Bipolar propaganda from war supporters

It's really strange how war supporters can operate in their weird bipolar mode. On the one hand, we are told of tremendous progress in Iraq, spreading "pacification" successes, enemies "on the run", etc.

When events occur that counter that optimistic assessment, these same people snarl that "we're in a WAR!" or cliches about combat and we hear about a terrible, long, and costly struggle that we can't avoid if we are to survive.

So, oddly, we are are in immense peril with no hope of immediate solution and we are simultaneously in an steadily improving situation that will be alright in no time.

Likewise, we see a Congressional delegation who has just seen the feel-good, upbeat dog-and-pony show and bought it whole. We're "winning". Then, when their plane is attacked as it leaves the airport, suddenly a 'combat" analogy is drawn and they face the same dangers that our troops face every day (in this pacified success story).

Plane Carrying U.S. Lawmakers Fired On In
Iraq

Julie Farby - AHN News Writer

Washington, DC (AHN)-A military plane
carrying three U.S. senators and one House member came under fire while leaving
Baghdad for Jordan on Thursday night, and was forced to take defensive measures to avoid being hit.

The U.S. Air Force C-130 was carrying Sens. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., Mel Martinez, R-Fla., James Inhofe, R-Okla., and Rep. Bud Cramer, D-Ala., when it was nearly hit by rocket fire.
In order to avoid what is believed to be rocket-propelled grenades, flares on the C-130 aircraft's missile avoidance system were released as a countermeasure to attract rockets that have heat-seeking guidance systems.

In a statement, Rep. Cramer tells CNN, "Our plane leaving Iraq was fired upon and it was a close call, but this is something that our men and women in combat face every day," adding that, "The flight crew was outstanding and I credit them
for the way they handled the situation.

The U.S. military is continuing to investigate the incident.

Diyala "success" means another soldier dies

How could this be? Don't the "terrorists" know that Diyala is "pacified"? Didn't they see that we have the ability to take Congresspeople on heavily guarded tours of the province?
It's time to launch "Operation Fox News" to convince the "terrorists" that they don't even exist. Then they'll fade away into mist and all will be well again.

U.S. soldier killed in bomb attack in Iraq

An American soldier was killed by a roadside bomb explosion in the volatile Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad, the U.S. military said on Thursday.

The explosion struck the soldier's vehicle during combat operations in the province on Wednesday, a military statement said.

The name of the soldier is being withheld pending notification of next of kin, it added.

Diyala province, which stretches from the eastern edges of Baghdad to the Iranian border, has long been the hotbed of insurgency and sectarian violence since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

The latest death brings the number of U.S. soldiers who have been killed in Iraq to more than 3,730 since the outbreak of the Iraqi war in 2003, according to media count based on Pentagon figures.

Source: Xinhua

Victory disguised as corpses all across Iraq

The "progress" just never lets up in Iraq.

51 dead in Karbala as all hell breaks loose despite heavy security, inter-militia fighting in Baghdad and Kut, another attack on Iraqi troops in Diyala (Khalis), Iraqi security forces in Basra are scared of the impending British withdrawal, and Al-Qaeda mounted a revenge attack in Fallujah against a sheik that joined the U.S. efforts.

Of course, this is just the "enemy" trying to make Bush look bad, not any kind of security crisis. Nothing to see, folks, just more "traitor-talk". And how about the good news? After four days of Sadrists shutting off the water supply to parts of Diyala, U.S. forces finally swept in and blasted the place to bits. But what's this about AQI controlling areas around Khalis? I thought Operation Arrowhead Ripper cleared them all out and pushed them into Kurdistan? I guess not. Time for Operation Try Again. Am I detecting a pattern here? We move in and kill civilians with airstrikes, Al-Qaeda leaves, we claim success, and Al-Qaeda returns to control the area -- connect the dots. This is whack-a-mole, not "victory".

Speaking of "victory", the military has stacked the deck every possible way it can to make continuing disasters look like victory. Figures must be cleared with the military, who also decides what gets counted in the first place, and it's not the bad news that gets counted. The military now gets to decide on its own that certain terrorist groups are not terrorists if they say the right things to the senior commanders. Bodies that turn up in piles showing signs of torture are not necessarily victims of "sectarian kilings" in the minds of the military. Heck, maybe they tortured themselves before shooting themselves into a pile, maybe it was a prank gone bad, maybe some kind of frat hazing, who knows? But we're sure that every single body found in the rubble of an airstrike is Al-Qaeda. No question about that. And we know for sure that nobody will replace them in the ranks because....well, we just know, okay? It's secret military stuff. If the "enemy" knew our secrets for determining the Al-Qaedaness of corpses, well, the whole show could unravel.

