Blog Betty (Thomas Friedman is a Great Man was an online novel)

Wednesday, August 18, 2021

A fossil egg . . .

Interesting news from Maya Wei-Hass (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC):

Standing in a farmer's home in China's Henan Province in the summer of 2018, paleontologists Fenglu Han and Haishui Jiang peered down into a box of rounded lumps of rock. The farmer had collected the trove near his home in Neixiang County, which is renowned for its dinosaur eggs. One stony orb in particular caught the scientists' eyes. About the size and shape of a billiard ball, the fossil was unlike any dinosaur egg they'd seen before.
Han and Jiang, who are based at the China University of Geosciences in Wuhan, initially thought the egg might have come from a new dinosaur species. But careful analysis revealed something even rarer. Entombed in the egg's rocky confines lay the remains of a giant extinct turtle.
The newfound fossil belongs to an extinct group of land-dwelling turtles known as the nanhsiungchelyids, according to a new study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B. This group grew to momentous sizes and walked the Earth alongside the dinosaurs during the Cretaceous, a period that spanned from 145 to 66 million years ago. The turtle that laid the fossil egg—which is among the largest known from this time—was exceptionally big and likely sported a shell about as long as an average person is tall, the team estimates.
"These were not small turtles by any stretch," says Darla Zelenitsky, an author of the new study and a paleontologist at the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada.
Discovering fossil embryos from any creature is not common. The delicate tissues and bones of developing animals readily break down over time. Turtle embryos are even less common than those of dinosaurs, perhaps partially because most turtle eggs are tiny and have thin shells, Zelenitsky says. Only a few fossil turtle embryos have ever been discovered, none of which are preserved well enough for scientists to place them in the turtle family tree.

Emily Chung (CBC) adds:

The egg belonged to a nanhsiungchelyid turtle, an ancient, huge, land-dwelling creature that lived in Asia and North America and was related to modern softshell turtles, according to the study published Wednesday in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B. The turtle lived among dinosaurs — such as long-necked, plant-eating sauropods, duck-billed hadrosaurs and large meat eaters, similar to tyrannosaurs — during the Cretaceous period. It went extinct with them.
"It was a giant turtle for the time," said Zelenitsky.
She estimates the female that laid the egg was more than 1.6 metres long — roughly as long as an average woman is tall, and longer than a giant Galapagos tortoise, although it had a flatter, less domed shell.

That was a huge turtle.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Wednesday, August 18, 2021. Glenn Greenwald walks you through the realities of Afghanistan, Sarah Lazare calls out the lying and much more -- including the reason Barbra Streisand struggles for recognition from her peers.

From time to time, we include something not war related. Sometimes, it's because a friend asked for it. Sometimes, it's for another reason. Before we talk war, we're going to talk Barbra Streisand because we have a teachable moment. Barbra did a great job directing YENTL. No Academy Award nomination. She did a strong job directing THE PRINCE OF TIDES -- which is a glamorous but hollow film. (YENTL is an amazing film.) She didn't get nominated for an Academy Award.

Oh, she was robbed! Oh, it's so unfair!

Oh, it's . . .

You're seeing why she didn't get nominated play out before your eyes. Right now, you're seeing the Barbra that we in the industry cannot stand. It's not that she's attacking Bradley Cooper's A STAR IS BORN. She can look as petty as she wants. Brad's film made more money (see Stan's "The awful Streisand attacks Bradley's more successful A STAR IS BORN") and it also was a huge critical hit. Barbra's film is a piece of garbage and we all knew that in real time. Critics did not rave over that piece of garbage, that clunky film making. That film was an embarrassment and in the pre-internet days you can be sure some bought tickets just because of the nude album cover thinking Kris and Barbra might be naked in the film together.

But she can be petty and suck on all the sour grapes she wants to -- in public, no less.

What she can't do and be forgiven for is what she's also doing.

As she tells the story, Brad has no vision. She had vision. She made her character a singer-songwriter. How could she, she rhetorically asks, measure up to Judy Garland's character? Oh! Instead of being an actress who sings, her character will be a singer-songwriter!!!

That's why so many dislike Barbra, that's why she has a reputation for being a bitch.

And you're seeing it play out yet again.

To hear her tell it, she came up with the above.

That's news to most of us. John Gregory Dunne and Joan Didion were on the way to the airport to fly out of Hawaii when Joan turned to John and said, "A STAR IS BORN! Starring Carly Simon and James Taylor!"

That's how the version came about. Barbra was not anywhere near them. They made the pitch. The project was moving. They even sought Carly and James but it was too close to home -- James' career was sinking and Carly's was on the rise.

Barbra didn't have a damn thing to do with it. She's taking credit -- as she always does -- for the work of others. And no one's calling her on it in the press. She's a bitch and a glory hog and that's why so many of us feel that the last thing she needs or deserves is another award.

She had nothing to do with the concept of the characters being 'rock and rollers.' And her character is not rock and roll. Or even rock. It might have been if Cher had played the role.

Which is what was supposed to happen. Cher had agreed to do the part and was ready to and excited -- and would have been wonderful in it. But then Sue and Barbra swept in. They're making a film about Sue, by the way. I'd love it if all the easy applause for Sue could please die off. Sue was a racist in person. Worse, she was a racist in her career. She was forever asking that this or that African-American actor be dropped by the agency. She also saw to it that Diana Ross lost one film opportunity after another -- most infamously with THE MAIN EVENT which Sue swooped in and stole for Barbra. I have no idea why a racist is going to be glorified on film to begin with but hopefully the accompanying press when the film is released will address the reality that Sue was no friend to people of color.

The genesis for the remake came from Joan and John. It had nothing to do with Barbra. But there she is slamming Bradley Cooper (with some rather racist talk, by the way) and pretending she came up with the concept for the version she starred in and produced. She didn't.

And if she's not being racist with her comments regarding Will Smith and Beyonce possibly starring, then she's being stupid. If she thinks their music genres (rap and pop) would have made a remake different, she might want to grasp that Brad's not playing a rock artist, he's playing a country singer.

She's a bitch and her glory hog ways are why so many just can't take her. She always claims credit for everything -- if she thinks it worked. It's cute how she's erasing Jon Peters from her life, by the way, first stripping him of album producer credit (RELEASE ME 2) and now in her tales of A STAR IS BORN. But that's a story for another time. If you can't understand why her peers regularly and repeatedly overlook Barbra, pay attention as she steals credit for things other did on the 1976 version of A STAR IS BORN and how she thinks -- expects -- that she can get away with it.

