Category: Iraq

Iraqi Blogs – A Glimpse Inside

Posted on by TL

Last of the Iraqis

I found this site on the BBC. Mohammed, a 25 year-old dentist, writes about life in Baghdad. According to his profile on Blogger:

i’m a 25 years old dentist i live in iraq (Baghdad) i was born and raised here but unfortunately i’m thinking that the iraqis are going to extinct so i made this blog wishing that i can make a difference or even share my greif with the whole world and give them an idea about what’s happening here from the point of view of a civilian living in the war zone not from the politicians nor people who gets their benefits from the conditions.

According to Mohammed, Al Qaeda is very strong now in Iraq:

Yesterday I heard that al-Qaeda also distributed fliers in Adhamiya, saying they wanted the best for the people, and end to the sectarian violence and getting life back to normal.

They told shop owners to open their shops again and said they would protect them. They even mentioned that Shias shouldn’t be afraid of anything if they had done nothing bad.

It’s a struggle for power and control between the Ba’ath party, al-Qaeda and the Salvation Council, each one trying to prove they are better than the others, were they in charge.

Mohammed writes about the quality of life in Baghdad, including the drinking water – this from a September 25, 2007 entry:

I went to the kitchen and was filling the kettle from the tap water … I decided to fill a glass so I could see it.

What a shock. I immediately brought the camera and took the picture and video.

Is this drinking water or is it rice water? What are those floating things? I know about the cholera, I know it might be epidemic in Baghdad but I’d be so lucky if this water only contained cholera bacteria!

How could they give us this water? Why should I respect, obey or even recognise my government if they are not providing us with electricity, water, or even security?

Each Iraqi house should be a country and have a flag and its own government. I depend on myself for electricity, water and even security. What a farce.

His most recent entry speaks of the prominence of Al Qaeda in American prisons in Iraq:

I was watching TV few days ago when I saw a show that really got my attention, it was on Alarabyia satellite news channel, it was about how AlQaeda had a great influence inside the American jails in Iraq and there was statements from witnesses who were prisoners in these jails, they described how the conditions are, and what is really happening there, it was a real shock to me….. here is a small part of the show…..I’ll write about the important things they mentioned….. I haven’t translated it in the video but I’ll talk about many thing that they said…..they brought four witnesses and they talked about things I didn’t think was possible, and I believe many don’t know these things too.

I don’t know how accurate Mohammed’s information is. His is just one part of the overall reality. This is certainly a perspective I haven’t seen before.

The End of America – Possible, Says Naomi Wolf

Posted on by TL

Don Hazen has an interview with Naomi Wolf on AlterNet regarding her new book, The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot.  In it, she warns that history may indeed repeat itself.

When discussing the Bush Administration, it’s easy to glibly toss around names like “Hitler” and “Mussolini”, and throw in a word like “fascism”, but Wolf raises some alarming concerns about the future of our democracy.

What exactly was going on when Hitler and Mussolini were coming to power?  Are there any comparisons with what is happening in America today, and has been for the past several years?

Wolf does not see much hope for a transparency in the next Presidential election:

We would be naive given the historical patterns to have hope that there’s going to be a transparent, accountable election in 2008. There are various ways the blueprint indicates how events are much more likely to play out. Historically, the months leading up to the national election are likely to be unstable.

What classically happens is either there will be a period of provocation, and we have a history of this in the United States — agitators who are dressed as or act like activist voter registration workers, anti-war marchers … but who engage in actual violence, torch property, assault police officers. And that scares people. People are much less likely to vote for change when they’re scared, and it gives them the excuse to crack down.

In addition, I’m concerned about the 2007 Defense Authorization Act, which makes it much easier for the president to declare martial law.

What are the plans for 2008?  Lower gas prices, and heightened terrorist threat alerts?  Martial Law in the United States?

Is Iraq Our Forgotten War?

Posted on by TL

Once again I am forced to ask, have we all grown comfortably numb?  Are we content to wait until the next presidential election to hope for any kind of change?  Do we really think a change in administration in the White House will make a difference, whether the victor be Republican or Democrat?

The Democrats are already preparing us for a let-down should they be victorious in ’08.  The New York Times reports:

Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.

Why?  Their answers are all over the place.

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

An American presence would be wonderful, were it not for the fact that we’re still dying.  3,689 American soldiers dead as of this writing.   $451.45 Billion spent.  National Debt, right now, $8.97 Trillion.

