Inside Iraq

[Harlan Huckleby]

Freak Out, I expect it is constitutional. The president gets to do shit during war time. It's right there in the do shit clause.

REgarding France, I am really French in the same sense that Madtown is really Mexican.

"Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho?" -Frank Zappa

"Madtown is a Sears Mexican." - Harlan Huckleby

[Freak Out]

Freak Out, I expect it is constitutional. The president gets to do shit during war time. It's right there in the do shit clause.

REgarding France, I am really French in the same sense that Madtown is really Mexican.

"Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho?" -Frank Zappa

"Madtown is a Sears Mexican." - Harlan Huckleby

Dubya did way to much Cosmic Debris in is formative years to understand the constitution...

A Sears Mexican.. No Marquess of Queensberry rules here.

[mraynrand]

Dubya did way to much Cosmic Debris in is formative years to understand the constitution...

Really? Wouldn't that rule out most of the constitutional law professors as well?

[Freak Out]

Dubya did way to much Cosmic Debris in his formative years to understand the constitution...

Really? Wouldn't that rule out most of the constitutional law professors as well?

Probably!

[Freak Out]

Our friends are getting stretched a little thin....

Britain almost out of troops, memo reveals

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 12:19am BST 21/07/2007

The head of the Army has issued a dire warning that Britain has almost run out of troops to defend the country or fight abroad, a secret document obtained by the Daily Telegraph has revealed.

The memorandum from the CGS: Click to enlarge

Gen Sir Richard Dannatt has told senior commanders that reinforcements for emergencies or for operations in Iraq or Afghanistan are "now almost non-existent".

In the memorandum to fellow defence leaders, the Chief of the General Staff (CGS) confessed that "we now have almost no capability to react to the unexpected". The "undermanned" Army now has all its units committed to either training for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, on leave or on operations.

There is just one battalion of 500 troops, called the Spearhead Lead Element, available to be used in an emergency, such as a major domestic terrorist attack or a rapid deployment overseas.

Gen Dannatt's comments will come as the first serious test of Gordon Brown's policy on defence.
advertisement

The new Prime Minister has already faced anger over the decision to give Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, the additional part-time role of Scottish Secretary with Tories labelling the move "an insult to our Armed Forces."

Military leaders have privately suggested that a defence review is essential to examine if more money, equipment and troops are needed.

With Britain's military reserve locker virtually empty, further pressure will mount on President George W Bush to review US troop levels in Iraq after fellow Republicans suggesting significant withdrawals.

It also comes at a time when more forces are needed to combat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said the lack of reserves was "an appalling situation and damning indictment" of the way the Government handled the Services.

Gen Sir Richard Dannatt
Gen Dannatt: Reinforcements for operations in Iraq or Afghanistan are 'now almost non-existent'

"They are being asked to carry out tasks for which they are neither funded or equipped for. There is an urgent need to review our strategic approach because we cannot continue over-stretching our Forces."

The document said that Britain's second back-up unit, called the Airborne Task Force formed around the Parachute Regiment, was unavailable. It was unable to fully deploy "due to shortages in manpower, equipment and stocks".

Most of the Paras' vehicles and weapons have stayed in Afghanistan with other units using them in intense battles against the Taliban.

Parachute Regiment officers are deeply concerned that with nearly all their equipment abroad they are unable to train properly for future operations.

The Paras also no longer have the ability to parachute as a 600-strong battalion because no RAF planes were available to drop then en-masse, the document said. The situation was unlikely to be resolved until late August.

With the Army significantly under-strength by 3,500 troops – many disillusioned with being constantly on dangerous operations and away from their families – it is now struggling to plug the gaps on the frontline.

"The enduring nature and scale of current operations continues to stretch people," Gen Dannatt wrote.

The Army now needed to "augment" 2,500 troops from other units onto operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to bring up the total force to 13,000 required. This remained "far higher than we ever assumed," the CGS said.

"When this is combined with the effects of under-manning (principally in the infantry and Royal Artillery) and the pace of training support needed to prepare units for operations, the tempo of life in the Field Army is intense."

The Army has also been forced to call up almost 1,000 Territorial Army soldiers for overseas operations. The general's concerns came after three RAF personnel were killed in a mortar or rocket attack on the main British headquarters five miles outside Basra bringing the total dead in Iraq to 162.

