Thursday, April 02, 2015

Interesting Tweet




"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Wednesday, April 1, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, for the second day in a row the Iraqi government announces victory in Tikrit (they, no doubt, really mean it this time), fighting continues in Tikrit, the US government tries to spin events to make themselves the winner, the Ashraf community remains under attack, Canadian MP  Jack Harris observes "mission creep" has been replaced with "mission leap," and much more.

There's still no deal with Iran though the US government continues dithering at the table despite swearing they'd walk away on Tuesday if there was no deal.

Does it matter?

Columnist Mubarak Al Duwailah (Qatar's The Peninsula) thinks so:

Look at what is happening around us! What is stopping America from checking the Iranian expansion in Iraq? What is preventing America from putting an end to the persecution of Sunnis in Iraq? Why doesn’t America stop the forced displacement of Arabs in Iraq from their cities and neighbourhoods? Why does the West, under American leadership, let Iran and Hezbollah support Bashar Al Assad’s regime?


Yeah, it matters.

And when members of the US Congress begin focusing on the latest assault on the Ashraf community in Iraq, it's going to matter a lot more.











  • Shahriar Kia (News Blaze) explains:


    On Monday, 16 March 2015, Mr. Safar Zakery, a truck driver and a member of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran residing in Camp Liberty near Baghdad International Airport, was hit by an Iraq SWAT Humvee in a suspicious road accident. Traffic police at the site to investigate the matter immediately said the SWAT Humvee was responsible for the accident.
    Despite the fact that Safar Zakery was innocent, the Karkh investigative court - under the influence of three Iraqi army intelligence officers in contact with the Iranian regime's embassy and in charge of Camp Liberty's management team - had Mr. Zakery illegally arrested and imprisoned.

    The illegal arrest and continued detention of Safar Zakery are under orders issued by Iraqi national security advisor Falih Fayyadh. He is implementing his policies through his three agents by the names of Sadeq Mohamed Kadhem, Major Ahmed Khozeir and Captain Heidar Azzab Mashi, all having major roles in the crackdown and massacre of Ashraf and Liberty residents from 2009 onward.


    We're going to go into the Ashraf community at length in one of the next two snapshots.  For now, we'll note that Baghdad remains a puppet of Tehran when it comes to the Ashraf community.

    And we'll note that Congress doesn't care for the White House's excuses and Brett McGurk, awhile back, was able to spin Congress to a degree on Ashraf but they've since woken up to his lies and know that he is not to be trusted on this issue.


    And if you need another real world implication from the never-ending and over-the-barrel 'negotiations,' right at this moment is that the US State Dept is paralyzed to the point that it can't even handle a daily press briefing.

    For the second day in a row, the State Dept was unable to pull off a press briefing.

    If they can't handle something that basic, should we expect anything out of them?


    Not everyone's silent.


    "Here we come to you, Anbar! Here we come to you, Nineveh, and we say it with full resolution, confidence, and persistence."

    That's Iraq's Minister of Defense Khalid al-Obeidi as quoted by the AP.


    And yes, he does sound a bit like Howard Dean.

    AP notes he dubbed today in Tikrit a "magnificent victory."

    They're far too kind to note that yesterday was also dubbed a victory.

    BBC News does note that, claims aside, "Troops are still fighting to clear the last remaining IS holdout in the city, but Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi was filmed raising an Iraqi flag there."


    Haider Tweeted a photo.




    Prime Minister Al-Abadi raises the Iraqi flag in the center of Tikrit
    128 retweets109 favorites






    Alsumaria has a photo essay on Tikrit here.

    Also noting that fighting continues is AFP:

    A top leader in the Badr organisation, one of the most prominent Shia militias in Iraq, admitted that Tikrit had not been completely purged of ISIL fighters.
    "Snipers are still there and many buildings are booby-trapped," Karim al-Nuri told AFP news agency in the northern Tikrit neighbourhood of Qadisiya.

    A commander for the Ketaeb Imam Ali militia said his men were involved in a firefight in the north of the city as late as 11:00am (0800 GMT).

    AFP also notes that the claim of victory was previously made yesterday.

    That points made even more clearly in an AFP report entitled "Iraq forces hunt diehard militants after Tikrit victory claim: Coalition and militias say it is premature to claim victory."


    But it's not premature, apparently, to start trying to claim glory and credit.

    The State Dept's Brett McGurk Tweeted:






    As is liberated, we're training 10000+ Iraqi soldiers for coming offensives vs. .
    29 retweets 20 favorites


    Considering that taking a city took 31 days (and counting), I'm not really sure it's a point of pride to brag responsibility for training the Iraqi soldiers.


    Matt Bradley and Julian E. Barnes (Wall St. Journal) explain the way the US government is trying to spin things:

    Policy makers in Washington have long been conflicted over the Shiite militias, warning that using them to liberate Sunni-populated areas threatened to worsen sectarian tensions. But they acknowledged that with the Iraqi security forces weakened by Islamic State invasion, the militias were needed to defend the U.S.-allied government in Baghdad.
    On Wednesday, military officials reiterated the U.S. would continue to work with Shiite militias, as they did in Tikrit, as long as they were under Iraqi, not Iranian, control.

    U.S. officials say they deliberately used the Tikrit operation to drive a wedge between Iran and Iraq while opening space for groups such as Mr. Assadi’s who passionately want to defeat Islamic State but are less beholden to Iranian interests.


