Voices without Votes » Iraq

Flying While Muslim

Aggregated from: IraqPundit — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:41:00 +0000

I’ve been thinking about Raed Jarrar’s successful court case. Jarrar is a Palestinian-Iraqi who left Baghdad a few years ago and moved to the United States. He is known in the blogosphere for his provocative postings, which have been highly critical of the U.S. presence in Iraq.

Now, Jarrar has won $240,000 from an airline that in 2006 forced him to cover his T-shirt, which had Arabic writing. “We will not be silent,” the shirt reportedly said. While he wasn’t forced to deplane, his seat was changed, and he was offended.

I’ve got mixed reactions to this case. Most of us Arabs and Muslims who have flown since Sept. 11 (and even before) have been harassed and humiliated by airline security people at one point or another. I could tell you all sorts of stories to make you cringe, starting with old ladies being strip-searched and going downhill from there.

Most of the people I know have not called their lawyers from the boarding gate, but have dealt with the problems by hoping to show the airline security types that we are not terrorists. After all, many of us have been on planes where we too may have engaged in some nervous “profiling,” listening carefully to what certain fellow passengers might be saying to each other, keeping an eye on their movements, etc. We’ve been on both sides of this problem. So we thought that if we showed the airline personnel that we were just people, they might just let us get on with our journeys. Not that it always worked, mind you: Some of us were allowed to fly, some were not.

So believe me, I don’t like how we get treated at airports, and sometimes I dread flying at all. But I also remember what it was like to go to the Baghdad airport during Saddam’s era: Members of my family were taken off planes there, nobody ever offered a reason why, and there was not a prayer of any recourse of any sort, much less civil damages. Some of them were taken to jail, some were just sent home and forbidden to fly at all. That sort of thing helps me remember the difference between brain-dead “security” in a nervous democracy, and true thuggery.

It’s okay with me that an airline be forced to pay for its stupid acts. But I rather wish that the beneficiary would have been somebody other than a character like Jarrar.

Bush's Children

Aggregated from: IraqPundit — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:20:00 +0000

Some writers try to come off as concerned about Iraq's civilians. They even say that it's wrong to use them as political pawns. But actually that's all Iraqis are to the mainstream media. The journalists hate George Bush so much that they put the Iraqi population in the same recycle bin with Bush.

One example is Gary Kamiya, who writes in Salon about the security agreement between the U.S. and Iraq, and says it's one big yawn. He says that "the American people tuned out the Iraq war long ago."

Perhaps they did. But Kamiya, who writes as though he is the conscience of war observers, might ask why people tuned out the war. Maybe he should look at the media's coverage of the war for a few clues. The U.S. military did a lousy job in Iraq. The Iraqis are savages. You know the media's take.

Kamiya takes the high road when he says tuning out the war troubles him and says: "Whether you're a war supporter or a war opponent, you should be paying attention." Okay. Fine.
The writer says that "all sides, pro-war or anti-war, should agree that anything that helps Iraq and the Iraqi people is a good thing." How can anyone disagree?

This is what he says next: "George W. Bush's war may have been a catastrophic mistake, illegal, immoral and destructive in every way." Okay, that's Kamiya's opinion. But what niggles is when he writes as though he is concerned about the fate of Iraq's civilians. He says, "if something takes place on Bush's watch that helps the Iraqis, we should support it."

Kamiya sounds noble, doesn't he? But his true attitude shows when he says Bush failed in Iraq. It's so important for Kamiya to argue that Bush is a loser that he totally disregards 20 something million humans, the Iraqi people. The civlians don't measure up.

He says, "As for Iraq being peaceful, moderate, prosperous and free -- sadly, none of that is true now, and of the prospects that it will become true in the future, all one can say is in'shallah (Arabic for "God willing")." Why doesn't Kamiya see potential? This is where he demonstrates his complete unfamiliarity with Iraq.