With the main force pulling out of Basra city to the air station in the coming months there is concern of increased attacks on the large base where some troops are forced to live in tented accommodation.

A lack of vehicles meant that "training is significantly constrained".

Gen Dannatt was also "concerned" that some equipment, particularly Scimitar light tanks that are vital to fighting in Afghanistan but are 40 years old, "may be at the edge of their sustainability".

More needed to be done on housing and pay in order to retained troops because "people are more likely to stay if we look after them properly".

The pressure on numbers was partially being alleviated by bringing in civilian firms to train soldiers and guard bases and by "adopting a pragmatic approach to risk where possible".

While the current situation was "manageable" Gen Dannatt was "very concerned about the longer term implications of the impact of this level of operations on our people, equipment and future operational capability".

It is not the first time Gen Dannatt has raised concerns on Britain's fighting ability. A few weeks into his job last year, Sir Richard said the military was "running hot" and urged for a national debate on defence.

The plain-speaking officer later suggested that the British presence in Iraq was "exacerbating the security problems" and warned that the Army would "break" if it was kept there too long.

Gen Dannatt, who said manning was "critical" in the Army, called for extra infantry units earlier this month following the devastating cuts inflicted by his predecessor Gen Sir Mike Jackson which saw four battalions axed.

"General Dannatt's appraisal means that we are unable to intervene if there is an emergency in Britain or elsewhere, that's self-evident," a senior officer said.

"But this is a direct result of the decision to go into Afghanistan on the assumption that Iraq would diminish simultaneously. We are now reaping the reward of that assumption."

[LL2]

Phew! Close one. Missed call.

[mraynrand]

Our friends are getting stretched a little thin....

Britain almost out of troops, memo reveals

"But this is a direct result of the decision to go into Afghanistan on the assumption that Iraq would diminish simultaneously. We are now reaping the reward of that assumption."

The size of Britain's armed forces (and France's) are dramatically reduced compared to the past. The thinking must have at least gone along the lines of: We have nukes as a deterrent, and the U.S. polices the international waters, opposes the Soviet Union for us, and opposes despots wherever they arise. Why should we spend money on the military? It's a far cry from post WWI when France had 5,000,000 men in a standing army (90,000 of whom were killed during the German invasion in WWII).

Reduction in troops is a political, cultural, societal decision by Britain and really has very little to do with Iraq and Afghanistan. What is worrisome is that there seems to be no urgency to increase troop levels given the challenges that radical Islamic terrorism poses.

[Scott Campbell]

So maybe we sit by and let all hell break loose in a couple of hot spots so the rest of the world realizes that they have to do their part too?

[Freak Out]

They bomb you when your walking to work, shopping for dinner, going to school and rooting for the home team. Plus you can get killed by "celebratory gunfire".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501053.html?hpid=topnews

[Freak Out]

Always something going on in the region...no it's those pesky Kurdish friends of ours.

Bush's Turkish Gamble

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, July 30, 2007; A15

The morass in Iraq and deepening difficulties in Afghanistan have not deterred the Bush administration from taking on a dangerous and questionable new secret operation. High-level U.S. officials are working with their Turkish counterparts on a joint military operation to suppress Kurdish guerrillas and capture their leaders. Through covert activity, their goal is to forestall Turkey from invading Iraq.

While detailed operational plans are necessarily concealed, the broad outlines have been presented to select members of Congress as required by law. U.S. Special Forces are to work with the Turkish army to suppress the Kurds' guerrilla campaign. The Bush administration is trying to prevent another front from opening in Iraq, which would have disastrous consequences. But this gamble risks major exposure and failure.

The Turkish initiative reflects the temperament and personality of George W. Bush. Even faithful congressional supporters of his Iraq policy have been stunned by the president's upbeat mood, which makes him appear oblivious to the loss of his political base. Despite the failing effort to impose a military solution in Iraq, he is willing to try imposing arms -- though clandestinely -- on Turkey's ancient problems with its Kurdish minority, who comprise one-fifth of the country's population.

The development of an autonomous Kurdish entity inside Iraq, resulting from the decline and fall of Saddam Hussein, has alarmed the Turkish government. That led to Ankara's refusal to allow U.S. combat troops to enter Iraq through Turkey, an eleventh-hour complication for the 2003 invasion. As the Kurds' political power grew inside Iraq, the Turkish government became steadily more uneasy about the centuries-old project of a Kurdistan spreading across international boundaries -- and chewing up big pieces of Turkey.