We're winning. Take our word for it. You want to win, so start believing, comrade.



Aug 28, 4:23 PM (ET)

By ROBERT H. REID


BAGHDAD (AP) - Fighting erupted Tuesday between rival Shiite militias in Karbala during a religious festival, claiming 51 lives and forcing officials to abort the celebrations and order up to 1 million Shiite pilgrims to leave the southern city.

Security officials said Mahdi Army gunmen loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr fired on guards around two shrines protected by the Badr Brigade, the armed wing of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council.

Residents of Karbala contacted by telephone said snipers were firing on Iraqi security forces from rooftops. Explosions and the rattle of automatic weapons fire could be heard during telephone calls to reporters in the city 50 miles south of Baghdad.

In addition to the deaths, security officials said at least 247 people were wounded, including women and children.

The clashes appeared to be part of a power struggle among Shiite groups in the sect's southern Iraqi heartland, which includes the bulk of the country's vast oil wealth.

Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said entrances and exits to Karbala "have been secured and more forces are on the way from other provinces." Officials said buses were sent to evacuate pilgrims from the city, which includes some of the world's most sacred Shiite shrines.

Gunfights also broke out Tuesday between Mahdi militiamen and followers of the Supreme Council in at least two Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad and in Kut, about 100 miles southeast of the capital, police said.

Extra police took up positions in the center of another Shiite city, Diwaniyah, after gunmen fired on a mosque associated with the Supreme Council, police said. A curfew was clamped on the Shiite city of Najaf after a mortar round exploded on a major square, causing no casualties, officials said.

The trouble started in Karbala late Monday as tens of thousands of Shiites were streaming into the city for the Shabaniyah festival marking the birth of Mohammed al-Mahdi, the 12th and last Shiite imam who disappeared in the 9th century. Devout Shiites believe he will return to Earth to restore peace and harmony.

Scuffles broke out between police and pilgrims as the crowd tried to push through the security checkpoints near the Imam al-Hussein mosque, the focal point of the celebrations. At least five people were killed, police said.

Early Tuesday, crowds of angry pilgrims chanting religious slogans surged through the streets, attacking police and mosque guards, witnesses said. Two ambulances were set ablaze, sending a huge column of black smoke over the city.

Gunmen appeared, firing automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars at security forces and sending panicked pilgrims fleeing the area, police and witnesses said.

A member of the city council said the center of town was in chaos, with pilgrims running in all directions to escape the gunfire.

"We don't know what's going on," said the councilman, who wouldn't allow use of his name for security reasons. "All we know is the huge numbers of pilgrims were too much for the checkpoints to handle and now there is shooting."

Some rounds struck fuel tanks on the roofs of three small hotels, setting them ablaze, police said.

With the situation spiraling out of control, police ordered pilgrims out of the center of the city, effectively canceling the celebrations which were to reach their climax Tuesday night and Wednesday morning.

"The area where they (the pilgrims) were gathering has been evacuated in order to control those (criminals)," said Khalaf, the Interior Ministry spokesman. He said the gunmen were gathering in three areas in the old town and security forces were chasing them.

In Baghdad, a senior government security official blamed the fighting on al-Sadr's followers, saying they provoked the confrontations Monday night and were responsible for the shooting Tuesday. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid enflaming the situation.

Tensions have been rising in southern Iraq as rival Shiite groups maneuver for power, especially in the oil-rich area around Basra, Iraq's second-largest city.

Concern over Basra is mounting as British forces prepare to evacuate the last of their forces from the city and redeploy to the airport 12 miles to the north.

On Tuesday, Hakim al-Miyahi, head of the security committee of the Basra municipal council, told The Associated Press that Iraqi forces were incapable of maintaining order in the city once the British leave and that the Baghdad government should send reinforcements.

"Some disorder will occur in the absence of British troops in Basra," he said. "It will take at least two army divisions to fill the gap that will be created by British troop withdrawal."