    Jim Michaels (USA Today) tosses some perspective over those lofty claims:

    The United States' hopes of using the successful outcome of the offensive to drive a wedge between the Shiite-led Iraqi government and the militias may not be realistic, however.
    "U.S. officials are delusional if they believe they can convince Iraq's government to remove these militias from ongoing military operations against the Islamic State," said Ali Khedery, a former special assistant to five U.S. ambassadors in Iraq. "There's been a lot of wishful thinking going on."
    The militias are tied to powerful politicians in the government and have been armed and financed with government money, according to experts on Iraq.
    "The militias are embedded in the state institutions and they're getting more and more entrenched," said Richard Welch, a retired Army colonel who spent years in Iraq running reconciliation efforts.


    Also pouring cold water on the idiotic claims of US officials, Tirana Hassan (Foreign Policy) who explains what happened in the last 'liberation' by militias:


    While we don’t know exactly how events in Tikrit will play out, we do know how the operation last summer ended in Amerli, which had been under siege for three months. In that battle, Iraqi authorities, along with U.S. and coalition forces, turned a blind eye to the abusive conduct of Shiite militias after the Islamic State abandoned the area. The apparent indifference of the United States and coalition forces paved the way for a wave of destruction, as the militias targeted Sunni Arabs and other minorities in the surrounding area.
    Our research on the operations around Amerli revealed how the operation to clear and secure a 300-mile area around the town quickly morphed into a campaign of revenge attacks. Pro-government militias and volunteer fighters, along with Iraqi security forces, purposefully burned Sunni villages to the ground, destroyed homes with explosives, and looted entire villages, leaving them virtually uninhabitable.

    Under the guise of fighting the Islamic State, the marauding militiamen waged their own sectarian war with complete impunity. While Amerli is a Shiite Turkoman village, the majority of the surrounding villages were home to Sunni Arabs and several mixed Arab and Turkoman communities that the militias accuse of being Islamic State collaborators and sympathizers. The families from these surrounding villages told me that the militias drove them from their homes — and in the days after my visit, reports continued to flow in from desperate families describing how militiamen took away their brothers and sons and destroyed more of their homes. These were families caught between the horrors of the Islamic State and the vengeance of out-of-control Shiite militias.


    Hamdi Alkhshali, Jomana Karadsheh and Don Melvin (CNN -- video report) examine the 'legacy' of the Islamic State in Tikrit and feel that it is "booby traps, IEDs and fear."





    On the topic of violence, UNAMI released the following today:


    Baghdad, 1 April 2015 – According to casualty figures released today by UNAMI, a total of 997 Iraqis were killed and another 2,172 were injured in acts of terrorism and violence in March*. 

    The number of civilians killed was 729 (including 42 civilian police), and the number of civilians injured was 1,785 (including 98 civilian police).

    A further 268 members of the Iraqi Security Forces (including Peshmerga, SWAT and militias fighting alongside the Iraqi Army / Not including casualties from Anbar Operations) were killed and 387 were injured.
    Baghdad was the worst affected Governorate with 1,290 civilian casualties (362 killed, 928 injured). Diyala suffered 51 killed and 75 injured; Salahadin suffered 34 killed and 48 injured, and Ninewa 20 killed and 15 injured.
    According to information obtained by UNAMI from the Health Directorate in Anbar, the Governorate suffered a total of 939 civilian casualties (237 killed and 702 injured). This included 58 killed and 391 injured in Ramadi and 179 killed and 311 injured in Fallujah. 
    “I am shocked to see that Iraqis continue to bear the brunt of appalling numbers of casualties caused by successive waves of violence, which are threatening with additional suffering and misery”, the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG), Mr. Ján Kubiš said. 
    “The United Nations calls upon the Government of Iraq to do all it can to ensure that civilians’ safety and security is protected in line with fundamental human rights principles and humanitarian law”, the UN Envoy further stated.

    *CAVEATS: In general, UNAMI has been hindered in effectively verifying casualties in conflict areas.  Figures for casualties from Anbar Governorate are provided by the Health Directorate and are noted above. In some cases, UNAMI could only partially verify certain incidents.  UNAMI has also received, without being able to verify, reports of large numbers of casualties along with unknown numbers of persons who have died from secondary effects of violence after having fled their homes due to exposure to the elements, lack of water, food, medicines and health care.  For these reasons, the figures reported have to be considered as the absolute minimum.



    So that's at least 997 plus the 237 killed in Anabar.


    Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) provides a daily count and released her numbers for the month:

    At least 6,081 people were killed and 1,874 more were wounded in the month of March. These estimates are conservative, and the actual number of casualties could be much higher. In particular, the Iraqi government has resisted releasing credible military casualty numbers, but anonymous sources sometimes reveal that military casualties are much higher than being reported. The number of dead and wounded militants could go either way. There is no independent confirmation of their casualties, and the military could be exaggerating their victories.

    Antiwar.com compiled 1,913 dead and 1,241 wounded in the column during March. These figures were gleaned from media sources and do not include enemy casualties. Adding militant casualties, the figures are 6,081 dead and 1,530 wounded.


    Violence also includes Iraq's use of the death penalty.  There are said to be 500 people on death row in Iraq with 150 expected to be executed in 2105.  On this topic, Pakistan's Nation newspaper reports:

    Governments around the world are using the threat of terrorism — real or perceived — to advance executions, Amnesty International states in its annual report on the death penalty.
    Some 2,466 death sentences were handed out last year, representing a 28 per cent increase on 2013, the rights group said on Wednesday.





    In Canada, some are crying foul.  Steven Chase (Globe and Mail) notes that the country's prime minister, still Stephen Harper who's apparently serving some form of a life sentence, forced a vote on extending "Canada's combat mission [in Iraq] by 12 months" and, only two days after the vote, did Minister Jason Kenney reveal that this move will cost Canadians $406 million in addition to the $122 million previously announced.