No one wants credit for the Afghanistan War, apparently. It's all Joe Biden's fault or Donald Trump's fault. That's the way the chattering class shrieks right now.

Afghanistan is a disaster. Joe Biden's presidency didn't make it that. Donald Trump's presidency didn't make it that. It's a sad state, some insist. Yes, it is and it was never going to wind down any other way. These people -- Seth Moulton -- who think there was a better way to do it, no, there wasn't. The same thing would happen -- maybe faster, maybe slower.

If you're surprised, I'm surprised you're willing to admit just how stupid and out of touch you actually were.

The U.S. Government Has Lied About Afghanistan For Two Decades - System Update with Glenn Greenwald

That's Glenn Greenwald's report on how we were lied to over and over about how well things were going in Afghanistan. You shouldn't need the report to grasp that. But there it is if you need it. (That's not a slam at his report. He did a very good job.)

But if you can't grasp that year after year nothing improved, I don't know if you should be allowed at the grown up table. We're told that we are in Iraq currently -- our US troops -- to 'train.' Again. And again. And again. Over and over and over. Do you need someone to do a report there as well? Are you too stupid to grasp that there's no success in Iraq and that this endless train-re-train cycle goes to failure?

I guess 'training' is a little kinder than the wording that they used to use? Remember 'we'll stand down when they stand up'?

There is no success. You've fooled yourself -- and let them fool you -- if you've believed otherwise.

You should have paid attention. I noted Katie Halper yesterday and thought she and Mike did a great discussion on the issues. I also noted that we needed more voices and some didn't grasp what I was saying. Mike is a voice of peace. I'm glad he's part of the discussion -- Mike Prysner.

My problem is the scaredy cat games that result in only veterans being a part of the discussion. Let's hide behind the vet!!!! The right-wing does it -- some on the right -- and some on the left. That's not what Katie was doing, to be clear. She's spoken to Mike many times before. But we don't have a lot of peace voices.

Once we thought we did but they were whores who dropped the wars as soon as Democrats had the power to end them.

This discussion/debate should not be cominated by the military -- current or ex.

'I have skin in the game.'

Sorry, have you seen the bill that future generations will be paying down? Everyone has skin in the game -- whether they realize it or not. We also have another debt -- call it karmic.

Jeffrey Sachs notes:

The magnitude of the United States’ failure in Afghanistan is breathtaking. It is not a failure of Democrats or Republicans, but an abiding failure of American political culture, reflected in U.S. policy makers’ lack of interest in understanding different societies. And it is all too typical.

Almost every modern U.S. military intervention in the developing world has come to rot. It’s hard to think of an exception since the Korean War. In the 1960s and first half of the 1970s, the U.S. fought in Indochina — Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia—eventually withdrawing in defeat after a decade of grotesque carnage. President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, and his successor, the Republican Richard Nixon, share the blame.

Dictators and proxy wars

In roughly the same years, the U.S. installed dictators throughout Latin America and parts of Africa, with disastrous consequences that lasted decades. Think of the Mobutu dictatorship in the Democratic Republic of Congo after the Central Intelligence Agency-backed assassination of Patrice Lumumba in early 1961, or of Gen. Augusto Pinochet’s murderous military junta in Chile after the U.S.-backed overthrow of Salvador Allende in 1973.

In the 1980s, the U.S. under Ronald Reagan ravaged Central America in proxy wars to forestall or topple leftist governments. The region still has not healed.

Since 1979, the Middle East and Western Asia have felt the brunt of U.S. foreign policy’s foolishness and cruelty. The Afghanistan war started 42 years ago, in 1979, when President Jimmy Carter’s administration covertly supported Islamic jihadists to fight a Soviet-backed regime. Soon, the CIA-backed mujahedeen helped to provoke a Soviet invasion, trapping the Soviet Union in a debilitating conflict, while pushing Afghanistan into what became a 40-year-long downward spiral of violence and bloodshed.

Across the region, U.S. foreign policy produced growing mayhem. In response to the 1979 toppling of the shah of Iran (another U.S.-installed dictator), the Reagan administration armed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in his war on Iran’s fledgling Islamic Republic. Mass bloodshed and U.S.-backed chemical warfare ensued. This bloody episode was followed by Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, and then two U.S.-led Gulf Wars, in 1990 and 2003.

This is not a discussion that needs to exclude. It needs to be opened up and it needs to be widely debated.

Sarah Lazare (IN THESE TIMES) notes:

he horrific culmination of the 20-year U.S. occupation of Afghanistan should be cause for sober reflection on the imperial hubris and bipartisan pro-war consensus that enabled such a ruinous military intervention to grind on for so long. But instead of a reckoning, the very architects of the war are getting the final word on its legacy — a kafkaesque conclusion to a remarkably cruel chapter. This dynamic adds fresh insult to the disastrous conditions Afghans now face, as the Taliban seizes control of Afghanistan, and the United States implements callous closed-door policies toward people attempting to flee the country, leading to ghastly scenes at Kabul’s airport.

Chief among these figures is General David Petraeus, who is notable for the skill with which he has charmed and worked the media throughout his long career. He is putting that skill to use now, garnering headline after headline after headline braying for a continued U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. “This is an enormous national security setback and it is on the verge of getting much worse unless we decide to take really significant action,” he told the Rita Cosby Show on WABC Radio on August 13. That same day, in an interview with NPR, he advocated for the United States to reverse its withdrawal. “I certainly would do that in the short term, and I would certainly consider it for the mid and long term,” he said.

In that NPR interview, Petraeus cited his own role as commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan from 2010 to 2011 to illustrate his expertise. “Well, we weren’t contemplating a withdrawal when I was doing this,” he proclaimed. “We had 150,000 coalition forces when I was privileged to command, U.S. and all other forces in Afghanistan.”

The declaration is notable because Petraeus oversaw a particularly bloody chapter of the Afghanistan War. After replacing General Stanley McChrystal, Petraeus implemented an aggressive counterinsurgency strategy, and loosened the rules of engagement, giving U.S. troops a wider berth to fire artillery, and to destroy houses and buildings. He also significantly increased the notorious practice of conducting night raids on Afghan homes. As Michael Hastings noted of Petraeus in 2011 for Rolling Stone, “He drastically upped the number of airstrikes, launching more than 3,450 between July and November, the most since the invasion in 2001.”

