help us."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/23/AR2009052301786.html?wprss=rss_nation/science
Egyptian government attempts to block travel by foreign nationals to border crossing with Gaza
CODEPINK delegations say they will not turn back
CODEPINK: Women For Peace
CAIRO, Egypt -- May 21, 2009 – As more than 160 Americans and other citizens from around the world begin arriving in Cairo with the intent to cross into Gaza, the operators of Egyptian bus services say they been prohibited by the Egyptian government from transporting them to the border. The groups, made up of four delegations on the Egyptian side and one on the Israeli side, are part of a CODEPINK campaign to bring humanitarian supplies and build playgrounds for the children of Gaza.
“We had chartered a private bus company to take us from Cairo to Al-Arish, the closest town to the Rafah crossing into Gaza,” explained Sandra Ruch, who is leading a delegation of Canadians on the humanitarian mission. “However, the operators tell us now that the government has prohibited them from taking us anywhere near the border. They obviously believe this tactic will keep us away, but we are determined. The Gazans are completely isolated and struggling to survive. We cannot abandon them.”
The 10-member Canadian delegation is scheduled to be followed by a 13-member group from New York and a contingent of 40 students. The largest of the CODEPINK delegations, numbering about 80, is scheduled to set off for the border on May 29 – just days ahead of President Barack Obama's landmark speech to the Arab world, planned for Cairo on June 4. The CODEPINK delegations are invited to the Gaza Strip by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
The delegations plan to enter Gaza to focus attention on the need to lift the 21-month blockade and to deliver medical supplies, toys and sports equipment to the children there, who make up more than half of Gaza’s population. The groups are also bringing supplies for playgrounds, since many of the schools and playgrounds were bombed during Israel's invasion earlier this year, which killed more than 1,400, displaced more than 50,000 people and destroyed approximately 4,000 homes.
“The majority of Gazans are under 18, and many of the youth are traumatized and depressed," said delegation coordinator Pam Rasmussen. "Thousands are now living in rubble or cramped tents, while mourning the deaths of loved ones and struggling to support their families despite an unemployment rate in excess of 50 percent. It’s important for us to go there to show that the international community cares about their plight.”
The CODEPINK delegations are not alone. Three British medics began a hunger strike at the Egyptian border crossing on May 21 to protest being refused entry into Gaza to establish a cardiac surgery unit at al-Shifa Hospital, which currently has no such facility, and to help train medical students and junior doctors there. The British medics have been denied access to the Palestinian territory at the Rafah crossing since the beginning of May.
CODEPINK delegations say they are determined to get to the border and cross into Gaza. “We call on the Egyptian government to facilitate our travel to Gaza, not create obstacles,” said Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CODEPINK: Women for Peace. “President Obama is coming to Egypt on June 4 to speak to the Arab world. He claims he wants to stand for peace and justice. We need to start by lifting the blockade of Gaza.”
CODEPINK: Women For Peace
CODEPINK: Women For Peace
CAIRO, Egypt -- May 21, 2009 – As more than 160 Americans and other citizens from around the world begin arriving in Cairo with the intent to cross into Gaza, the operators of Egyptian bus services say they been prohibited by the Egyptian government from transporting them to the border. The groups, made up of four delegations on the Egyptian side and one on the Israeli side, are part of a CODEPINK campaign to bring humanitarian supplies and build playgrounds for the children of Gaza.
“We had chartered a private bus company to take us from Cairo to Al-Arish, the closest town to the Rafah crossing into Gaza,” explained Sandra Ruch, who is leading a delegation of Canadians on the humanitarian mission. “However, the operators tell us now that the government has prohibited them from taking us anywhere near the border. They obviously believe this tactic will keep us away, but we are determined. The Gazans are completely isolated and struggling to survive. We cannot abandon them.”