"Many things stand in the way, he writes. "The lack of Sunni-Shiite reconciliation, tensions with the Kurds, and Shiite-Shiite rivalries. Muqtada al-Sadr remains a wild card: His powerful militia is currently standing down, but could be reactivated at any time." Guess he sees Mookie as tan, rested, and ready in Iran.

Kamiya has such little faith in Iraq's people that he predicts: "In a best-case scenario, Iraq will end up a fairly unstable state more or less closely aligned with Iran, with unequal oil revenue distribution and aggrieved Sunni and Kurdish minorities, but at least still unified, not plagued by major sectarian violence and not a declared enemy of the U.S."

That's not all. "In a worst-case scenario, Kamiya writes, "the country would become a failed state, descend again into violence on the scale of the civil war of 2006-2007 or worse and be a haven for jihadists and an open sore in the Middle East."

Doesn't Kamiya know that presenting human beings as inferior to others is uncool at best? Why is he so sure that Iraqi people can't accomplish anything? Is that not the very same attitude that permits a person to use grenades against unarmed civilians just like the Blackwater mercenaries did in Nisoor Square?

It looks as though no matter what the Iraqi people do, we will always be viewed as Bush's children. The mainstream media will dismiss us because they will always associate us with the president they hate so much.

WaPo Misses Another Story

Aggregated from: IraqPundit — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 17:03:00 +0000

If we are to believe the Washington Post, Iraqi women were doing just fine under Saddam Hussein's Baathist rule. In a story today, a reporter writes about a woman, "[Muna] Saud remembered when Iraqi women didn't need wasta -- connections -- to find a job. In the late 1970s, thousands of Iraqi women, then among the most liberated in the Arab world, worked as doctors, engineers and civil servants."

As always, the WaPo's Sudarsan Raghavan contradicts the same story. The next paragraph says, "The daughter of a tailor, Saud wanted to become an accountant. But she soon realized that only women who joined Hussein's Baath Party could succeed in such a profession, so she left the university and found work in a pharmacy. There she held secret meetings of the Women's League." Trust me, being a Baathist opened all sorts of doors -- much like the definition of connections.

Nobody would argue that women have not lost a great deal in recent years. But to credit Saddam with the liberation of women is misleading at best. Women in Iraq were doctors and lawyers and engineers in the 1930s and 1940s. They were already driving cars when Saddam was busy pulling the wings off flies, in preparation for his career. But the story gives the impression that Democracy has newly brought violence towards women in Iraq, and they would have been better off under Saddam.

WaPo says: "In their quest for stability in Iraq, U.S. officials have empowered tribal and religious leaders, Sunni and Shiite, who reject the secularism that Saddam Hussein once largely maintained. These leaders have imposed strict interpretations of Islam and enforced tribal codes that female activists say limit their freedom and encourage violence against them."

Had the reporter read anything about Iraq, he would have learned that it was Saddam Hussein who reinstated tribal laws after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 Persian Gulf War. He was afraid he was losing his grip on the country, and chose to lean on tribes to strengthen his position. Saddam had started during the Iran-Iraq War to take away some rights from women. He did not care about honour killings.

Certainly violence against women is on the rise, as are all crimes in Iraq. The war has made it easy for criminals to commit crimes with little or no fear of prosecution. But honour killings have been a serious issue for women for a very long time -- especially for Kurdish women. Even living overseas hasn't stopped Kurds from killing their daughters. It would be foolish to argue that Saddam or any other leader had this under control. It is much more complicated.

The mainstream media presents the Kurdish region as the coolest in Iraq. WaPo says, "Since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, satellite television, cellphones and Internet access have deepened the West's imprint on the relatively stable Kurdish region of Iraq, known as Kurdistan. Today, many urban women wear Western clothes and eschew Islamic head scarves." As though the majority of Baghdad's women were wearing the black thing in the 20th century.

The real story WaPo should have written is that women, just like all Iraqis, have been gradually losing their personal freedoms. First under Saddam, and more recently under the influence of Iran. The real story is that Iran is imposing its fanatical ideas on Iraq, with the help of the religious Shiite parties that control the Iraqi government. The Kurds, the Sunnis, and the seculars aren't particularly strong, but they are working on change. The situation is definitely reversible, and Iraqis look forward to voting in the provincial elections early next year. The election will hopefully bring more balance to representation in Iraq. But don't count on reading about it in the Washington Post.