But Petraeus didn’t just implement these policies. He also launched a charm offensive, holding interviews with numerous major media outlets championing his actions, and even publicly challenging the Obama administration’s planned withdrawal timeline. His rosy remarks in a July 2011 address at the Forum for New Diplomacy in Paris are worth noting. “Mr. Petraeus called the Afghan Army and police forces ‘increasingly credible,’” the New York Times reported. “He also described how they were steadily taking more responsibility from NATO allies as a gradual withdrawal of tens of thousands of U.S. troops looms.”

Such a statement gives pause, not only because it has been proven wrong, but also because it contrasts with reflections he has shared behind closed doors. In an August 16, 2017 government interview revealed in the Afghanistan Papers — a tranche of documents from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction published by the Washington Post in 2019 — Petraeus sounded a note of pessimism about the U.S. strategy. “I knew it was going to be a longer process,” he said. “I had no expectation that we would be able to flip Afghanistan.”

Once upon a time, when the Democratic Party pretended to care about wars, they insisted on benchmarks. Remember those days?

"Give us one house of Congress," Nancy Pelosi insisted in the lead up to the 2006 mid-terms, "and we'll end the war."

We The People gave them both houses of Congress. They saw what a huge voter turn out the war and decided to keep it going so they could grab the White House in 2008.

But the sop they offered us in exchange was that there would be benchmarks. No more money thrown away. If Congress was going to hand our tax dollars over to cover the Iraq War, then, by golly, there was going to be real and measurable success. And we were going to measure it by a set of benchmarks. Remember those?

These benchmarks would be met or funding would be cut off.

This is where you see The Whores Of McClatchy, by the way. Remember the boys of MCCLATHCY NEWSPAPERS? All over the media in 2006 and on forward, praising themselves, so brave, so fresh, so clean-clean. Reality, MCCLATCHY never did a damn thing. KNIGHT RIDDER published the stories everyone wrongly pretends were MCCLATCHY's reports. MCCLATCHY was around at the time, they just chose to do what everyone else did. Then they bought KNIGHT RIDDER and tried to grab credit for what they themselves didn't do. So it's not surprise that The Whores Of McClatchy were so happy to pretend there was progress when they covered the benchmarks.

Was the benchmark accomplished?

That's how you measure success.

Not, "It looks like maybe we moved a half-inch closer!"

There was no success and the press whored and pretended otherwise.

I always felt sorry for US House Rep Lloyd Doggett. He didn't get the memo. In April of 2008, he was still insisting that the benchmarks had to be met. He was unaware that everyone else in Congress had already walked away from them. He didn't realize it was never sincere.

But it wasn't and that's how you ended up with benchmarks that were never met yet funding that was never cut off. Nancy didn't follow through. Shocker, right?

At REASON, Noor Green observes:

The U.S. says it's sticking around to support the Iraqi military and government, even though each has publicly stated that they want the Americans to leave.

There's nothing stopping Bush's disastrous war from going on for another 18 years in an endless loop of military actions, followed by unintended consequences, followed by a military response to deal with those unintended consequences, followed by more unintended consequences. After 18 years, it's time to give up on the hope that U.S. troops can bring peace and stability to Iraq. It's time to bring them all home.

There are lessons to be learned right now -- and why Barbra doesn't get a lot of awards isn't the only one. Here's a lesson: THE PROGRESSIVE isn't . . . progressive. Despite a slogan that claims it is "A voice for peace and social justice since 1909," it isn't. Scroll through the useless website looking in vain for anything about Afghanistan. You won't find it. They are still publishing -- their useless 'lifestyle' pieces. They're just not even trying to pretend anymore that they are about peace or even peace adjacent.

Other item, "TV? What if . . . the possibilities are . . . limited" is up. I posted it this morning. Didn't have time to see if anything else was ready. Ava and I finished that early Sunday morning. We're covering a show that has a new episode posting to DISNEY+ later today. Meaning, it would have to be rewritten if we didn't get it up now. We're not spending another minute on that piece.

The following sites updated:

Tuesday, August 17, 2021

Almonds

Forget a Klondike Bar, what would you do without almonds? You might need to ask that question because AP reports:

As temperatures recently reached triple digits, farmer Joe Del Bosque inspected the almonds in his parched orchard in California's agriculture-rich San Joaquin Valley, where a deepening drought threatens one of the state's most profitable crops.
Del Bosque doesn't have enough water to properly irrigate his almond orchards, so he's practicing "deficit irrigation" — providing less water than the trees need. He left a third of his farmland unplanted to save water for the nuts. And he may pull out 100 of his 600 acres (243 hectares) of almond trees after the late summer harvest — years earlier than planned.
"We may have to sacrifice one of them at the end of the year if we feel that we don't have enough water next year," said Del Bosque, who also grows melons, cherries and asparagus. "That means that our huge investment that we put in these trees is gone."
A historic drought across the U.S. West is taking a heavy toll on California's $6 billion almond industry, which produces roughly 80% of the world's almonds. More growers are expected to abandon their orchards as water becomes scarce and expensive.

I love almonds, a lot of us do. California Almond notes:

With 6 grams of plant protein, 4 grams of fiber, "good" unsaturated fats, magnesium, antioxidant vitamin E, and so much more in every healthy handful, almonds are the perfect crunch for every diet.
Almonds are an excellent source of vitamin E, magnesium, and riboflavin, and a good source of fiber and phosphorus. A one-ounce serving has 13 grams of “good” unsaturated fats just 1 gram of saturated fat, and as always, almonds are cholesterol-free.1 When compared ounce for ounce, almonds are the tree nut highest in vitamin E and riboflavin and provide 6 grams of protein.2 Almonds are naturally salt-free and low in sugar. Almonds are naturally salt-free and low in sugar.
Good news about fat: U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend that the majority of your fat intake be unsaturated. One serving of almonds (28g) has 13g of unsaturated fat and only 1g of saturated fat.

It's a climate crisis. How many things have to be at risk for us be concerned?

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Tuesday, August 17, 2021.

Starting with . . .

Afghanistan. Again, it will be used to make arguments regarding Iraq which is why we have to pay attention to it. US President Joe Biden spoke on the issue yesterday.

From the official White House transcript, here are Joe's remarks:

East Room

4:02 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. I want to speak today to the unfolding situation in Afghanistan: the developments that have taken place in the last week and the steps we’re taking to address the rapidly evolving events.

My national security team and I have been closely monitoring the situation on the ground in Afghanistan and moving quickly to execute the plans we had put in place to respond to every constituency, including — and contingency — including the rapid collapse we’re seeing now.