    The Liberal Party's Joyce Murray is quoted stating:


    There’s absolutely no excuse for the minister to announce the cost only days after the debate was over.  This was the kind of thing [Canadians] should have been informed about.  It's irresponsible they were not released before the debate.


    Stephen Harper is the leader of Canada's Conservative Party.  Jack Harris of the New Democratic Party argues that the money could have been utilized better by focusing on the needs of the displaced.


    He said more in a speech in Parliament today.






    MP Jack Harris:  The Foreign Affairs Minister, the Defense Minister and the Prime Minister have all stated that ISIL poses a direct threat to Canada. When the Prime Minister says, "We will deal with the threat to this country as long as it is there.  We will not stop dealing with it before that," we know we are in this for the long haul.  Because we have to look at how this government has defined the threat. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said in a speech this morning that Canadians are "under siege."  "Under siege," Mr. Speaker.  The Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defense and the Prime Minister have repeatedly said that ISIL has declared war on Canada.  This organization has declare war on Canada. And the Minister of Defense actually invoked Canada's independent right of self-defense and international  law as a justification for the actions being taken by Canada. Now these overblown statements by the  most senior leaders of the Canadian government risk the credibility of Canada in the international world and the government at home; and are clearly designed to raise the level of fear among Canadian citizens.  What kind of respect and reputation in foreign affairs can Canada expect with this kind of leadership on the most serious matter of state going to war in foreign countries.  We do know, of course, that terrorists exist in Canada.  That is not new.  But neither the attacker on Parliament Hill nor Saint-Jean-sur-Richellieu were sent here by any foreign entity.  As pointed out in one of Canada's most foremost national newspapers, the Globe & Mail, "despite attempts by the Prime Minister to closely tie ISIS to the terrorist threat in Canada, the actual connections are thin to non-existent."  But instead of dealing with the actual threat by engaging in a robust and well resourced anti-radicalization and counter-radicalization programs here at home by working with the Muslim community instead of alienating them and by preventing the flow of funds to ISIL, confronting the dire humanitarian situation in a significant and increased manner, by doing all those things that my colleague the Member for Ottawa Centre [Paul Dewar]  emphasized in his speech this morning and are contained in the NDP amendment, instead of doing all those things, Mr. Speaker, this government is going down the road of war from mission creep to mission leap with no clear goals, no honesty with the House of Commons and the Canadian people, no clear end or exit strategy, with dubious legal justification and no end game.  In fact, in a television appearance the other day, the Minister of Defense stated that the strategy of defense has gone from one of containing ISIL to defeating it.  And we just heard the same thing from the Parliamentary Secretary.  The Minister of Foreign Affairs said something else today.  But when the Minister of Defense was asked what happens in the event that Canada reaches the objective of defeating ISIL, he admitted that he'd need to look for a crystal ball.  That'll give you some idea about where this government thinks this is going and how it's going to lead to an actual resolve that they are proposing.  The objectives keep changing depending upon who is speaking.  And without a clear objective, the uncertainty about this mission and its length is obvious.  Neither  can we trust what this government will do  in the course of this military action.  We found that out in the last six months as the mission 'evolved ' without Canadians knowing about it at the time and 'evolved' contrary to the express promises of the  Prime Minister.  But this time, he's given us a hint.  On Tuesday, in the House, the Prime Minister said, "We have made important deployments.  These deployments could easily be changed."  He also opened the door to further expansion, saying, "We must avoid, if we can, taking on ground combat responsibilities in this region.  We seek to have the Iraqis do this themselves."  With this government's record, that's far from reassuring. 




    Another country whose people may have been misled by those in the ruling power is New Zealand whose Voxy reports:

    The truth is slowly emerging over New Zealand’s involvement in Iraq, after months of the government denying New Zealand First MPs were right about the depth of our involvement.
    "Kiwi soldiers are now training in Australia," says Ron Mark, New Zealand First Defence Spokesperson.
    "The sad truth is that we know more about what the New Zealand Defence Force is doing than hapless Minister of Defence Gerry Brownlee does.
    "On Tuesday, it was ‘up to 50 troops’ training in Australia but yesterday that number grew to 100.









     






    Tuesday, March 31, 2015

    Slippery Hillary

    Hillary Clinton's been considered slippery before -- for the way she's addressed certain events and scandals.

    But she's slippery in a new way -- as she slides down in the polls.

    I don't see even her announcing she's running for president burying her e-mail scandal.

    Especially now that we all know she was lying when she finally spoke about it at the United Nations in a semi-press conference.


    Lying.

    If you missed that, make a point to read the following:





    Hillary had so much promise in 2008.

    Today, she's just a building falling apart at the foundation.




    "Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills): 

    Tuesday, March 31, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Tikrit is liberated!, oops not so fast, Barack Obama spent a lot of time courting Iran but there appears to be no wedding announcement, and much more.




    Today, Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi Tweeted:





    PM Al-Abadi announces the liberation of Tikrit and congratulates Iraqi security forces and popular volunteers on the historic milestone
    207 retweets145 favorites





    Others rushed to join in the chorus of hosannahs.  Rahshan Saglam, (Press TV) declared, "Iraqi Federal police forces and the popular mobilization have liberated the presidential palaces and raised the Iraqi flag in the Tikrit Mosque, the central prison and the University of Tikrit."  AFP added, "The operation to retake the hometown of former president Saddam Hussein began on March 2 and had looked bogged down before Iraqi forces made rapid advances in the past 48 hours."  And Khalid Al-Ansary and Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) called it  the country's "biggest military victory over Islamic State."