Cost of Iraq war: 300,000 brain damaged Americans

Aggregated from: JOTMAN — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:42:00 +0000

UPDATEDIt seems the war in Iraq has left 0.1% of the US population with brain damage. This report in the LA Times is simply staggering:

A recent Rand Corp. report . . . estimated that 19% of the troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, or more than 300,000 people, have come back with traumatic brain injuries. It estimated that treatments for such injuries and the loss in productivity have cost the nation, conservatively, about $554 million.

Something is screwed up about the numbers in this article. Just divide 300,000 people by $600,000,000. We're expected to believe these injuries will only cost the US economy $2,000 per brain-injured American? That's not a "conservative" estimate, that's a ludicrously conservative one.

I would venture to say RAND's cost estimates are off by a multiple of at least 100 -- probably much more.

UPDATE: I have been corresponding with a reader about the figures in the RAND study. The reader wrote:

There's something wrong with the numbers in the Brain Damage story. Assuming that 19% of the US troop returning from Iraq is about 300,000 people would lead to the total number of the US troops deployment at around 1,578,947.

The number sounded high to me too so I checked it out. (It's remarkably hard to find figures indicating the total number of Americans who have served in Iraq). But finally I found the number after much searching. According to the Obama campaign website:

More than 1.75 million servicemen and women have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. [There are only 25,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, as opposed to 150,000 serving in Iraq.]

So we calculate:

1,750,000 * 19 percent (with brain injuries) = 332,500

Now that we know the number of brain injured is plausible, my original concern about one of the RAND numbers stands. RAND's estimate as to the what the injuries cost the US ($2,000 in lost productivity and medical care per brain injury) remains a ridiculously low figure.

O.J. Ayers

Aggregated from: IraqPundit — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 15:48:00 +0000

William Ayers has a piece in the NYT today in which he responds to accusations during the election campaign. He says he is nothing like the image presented by the media and the bloggers and "the character invented to serve this drama wasn’t me, not even close."

IraqPundit was one of the blogs that questioned Barack Obama's choice of acquaintances, which is why I'm writing today.

I like Ayers's choice of words. I wonder whether the character he himself invented is even close to the leader of the Weather Underground. He writes:

"I never killed or injured anyone." Perhaps Ayers himself never shot anyone. This is what Yasser Arafat and leaders of such groups often argue -- that they themselves never killed anyone. It's the fault of their followers.

Ayers writes: "In 1970, I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village. The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices — the ones at the Pentagon and the United States Capitol were the most notorious — as an illegal and unpopular war consumed the nation."

See? His movement was against violence. Any explosions were purely accidental. Ayers continues: "The Weather Underground crossed lines of legality, of propriety and perhaps even of common sense." That's like they used the wrong fork at a formal dinner. And Ayers insists about his gang, "Our effectiveness can be — and still is being — debated."

From the perspective of his victims, Ayers was very effective. No debate there. John Murtagh , whose childhood home was bombed by the Weather Underground because his father was a judge presiding over a trial involving the Black Panthers, says his family was effectively terrorized:

"When he bombed — when he bombed property, in my case, they bombed property that five people were sound asleep in the middle of the night. You know for Mr. Ayers to say he crossed the line of propriety, let's go talk to the family of Officer Brian McDonnell who was murdered in San Francisco with a Weather Underground bomb four days before my family was attacked," Murtagh said.

It appears that Ayers himself might not have set the bomb, but his wife did. Bernadine Dohrn, who was also involved in the San Francisco bombing that killed Officer McDonnell, took credit for the bombings in New York. And the reason Ayers never served time in prison is because of legal technicalities. He was never convicted, so he can argue that he's innocent.

Must be nice to be able to reinvent oneself -- with the help of the New York Times. It's especially helpful when a friend or acquaintance just got elected president. With his new self, perhaps Ayers can spend the rest of his life searching for the real bombers.