I’ll speak more in a moment about the specific steps we’re taking, but I want to remind everyone how we got here and what America’s interests are in Afghanistan.

We went to Afghanistan almost 20 years ago with clear goals: get those who attacked us on September 11th, 2001, and make sure al Qaeda could not use Afghanistan as a base from which to attack us again.

We did that. We severely degraded al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We never gave up the hunt for Osama bin Laden, and we got him. That was a decade ago.

Our mission in Afghanistan was never supposed to have been nation building. It was never supposed to be creating a unified, centralized democracy.

Our only vital national interest in Afghanistan remains today what it has always been: preventing a terrorist attack on American homeland.

I’ve argued for many years that our mission should be narrowly focused on counterterrorism — not counterinsurgency or nation building. That’s why I opposed the surge when it was proposed in 2009 when I was Vice President.

And that’s why, as President, I am adamant that we focus on the threats we face today in 2021 — not yesterday’s threats.

Today, the terrorist threat has metastasized well beyond Afghanistan: al Shabaab in Somalia, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Nusra in Syria, ISIS attempting to create a caliphate in Syria and Iraq and establishing affiliates in multiple countries in Africa and Asia. These threats warrant our attention and our resources.

We conduct effective counterterrorism missions against terrorist groups in multiple countries where we don’t have a permanent military presence.

If necessary, we will do the same in Afghanistan. We’ve developed counterterrorism over-the-horizon capability that will allow us to keep our eyes firmly fixed on any direct threats to the United States in the region and to act quickly and decisively if needed.

When I came into office, I inherited a deal that President Trump negotiated with the Taliban. Under his agreement, U.S. forces would be out of Afghanistan by May 1, 2021 — just a little over three months after I took office.

U.S. forces had already drawn down during the Trump administration from roughly 15,500 American forces to 2,500 troops in country, and the Taliban was at its strongest militarily since 2001.

The choice I had to make, as your President, was either to follow through on that agreement or be prepared to go back to fighting the Taliban in the middle of the spring fighting season.

There would have been no ceasefire after May 1. There was no agreement protecting our forces after May 1. There was no status quo of stability without American casualties after May 1.

There was only the cold reality of either following through on the agreement to withdraw our forces or escalating the conflict and sending thousands more American troops back into combat in Afghanistan, lurching into the third decade of conflict.

I stand squarely behind my decision. After 20 years, I’ve learned the hard way that there was never a good time to withdraw U.S. forces.

That’s why we were still there. We were clear-eyed about the risks. We planned for every contingency.

But I always promised the American people that I will be straight with you. The truth is: This did unfold more quickly than we had anticipated.

So what’s happened? Afghanistan political leaders gave up and fled the country. The Afghan military collapsed, sometimes without trying to fight.

If anything, the developments of the past week reinforced that ending U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan now was the right decision.

American troops cannot and should not be fighting in a war and dying in a war that Afghan forces are not willing to fight for themselves. We spent over a trillion dollars. We trained and equipped an Afghan military force of some 300,000 strong — incredibly well equipped — a force larger in size than the militaries of many of our NATO allies.

We gave them every tool they could need. We paid their salaries, provided for the maintenance of their air force — something the Taliban doesn’t have. Taliban does not have an air force. We provided close air support.

We gave them every chance to determine their own future. What we could not provide them was the will to fight for that future.

There’s some very brave and capable Afghan special forces units and soldiers, but if Afghanistan is unable to mount any real resistance to the Taliban now, there is no chance that 1 year — 1 more year, 5 more years, or 20 more years of U.S. military boots on the ground would’ve made any difference.

And here’s what I believe to my core: It is wrong to order American troops to step up when Afghanistan’s own armed forces would not. If the political leaders of Afghanistan were unable to come together for the good of their people, unable to negotiate for the future of their country when the chips were down, they would never have done so while U.S. troops remained in Afghanistan bearing the brunt of the fighting for them.

And our true strategic competitors — China and Russia — would love nothing more than the United States to continue to funnel billions of dollars in resources and attention into stabilizing Afghanistan indefinitely.

When I hosted President Ghani and Chairman Abdullah at the White House in June and again when I spoke by phone to Ghani in July, we had very frank conversations. We talked about how Afghanistan should prepare to fight their civil wars after the U.S. military departed, to clean up the corruption in government so the government could function for the Afghan people. We talked extensively about the need for Afghan leaders to unite politically.

They failed to do any of that.

I also urged them to engage in diplomacy, to seek a political settlement with the Taliban. This advice was flatly refused. Mr. Ghani insisted the Afghan forces would fight, but obviously he was wrong.

So I’m left again to ask of those who argue that we should stay: How many more generations of America’s daughters and sons would you have me send to fight Afghans — Afghanistan’s civil war when Afghan troops will not? How many more lives — American lives — is it worth? How many endless rows of headstones at Arlington National Cemetery?

I’m clear on my answer: I will not repeat the mistakes we’ve made in the past — the mistake of staying and fighting indefinitely in a conflict that is not in the national interest of the United States, of doubling down on a civil war in a foreign country, of attempting to remake a country through the endless military deployments of U.S. forces.

Those are the mistakes we cannot continue to repeat, because we have significant vital interests in the world that we cannot afford to ignore.

I also want to acknowledge how painful this is to so many of us. The scenes we’re seeing in Afghanistan, they’re gut-wrenching, particularly for our veterans, our diplomats, humanitarian workers, for anyone who has spent time on the ground working to support the Afghan people.

For those who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan and for Americans who have fought and served in the country — serve our country in Afghanistan — this is deeply, deeply personal.

It is for me as well. I’ve worked on these issues as long as anyone. I’ve been throughout Afghanistan during this war — while the war was going on — from Kabul to Kandahar to the Kunar Valley.

I’ve traveled there on four different occasions. I met with the people. I’ve spoken to the leaders. I spent time with our troops. And I came to understand firsthand what was and was not possible in Afghanistan.

So, now we’re fercus [sic] — focused on what is possible.

We will continue to support the Afghan people. We will lead with our diplomacy, our international influence, and our humanitarian aid.

We’ll continue to push for regional diplomacy and engagement to prevent violence and instability.

We’ll continue to speak out for the basic rights of the Afghan people — of women and girls — just as we speak out all over the world.

I have been clear that human rights must be the center of our foreign policy, not the periphery. But the way to do it is not through endless military deployments; it’s with our diplomacy, our economic tools, and rallying the world to join us.