    But . . .


    ARR notes that after al-Abadi made his announcement, "local commander Abdul-Wahab al-Saadi said that soldiers were still about 300 yards from the city centre." And the New York Times' Rod Norland, Falih Hassan and Omar Al-Jowoshy (as well as an unnamed journalist in Tikrit) report:




    In Tikrit, however, an Iraqi general, who asked not to be named so as to avoid openly contradicting the prime minister, said that reports of Tikrit’s fall were at best premature.
    “God willing, it will fall,” he said.
    Other military officers and a civilian official reached in Tikrit said it was true that Iraqi forces had advanced into the center of the city and had entered government buildings and parts of the Republican Palace. But they said that parts of the palace remained in Islamic State hands and that fighting was continuing.


    And the Times team notes such claims of 'liberation' also took place last June and point to their June 29th article documenting that.  Mitchell Prothero (McClatchy Newspapers) reports:


    Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al Abadi announced that the city’s western and southern portions had been liberated, but military commanders involved in the operation warned that at least three neighborhoods and a palace complex defended by hundreds of Islamic State fighters remained out of government hands.

    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/03/31/261614/after-us-airstrikes-iraqi-troops.html#storylink=cpy

    It's not unlikely that the operation could wrap up soon.


    Remember the small number of militia members who walked out after the US government ordered US air strikes last week?  They rushed back in this week.

    Why?

    Because they felt the operation was about to wrap up and that the Americans would grab the credit for its accomplishments (however small or large the accomplishments might be).


    Loveday Morris (Washington Post) notes, "Militia leaders refused to admit Tuesday that they were still working under American air cover. One coalition strike occurred overnight as the pro-government forces advanced, according to Col. Wayne Marotto, a spokesman for the coalition operation."


    They weren't the only ones failing to note the air strikes.

    In his public remarks, Haider al-Abadi thanked the Iraqi security forces as well as the militias.

    He pointedly did not think the US pilots -- this despite his begging for this help and assistance.


    Regardless of what happens next, the operation is a failure and will always remain one.

    There are two main reasons why it is a failure.

    1) It took way too long.

    Tikrit was chosen to rally the spirit among the Iraqi forces.

    It was felt that attacking in Saddam Hussein's hometown would goad the forces into stronger fighting and give them a target worth winning.

    While it has led to many excesses -- which include War Crimes that people seem more comfortable calling "human rights abuses" -- it didn't lead to a quick and decisive victory.

    Tikrit is still not completely controlled by Baghdad's fighters and it's been a month.  (Some like to say it started March 2nd.  It was still March first on the Pacific Coast.)

    As it now stands, the takeaway is that the mission was going nowhere until US war planes got involved.  Fair or not, that is the takeaway.

    So the operation that was supposed to rally and provide hope ended up demonstrating the vast limitations of the forces.

    2) Haider lied.

    It's never a good idea for a leader to lie to the people.

    We can dissect Plato's notions of the cave and the noble lie and blah blah blah.

    But the reality is that Haider has now said Tikrit is liberated and it's not.

    It may yet be.

    But he said it before it happened.

    He now looks rather foolish.

    He can always point to Barack Obama who looks even more foolish.

    "Without preconditions," then-US Senator Barack insisted of his planned talks with Iran should he be elected US president.

    Apparently, he also meant to say "without time limitations."

    He has wasted years on negotiations with Iran.

    And, yes "wasted" is the term.

    The deadline for his hoped for deal -- details to come, as always, after a deal had been negotiated -- came and went.

    And still the US is engaged in negotiations.

    This is stupidity beyond belief and why so many are so bothered by Barack.


    As we noted March 22nd:

    Democratic leadership in the Senate has made clear to Barack that, if there's a deal to make with Iran, he needs to make it already.
    Not only has his dilly-dallying on a treaty harmed Iraq, it's also harming the image of the United States which is beginning to appear as indecisive as Barack himself.  (That was the point Harry Reid was conveying to the White House last week.)



    The United States looks very weak now.

    Today was the deadline and the deadline passed but negotiations continued.


    The power of no.

    You have to be willing to walk away.

    If you're not willing to walk away, they own you.

    In the entertainment industry, we know our "no" is as powerful as our "yes."

    And we know we need to be prepared to say "no."

    Debra Winger's made a career out of saying "no" better than anyone.  Bill Murray has a film career -- something none of his SNL peers can't claim -- because he has always understood the power of "no."

    You have to be willing to walk away.

    And that may mean you lose out on something but it also means, in the next negotiation, people know you're not going to cave.

    There was never any reason to waste so much time on one deal (with anyone, leave Iran out of it for now).

    There was no reason when issues still remained unresolved to bring Barack into publicly.

    You keep the president out of the negotiations publicly until the deal is set and that's when he or she swoops in to look like the gifted and talented.

    Instead it looks like yet another failure by Team Barack -- like the failed bid to get the Olympics in Chicago, remember that?

    When the time ran out, the US should have walked away from the table.

    That wouldn't mean an end to talks.

    24 hours later, the talks could be restarted for whatever reason.

    But you make the point that you will walk away.

    And if you fail to make that point, no one takes you seriously.

    Nor should they.

    In addition, by staying in negotiations after the deadline passed, the US showed their hand.  There's no more bluffing.  Clearly the deal is more important to the US than it is to Ian.  All future negotiations will be the US government speaking from a position of weakness.


    Now in terms of Iran . . .