Say It In Baghdad

Aggregated from: IraqPundit — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:01:00 +0000

Today's question is what Muslim city can turn itself into an appropriate backdrop for theater of Barack Obama? When John Kennedy spoke in Berlin, his speech became an historic soundbite. It appears BHO is looking for a similar clip for his own story.

The NYT's Helene Cooper writes that Obama has a speech but no city to deliver it. According to his aides, Obama plans to give a major foreign policy speech within his first 100 days, and he wants to give said speech in a Muslim city.

Cooper asks: "So where should he do it? The list of Islamic world capitals is long, and includes the obvious —Riyadh, Kuwait City, Islamabad — and the not-so-obvious — Male (the Maldives), Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), Tashkent (Uzbekistan). Some wise-guys have even suggested Dearborn, Mich., as a possibility."

Readers wrote their comments on the NYT site. One said, "Well, I would say Mecca, but that's unlikely to happen." Hmm. That would be really interesting. I will let the Muslim readers figure out why. Another reader said, "This is a no-brainer--Istanbul. For all of the obvious reasons."

The NYT's Cooper thinks Cairo is the way to go. She dismissed Baghdad because "it could appear to validate the Iraq war, which Mr. Obama opposed." Indeed. If we close our eyes long enough, maybe Baghdad will go away forever.

Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard thought about a location. He wrote : "A speech in Baghdad would be a chance to make bipartisan this country's commitment to a stable and democratic Iraq."

Sure, many in the mainstream media have made it clear they are opposed to anything good related to Iraq. But Goldfarb reminds us, "Obama is to be the President of the United States -- and he's already validated the war by packing his administration with those who supported it. In any event, doesn't Obama now share President Bush's objectives for Iraq, if not the same strategy for getting there."

If Obama plans to say something new in the speech, maybe he should add a sentence telling journalists that it's cool to want a stable and democratic Iraq. Just think how good it will all look on the TV screen.

Egypt: Wael Abbas refuses to meet President Bush

Marwa Rakha — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 03:15:09 +0000

Egyptian blogger and activist Wael Abbas just announced on his blog that he turned down an invitation to meet up with Bush.

Here's what Abbas wrote:

تلقيت مكالمة تليفونية من موظف كبير في السفارة الأمريكية أول أمس لدعوتي لمقابلة الرئيس الأمريكي جورج دابليو بوش - أيوة هو لسه رئيس لحد ما أوباما يمسك - والصراحة أنا إستفوجئت بالدعوة دي وتذكرت إن بوش كان قابل مدون عراقي من فترة كده بس هو يقابل مدون عراقي يمكن علشان هما محتلين العراق لكن عايز يقابلني انا ليه؟ لو المقابلة في اطار ان انا صحفي او حتى مدون وهاعمل انترفيو حصري مع بوش وافرمه في الأسئلة يبقى اشطة لكن مقابلة بوش في حد ذاتها ليست شرف اقابل بوش ليه؟

بوش مش رئيس جمهورية بلدي ولا ولي أمري ولا ولي امر العالم كما هو متخيل. بوش مش رمز لأي حاجة كويسة أصلا علشان حد يتشرف أو يتكرم بمقابلته. مقابلة بوش تلطخ أي شريف وليست تشريف أو تكريم. انا مالياش حاجة عند بوش ولا طالب منه حاجة ولا في ايده اي حاجة ليا وحتى لو في ايده انا مش عايزها وانا اصلا ضد فكرة اي تدخل امريكي في مصر لا بالخير ولا بالشر - انا عايزه يكف اذاه بس ويبطل مساعدة ومساندة النظام المصري. سيبكم من غزو العراق والبلاوي الكتير التانية اللي بوش عملها في العالم كله انا كفاية عليا ان بوش يقول مبارك رجل سلام. انا لم ارفض هذه الدعوة لخوفي من الانتقاد او بمعنى اصح الشرشحة بتاعة بعض التيارات السياسية لان بصراحة احنا في مصر لا عندنا تيارات سياسية ولا بطيخ من بابه ولان ببساطة كمان هاقابل بوش بتاع ايه مش علشان انا قليل لا بالعكس علشان بوش ده ايه اصلا بوش مش نلسون مانديلا ولا غاندي ولا الام تريزا الله يرحمها ولا حتى بانكي مون اللي زي قلته