The 10-member Canadian delegation is scheduled to be followed by a 13-member group from New York and a contingent of 40 students. The largest of the CODEPINK delegations, numbering about 80, is scheduled to set off for the border on May 29 – just days ahead of President Barack Obama's landmark speech to the Arab world, planned for Cairo on June 4. The CODEPINK delegations are invited to the Gaza Strip by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
The delegations plan to enter Gaza to focus attention on the need to lift the 21-month blockade and to deliver medical supplies, toys and sports equipment to the children there, who make up more than half of Gaza’s population. The groups are also bringing supplies for playgrounds, since many of the schools and playgrounds were bombed during Israel's invasion earlier this year, which killed more than 1,400, displaced more than 50,000 people and destroyed approximately 4,000 homes.
“The majority of Gazans are under 18, and many of the youth are traumatized and depressed," said delegation coordinator Pam Rasmussen. "Thousands are now living in rubble or cramped tents, while mourning the deaths of loved ones and struggling to support their families despite an unemployment rate in excess of 50 percent. It’s important for us to go there to show that the international community cares about their plight.”
The CODEPINK delegations are not alone. Three British medics began a hunger strike at the Egyptian border crossing on May 21 to protest being refused entry into Gaza to establish a cardiac surgery unit at al-Shifa Hospital, which currently has no such facility, and to help train medical students and junior doctors there. The British medics have been denied access to the Palestinian territory at the Rafah crossing since the beginning of May.
CODEPINK delegations say they are determined to get to the border and cross into Gaza. “We call on the Egyptian government to facilitate our travel to Gaza, not create obstacles,” said Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CODEPINK: Women for Peace. “President Obama is coming to Egypt on June 4 to speak to the Arab world. He claims he wants to stand for peace and justice. We need to start by lifting the blockade of Gaza.”
CODEPINK: Women For Peace
Another Ft. Hood soldier says no to Afghanistan occupation
By Sgt. Travis Bishop, Ft. Hood Soldier Voices, May 21, 2009
Like Afghanistan deployment refuser Spc. Victor Agosto, Sgt. Travis Bishop is also with Ft. Hood's 57th ESB.
Why am I doing what I’m doing? Why am I resisting? Refusing?
It wasn’t so long ago that I deployed to Iraq in support of the war on terror. I didn’t refuse then. Like a good Soldier, I did what I was told, and I spent 14 months stationed in Baghdad. It was a quiet enough deployment, I suppose. Mortars and rockets flew over the walls with unnerving frequency, but otherwise, it felt more like a move to a different duty station than a deployment to a warzone.
I didn’t see real combat. I didn’t come back with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. I didn’t lose friends. Mine was, in my opinion, an average deployment. Go overseas, play X-Box and read for a year, come back with money that’s gone before you remember how you spent it. We talked and laughed about it once we came back, and talked about what we would do with the money we made from our next deployment, whenever that may be.
Back home, I received a hero’s welcome. That was the first time I felt unsettled over what I had done overseas. My hand was shook, my back was patted, and every night my belly was burning, full of free alcohol. I was a veteran of a foreign war, hailed as a hero, and yet I felt…unnerved; anxious. I felt as if I had a big secret inside me that threatened to burst out of me at any moment, exposing what I really was to the rest of the world…but I couldn’t figure out what the secret was. Not for a long, long time.
I was never plagued with nightmares from the war. I was plagued with guilt. I literally felt guilty for receiving the accolades that come from redeploying as a ‘hero,’ knowing that I had not paid the price for the Army’s true definition of a hero. Here it goes:
Army Hero; noun. Soldier who has deployed overseas to a combat zone. Has participated in active combat. Has redeployed with PTSD, a bullet in their leg, and a time bomb in their head. Unable to rejoin the civilian world in a normal psychological state.
In my heart of hearts, I know I don’t fit this definition, or anything resembling it.
For a long time, my unit was set to redeploy to Iraq in August 2009. However, in February 2009, we were told there was a change of plans. Instead of Iraq, it would be Afghanistan. Instead of August, it would be the end of March, less than sixty days away. Rumor had it that, although we were told the rush was because of a Brigade Commander’s wishes, it was our Battalion Commander who requested our unit be put on the Afghanistan Troop Surge.