    As Betty noted, the most likely outcome of a deal with Iran was a contract that would be used for war.  That is what tends to happen in the last two decades when leaders of foreign countries make concessions to the US government -- see Saddam Hussein (letting the inspectors back in) and Muammar Gaddafi (agreeing to demands of Bully Boy Bush only to be targeted shortly after by Barack).

    In terms of Iran and Iraq, the White House has failed.

    It has failed to speak up for the Sunni population, to condemn attacks on them, etc.

    It's done so to avoid angering the government in Iran.

    Iran's led Barack around on all fours by a ring in his nose for the last year.

    And the result is that the US remained silent on the abuses of Iraqi forces, the War Crimes.

    We noted the horror of a Sunni man being set on fire by Iraqi forces.  More recently there was the 11-year-old boy shot dead by Iraqi forces.  Those were caught on video.



    Iraqi Spring MC posted a video today.





    Watch how the Iraqi forces treat a citizen they've detained.

    Grasp that they do this knowing they are recording one another.

    They stroke and play with the man's beard in a manner that is the behavior of a predator.

    They slap him and hit him repeatedly.

    This is a civilian.  A Sunni civilian, so he doesn't matter to the forces, but the man is a civilian.

    And for their amusement, they hit him.  Repeatedly.


    The same State Dept that condemns this and that action in other countries -- or when carried out by the Islamic State -- has been silent.

    The consensus among members of Congress has been that the White House didn't (a) want to risk pushing Iraq closer to Iran and (b) didn't want to risk angering Iran (which supplies, trains and supports many of the thugs in Iraq) in the midst of (never-ending) negotiations.

    Now maybe members of Congress are wrong.

    Maybe even without the pursuit of an Iran deal, Barack would have remained silent about the abuses in Iraq?

    He certainly stayed silent from 2010 through 2014 (Nouri's second term) until June.  This was after the exposure of torture chambers and the Iraqi forces murdering peaceful protesters and so much more.  Barack stayed silent throughout all of that.


    That silence prompted this.

       From Samarra من سامراء
    March 15, 2013, Iraqis in Samarra with a message for the world (photo via Iraqi Spring MC) asked "Obama, If you Cannot Hear Us Can you Not See Us?" 

    Iraqis were well aware that, while they were targeted, the US government was silent.


    So maybe it wasn't fear of angering Iran or upsetting a deal that kept Barack silent.

    It is true, however, that the never-ending talks seemed to drain the State Dept of any other diplomatic efforts.

    And Iraq needed diplomacy.

    What was it Barack said in June?

    Oh, right.  The answer to Iraq's crises?  A political solution, not a military solution, was required.

    I have no position on a deal with Iran one way or the other.

    I can understand those who leap for joy at the prospect and think it could mean peace (I do wonder where they were throughout the Cold War, but okay).  I can understand those like Betty who argue that no one benefits from dealings with the US government (going all the way back to the Native Americans). 

    So it's not an issue that I'm going to focus on.

    And I meant what I said that the US could (and should) end talks immediately and that might prompt a second round (even 24 hours later).  

    But you do not sit at a table after you've said, "I'm leaving at X."  

    If you give a deadline, you keep it.

    If you can't walk away from the table, then you just lost everything -- including your ability to bluff.


    Where is the work on a political solution in Iraq?


    Haider Al-Abadi also Tweeted the following:








    PM Al-Abadi met US delegation led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to discuss advancing bilateral relations
    21 retweets34 favorites






    That was today.  Yesterday, he Tweeted:



    PM Al-Abadi met with US Speaker of the House John Boehner and discussed coordinated efforts to defeat Daesh
    41 retweets51 favorites







    Hopefully, in these visits, the need for a political solution is being conveyed.

    And the need for it to come quickly.

    The Iraqis suffered under Nouri al-Maliki's empty words and promises.

    Haider should be getting results.

    If he doesn't, then US support needs to diminish.

    Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 252 violent deaths today.


    They didn't live to see a political solution in Iraq.

    Will anyone?










     









    Kevin Hart bombs again

     Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Uncle Joe's Looking Better and Better" went up earlier tonight






    And that is funny.

    Kevin Hart?


    Not so much.


    After "Ride Along," it should be his time.

    But "The Wedding Ringer" failed to crack $100 million (nearly $40 million short, in fact).

    Now we've got "Get Hard."

    It's under performing as well.

    Why is that?

    Well maybe it's that he's being teamed with White co-stars.

    And he's their valet.

    Now if it were a Brad Pitt, that might not be so noticeable.

    But when he's the lackey to, for example, Will Ferrell?

    Will belongs on TV -- if TV will have him.

    Kevin Hart's career is going to be over before it ever really started as a result of his decision to play sidekick roles when stardom came calling -- and to sidekick it alongside some really lame actors.







    "Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
    Monday, March 30, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the Secretary of Defense announces another deployment of US troops to Iraq, militias rejoin the fight for/on Tikrit, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon notes the allegations of human rights abuses (War Crimes) carried out by Iraqi forces, Iran claims two of their military advisors were killed by a US drone attack, and much more.



    Earlier today, AP reported that Iran's Revolutionary Guard was insisting 2 of their members in Iraq were killed by US drone in or around Tikrit on March 23rd.  Al Jazeera adds, "The US defence department has denied claims that it killed two Iranian advisers in drone strikes in Iraq earlier this month, telling Al Jazeera it had no role in the area during the time of their deaths."  The outlet quotes an official with the Pentagon stating, "Coalition forces initiated airstrikes near Tikrit on March 25, two days after the alleged incident occurred and no airstrikes were conducted in or near Tikrit on March 23."