انا الصراحة لو كانت جات لي دعوة لمقابلة اوباما - ومحدش يزعل مني - كنت ها ارحب جدا على الاقل الحق قبل ما اوباما يمسك ويوسخ الدنيا وتبتدي الناس تنتقده ببساطة لاني ها اقابل رمز تاريخي للتغيير في امريكا ورمز لرئيس دولة منتخب ديمقراطيا بجد والناس بتحبه وعندها امل فيه وده نموذج نتمنى نشوفه في كل دول العالم بداية بمصر وممكن كمان اتجرا واقول ان انتخاب اوباما من اهم الاشياء منذ حركة الحقوق المدنية للسود ورموزها زي مارتن لوثر كينج ومالكوم اكس
لكن بوش ده رمز لإيه؟ انا باشتغل على الحريات السياسية والفردية وعلى مقاومة القمع والعنف والديكتاتورية بوش بيرمز لإيه في اللي باشتغل عليه؟

الادارة الامريكية القديمة للاسف عارفة انها رايحة وبتشتغل بمبدأ يا رايح كتر من الفضايح وبتعمل انها بتكرم عدد من المناضلين في حين انها في الحقيقة بتلوثهم وعايزة تنسب الفضل في نضالهم ونجاحهم لنفسها قبل ما تمشي. أنا باحب الشعب الأمريكي والشعب الأمريكي هو اللي بيحتضني ويكرمني وليست الإدارة الأمريكية

وربما أمريكا ليست النموذج الامثل في حرية الصحافة ولا الاحزاب السياسية
لكن تجربة المجتمع المدني الامريكية جديرة بالاهتمام

I received a phone call from a senior employee in the American Embassy yesterday inviting me to meet up with President Bush - yes, he still is the president until Obama's official inauguration ceremony. To be honest, I was taken by surprise but I remembered that Bush did meet up with an Iraqi blogger. He might be interested in the Iraqi blogger because of the Iraqi invasion but why would he want to meet me? If the interview is related to my being a journalist or a blogger who gets the opportunity to hammer him with questions then cool but meeting Bush in itself is not an honor .. why would I consider meeting him?

Bush is neither my president nor my father; he is not the world's legal guardian as he would like to imagine. Bush is not a symbol of anything honorable to honor anyone who meets him; Meeting Bush would tarnish an honest man's reputation - it is by far nothing worthy of pride. I owe Bush nothing and he owes me nothing and even if he has something that I might want, I no longer want it. I am inherently against any American involvement in the Egyptian business be it good or bad. I just want him to hold his peace and stop supporting the Egyptian regime. Put the Iraqi invasion aside with all the other worldwide disasters that Bush brought on the world, it is more than enough for me that Bush calls president Mubarak “a man of peace”.
I did not reject the invitation for fear of criticism and live skinning of some political parties in Egypt because I can safely assume that we do not have anything even close to political parties in Egypt. Simply why would I be interested in meeting a person like Bush - he is not a Nelson Mandela or a Gandhi or a Mother Teresa -may she rest in peace.
Had this been an invitation to meet Obama - no offense - I would have gladly accepted it. At least I would have had the pleasure of meeting the man before he assumes office and dirties his hands. Now people love him and I would have liked to meet him when people still love him. I would have had the honor of meeting the icon of change in American history. He is the symbol of a truly democratically elected president. This is the model that we would like to see all over the world, starting with Egypt. I might even have the audacity to say that Obama's victory is a new landmark since the African American civil rights movement and its symbols - namely Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. But who is this Bush and what does he represent? I serve the causes of political and individual freedom and fighting oppression, violence, and dictatorship so how does Bush serve my cause?
The old American cabinet knows that they are on their way out so they decided to create havoc on their way out. They also decided to honor some activists when in fact by doing so America is disgracing them. They want to take credit for their strife and success before its fifteen minutes of fame are over. I love Americans as people and every time I visit America, it is because the Americans are supportive of me and my cause…. Maybe America is not the ideal solution for freedom of press and political parties but still it's civil society is an interesting experience to study and analyze.