Now, let me lay out the current mission in Afghanistan. I was asked to authorize — and I did — 6,000 U.S. troops to deploy to Afghanistan for the purpose of assisting in the departure of U.S. and Allied civilian personnel from Afghanistan, and to evacuate our Afghan allies and vulnerable Afghans to safety outside of Afghanistan.

Our troops are working to secure the airfield and to ensure continued operation of both the civilian and military flights. We’re taking over air traffic control.

We have safely shut down our embassy and transferred our diplomats. Our dip- — our diplomatic presence is now consolidated at the airport as well.

Over the coming days, we intend to transport out thousands of American citizens who have been living and working in Afghanistan.

We’ll also continue to support the safe departure of civilian personnel — the civilian personnel of our Allies who are still serving in Afghanistan.

Operation Allies Refugee [Refuge], which I announced back in July, has already moved 2,000 Afghans who are eligible for Special Immigration Visas and their families to the United States.

In the coming days, the U.S. military will provide assistance to move more SIV-eligible Afghans and their families out of Afghanistan.

We’re also expanding refugee access to cover other vulnerable Afghans who worked for our embassy: U.S. non-governmental agencies — or the U.S. non-governmental organizations; and Afghans who otherwise are at great risk; and U.S. news agencies.

I know that there are concerns about why we did not begin evacuating Afghans — civilians sooner. Part of the answer is some of the Afghans did not want to leave earlier — still hopeful for their country. And part of it was because the Afghan government and its supporters discouraged us from organizing a mass exodus to avoid triggering, as they said, “a crisis of confidence.”

American troops are performing this mission as professionally and as effectively as they always do, but it is not without risks.

As we carry out this departure, we have made it clear to the Taliban: If they attack our personnel or disrupt our operation, the U.S. presence will be swift and the response will be swift and forceful. We will defend our people with devastating force if necessary.

Our current military mission will be short in time, limited in scope, and focused in its objectives: Get our people and our allies to safety as quickly as possible.

And once we have completed this mission, we will conclude our military withdrawal. We will end America’s longest war after 20 long years of bloodshed.

The events we’re seeing now are sadly proof that no amount of military force would ever deliver a stable, united, and secure Afghanistan — as known in history as the “graveyard of empires.”

What is happening now could just as easily have happened 5 years ago or 15 years in the future. We have to be honest: Our mission in Afghanistan has taken many missteps — made many missteps over the past two decades.

I’m now the fourth American President to preside over war in Afghanistan — two Democrats and two Republicans. I will not pass this responsibly on — responsibility on to a fifth President.

I will not mislead the American people by claiming that just a little more time in Afghanistan will make all the difference. Nor will I shrink from my share of responsibility for where we are today and how we must move forward from here.

I am President of the United States of America, and the buck stops with me.

I am deeply saddened by the facts we now face. But I do not regret my decision to end America’s warfighting in Afghanistan and maintain a laser-focus on our counterterrorism missions there and in other parts of the world.

Our mission to degrade the terrorist threat of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and kill Osama bin Laden was a success.

Our decades-long effort to overcome centuries of history and permanently change and remake Afghanistan was not, and I wrote and believed it never could be.

I cannot and I will not ask our troops to fight on endlessly in another — in another country’s civil war, taking casualties, suffering life-shattering injuries, leaving families broken by grief and loss.

This is not in our national security interest. It is not what the American people want. It is not what our troops, who have sacrificed so much over the past two decades, deserve.

I made a commitment to the American people when I ran for President that I would bring America’s military involvement in Afghanistan to an end. And while it’s been hard and messy — and yes, far from perfect — I’ve honored that commitment.

More importantly, I made a commitment to the brave men and women who serve this nation that I wasn’t going to ask them to continue to risk their lives in a military action that should have ended long ago.

Our leaders did that in Vietnam when I got here as a young man. I will not do it in Afghanistan.

I know my decision will be criticized, but I would rather take all that criticism than pass this decision on to another President of the United States — yet another one — a fifth one.

Because it’s the right one — it’s the right decision for our people. The right one for our brave service members who have risked their lives serving our nation. And it’s the right one for America.

So, thank you. May God protect our troops, our diplomats, and all of the brave Americans serving in harm’s way.

Patrick Martin (WSWS) evaluates the speech:

In the course of the speech, Biden effectively admitted that the pretexts under which the United States invaded Afghanistan were lies. Despite the claims of the Bush administration and the entire media that a central aim of the US invasion and occupation was the promotion of democracy and the well-being of the Afghan population, Biden declared the United States could not care less.

“Our mission in Afghanistan was never supposed to have been nation building,” he said. “It was never supposed to be creating a unified centralized democracy. Our only vital national interest in Afghanistan remains today what it has always been, preventing a terrorist attack on the American homeland.”

In other words, the claim by George W. Bush, who launched the war in Afghanistan saying he sought to save “a people from starvation, and freed a country from brutal oppression,” was a lie.

To the extent that anyone was to blame for the US debacle in Afghanistan, Biden insisted, it was the Afghan people, who were ungrateful to the United States military, which had spent two decades assassinating, torturing and bombing them.

Even as he effectively admitted that the Bush administration lied about seeking to build democracy and bring prosperity to the people of Afghanistan, Biden doubled down on another lie--that the US war was launched to fight terrorism in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

The US intervention in Afghanistan, which has had such catastrophic consequences for the people of that country, did not begin 20 years ago, but in 1978, during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. It started as an effort to foment civil war by mobilizing insurgents against a Soviet-backed government in Kabul, and give Moscow “its own Vietnam,” in the words of Carter’s chief strategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

This policy was continued aggressively under the Reagan administration, whose CIA director, William Casey, encouraged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to recruit and arm Islamic fundamentalists from all over the Middle East to join the fighting, leading to the rise of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

The Taliban emerged from the same process at a later stage, after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and the collapse of the USSR. Working through the government of Pakistan, the Clinton administration promoted the Islamist movement as a force for stability and a potential vehicle for US access to the oil resources of Central Asia.

Glenn Greenwald (SUBSTACK) observes, "For two decades, the message Americans heard from their political and military leaders about the country’s longest war was the same. America is winning. The Taliban is on the verge of permanent obliteration. The U.S. is fortifying the Afghan security forces, which are close to being able to stand on their own and defend the government and the country."

Again, this all has huge implications for Iraq. The US government keeps insisting it has to train, to train, to train . . .. Remember when Gary Ackerman was in Congress? Remember when he used to call out the government for this nonsense? Training has accomplished nothing.