    Spencer Ackerman (Guardian) notes, "The IRGC named the two men as Ali Yazdani and Hadi Jafari, and said they had been buried on Sunday."  RT points out,  "The adviser death controversy comes as Iran is engaged in tough negotiations with six major world powers, including the US, over its contested nuclear power program. The talks so far failed to produce a deal, that would allow Tehran to pursue civilian use of nuclear energy."

    This was sort of a major story today to everyone but the stooges of the State Dept press corps who elected to ignore it during the press briefing.



    Last week, James Jeffrey offered an opinion some found shocking.  Dropping back to the March 26th snapshot:


    Quick, when was the last time a US official -- past or present -- told Congress the truth about the Peshmerga?
    February.
    And the official was former US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey who noted that Baghdad wasn't overly fond of arming the Peshmerga.
    Jeffrey is part of Michael Crowley's examination (for POLITICO) of Barack's efforts in the region:


    “We’re in a g**damn free fall here,” said James Jeffrey, who served as Obama’s ambassador to Iraq and was a top national security aide in the George W. Bush White House.
    For years, members of the Obama team has grappled with the chaotic aftermath of the Arab Spring. But of late they have been repeatedly caught off-guard, raising new questions about America’s ability to manage the dangerous region.
    Obama officials were surprised earlier this month, for instance, when the Iraqi government joined with Iranian-backed militias to mount a sudden offensive aimed at freeing the city of Tikrit from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. Nor did they foresee the swift rise of the Iranian-backed rebels who toppled Yemen’s U.S.-friendly government and disrupted a crucial U.S. counterterrorism mission against Al Qaeda there.






    Today on CNN's The Lead with Jake Tapper, Tapper explored this topic with Jeffrey (link is video):


    Jake Tapper:  We look at the bigger picture here with James Jeffrey, Ambassador to Iraq under President Obama and Deputy National Security Advisor under President George W. Bush, Mr. Ambassador, thank you so much for being here.  In a recent POLITICO piece on the Middle East, you said "We're in a g**damn free fall here."  What did you mean by that?

    James Jeffrey:  What I meant was look at  Afghanistan, Iran -- what we just heard, Iraq -- what you just showed, Syria, now Yemen, Tunisia.  We have a variety of forces that are basically, fundamentally opposed to the international order that are on the march and we, the United States, traditionally have been the balancing force maintaining the order -- including through the threat of the use of military force, seem to be drawing back, not supporting our friends and allies -- our traditional friends and allies, putting all of our cards on this Iran deal while the region burns all around us and, as a result, you have the Saudis and others acting on their own.  This isn't a good thing.

    Jake Tapper: There's also been criticism saying that the President -- We're allied with Iran whether we want to be fighting ISIS, trying to come up with a deal with Iran having to deal with the nuclear program, then, of course, we're nominally on the side of the Saudis who are fighting the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt Gen Michael Flynn, told Chris Wallace [Fox News Sunday] that the network of alliance that we're in is "almost a policy of willful ignorance . . . Here we are talking to Iran about a nuclear deal with this almost complete breakdown of order in the Middle East ."  Do you find it confusing?  Do you see a coherent Middle East policy here beyond just whack-a-mole?

    James Jeffrey:  First of all, in fairness to the Obama administration, this is a very dangerous area and it has been so for a long time -- 

    Jake Tapper: For centuries, long before President Obama took office, of course.

    James Jeffrey:  For centuries.  But it's become much dysfunctional in the last few years and that's something somewhat beyond the scope of American abilities.  Nonetheless, our response to it can be somewhat contradictory on the ground tactically.  Supporting the same goal as Iran to crush ISIS in Iraq?  That's an understandable goal.  Driving Iranian-backed Houthis back from when they came in Yemen is another goal that looks contradictory but if it fits into a larger policy, it makes some sense.  That policy  has to be predictable and consistent.  That's what people in the region are not seeing. They don't know whether America will fight if necessary to support the nation-state system in the region.  

    Jake Tapper:  What should we be doing?  What should the United States be doing that it's not?

    James Jeffrey:  It's about five things and they aren't major. [1] President Obama tomorrow says I will keep troops on if needed beyond 2016 in Afghanistan.  He starts letting our special forces and forward air controllers go out with Iraqi forces rather than --

    Jake Tapper:  Fighting ISIL in Iraq and Syria.

    James Jeffrey:  Exactly.  Fighting ISIS in Syria.  We start providing air support and other visible concrete support to the Saudis in the fight against the Housthis.  We work with the Turks on either a buffer or a no fly zone or something to start changing the scales in Syria to try to get a negotiated result.  And we make it clear, from Israel to Turkey to Riyadh, that whether we like what they say or do sometimes, they're our allies and we'll stand by them.  

    Jake Tapper:  We are seeing -- I don't want to be a Pollyanna looking for bright sides -- but we are seeing Sunni countries stepping up against the Housthis rebels after Jordan and other Arab allies stepped up to fight ISIS.  How do you view these shows of force?  Is it a good sign? Is it positive diplomacy by the Obama administration?  Or is it out of necessity because the United States has been stepping back?

    James Jeffrey:  It's a little bit of all.  First of all, in and of itself, it's not a bad thing for local allies and friends to ban together.  Two problems.  First of all, I know their military capabilities.  Even in their air, they're limited.  And on the ground, they're very weak.  Look at the Iraqi --

    Jake Tapper:  Are you talking about the Saudis?