The dormant Turkish Kurd guerrilla fighters of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) came to life. By June, the Turkish government was demonstrating its concern by lobbing artillery shells across the border. Ankara began protesting, to both Washington and Baghdad, that the PKK was using northern Iraq as a base for guerrilla operations. On July 11, in Washington, Turkish Ambassador Nabi Sensoy became the first Turkish official to assert publicly that Iraqi Kurds have claims on Turkish territory. On July 20, just two days before his successful reelection, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened a military incursion into Iraq against the Kurds. Last Wednesday, Murat Karayilan, head of the PKK political council, predicted that "the Turkish Army will attack southern Kurdistan."

Turkey has a well-trained, well-equipped army of 250,000 near the border, facing some 4,000 PKK fighters hiding in the mountains of northern Iraq. But significant cross-border operations surely would bring to the PKK's side the military forces of the Kurdistan Regional Government, the best U.S. ally in Iraq. What is Washington to do in the dilemma of two friends battling each other on an unwanted new front in Iraq?

The surprising answer was given in secret briefings on Capitol Hill last week by Eric S. Edelman, a former aide to Vice President Cheney who is now undersecretary of defense for policy. Edelman, a Foreign Service officer who once was U.S. ambassador to Turkey, revealed to lawmakers plans for a covert operation of U.S. Special Forces to help the Turks neutralize the PKK. They would behead the guerrilla organization by helping Turkey get rid of PKK leaders that they have targeted for years.

Edelman's listeners were stunned. Wasn't this risky? He responded that he was sure of success, adding that the U.S. role could be concealed and always would be denied. Even if all this is true, some of the briefed lawmakers left wondering whether this was a wise policy for handling the beleaguered Kurds, who had been betrayed so often by the U.S. government in years past.

The plan shows that hard experience has not dissuaded President Bush from attempting difficult ventures employing the use of force. On the contrary, two of the most intrepid supporters of the Iraq intervention -- John McCain and Lindsey Graham-- were surprised by Bush during a recent meeting with him. When they shared their impressions with colleagues, they commented on how unconcerned the president seemed. That may explain his willingness to embark on such a questionable venture against the Kurds.

© 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.

[the_idle_threat]

They bomb you when your walking to work, shopping for dinner, going to school and rooting for the home team. Plus you can get killed by "celebratory gunfire".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

This is why I try to keep my celebratory gunfire down to a minimum.

[the_idle_threat]

Always something going on in the region...no it's those pesky Kurdish friends of ours.

Bush's Turkish Gamble

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, July 30, 2007; A15

The morass in Iraq and deepening difficulties in Afghanistan have not deterred the Bush administration from taking on a dangerous and questionable new secret operation. High-level U.S. officials are working with their Turkish counterparts on a joint military operation to suppress Kurdish guerrillas and capture their leaders. Through covert activity, their goal is to forestall Turkey from invading Iraq.

While detailed operational plans are necessarily concealed, the broad outlines have been presented to select members of Congress as required by law. U.S. Special Forces are to work with the Turkish army to suppress the Kurds' guerrilla campaign. The Bush administration is trying to prevent another front from opening in Iraq, which would have disastrous consequences. But this gamble risks major exposure and failure.

The Turkish initiative reflects the temperament and personality of George W. Bush. Even faithful congressional supporters of his Iraq policy have been stunned by the president's upbeat mood, which makes him appear oblivious to the loss of his political base. Despite the failing effort to impose a military solution in Iraq, he is willing to try imposing arms -- though clandestinely -- on Turkey's ancient problems with its Kurdish minority, who comprise one-fifth of the country's population.

The development of an autonomous Kurdish entity inside Iraq, resulting from the decline and fall of Saddam Hussein, has alarmed the Turkish government. That led to Ankara's refusal to allow U.S. combat troops to enter Iraq through Turkey, an eleventh-hour complication for the 2003 invasion. As the Kurds' political power grew inside Iraq, the Turkish government became steadily more uneasy about the centuries-old project of a Kurdistan spreading across international boundaries -- and chewing up big pieces of Turkey.