Let's drop back to the February 8, 2012 snapshot:

We covered the November 30th House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the MiddleEast and South Asia in the December 1st snapshot and noted that Ranking Member Gary Ackerman had several questions. He declared, "Number one, does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel we intend to train -- support the [police training] program? Interviews with senior Iaqi officials by the Special Inspector General show utter didain for the program. When the Iraqis sugest that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States. I think that might be a clue." The State Dept's Brooke Darby faced that Subcommittee. Ranking Member Gary Ackerman noted that the US had already spent 8 years training the Iraq police force and wanted Darby to answer as to whether it would take another 8 years before that training was complete? Her reply was, "I'm not prepared to put a time limit on it." She could and did talk up Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Interior Adnan al-Asadi as a great friend to the US government. But Ackerman and Subcommittee Chair Steve Chabot had already noted Adnan al-Asadi, but not by name. That's the Iraqi official, for example, Ackerman was referring to who made the suggestion "that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States." He made that remark to SIGIR Stuart Bowen.

Brooke Darby noted that he didn't deny that comment or retract it; however, she had spoken with him and he felt US trainers and training from the US was needed. The big question was never asked in the hearing: If the US government wants to know about this $500 million it is about to spend covering the 2012 training of the Ministry of the Interior's police, why are they talking to the Deputy Minister?

The US State Dept wass not ready to put a time limit on it, by their own words. How long does the 'training' continue? How many years and how many billions? If it's really not clear to you, let's drop back to the House Foreign Relations Committee hearing of December 1, 2011 for this exchange.

Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: When will they be willing to stand up without us?

Brooke Darby: I wish I could answer that question.

Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: Then why are we spending money if we don't have the answer?

[long pause]

Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: You know, this is turning into what happens after a bar mitzvah or a Jewish wedding. It's called "a Jewish goodbye." Everybody keeps saying goodbye but nobody leaves.

And that's where we are today in Iraq. No one's being honest. "Training." Just a little more training, just a little more . . .

Below Katie Halper discusses the situation with Mike Prysner., Iraq War veteran, part of March Forward.

Mike's an important voice, I'm glad he's on. I'm glad Katie interviewed him. I do hope the circle allowed to speak expands. I get it, I wouldn't have on fake asses myself and most of the 'names' who objected to the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq were just whores using the war as a turn-out-the-vote measure. Phyllis, Norman, all the rest.

We need more voices, not less.

Below, Glenn Greenwald is discussing the reality of Afghanistan versus what the American people were repeatedly told.

The following sites updated:

Monday, August 16, 2021

NASA on Mars

Just noting NASA tonight. This is a press release about what's going on on Mars:

‘Séítah’ From 39 Feet Up: This image of the “South Séítah” region of Jezero Crater was taken by NASA’s Ingenuity Mars Helicopter during its 11th flight on Aug. 4. Credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech. Full image and caption ›

Can you see NASA’s newest rover in this picture from Jezero Crater?

NASA’s Ingenuity Mars Helicopter recently completed its 11^th flight at the Red Planet, snapping multiple photographs during its trip. Along with capturing the boulders, sand dunes, and rocky outcrops prevalent in the “South Séítah” region of Jezero Crater, a few of the images capture NASA’s Perseverance rover amid its first science campaign.

Ingenuity began as a technological demonstration to prove that powered, controlled flight on Mars is possible. It is now an operations demonstration intended to investigate how a rotorcraft can add an aerial dimension to missions like Perseverance, scouting possible areas of scientific interest and offering detailed views of nearby areas too hazardous for the rover to explore.

“Ingenuity’s aerial images are awesome – but even better when you get to play ‘Where’s Perseverance?’ with them,” said Robert Hogg. “Once you find our rover and zoom in, you can make out some details, like the wheels, remote sensing mast, and the MMRTG” – the Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator – “on the aft end.”

So where is Perseverance? At the bottom center of the image, you can find Ingenuity’s shadow. From there, go straight up. Just beyond South Seítah’s dune field near the top of the image and just to the right of center is a bright white speck. That’s what a Mars rover looks like from about 1,600 feet (500 meters) away and 39 feet (12 meters) up.

**Ingenuity captured the Perseverance rover in an image taken during its 11th flight at Mars on Aug. 4. Credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech. Full image and caption ›**

Flight 11 was essentially designed to keep Ingenuity ahead of the rover, allowing it to continue to support Perseverance’s science goals by photographing intriguing geologic features from the air. Flying north-by-northwest at 11 mph (five meters per second), it took Ingenuity 130.9 seconds to make the trip to its 8^thairfield. From this new staging area, the helicopter is scheduled to make at least one reconnaissance flight of the geologically intriguing South Séítah area.

More About Ingenuity

The Ingenuity Mars Helicopter was built by JPL, which also manages the technology demonstration project for NASA Headquarters. It is supported by NASA's Science, Aeronautics Research, and Space Technology mission directorates. NASA's Ames Research Center in California’s Silicon Valley, and NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, provided significant flight performance analysis and technical assistance during Ingenuity's development. AeroVironment Inc., Qualcomm, and SolAero also provided design assistance and major vehicle components. Lockheed Martin Space designed and manufactured the Mars Helicopter Delivery System.

More About Perseverance

A key objective for Perseverance’s mission on Mars is astrobiology, including the search for signs of ancient microbial life. The rover will characterize the planet’s geology and past climate, pave the way for human exploration of the Red Planet, and be the first mission to collect and cache Martian rock and regolith.

Subsequent NASA missions, in cooperation with ESA (European Space Agency), would send spacecraft to Mars to collect these sealed samples from the surface and return them to Earth for in-depth analysis.

The Mars 2020 Perseverance mission is part of NASA’s Moon to Mars exploration approach, which includes Artemis missions to the Moon that will help prepare for human exploration of the Red Planet.

JPL, which is managed for NASA by Caltech in Pasadena, California, built and manages operations of the Perseverance rover.

For more about Perseverance:

mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/

and

nasa.gov/perseverance

The Mars mission is important to science and it has real world applications.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Monday, August 16, 2021. War Hawks are dismayed over Afghanistan (they're suddenly concerned about bloodshed, aren't they?), Iraq remains a disaster and October elections remain iffy.

On Afghanistan, Glenn Greenwald offers these Tweets:

Both Trump and Biden were adamant about withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan, and both were right. That country doesn't belong to the US and the US can't run it forever.