* This post also appears on Global Voices Online.

Obama the Shiite

Aggregated from: IraqPundit — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:53:00 +0000

It all makes sense now. A friend sent me this link, which explains that many in the Middle East believe that Barack Obama is Shiite. You want proof?

The Time magazine story says: "A Pew opinion poll a month ahead of the Nov. 4 election showed that 12% of Americans still thought Obama was a Muslim. There are no reliable statistics on how many in the Middle East believe that, but there's some anecdotal evidence that the notion is especially popular among poor, undereducated Shi'ites in Iran and Iraq."

In reality, of course, Obama's father and his ancestors came from Kenya, where Shiite Islam is rare. But that kind of tidbit has never stopped the Middle East rumour mill.

Because we know Barack's father was called Hussein, after the prince of Shiite martyrs, it indicates to conspiracists that Barack is Shiite. This explains why Obama has been easy on Iran, the conspiracists argue. Obama said during the campaign that he would meet Iran's leaders without pre-conditions. Also, as soon as Obama got elected, Iraq's government passed the SOFA deal, which dictates when U.S. forces will withdraw. We know Iraq's government is under Iran's control. And we know that Obama and Iran share the desire to see the U.S. troops pull out of Iraq. It all fits together to complete the picture of a Shiite Obama.

If you want further proof, watch how he looks at about January 7th. That date, depending on the moon, is when devout Shiites engage in self-flagellation. If he's photographed with chains in his hands and blood on his forehead, you'll know.

Iraqis react to new pact on withdrawal of US troops

Aggregated from: Global Voices Online » U.S.A. — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 02:19:36 +0000

Inside Iraq, a blog maintained by Iraqi journalists, provides us with live reactions to what Iraqis said when they read about the Parliament passing a pact which will end the presence of US troops in their country.

Iraq: Withdrawal of US Troops Blueprint

Aggregated from: Global Voices Online » U.S.A. — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 02:18:41 +0000

Raed in the Middle, from Iraq, provides us with a ‘rough' translation of an agreement between Iraq and US on the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

Howard on top: Luck, Lies and Latham

Aggregated from: Labor View from Bayside — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:23:00 +0000

Watched Part 3 The Howard Years: Commander-in-Chief last night. Decided that my post yesterday should have been called: Luck, Lies and Latham.

Tony Blair and George W. Bush were his political referees for the Iraq war. Funny how the three of them are still sure that they were right about WMDs and Saddam Hussein's support for Al Qaeda. Howard is still not prepared to accept any responsibility for the debacle.

The children overboard spin tested the government ministers' memories again. Peter Reith, the Defence Minster in 2001, must have old timer's disease. The blatant political misuse of the military was obvious. The removal of captions on the photos of refugees in the water was disgraceful. This attempt to make them appear to be throwing children into the sea speaks for itself.

Looking forward to Howard's self-destruction next week. As Peter Costello might have suggested, the Prime Minister should have walked before he ran himself out.

Credit Report

Aggregated from: IraqPundit — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:26:00 +0000

So! These days, Moktada Al Sadr’s not quite as mighty as the mainstream media once thought he was. Back in the day, Mookie was Iraq’s “kingmaker,” a veritable “power broker.” Some of DC’s talking heads predicted that by now, he’d have the country in his pocket. Of course, some actual Iraqis (ahem) tried to tell people that Mookie was little more than a drooling idiot born into an illustrious family. Would they listen?

Anyway, that was then. Now, reporting on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) deal, the LAT writes: “The vote last week was a sign of how Sadr's clout has diminished since 2005.”