Elsewhere, hundreds of U.S. and Iraqi forces backed by helicopters and jet fighters killed 33 Sunni insurgents who were holding back the water supply to the Shiite town of Khalis, about 50 miles north of Baghdad, the U.S. command said.

The assault began before dawn Monday when a joint force was landed by helicopter in the village of Gubbiya, 10 miles east of Khalis. The assault force killed 13 fighters and attack aircraft killed 20 others, the military said. The area is known to be controlled by al-Qaida in Iraq.

Also Tuesday, a roadside bomb exploded in northern Khalis, killing four Iraqi soldiers, the Iraqi army said.

In Fallujah, 40 miles west of Baghdad, mourners buried 11 victims of a mosque suicide bombing Monday. Ten people were wounded in the attack, which police said targeted an anti-al-Qaida Sunni sheik.

Re-defining our way to "success"

In the continuing efforts to divide the terrorist sectarian militias into "good" and "bad" camps, we now see that one of the primary tools to bring "success" to Iraq is to simply change definitions of terms. In my previous post, I asked about the definition of the term "insurgent". In the article below we see that the military has changed the definition of one of the sectarian militias in Diyala so that they are no longer "insurgents" at all.

Let's take a look at how one of the "boots on the ground" in Diyala assessed the 1920 Revolution Brigade, as they call themselves:

A Sunni insurgent group we’ve been battling for months, responsible for the death of my friend and numerous attacks, agreed to fight Al Qaeda alongside us. Since then, they’ve grown into a much more organized, lethal force. They use this organization to steal cars and intimidate and torture the local population, or anyone they accuse of being linked to Al Qaeda. The Gestapo of the 21st century, sanctioned by the United States Army.

This assessment from Alex came a mere one week ago. Since they have allied with us for the time being, they are "patriots", not terrorists. Yet, let's look at another of Alex's observations concerning an exchange with one of these "patriots":

For now, our relationship with 1920 is one of mutual distrust and hatred, a sign of the times. A conversation between a member of my platoon and a 1920 source is ripe with foreboding on the future of this partnership, and of the war to come.
“Do you want to kill me?” asked the soldier.
“Yes,” replied the source, coldly and without emotion. “But not today.”

Can you feel the love?
How could this approach possibly fail?
We are now throwing away the possibility of real success for the sake of claiming success over Al-Qaeda, in a process that is merely keeping Al-Qaeda "on the run". We are merely deferring the inevitable conflict with the sectarian militias in order to create a short-term illusion of "progress" against a relatively minor factor in the "big picture" of unrest and instability. Unable to resolve the complex social, ethnic, and political issues creating unrest and instability by solely military means, the senior officers of our military have instead engaged in a "semantics offensive" to re-define our way to victory. We have already witnessed the re-definiton of "success" to exclude car bombings and sectarian militia killings and to include the mere ability to drive Al-Qaeda's violence into other areas. We have already seen Bush "lowering the bar" for "victory" to merely a reduction of violence to pre-surge levels that may or may not even include "democracy" in its definition. Now we are seeing the "elimination" of sectarian militias by merely changing the definition of the words.

Perhaps we should merely re-define the word "corpse" and make some real progress?



full story

What's in a name? U.S. rebrands Iraq ex-insurgents

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. forces have rebranded one of the main insurgent groups in Iraq and now use the term "concerned local nationals" to refer to a group that once claimed responsibility for killing scores of Americans.

The updated vocabulary for referring to the 1920 Revolution Brigade, described by a U.S. commander on Saturday, is a sign of the abrupt change in tactics that has seen U.S. forces cooperate with former Sunni Arab enemies

The 1920 Revolution Brigade was one of the main anti-American Sunni Arab insurgent groups in Iraq in the years after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and has claimed responsibility for killing scores of U.S. troops in ambushes and bomb attacks.

But for the past several months its members have cooperated with U.S. forces to help drive the strict al Qaeda Islamists out of Sunni Arab areas, part of a new U.S. tactic of cooperating with former Sunni Arab foes against al Qaeda.

Colonel David Sutherland, the U.S. commander in Diyala Province, said his men prefer not to call the group by its name.

"The 1920s as they're called, we call them 'the Baquba Guardians', we call them the 'concerned local nationals'," he said. Baquba is the provincial capital.