But the idea that problems with withdrawal plans belongs to anyone but Biden is preposterous.

1:35 PM · Aug 15, 2021

The US Government and Pentagon leadership lied for years about the progress being made in fortifying the Afghan Security Forces. The USG always lies to its citizenry systematically about its wars. It's vital to remember that at the start.

1:36 PM · Aug 15, 2021

I don't see how the US could have left without a Taliban takeover. "The Taliban" were always the Afghan people. There was no way to eradicate them as had been promised & *claimed* going back to Bush.

But if you are someone who thinks the withdrawal plan was bad, that's Biden.

1:39 PM · Aug 15, 2021

Send Liz Cheney and Jonah Goldberg and the rest of the bloodthirsty neocon monsters and their kids to go fight for Kandahar and Kabul. 

The US military is a machine built to defend and destroy, not save and transform other people's countries. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya.

1:43 PM · Aug 15, 2021

From *July* - just 6 weeks ago. Watch how US leaders say anything, no matter how false:

1:44 PM · Aug 15, 2021

Things to note. Should Joe elect to pull some troops from Iraq, Afghanistan will be tossed out as an example of why not to.

Afhgnistan is seeing a huge shift right now. And?

That shift would have happened in 2004 or 2009 or 2012 or 2015 or 2026. That's what's most likely going to happen in Iraq as well. You'll see the installed government propped up by the US fall. It's not a real government. It doesn't serve the Iraqi people. You want to keep it in place? You better keep US troops on Iraqi soil forever. And pray there's no revolution like what happened in Iran when the US-installed Shah was overthrown in 1979.

The lesson should not be, "Oh, we should have kept US troops in Afghanistan longer!!!!" The lesson should be that new governments that are imposed on a people -- and that are corrupt -- have no real roots in that society. That should be the lesson.

A little context would go a long way.

So when a liar like Morgan Ortagus shows up and she just wants to inform you, understand, that Ryan Crocker is upset with Joe Biden and blah blah blah.

F**k Morgan. She's a damn liar. Ryan Crocker has been upset with Joe Biden since 2008 -- probaby before then. But anyone who caught The David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker Comedy Hour in April of 2008 -- and we caught -- and covered here -- every Congressional appearance that week -- is fully aware that Ryan Crocker has nothing kind to say about Joe Biden and never has had anything kind to say about him.

Ryan now wants you to know he has doubts about Joe's abilities as commander-in-chief.

Gee, Ry, maybe the time to express that was before the election or during the primary -- if you really wanted to make a difference that is and not just bitch uselessly. Robert Gates made it clear. You didn't. There's nothing that would happen differently if the US pulled some troops out of Afghanistan in 2027. Get honest.

I also don't see the shock over how quickly this happened, how quickly the Taliban took over. They were never vanquished. The government presented as an alternative to them was highly corrupt. Did no one listen once to Sarah Chayes when she warned repeatedly what was taking place in the country.

Those expressing shock and surprise over the events -- whether it's neocons or Ryan Crocker -- are just demonstrating that for all their pretense to be realists and the grown ups in the room, they are incredibly immature and stunted.

We've said the US needs to pull all troops out of Iraq immediately and we've noted the US propped government will probably fall when that happens.

That's reality.

And your alternative is to use US tax dollars and US lives to prop up a government that's being imposed and is not popular, one that will fail the minute US troops leave.

Some are saying that this is a bad time for Afghanistan. The world -- and history -- are full of bad times. This is an opportunity that can be taken to make a new Afghanistan. Will that happen? I have no idea but, more to the point, that's really not up to me -- not up to what I want. I don't live there. It's time for the people of Afghanistan to attempt to make their country what they want. Maybe that's the Taliban. Maybe that's something opposed to the Taliban or instead of the Taliban.

But its the future and it's their history to chart.

Self-determination -- a concept we're all supposed to believe in.

Afghanistan doesn't really matter to those clucking right now. I hope people grasp that but they may not. It's all for show. Iraq's the bigger prize and the one the war mongers want to continue to hold onto. (The Taliban back in charge? Oh, guess that means things are more likely for that pipeline that had Bill Clinton making nice with them back in the 90s. Or are we all going to look the other way now that Gore Vidal's dead and unable to speak those plain truths?)

There's no turning back on Afghanistan. Even liars like Morgan and Ryan know that. The US is not going to stand for a grand invasion of Afghanistan.

This chatter is about Iraq. About making the argument why this can't happen in oil rich Iraq, in Iraq that neighbors US government enemy Iran, the country that is of strategic importance.

Of Iraq, we have said all along that when US troops are removed, peace will not happen. It will be a lively -- and most likely bloody -- scramble as people move for control. But it's up to the Iraqi people to respond to that, it's up to the Iraqi people to shape their world.

And they can't do that when US forces are used to prop up a corrupt government that does not represent the people.

Ryan's fabled judgment has always been questionable. And I wouldn't be surprised -- if his carping takes hold -- if the White House doesn't start speaking to the press -- on background, of course -- about Ryan's longterm and well known drinking problem that he was never smart enough to seek treatment for even after his drunk driving arrest. Sorry, that wasn't kind. I should have said "after his first drunk driving arrest." There. I feel better. Don't you?

In other words, Morgan, you'll probably need to find someone else to hide behind to make your current attacks on Joe Biden.

I have many problems with Joe Biden as president. His making a move to reduce the US troop presence in Afghanistan is not one of them.

AL-BAWABA reports:

Many young Iraqis in Baghdad make an effort to be hip, even as they admit their country may have no future.

In Baghdad "there are very few places for young people" to go, and they feel stifled by "conservative" Iraqi society. People still keep boys and girls apart.

'We'd like to have a bit of support. It would be nice if Iraqi television did a report on us', they say.

As for the coronavirus, like 95 percent of Iraq's 40 million people, isn't vaccinated. The number of daily infections is running at around 10,000.

What about politics?
Young people hate this subject. Especially for those who joined the unprecedented October 2019 uprising against corruption and mismanagement.

- Vote? No way -

At least 70 activists have been targeted for murder or kidnapping by unidentified groups. The activists believe these are Shiite militias financed by and linked to Iran.

Feel free to look away, many people do look away from reality. But that's what life is in Iraq. Pretend it's different if you can't face the truth. It's hard for some to face reality. They lost someone in the war or they can't admit that they were a damn stupid fool for trusting a politician -- be it Bully Boy Bush or Barack Obama -- so they rush to grasp the fairy tale that somehow life was better for the Iraqis (or the Afghans) . It's not reality but it does help many slumber . . . in dangerous stupidity.