How so? Says the LAT: “Sadr has lost some political and military run-ins with Maliki. Critics and observers say he has made some missteps.” I like that reference to “some missteps.” Missteps is how Mookie gets from any point A to any point B.

Yes, there have been reports of anti-U.S. protests by Mookie’s scatter-brained supporters. In general, though, recent Iraq coverage has been less bad than usual. Maybe the mainstream will acknowledge the extent of Iraqi progress in time to credit it to President Obama.

A NYT Baghdad bureau employee says nobody can deny the peace the U.S. soldiers brought. Seems to me that the guy heading the “office of the President-Elect” spent nearly the whole campaign denying it, but never mind!

And the Sahwa (Sons of Iraq) guys are doing well. And, doctors are coming home. And, Iraqslogger is reporting that the blast walls are coming down in some neighbourhoods.
And even the Iraqi soldiers, long painted as incompetent, unteachable fools, are reportedly generous towards U.S. fire victims.

Even the Ramadi provincial reconstruction teams are showing success. The project is going well and is only slightly behind schedule. It appears that progress (none dare call it “victory”) in Iraq has become so obvious that it’s no longer cool to continue to call Iraq a failure.

And by the way, think I was kidding about crediting the good news to Obama. Heh.

Regrets Only : Bush is Sorry About Immigration and Iraq

Aggregated from: VivirLatino — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:37:11 +0000

As President Bush prepares to leave office, he's reflecting on what went wrong and according to him immigration and the war in Iraq went wrong. Well kind of sort of.

Bush said that one of his biggest disappointments was the failure to pass a comprehensive bill on immigration reform.

"I firmly believe that the immigration debate really didn't show the true nature of America as a welcoming society," he said. "I fully understand we need to enforce law and enforce borders. But the debate took on a tone that undermined the true greatness of America, which is that we welcome people who want to work hard and support their families."

Post extendido - Leer más 'Regrets Only : Bush is Sorry About Immigration and Iraq'...

Obama's Kurdish Challenge

Aggregated from: IraqPundit — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:52:00 +0000

WaPo says that with the U.S.-Iraq security agreement, Bush gives Obama “flexibility in fulfilling his campaign promise to bring the troops home.”

Okay, fine: The deal, approved last week by Iraq's cabinet, was a “win” for Obama. But as always, WaPo missed the real story. In the penultimate graph, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is quoted as saying: “Turning the security of Baghdad over in that requirement . . . will be a big challenge," he said. "The other [area] that is clearly not secure up north is Mosul. And we continue to be in a pretty tough fight up in Mosul."

Why Mosul? Well, al-Qaeda terrorists have been squeezed into that area. And the Kurds, who are often described as the strongest allies of the United States, want to annex the cities of Mosul and Kirkuk into their territory. The Kurds have been chasing Arabs and Turkomen out of Kirkuk and its nearby towns, and they have been chasing Christians out of Mosul.

Bashar Fadhil, a shopkeeper in Mosul, like other Arabs, says Kurdish soldiers share blame for ongoing violence. When civilians are attacked, he said, "Kurdish soldiers just watch."

Finally today WaPo wakes up and tells us that Bulgaria has been arming the Kurds. That can't be good.

What do the Kurds have to say about this? Massoud Barzani, the head of the KDP, recently wrote an op-ed in the WSJ:

“Iraq's Kurds have consistently been America's closest allies in Iraq. Our Peshmerga forces fought alongside the U.S. military to liberate the country, suffering more casualties than any other U.S. ally.” No mention of Bulgarian arms.

Barzani said: "The dispute between Baghdad and the Kurds over Kirkuk has been going on for more than 80 years and has often been violent. All sides have now agreed to a formula to resolve the problem, to bring justice to Kirkuk, and to correct the crimes against Kurds committed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Iraq's constitution requires that a referendum be held in disputed territories to determine if their populations want to join the Kurdistan Region. Conducting a plebiscite is not easy, but it is preferable to another 80 years of conflict."