"These are patriots who have come forward and have joined the security process. They are working with my soldiers and they are working with the Iraqi security forces," he said.

Al Qaeda's adherence to a hardline form of Sunni Islam and indiscriminate attacks has isolated it from Sunni Arabs and nationalist insurgent groups.

Sutherland said the 1920 Revolution Brigade name was now being used widely to refer to local pro-government militia and not anti-American insurgents. Some Shi'ite elders were asking if they too could recruit "1920s," he said, a sign the Sunni Arab group's name was no longer seen as sectarian.

"It has become a name, a catch-all phrase for these concerned local nationals throughout the province," he told a news conference by video link to Baghdad.

His forces "do not deal with terrorists, and if we have information on individuals then we will act accordingly," Sutherland said. "The individuals we are working with.... I have confidence in them and I have confidence in their leadership."

The 'progress machine'

Baghdad is where the surge is concentrated and where the biggest (positive) results were expected from the surge. Just yesterday in Baghdad, reports show a car bombing, an attack on Iraqi troops, and another crop of bodies turning up to demonstrate that sectarian killings continue right under the noses of the surging troops.

However, the surge has also served to re-locate violence to previously stable areas, such as Kurdistan. Mosul and Kirkuk are two of those Kurdish cities that have seen previously unheard-of kidnappings, roadside bombs, car bombs, drive-by shootings, and brazen attacks on troops.

The events show below are just a typical day. Usually none of these tragedies merits a mention on the American media, yet for the people who live in these areas it represents anything but "normalcy" or "stability". It instead creates a fearful environment that induces people to turn to their sectarian militia for protection - at a price, of course. The more that communities are defined as one militia's "turf", the harder it is "reconcile" those communities with the rest of the area. But until the "gang war" breaks out, the surface appears stable and relatively calm.

That is what the "bottom-up reconciliation" really is; the staking of turf so that inter-militia conflict can be obviated. As long as the militias co-operate with U.S. troops against Al-Qaeda, or just simply label their competitors as "Al-Qaeda" in order to have the U.S. troops wipe them out, then the commanders can call this "progress". This "progress" can then be packaged and sold wholesale to the American media as 'proof' that the surge is "working".

This is the 'progress machine' that allows Republicans to live their delusional vision that we are always "winning". Senior officers are happy to avoid a "Shinseki Treatment" by passing along this illusion of "progress", because it makes the Bush Administration happy, and that means promotion, or at least the continuation of one's career. They can always create another "Operation Whatever" to push the violence someplace else. This proves our military superiority over the "insurgents". But the "insurgents" do not have be militarily superior; they just have to be tenacious. They certainly are tenacious, having survived for 4 1/2 years so far.

Have you ever really heard a definition of the term "insurgent" before, as it applies to Iraq?
Are they Al-Qaeda? Does the term include sectarian militias, or only those militias that continue their terrorist activites while allied with us? Is an Iraqi "insurgent" anyone who opposes the Al-Maliki government, or just someone who opposes the U.S. occupation? Does the term "insurgent" include those who engage in kidnapping, extortion, protection rackets, black market arms dealing, and ethnic cleansing or does it merely refer to those who carry out bombings and attacks on military and police?

Yes, let's keep it vague so that we can refer to anyone killed or arrested as an "insurgent". That way we can show inflated progress with a straight face. Just as in Vietnam, anyone who was killed in bombardments, artillery fire or just "got in the way" was labeled "VietCong", so too is the label "insurgent" being sloppiliy applied in the case of Iraq. We don't ask questions, because we want to "win", and anything that makes it look like we are winning is fair game. This is what we get for $12 billion a week: shifty "accounting" that keeps the "shareholders" from asking questions.


reports from Reuters

* BAGHDAD - A parked car bomb killed seven people and wounded 30 others in the Kadhimiya district in northwestern Baghdad, police said.

* MOSUL - The body of a university lecturer was found in the southeast of the northern city of Mosul, five days after he was abducted, police said.

* MOSUL - Five people were wounded including three policemen by three separate roadside bombs in Mosul, police said.

* ARAB JABOUR - U.S. forces said they discovered an execution site containing human skulls and decomposing bodies in Arab Jabour, an agricultural area on the southern outskirts of Baghdad.