Face reality, even all this time later. You'll be like Bette Davis already having killed Joan Crawford in WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? but at least, on the beach, as she's dying, you can say, "You mean all of this time we could have been friends?"

We certainly could have been something more than occupier and occupied.

Dilan Sirwan (RUDAW) reports:

Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi on Saturday called on displaced Christians to return to Iraq, and while Christian religious figures consider it as an “honest and sincere” gesture, some have told Rudaw that Christians need more to be able to return home.

Kadhimi met on Saturday with the Cardinal Mar Louis Raphael Sako, the head of the Chaldean Catholic Church, and an accompanying delegation of bishops across Iraq and the globe.

“The Prime Minister called on Christian immigrants and from the rest of the Iraqi sects to return to Iraq, the country of all, stressing that full support will be provided to facilitate this return and stability,” read a statement from his office.

Kadhimi’s call comes as only a few hundred thousand Christians are left in the country. Following the US-led invasion of 2003, sectarian warfare prompted followers of Iraq’s multiple Christian denominations to flee, and attacks by the Islamic State (ISIS) in 2014 hit minority communities especially hard. According to data from Erbil’s Chaldean Archbishop Bashar Warda, there were more than one million Christians in Iraq before 2003. Fewer than 300,000 remain today.

Many Christians displaced to the Kurdistan Region had previously told Rudaw English that the best option for them is to leave the country.

Iraqi Christians, please come back. Mustafa won't protect you -- he doesn't protect the protesters -- but you can be targets. Remember the infamous attack on Our Lady of Salvation? That was a massacre. Mustafa wouldn't be able to prevent that. Thug Nouri al-Maliki couldn't prevent it, so weak Mustafa has no hope of preventing it. It's what dispersed the Christian population from Baghdad, remember?

And things are not better in Iraq.

So either Mustafa wants some fresh targets for the militias he can't control or he's just willing to say anything to make himself look better in the hopes of getting a second term as prime minister.

Mustafa Shilani (KURDISTAN 24) serves up some more reality:

Iraq has ranked extremely poorly in an annual index published in the Global Youth Development Report 2020.

It was published by The Commonwealth, an intergovernmental association "of 54 countries working towards shared goals of prosperity, democracy, and peace," supported "by a network of more than 80 organizations."

The new report ranks 181 different nations around the world according to significant developments in youth education, employment, health, equality and integration, peace and security, and political and civic participation. Primary indicators also included literacy and the right to vote, among 1.8 billion people around the world between the ages of 15 and 29.

Overall, Iraq ranked 168th in the global index of 181 nations, scoring at the lowest level in youth development, along with several other nations that have faced conflict and large numbers of displacement over recent years.

That's the reality for the Iraqi people. Do not, for one minute, think they look in awe on the man the US has imposed on them as prime minister. Do not think, for one minute, that this awful and ongoing war has improved their lives.

Let's note this:

The High Independent Electoral Commission in Iraq has announced the presence of 130 international observers in all of Iraq, to monitor the electoral process and provide support and technical advice to the commission.

The Commission added in a statement today, Sunday, and was quoted by media premises, which the Electoral Assistance Office of the United Nations Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) is working to complete preparations and preparations related to monitoring the electoral process.

The statement also made it clear that the mission’s work duties were expanded to include monitoring the election process, as well as providing technical support and advice to the commission.

Oh, is that what's going to happen -- going to? Has the crystal ball been pulled out or maybe runes cast? Because we've repeatedly said that they're supposed to be held and they're expected to be held and we've repeatedly noted that this may not happen and that a number of obstacles are not being addressed.

Farhad Alaaldin (RUDAW) reports:

The election date of October 10 is fast approaching, yet political parties have not started any actual electioneering and are not spending their budgets, which fuels speculation about a possible postponement.

Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, together with the president and speaker of parliament called for a meeting with political parties, the Independent High Electoral Commission, and the United Nations Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) on August 7, 2021 to talk about the elections. The prime minister's advisor for election affairs, Hussein al-Hindawi, said in a press statement that "the attendees confirmed their commitment to holding elections on October 10."

A source who participated in the meeting confirmed that the boycott of some parties was discussed and they decided to send a delegation representing the political parties to meet with the Sadrist movement and urge it to reverse its decision to not participate in the vote.

Elections for the sake of elections

When protesters took to the streets in October 2019, they demanded a change of government and an overhaul of the entire political system. On October 28, 2019, Sadrist movement leader Muqtada al-Sadr called for early elections saying then prime minister "Adil Abdul-Mahdi must come under the dome of parliament to announce early elections, under international supervision."

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani supported this call in his Friday sermon on December 20, 2019: "The people are the source of the authorities, and from them, they derive their legitimacy – as stipulated by the constitution – and accordingly, the nearest and safest way to get out of the current crisis and avoid going to the unknown, chaos or the internal fighting – God forbid – is to return to the people by holding early elections."

His call was for elections as "the closest and safest way to get out of the crisis." The crisis at that time had reached its peak amid an escalation of demonstrators’ fervour, suppressed by the government using excessive force, which led to Abdul-Mahdi’s resignation, which in turn led to significant complications in the political scene. However, those days are over and the crises of that time no longer exist. The demonstrations have ended and the hypothesis of internal conflict is no longer present. So we must ask: Why hold elections in spite of boycotts from those who called for the early vote and what is the purpose of the election?

More worrisome to me? A friend with the United Nations tells me that the basic steps required for the elections are still not being taken. This is mundane work of ballots being printed, of voter rolls, ect.

Does no one remember the 2010 parliamenatary elections in Iraq? They took place in March of 2010. They weren't supposed to take part in March. They weren't supposed to take place in 2010. They didn't take place, as they were supposed to, in 2009 and that was due to a number of issues which did include th einability to ensure the basic steps ahead of the election were taken. It also included ther refugee issue and a vice president nixing the election law. That could happen again. And there's been no real effort, to address refugee voting (or, for that matter, the displaced).

The following sites updated:

Like Maria Said Paz

George Ezra in concert

20 minutes ago

World news: Iraq | guardian.co.uk

The toppling of Saddam’s statue: how the US military made a myth

1 hour ago

Dissident Voice

The Taliban take Kabul

8 hours ago

Antiwar.com Original

As America’s Imperial Ambitions Collapse, Washington Should Ask: Who Lost Afghanistan?