How can all sides resolve the problem when on of the sides is quietly getting arms from Bulgaria? But what I find most interesting is that Barzani mentions Saddam’s crimes against the Kurds but fails to mention the crimes of the Kurds against the Turkomen. Perhaps it’s easy to overlook the Turkomen, because they are not armed.

Meanwhile, Iraq’s prime minister has gained support from the population. Nouri Al Maliki has credited the mostly tribal councils with helping his forces rout insurgents and militias, while the Kurds have viewed these actions as a power grab that could endanger their aspirations for a greater autonomous region.

"Those who oppose the plan of Maliki, they want Iraq to remain weak and to continue the project of dividing it up," said Ahmed al-Dulaimi, a member of the Support Council in the Salaheddin province, of which Tikrit is the capital.

Most Iraqis do not believe in the breakup of the country. Moreover, most Iraqis don’t see Kirkuk and Mosul as Kurdish cities. Plenty of Kurdish Iraqis who were born and raised in Baghdad and don’t speak Kurdish see themselves first as Iraqis. Their grandparents were ministers in the pre-Baath government and their parents were diplomats in the foreign ministry of Iraq. They don’t want the breakup of Iraq. If the Kurdish leadership continues to push for the annexation of cities with mixed populations, they will ignite a serious conflict.

In conversations at Iraqi gatherings over the past five years or so, I’ve heard a lot of different points of view. But recently, I have heard a more unanimous voice: Pretty much everyone I hear is saying that the Kurdish leaders have gone overboard with their demands. They have overplayed their hand. Barzani’s advisers should explain to him that he’s playing with fire. Many in the West see Kurds as democracy-loving supporters of equality. But if the situation gets out of hand, Westerners will instead begin to see the Kurds as intolerant nationalists.

Barzani argues in his WSJ piece that the Kurdish part of Iraq should be an example for the rest of the country. I certainly hope not. Because if killing and chasing minorities out of town is the way to go, somebody better tell him what democracy means. Wasn’t democracy the original goal?

Hillary Clinton: a good Secretary of State?, Thomas Ash

Aggregated from: open Democracy News Analysis - USA — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:16:12 +0000

A picture of Barack Obama's cabinet is starting to emerge, and it is not pleasing his more left-wing supporters. Some of them were already unhappy about the appointment of Clintonites like Rahm Emmanuel. Now, the New York Times is reporting that Hillary Clinton will almost certainly become Secretary of State. That is disturbing for some Obama supporters, who were told during the primaries that her foreign policy views disqualified her from the nomination.

How you feel about Clinton's appointment - assuming that it does come to pass - will depend on how legitimate you feel those criticisms were. Central among them was the charge that she showed bad judgement in supporting the Iraq war. That may well be so, but she had a lot of company in this. Many liberals, myself included, thought in 2003 that regime change was the lesser of two evils, only to change our minds when we saw the nature of the regime change we got. I would readily admit that was bad judgement on my part. Clinton refused to say that it was bad judgement on hers - this may, in fact, have been what cost her the Democratic nomination. Perhaps she was privy to special intelligence before the war which added support to Bush's arguments. But I find it hard to believe that she had any such excuse, given that she reportedly failed to thoroughly study the briefings given to her at the time.

Nonetheless, that is all in the past. What matters is what sort of Secretary of State she will be over the next four years. It is clear why many on the left are concerned about this. She has been decidedly hawkish on Iran, supporting the controversial Kyl-Lieberman amendment that classified that country's Quds Force as a terrorist organisation. She also has a reputation for pandering to the more extreme elements of the soi-disant 'pro-Israel vote' in the States - and since this voting block's favoured policies would actually harm Israel and the peace process, this is concerning.

However, this history may allow her to play the role of Nixon in China on these questions, providing Obama cover against those who would claim that his positions on these issues are too 'soft'. She and her husband have almost unparalleled knowledge and experience of dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian question in particular. There are already rumours that Obama has charged her with finding a solution to this, and given her substantial autonomy in doing so. If she can accomplish this, few will or should regret her selection.