Wonderful,

Weapons Given to Iraq Are Missing

Posted on by TL

From the Washington Post:

The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to a new government report, raising fears that some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.

The author of the report from the Government Accountability Office says U.S. military officials do not know what happened to 30 percent of the weapons the United States distributed to Iraqi forces from 2004 through early this year as part of an effort to train and equip the troops. The highest previous estimate of unaccounted-for weapons was 14,000, in a report issued last year by the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

Very disturbing.

Obama Would Fight Pakistan

Posted on by TL

I’ve let this sink in for a few days.  And I don’t get it.  Obama’s foreign policy seems like it’s all over the place.  From the Washington Post:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.

In his most comprehensive statement on terrorism, the senator from Illinois said that the Iraq war has left the United States less safe than it was before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that if elected he would seek to withdraw U.S. troops and shift the country’s military focus to threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won,” he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, “The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

I don’t understand at all the logic in threatening Pakistan.  Musharraf is not to be taken lightly.  No world leader is.  However, Musharraf is a smart politician, with more experience than Barack Obama.  I am confounded by Barack’s approach.  Invade Pakistan?  When we cannot afford Iraq?

I don’t get it at all.

White House Fears Brits May Leave Iraq

Posted on by TL

New leadership in Great Britain has brought fresh thinking on Iraq, and the White House is worried.

It appears the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown may take his country in a different direction than his predecessor.  The London Times reports:

A SENIOR Downing Street aide has sounded out Washington on the possibility of an early British military withdrawal from Iraq.

Simon McDonald, the prime minister’s chief foreign policy adviser, left the impression that he was “doing the groundwork” for Gordon Brown, according to one of those he consulted.

While the British have not made any formal statements, discussion of withdrawal of military forces from Iraq within the UK on a level so close to the Prime Minister has the White House worried:

Behind the scenes, however, American officials are picking up what they believe are signals that a change of British policy on Iraq is imminent.

McDonald, a senior diplomat who formerly ran the Iraq desk at the Foreign Office, was in Washington this month to prepare for the summit. He asked a select group of US foreign policy experts what they believed the effect would be of a British pull-out from Iraq.

“The general feeling was that he was doing the groundwork for a Brown conversation,” said a source. Most of the experts felt it was a question of when, not if, Britain would leave.

The British feel they cannot fight two wars, and see Afghanistan  more worth a fight.  Could be an interesting week at Camp David.

Iraqi leader tells Bush: Get Gen Petraeus out

Posted on by TL

Shouting matches. Our top people in Iraq are negotiating via shouting matches.

This from the Telegraph in the UK:

Relations between the top United States general in Iraq and Nouri al-Maliki, the country’s prime minister, are so bad that the Iraqi leader made a direct appeal for his removal to President George W Bush.

Although the call was rejected, aides to both men admit that Mr Maliki and Gen David Petraeus engage in frequent stand-up shouting matches, differing particularly over the US general’s moves to arm Sunni tribesmen to fight al-Qa’eda.

Apparently President Bush did intervene on at least one occasion. But, instead of telling Gen. Petraeus to watch himself, he warned Prime Minister Maliki to “calm down”.

One Iraqi source said Mr Maliki used a video conference with Mr Bush to call for the general’s signature strategy to be scrapped. “He told Bush that if Petraeus continues, he would arm Shia militias,” said the official. “Bush told Maliki to calm down.”

“Calm Down”

Yes, of course, “calm down.” Doesn’t Maliki have his own Crawford? Can’t he run to a ranch somewhere outside of Baghdad when things get rough? Has the President of the United States not yet advised Maliki to spend most of his term in office somewhere else, out of his office? Why didn’t Maliki think of that sooner? What a fool he’s been? “Calm down.” It’s so simple – the answer to a national crisis.

Maliki should follow the President’s advice. He should calm down. Better yet, he should declare war on a nation he doesn’t like. A small nation whose people he can easily dominate. Maybe he should just go after Qatar. Then, the Iraqi people would worry less about their own problems, and rally around the Iraqi flag as their soldiers march into this new country, welcomed as liberators and freedom fighters. Maliki could create a world-wide coalition to defeat this enemy.

And financing’s not a worry. The United States will just send more money so the Iraqi’s do not suffer an inordinate burden. After all, Maliki would not want to get tagged as the first leader since Saddam to actually require that Iraqi’s pay for their own college education! No, the United States will continue to pour in more money, and now that Saudi Arabia is on our side, Maliki would have nothing to worry about.