The dormant Turkish Kurd guerrilla fighters of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) came to life. By June, the Turkish government was demonstrating its concern by lobbing artillery shells across the border. Ankara began protesting, to both Washington and Baghdad, that the PKK was using northern Iraq as a base for guerrilla operations. On July 11, in Washington, Turkish Ambassador Nabi Sensoy became the first Turkish official to assert publicly that Iraqi Kurds have claims on Turkish territory. On July 20, just two days before his successful reelection, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened a military incursion into Iraq against the Kurds. Last Wednesday, Murat Karayilan, head of the PKK political council, predicted that "the Turkish Army will attack southern Kurdistan."

Turkey has a well-trained, well-equipped army of 250,000 near the border, facing some 4,000 PKK fighters hiding in the mountains of northern Iraq. But significant cross-border operations surely would bring to the PKK's side the military forces of the Kurdistan Regional Government, the best U.S. ally in Iraq. What is Washington to do in the dilemma of two friends battling each other on an unwanted new front in Iraq?

The surprising answer was given in secret briefings on Capitol Hill last week by Eric S. Edelman, a former aide to Vice President Cheney who is now undersecretary of defense for policy. Edelman, a Foreign Service officer who once was U.S. ambassador to Turkey, revealed to lawmakers plans for a covert operation of U.S. Special Forces to help the Turks neutralize the PKK. They would behead the guerrilla organization by helping Turkey get rid of PKK leaders that they have targeted for years.

Edelman's listeners were stunned. Wasn't this risky? He responded that he was sure of success, adding that the U.S. role could be concealed and always would be denied. Even if all this is true, some of the briefed lawmakers left wondering whether this was a wise policy for handling the beleaguered Kurds, who had been betrayed so often by the U.S. government in years past.

The plan shows that hard experience has not dissuaded President Bush from attempting difficult ventures employing the use of force. On the contrary, two of the most intrepid supporters of the Iraq intervention -- John McCain and Lindsey Graham-- were surprised by Bush during a recent meeting with him. When they shared their impressions with colleagues, they commented on how unconcerned the president seemed. That may explain his willingness to embark on such a questionable venture against the Kurds.

© 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Good thing we're keeping it a secret, and we aren't---say---leaking it to reporters who are unethical enough to go public with it right away.

[Joemailman]

The writer of the column, Robert Novak, is a conservative who was the one who originally reported that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative. I wonder who his source was this time.

[Joemailman]

Iraq: One in Seven Joins Human Tide Spilling into Neighbouring Countries

SULAYMANIYAH - Two thousand Iraqis are fleeing their homes every day. It is the greatest mass exodus of people ever in the Middle East and dwarfs anything seen in Europe since the Second World War. Four million people, one in seven Iraqis, have run away, because if they do not they will be killed. Two million have left Iraq, mainly for Syria and Jordan, and the same number have fled within the country.

Yet, while the US and Britain express sympathy for the plight of refugees in Africa, they are ignoring - or playing down- a far greater tragedy which is largely of their own making.0730 08

The US and Britain may not want to dwell on the disasters that have befallen Iraq during their occupation but the shanty towns crammed with refugees springing up in Iraq and neighbouring countries are becoming impossible to ignore.

Even so the UNHCR is having difficulty raising $100m (£50m) for relief. The organisation says the two countries caring for the biggest proportion of Iraqi refugees - Syria and Jordan - have still received “next to nothing from the world community”. Some 1.4 million Iraqis have fled to Syria according to the UN High Commission for Refugees, Jordan has taken in 750 000 while Egypt and Lebanon have seen 200 000 Iraqis cross into their territories.

Potential donors are reluctant to spent money inside Iraq arguing the country has large oil revenues. They are either unaware, or are ignoring the fact that the Iraqi administration has all but collapsed outside the Baghdad Green Zone. The US is spending $2bn a week on military operations in Iraq according to the Congressional Research Service but many Iraqis are dying because they lack drinking water costing a few cents.

Kalawar refugee camp in Sulaymaniyah is a microcosm of the misery to which millions of Iraqis have been reduced.

“At least it is safe here,” says Walid Sha’ad Nayef, 38, as he stands amid the stink of rotting garbage and raw sewage. He fled from the lethally dangerous Sa’adiyah district in Baghdad 11 months ago. As we speak to him, a man silently presents us with the death certificate of his son, Farez Maher Zedan, who was killed in Baghdad on 20 May 2006.