Once again, in good Soldier mode, I prepared to deploy. This time I was a Sergeant, and I had Soldiers to take care of, one of which my best friend. These things drove me to be well prepared. We had things to do, and not much time to do them in. I rarely gave myself time to think about what it was we were actually deploying for. When I did, I started to question everything.
Why are we going? What purpose does it serve? Nothing sat right. I began to read the Bible again. More and more I saw things like ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘love thy enemy.’ These were things that went directly against the war we were in, and they were spoken by Jesus himself. Could I really deploy again, and compromise my beliefs, just because I was told to? Would I be able to live with that? What if I had to take a life, and knew that if I hadn’t deployed, I would never have been put in that situation?
I became afraid to voice my opinion, knowing that if I spoke to the wrong person, I would face persecution and ridicule. I told my best friend, who voiced the same opinions to me, but it seemed he was content to deploy, do his time, make some money, and then get out of the Army upon his return. I respected his opinion, didn’t try to talk him out of it, and let it be.
The rest of the pre-deployment phase went uneventfully. We loaded our gear, got our trucks ready, and inspected our equipment. We went to the field several times, and although my team and other teams never fully accomplished the missions we were given, Command congratulated us on a successful field mission, and said we were more than ready to deploy. I started to worry again after that.
I worried when they said I was leaving early with the cargo. I worried again when our cargo flights were suddenly ‘cancelled,’ and the main body of our unit deployed to Afghanistan before us, the ‘advanced’ party. Once again, I got the feeling that we were rushing into something before we were even close to being ready. Weeks went by, and groups of us went out on separate days, sometimes only two Soldiers at a time.
A few days before I was set to deploy, I was approached by members of an organization who told me that I had a choice. They told me that they were here to support me, and that if I really was against the war our country was currently in, I could choose not to go. All those old feelings and worries came back with a vengeance, and I began to question the war again. After a full day of thinking, the only reason I had come up with for me to go was the fact that my best friend was going too. And, in the end, I decided that, although he might hate me for it, he was better off with me not going in the long run. I had to put my needs before his, though it killed me inside, because a three year friendship is hard to come by in the Army. I hope that he can forgive me one day.
So the afternoon I was set to deploy, while everyone else was loading their gear in the van headed toward the airfield, I loaded my gear in my car, and left. It was the hardest decision I have ever made.
I plan on coming back; soon. I am not a deserter, and I wouldn’t go AWOL for months and risk ruining my chances at getting a good job later in life. I am a Patriot. I love my country, but I believe that this particular war is unjust, unconstitutional and a total abuse of our nation’s power and influence. And so, in the next few days, I will be speaking with my lawyer, and taking actions that will more than likely result in my discharge from the military, and possible jail time…and I am prepared to live with that.
My father said, ‘Do only what you can live with, because every morning you have to look at your face in the mirror when you shave. Ten years from now, you’ll still be shaving the same face.’
If I had deployed to Afghanistan, I don’t think I would have been able to look into another mirror again.
Pray for me.
Prior to refusing to deploy, Travis was best known for his acoustic country music CD "So here we go" and opening up for Toby Keith in Baghdad, Iraq.
Courage To Resist
Like Afghanistan deployment refuser Spc. Victor Agosto, Sgt. Travis Bishop is also with Ft. Hood's 57th ESB.
Why am I doing what I’m doing? Why am I resisting? Refusing?
It wasn’t so long ago that I deployed to Iraq in support of the war on terror. I didn’t refuse then. Like a good Soldier, I did what I was told, and I spent 14 months stationed in Baghdad. It was a quiet enough deployment, I suppose. Mortars and rockets flew over the walls with unnerving frequency, but otherwise, it felt more like a move to a different duty station than a deployment to a warzone.
I didn’t see real combat. I didn’t come back with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. I didn’t lose friends. Mine was, in my opinion, an average deployment. Go overseas, play X-Box and read for a year, come back with money that’s gone before you remember how you spent it. We talked and laughed about it once we came back, and talked about what we would do with the money we made from our next deployment, whenever that may be.