That’s the solution: Maliki should attack Qatar, take the Iraqi’s minds off their problems, Uncle Sam can finance it, and we can all, finally, “calm down.”

Bush and the CIA: Strangers In The Night

Posted on by TL

Does the President of the United States listen to anyone in the Intelligence Community? I know he doesn’t read newspapers. He doesn’t “get” news, prefers to know things his own way. But how can he be so far removed from knowing what the CIA knows?

Bob Woodward writes in a July 12 article for The Washington Post:

Early on the morning of Nov. 13, 2006, members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group gathered around a dark wooden conference table in the windowless Roosevelt Room of the White House.

For more than an hour, they listened to President Bush give what one panel member called a “Churchillian” vision of “victory” in Iraq and defend the country’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. “A constitutional order is emerging,” he said.

Okay. That really sounds great. A new world order is on the horizon. Soon, and very soon, it will all be over. Peace is but a heartbeat away.

And then the CIA reported to the Iraq Study Group, in the same room, the same day, just a short time later:

Two hours later, around the same conference table, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden painted a starkly different picture for members of the study group. Hayden said “the inability of the government to govern seems irreversible,” adding that he could not “point to any milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around,” according to written records of his briefing and the recollections of six participants.

“The government is unable to govern,” Hayden concluded. “We have spent a lot of energy and treasure creating a government that is balanced, and it cannot function.”

Okay. So, that really sounds bad. And who was the skinny guy sitting in the same room just a few hours before, and what Magic 8 Ball was he using to divine the future? Did Director Hayden ever talk to him? Because, gee, his story sounded a heck of a lot nicer. The CIA is always being so, well, realistic.

And Condoleeza Rice played along too:

Asked by former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a member of the study group, if she was aware of the CIA’s grim evaluation of Iraq, Rice replied, “We are aware of the dark assessment,” but quickly added: “It is not without hope.”

No, because, like, losing hope would be bad, and we can’t do that. But the spin has already begun. You see, Hayden didn’t really say all that. The Iraq Study Group just misunderestimated what Hayden said.

What?

But O’Connor heard the scary man say the bad things too:

O’Connor, a Republican, also confirmed Hayden’s assessment. She said she didn’t agree with his conclusion that it was irreversible, but she said she was pessimistic.

“It is a dire situation,” she said. “I don’t think it has gotten any better. It just breaks your heart. . . . Iraqi people are dying, American soldiers are dying. So far it does not seem we have achieved any kind of security there.”

Yes, it breaks your heart.  And it should. How many different ways can we spin disaster?

Progress in Iraq, Sort of

Posted on by TL

The New York Times reports in a July 12 article President Bush will declare progress in Iraq on some benchmarks:

The Bush administration will assert in the next few days that progress of the Iraq security plan has been satisfactory on nearly half of the 18 benchmarks set by Congress, according to several administration officials.

But it will qualify some verdicts by saying that even when the political performance of the Iraqi government has been unsatisfactory, it is too early to make final judgments, they said.

The administration’s decision to qualify many of the political benchmarks will enable it to present a more optimistic assessment than if it had provided the pass-fail judgment sought by Congress.

If anyone can figure out exactly how the President is able to declare progress, please let me know.  This article is making my head spin.

Are we that happy with War?

Posted on by TL

Are we so happy with war that we do nothing?

How many of us have actually called, wrote, or emailed our Representative in Congress or Senators? How many of us called or emailed the White House, knowing that our words are falling on deaf ears. Nevertheless, how many of us have called?

If you’ve found Turning Left, then chances are you care enough to think. You may be here because you don’t like Liberals. You may be here because, like the rest of us, you are looking for answers from time to time. But if you are here, you think. You’re part of that small percentage of Americans who still think about issues.

I’m not going to say that we’re Liberal at Turning Left. I’m not going to say we’re Progressive. I’m not going to say we’re Conservative, or Moderate. I’m not going to label us at all. I am going to say that we think. That’s all we need to do.

Some don’t think. Some preach. Some yell. Some twist the truth.

We’re just after the truth at Turning Left. Just the Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

We just happen to have found it most often by Turning Left.

Put on your left turn signal. Email your Congressman. Email your Senator. Call the President (not sure how “email-capable” he is.) Tell them you want us out of Iraq. Then do the same thing again next week. And the week after. And ask your friends to do the same.

Tell them all it’s more fun on The Left.