    James Jeffrey:  The Saudis, all of them in the region.  Regular armies are not good at fighting insurgencies.  Look at what happened in Iraq last year.  Secondly, if we're not there?  We're a balancing force not just militarily but politically.  We tend to limit the objectives and balance them with the military objectives.  These people are liable to go off on their own and demand not just that the Housthis in Yemen negotiate with the other side but that they surrender, that Assad and all the Alawites who back him -- this Shi'ite like group in Syria basically be driven away.  We have introduced -- be it in the Balkans or elsewhere -- a sense of moderation in these goals.  These people won't be restricted without us.

    Jake Tapper:  I know you've worked for both President Obama and President Bush and believe them both -- both of their administrations at least somewhat responsible.  What do you think those such as former Vice President Dick Cheney who say This is a perfect example of why we should have been siding with the dictators as the Arab Spring erupted. 

    James Jeffrey:  Well it's interesting because I worked closely with him,  I also worked very closely with many others in the Bush administration who thought exactly the opposite. we should do all we can do throw them overboard including, if necessary,  Islamic forces. Nobody has the answer to this, it's a very, very complicated problem. But when you don't have an answer to things there are certain default things you do: Keep your powder dry, be sure you're respected -- and even feared, and support people who supported you 

    Jake Tapper:  And you still think we're in a "g**damn freefall" here?

    James Jeffrey:  Until I see otherwise  We'll see. 



    It's an interesting argument to ponder and debate -- which is generally true of all the best segments of Jake Tapper's show.

    (And, yes, Jeffrey does have a paternalistic view but if that's news to you what were you doing the last few years?)


    Today, US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter spoke to troops at Fort Drum.  Among his statements? "And some of you, and this is important, will be going to Iraq. And there to train, advise and assist the Iraqi security forces so that they can be the force that sustained the defeat of ISIL after ISIL is defeated, which it will be. But in order to sustain that defeat, we need a force on the ground and that's what you'll be helping to create."

    Andrew Tilghman and Michelle Tan (Army Times) note the number deploying is "about 1,250 soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division."  Gordon Block (Watertown Daily Times) notes the deployment will take place "around August."


    Under Bully Boy Bush, the peace movement was disturbed by announced deployments.

    Under Barack Obama?

    It's a 'Eh, is American Idol on?"

    You have to drop back, for example, to March 26th on CodeStink's Twitter feed to find a Tweet about Iraq,


    Or, to put it another way, you have to wade through 36 Tweets right now before getting to Tweet 37 which notes Iraq.


    They have no Tweet about the deployment.

    They have no Tweet of any consequence.


    Yet they claim to be against the Iraq War.



    Meanwhile, the assault on Tikrit continues and Nabih Bulos (Los Angeles Times) reports, "Shiite Muslim militias on Monday rejoined Iraqi government forces in their battle to gain control of the strategic central city of Tikrit, after a four-day retreat to protest a U.S.-led coalition's intervention in the campaign."

    As we noted last Friday, either the Iranian government told the militias to pull out (only a third apparently did) or the US government did.

    But now they're back.

    And remember that visit to Fort Drum by Ash Carter today?

    Lolita C. Baldor (AP) notes he declared that "the U.S. will continue to insist that Iranian-backed Shiite militias not participate."

    Someone apparently forgot to brief Carter on the latest development before he spoke.

    They also apparently forgot to brief him on another detail.  Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) reports, "Leaders from multiple major Shi’ite militias in Iraq claim to have been given assurances by Prime Minister Abadi that the United States is going to halt airstrikes against the ISIS-held city of Tikrit, allowing them to sweep in and conquer it."


    While Baghdad officials have insisted that progress will be swift, Al Mada reports that local officials in Salhuddin Province declared yesterday that the progress would be slow.  All Iraq News adds that Iraqi forces today "raised the Iraqi flag over Tikrit hospital."  Press TV states that the Grand Mosque of Tikrit was also re-taken by Iraqi forces.   Hamdi Alkhshali (CNN) reports, "The gains, according to the official, came after a slow advance into the city as the forces dealt with more than 300 improvised explosive devices planted in the city's streets. At least 26 militants were killed in the operation, the official said."


    Sunday, Maria Fantappie and Peter Harling's "If Shi'ite militias beat Islamic State in Tikrit, Iraq will still lose" (Reuters) observed:


    The military campaign is thus exacerbating the sense of powerlessness, disenfranchisement and humiliation among Sunni Arabs that gave rise to Islamic State.
    The growing tendency in Baghdad and the south to equate Shi’ite militias with the national army, to declare oneself a patriot while expressing gratitude to Iran for its intervention, and to subsume national symbols under Shi’ite ones — with black, yellow and green flags referring to Hussein ibn Ali ibn Abi Taleb, Shiism’s third Imam, increasingly crowding out the Iraqi flag — is reshaping Iraqis’ national identity in ways that will vastly complicate well-intentioned efforts to advance inclusive politics and governance.




    The overwhelmingly Shiite ground forces battling ISIS in Sunni Tikrit have become increasingly powerful as the government army has disintegrated. The militias have a brutal record of sectarian bloodletting, including burning and bulldozing thousands of homes and other buildings in dozens of Sunni villages after American airstrikes drove ISIS out of the town of Amerli in northeastern Iraq last summer. If that happened in Tikrit, the United States would be blamed for helping to trigger yet another cycle of horrific sectarian violence.



    Concerns are rightly building because there's no progress on political solutions in Iraq.


    This despite Barack declaring last June that a political solution was the only solution for Iraq's various crises which threaten Iraq and threaten the region.