Kalawar is a horrible place. Situated behind a petrol station down a dusty track, the first sight of the camp is of rough shelters made out of rags, torn pieces of cardboard and old blankets. The stench is explained by the fact the Kurdish municipal authorities will not allow the 470 people in the camp to dig latrines. They say this might encourage them to stay.

“Sometimes I go to beg,” says Talib Hamid al-Auda, a voluble man with a thick white beard looking older than his fifty years. As he speaks, his body shakes, as if he was trembling at the thought of the demeaning means by which he feeds his family. Even begging is difficult because the people in the camp are forbidden to leave it on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Suspected by Kurds of being behind a string of house robberies, though there is no evidence for this, they are natural scapegoats for any wrong-doing in their vicinity.

Refugees are getting an increasingly cool reception wherever they flee, because there are so many of them and because of the burden they put on resources. “People here blame us for forcing up rents and the price of food,” said Omar, who had taken his family to Damascus after his sister’s leg was fractured by a car bomb.

The refugees in Kalawar had no option but to flee. Of the 97 families here, all but two are Sunni Arabs. Many are from Sa’adiyah in west Baghdad where 84 bodies were found by police between 18 June and 18 July. Many are young men whose hands had been bound and who had been tortured.

“The majority left Baghdad because somebody knocked on the door of their house and told them to get out in an hour,” says Rosina Ynzenga, who runs the Spanish charity Solidarity International (SIA) which pays for a mobile clinic to visit the camp.

Sulaymaniyah municipality is antagonistic to her doing more. One Kurdish official suggested that the Arabs of Kalawar were there simply for economic reasons and should be given $200 each and sent back to Baghdad.

Mr Nayef, the mukhtar (mayor) of the camp who used to be a bulldozer driver in Baghdad, at first said nobody could speak to journalists unless we had permission from the authorities. But after we had ceremoniously written our names in a large book he relented and would, in any case, have had difficulty in stopping other refugees explaining their grievences.

Asked to list their worst problems Mr Nayef said they were the lack of school for the children, shortage of food, no kerosene to cook with, no money, no jobs and no electricity. The real answer to the question is that the Arabs of Kalawar have nothing. They have only received two cartons of food each from the International Committee of the Red Cross and a tank of clean water.

Even so they are adamant that they dare not return to Baghdad. They did not even know if their houses had been taken over by others.

Abla Abbas, a mournful looking woman in black robes, said her son had been killed because he went to sell plastic bags in the Shia district of Khadamiyah in west Baghdad. The poor in Iraq take potentially fatal risks to earn a little money.

The uncertainty of the refugees’ lives in Kalawar is mirrored in their drawn faces. While we spoke to them there were several shouting matches. One woman kept showing us a piece of paper from the local authority in Sulaymaniyah giving her the right to stay there. She regarded us nervously as if we were officials about to evict her.

There are in fact three camps at Kalawar. Although almost all the refugees are Sunni they come from different places and until a month ago they lived together. But there were continual arguments. The refugees decided that they must split into three encampments: one from Baghdad, a second from Hillah, south of Baghdad, and a third from Diyala, the mixed Sunni-Shia province that has been the scene of ferocious sectarian pogroms.

Governments and the media crudely evaluate human suffering in Iraq in terms of the number killed. A broader and better barometer would include those who have escaped death only by fleeing their homes, their jobs and their country to go and live, destitute and unwanted, in places like Kalawar. The US administration has 18 benchmarks to measure progress in Iraq but the return of four million people to their homes is not among them.


It's been reported that although Christians make up only about 2% of Iraq's population, they are 25-40% of the refugees. What a sad irony that these Christians are now forced to flee their country after our invasion, but did not need to do that when Saddam was in power. How grateful they must be that we have brought democracy to their country.

[SkinBasket]

yabba babba babba yabba yab

Boo hoo. Maybe if all these people would simply fight for what they claim to love so much, they wouldn't have to go live in tents, we wouldn't have to have so many troops chasing criminals through their empty homes, and some shit could get done over there. Instead they're all going to creep off to the edge of the desert and wait to die? Because 4 million people who don't want violence in their country couldn't possibly make a difference could they?