Back home, I received a hero’s welcome. That was the first time I felt unsettled over what I had done overseas. My hand was shook, my back was patted, and every night my belly was burning, full of free alcohol. I was a veteran of a foreign war, hailed as a hero, and yet I felt…unnerved; anxious. I felt as if I had a big secret inside me that threatened to burst out of me at any moment, exposing what I really was to the rest of the world…but I couldn’t figure out what the secret was. Not for a long, long time.
I was never plagued with nightmares from the war. I was plagued with guilt. I literally felt guilty for receiving the accolades that come from redeploying as a ‘hero,’ knowing that I had not paid the price for the Army’s true definition of a hero. Here it goes:
Army Hero; noun. Soldier who has deployed overseas to a combat zone. Has participated in active combat. Has redeployed with PTSD, a bullet in their leg, and a time bomb in their head. Unable to rejoin the civilian world in a normal psychological state.
In my heart of hearts, I know I don’t fit this definition, or anything resembling it.
For a long time, my unit was set to redeploy to Iraq in August 2009. However, in February 2009, we were told there was a change of plans. Instead of Iraq, it would be Afghanistan. Instead of August, it would be the end of March, less than sixty days away. Rumor had it that, although we were told the rush was because of a Brigade Commander’s wishes, it was our Battalion Commander who requested our unit be put on the Afghanistan Troop Surge.
Once again, in good Soldier mode, I prepared to deploy. This time I was a Sergeant, and I had Soldiers to take care of, one of which my best friend. These things drove me to be well prepared. We had things to do, and not much time to do them in. I rarely gave myself time to think about what it was we were actually deploying for. When I did, I started to question everything.
Why are we going? What purpose does it serve? Nothing sat right. I began to read the Bible again. More and more I saw things like ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘love thy enemy.’ These were things that went directly against the war we were in, and they were spoken by Jesus himself. Could I really deploy again, and compromise my beliefs, just because I was told to? Would I be able to live with that? What if I had to take a life, and knew that if I hadn’t deployed, I would never have been put in that situation?
I became afraid to voice my opinion, knowing that if I spoke to the wrong person, I would face persecution and ridicule. I told my best friend, who voiced the same opinions to me, but it seemed he was content to deploy, do his time, make some money, and then get out of the Army upon his return. I respected his opinion, didn’t try to talk him out of it, and let it be.
The rest of the pre-deployment phase went uneventfully. We loaded our gear, got our trucks ready, and inspected our equipment. We went to the field several times, and although my team and other teams never fully accomplished the missions we were given, Command congratulated us on a successful field mission, and said we were more than ready to deploy. I started to worry again after that.
I worried when they said I was leaving early with the cargo. I worried again when our cargo flights were suddenly ‘cancelled,’ and the main body of our unit deployed to Afghanistan before us, the ‘advanced’ party. Once again, I got the feeling that we were rushing into something before we were even close to being ready. Weeks went by, and groups of us went out on separate days, sometimes only two Soldiers at a time.
A few days before I was set to deploy, I was approached by members of an organization who told me that I had a choice. They told me that they were here to support me, and that if I really was against the war our country was currently in, I could choose not to go. All those old feelings and worries came back with a vengeance, and I began to question the war again. After a full day of thinking, the only reason I had come up with for me to go was the fact that my best friend was going too. And, in the end, I decided that, although he might hate me for it, he was better off with me not going in the long run. I had to put my needs before his, though it killed me inside, because a three year friendship is hard to come by in the Army. I hope that he can forgive me one day.
So the afternoon I was set to deploy, while everyone else was loading their gear in the van headed toward the airfield, I loaded my gear in my car, and left. It was the hardest decision I have ever made.
I plan on coming back; soon. I am not a deserter, and I wouldn’t go AWOL for months and risk ruining my chances at getting a good job later in life. I am a Patriot. I love my country, but I believe that this particular war is unjust, unconstitutional and a total abuse of our nation’s power and influence. And so, in the next few days, I will be speaking with my lawyer, and taking actions that will more than likely result in my discharge from the military, and possible jail time…and I am prepared to live with that.