    And these concerns take us into what was probably the biggest story out of Iraq today, we'll note this Tweet.






    urges Iraq 2 do all it can to ensure protection of civilians & humanitarian access in conflict zones.



    United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visited Baghdad today.


    And his remarks were news.

    Unless you were at today's State Dept's press briefing.

    Not one reporter or 'reporter' bothered to note that Ban Ki-moon was in Iraq, let alone his remarks.

    It wasn't news to anyone in the room and spokesperson Marie Harf certainly didn't bring up the topic.








    BREAKING: U.N. Secretary General: Concerned about alleged summary executions and torture by pro-government forces in
    19 retweets 5 favorites




    Ned Parker and John Stonestreet (Reuters) quote the Secretary-General, "I am... concerned by allegations of summary killings, abductions and destruction of property perpetrated by forces and militias fighting alongside Iraqi armed forces,"  Ned Parker and Crispian Balmer (Reuters) offer a longer report here.  Rod Nordland covers Ban Ki-moon's remarks for the New York Times here.  RTT covers it here.


    The needed remarks come after a missed opportunity last week.  Friday, Human Rights Watch issued a statement which included:



    The United Nations Human Rights Council has missed a key opportunity to address war crimes and rights abuses by all sides to the conflict in Iraq. The council adopted a resolution on the Iraq conflict by consensus on March 27, 2015, that denounces atrocities by the extremist group Islamic State (also known as ISIS), but failed to condemn the abuses by militias, volunteer fighters, and Iraqi forces.

    “No one questions the Human Rights Council's attention to the widespread atrocities by ISIS in Iraq, but ignoring abuses by Iraqi militias and security forces is not only indefensible, it's dangerous,” said John Fisher, Geneva director.

    Iraq prepared the resolution, and the Arab group of countries put it forward at the council on March 19. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a report the same day that documents ISIS abuses. But the High Commissioner also found that militias and Iraqi security forces had “carried out extrajudicial killings, torture, abductions and forcibly displaced a large number of people, often with impunity,” and that by doing so they “may have committed war crimes.” The Human Rights Council asked for the report in September 2014 during an emergency session.

    Human Rights Watch reached similar conclusions following an investigation of abuses in the wake of the ISIS retreat from the town of Amerli in September. Militias looted property of Sunni civilians who had fled the fighting, burned their homes and businesses, and destroyed at least two entire villages, all in violation of the laws of war.



    Deutsche Welle speaks with Carnegie Middle East Center's Renad Mansour about the human rights abuses.  Excerpt.



    The UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution last week denouncing the atrocities by IS, but didn't directly address alleged crimes and rights abuses committed by Iraqi forces and the militias fighting with them. How important is that step?


    Very. One of the biggest issues that we have in Iraq at the moment is that, even if Iraq takes back Tikrit, and even if it takes back Mosul, Iraq's democratization - and creating a secure country - is not going to come from a military solution. It's very much going to come from a socio-political solution, which is going to have to include trust between the different parties. When you have Shia militias performing these gruesome acts of violence and crimes against humanity, that hurts the trust Sunni groups have in the Shia militias, which at the moment are seen by [Sunni groups] as part of the government. This is where I think we can take a lesson from the previous Sunni awakening which actually managed to get rid of, at that time [between 2005 and 2007, the eds.], al Qaeda in Iraq and bring the Sunnis back into the political equation. Today we need much more of that, much more of a recognition that both sides are at fault, and I think that's the key for reconciliation.




    Turning to violence,  AP notes two car bombs in northern Baghdad left 11 people dead and twenty-six more injured.   And KUNA notes that the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, John Boehner, arrived in Baghdad today as well.



    Turning to possible US candidates for president, Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Uncle Joe's Looking Better and Better" went up earlier tonight and details how John Kerry and Hillary Clinton's actions are making Joe Biden look like a viable candidate.  The New York Times' Maureen Dowd takes on potential candidate Jeb Bush.  David Swanson and Cindy Sheehan (War Is A Crime) take on Hillary here and wonder why she and Chuck Schumer get a pass but don't ask the same of Barack.  (I also dispute their claims of fewer deaths under Barack.)

    Maybe Martin O'Malley will declare a run?




    The ridiculous Jill Stein thinks she warrants the Green Party's presidential nomination yet again.

    Yeah, she thinks she deserves the nomination again.

    She was an embarrassment and a whore for the Democratic Party in 2012.

    She rushed to rescue Barack from Mitt Romney whenever she could.

    She refused to run a real campaign.

    And she made an idiot out of herself.

    In all the years since, where has her strong criticism of Barack been?

    Hmm?

    The Green Shadow Cabinet?

    A good idea that turned into a sad joke.

    If Jill wants an alternative to Barack, she's going to have to call out what he's done and she lacks the spine and the common sense to do that -- as she's demonstrated time and time again.


    If that's who the Green Party chooses, they're sending a message.


    And let's put the Green Party on notice, we will rip apart your nominee if they don't run a real campaign.  We won't be sweet and kind to whatever stupid fool thinks they can say they're running for president while providing cover to the Democratic Party.




    Elaine had a great piece about how the idiot Paul Street thinks the answer is for a fake run that raises issues:




    There's no reason in the world you can't raised real issues and make a real run for the presidency.

    In fact, raising real issues and making a real run and being mocked by the press would underscore just how against the people the current system really is.

    Part of the reason the system sucks as much as it does is because We The People settle.

    Also because we are encouraged to settle.

    Here's Paul Street, supposed radical, telling us the best we can hope for is a fake run to highlight real issues.

    Talk about lowering the bar.