My father said, ‘Do only what you can live with, because every morning you have to look at your face in the mirror when you shave. Ten years from now, you’ll still be shaving the same face.’
If I had deployed to Afghanistan, I don’t think I would have been able to look into another mirror again.
Pray for me.
Prior to refusing to deploy, Travis was best known for his acoustic country music CD "So here we go" and opening up for Toby Keith in Baghdad, Iraq.
Courage To Resist
Iraq bombings kill 23 in Baghdad and Kirkuk including 3 more U.S. soldiers
BBC News, May 21, 2009
click here for video report
At least 23 people, including three US soldiers, have been killed in a series of deadly bombings in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Kirkuk.
In the deadliest attack, a suicide bomber struck at a market in Baghdad's Dora district, killing 12 people, including three US soldiers.
The Kirkuk blast targeted members of the Awakening Council, a US-allied Sunni militia, killing eight people.
A third bombing inside a Baghdad police station killed three recruits.
Concerns over violence
The attacks come a day after at least 40 people were killed in a car bomb attack in north-western Baghdad.
Both the Iraqi government and the US say recent attacks are isolated incidents that do not undermine security gains. They say the attacks are not as sophisticated as they once were.
April was the bloodiest month in Iraq this year, with a 40% rise in the number of people killed over March - but the toll for May had been lower.
However the BBC's Natalia Antelava, in Baghdad, says many people in the capital feel the situation is deteriorating and could get worse once US troops withdraw from Iraqi cities at the end of June.
Three blasts
The US military said it could not immediately confirm Iraqi police reports of the deaths of three US soldiers in the attack in Dora, a district that was one of the city's most dangerous areas until a year ago.
The Kirkuk blast earlier on Thursday targeted members of the so-called Awakening Councils - a movement of former militias and insurgents who have turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq and allied themselves with the US and Iraqi militaries.
The attacker, dressed in the group's uniform, joined a group of men waiting to receive their pay and then detonated explosives, officials said.
The attack at Baghdad's Al-Mamoun police station, in the west of the city, claimed the lives of three policemen and injured 19 people, including eight civilians.
Police said the bomb was planted inside a garbage container - the first time an explosive had gone off inside a police station.
click here for video report
At least 23 people, including three US soldiers, have been killed in a series of deadly bombings in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Kirkuk.
In the deadliest attack, a suicide bomber struck at a market in Baghdad's Dora district, killing 12 people, including three US soldiers.
The Kirkuk blast targeted members of the Awakening Council, a US-allied Sunni militia, killing eight people.
A third bombing inside a Baghdad police station killed three recruits.
Concerns over violence
The attacks come a day after at least 40 people were killed in a car bomb attack in north-western Baghdad.
Both the Iraqi government and the US say recent attacks are isolated incidents that do not undermine security gains. They say the attacks are not as sophisticated as they once were.
April was the bloodiest month in Iraq this year, with a 40% rise in the number of people killed over March - but the toll for May had been lower.
However the BBC's Natalia Antelava, in Baghdad, says many people in the capital feel the situation is deteriorating and could get worse once US troops withdraw from Iraqi cities at the end of June.
Three blasts
The US military said it could not immediately confirm Iraqi police reports of the deaths of three US soldiers in the attack in Dora, a district that was one of the city's most dangerous areas until a year ago.
The Kirkuk blast earlier on Thursday targeted members of the so-called Awakening Councils - a movement of former militias and insurgents who have turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq and allied themselves with the US and Iraqi militaries.
The attacker, dressed in the group's uniform, joined a group of men waiting to receive their pay and then detonated explosives, officials said.
The attack at Baghdad's Al-Mamoun police station, in the west of the city, claimed the lives of three policemen and injured 19 people, including eight civilians.
Police said the bomb was planted inside a garbage container - the first time an explosive had gone off inside a police station.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)