* BAGHDAD - Police said they found nine bodies in different districts in Baghdad on Friday.

* BAGHDAD - Gunmen attacked an Iraqi army patrol, killing one soldier and wounding two others in Mansour district in western Baghdad on Friday, police said.

*NAJAF - Gunmen killed a man in a drive-by shooting in Najaf, 160 km (100 miles) south of Baghdad, on Friday, police said.

* KIRKUK - Gunmen killed a man in a drive-by shooting in southern Kirkuk, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, on Friday, police said.

Surge facts, Bush spin

This AP story does an excellent job of sumarising why Bush's weekly radio address is based on false premises and facts. Sectarian killings are double what we saw before the surge was even proposed, life for the average Iraqi is not improving, the "bad" terrorists are simply moving to wherever the surge isn't concentrated, the north and south are increasingly becoming destabilised as the surge concentrates on Baghdad, and the electrical grid that pumps the water for the population is still highly unreliable and not likely to improve.

What do we do when the facts are in contradiction to the Decider's crazy little world? Cue the parrot, of course. "al-Qaeda! al-Qaeda! War on Terror! 9/11! SQUAWK!"

There, now don't you feel better?

There is the "glass half full" optimism, but what we are seeing from Republicans is a glass with a few drops being presented as a full one. And anyone who questions the definition of "full" is unpatriotic and treasonous. This facile tactic has not convinced the 70% who oppose the occupation, but Bush is far past trying to change their minds. He is instead engaged in a bitter struggle to keep the margins of his support from bolting by portraying those who stop reciting the script as "supporters of terrorism". Since the Republicans have staked everything on the success of the occupation, they have little choice but to continue the fantasy. Any signs of dissent from the right will be, like the surge, too little, too late.

full story here

Iraq body count running at double pace

By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer 47 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - This year's U.S. troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago.

Some of the recent bloodshed appears the result of militant fighters drifting into parts of northern Iraq, where they have fled after U.S.-led offensives. Baghdad, however, still accounts for slightly more than half of all war-related killings — the same percentage as a year ago, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.

The tallies and trends offer a sobering snapshot after an additional 30,000 U.S. troops began campaigns in February to regain control of the Baghdad area. It also highlights one of the major themes expected in next month's Iraq progress report to Congress: some military headway, but extremist factions are far from broken.

In street-level terms, it means life for average Iraqis appears to be even more perilous and unpredictable.

The AP tracking includes Iraqi civilians, government officials, police and security forces killed in attacks such as gunfights and bombings, which are frequently blamed on Sunni suicide strikes. It also includes execution-style killings — largely the work of Shiite death squads.

The figures are considered a minimum based on AP reporting. The actual numbers are likely higher, as many killings go unreported or uncounted. Insurgent deaths are not a part of the Iraqi count.

The findings include:

• Iraq is suffering about double the number of war-related deaths throughout the country compared with last year — an average daily toll of 33 in 2006, and 62 so far this year.

• Nearly 1,000 more people have been killed in violence across Iraq in the first eight months of this year than in all of 2006. So far this year, about 14,800 people have died in war-related attacks and sectarian murders. AP reporting accounted for 13,811 deaths in 2006. The United Nations and other sources placed the 2006 toll far higher.

• Baghdad has gone from representing 76 percent of all civilian and police war-related deaths in Iraq in January to 52 percent in July, bringing it back to the same spot it was roughly a year ago.

_According to the Iraqi Red Crescent Organization, the number of displaced Iraqis has more than doubled since the start of the year, from 447,337 on Jan. 1 to 1.14 million on July 31.

However, Brig. Gen. Richard Sherlock, deputy director for operational planning for the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said violence in Iraq "has continued to decline and is at the lowest level since June 2006."

He offered no statistics to back his claim, but in a briefing with reporters at the Pentagon on Friday he warned insurgents might try intensify attacks in Iraq to coincide with three milestones: the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S., the beginning of Ramadan and the report to Congress.

The U.S. military did not get all the additional American forces into Iraq until June 15, so it would be premature to draw a final statistical picture of the effect of the added troops.

But initial calculations validate fears that the Baghdad crackdown would push militants into districts north of the capital, including Diyala province where U.S. force and Iraqi soldiers have conducted major operation to clear its main city, Baqouba, of al-Qaida in Iraq fighters.

In July, the AP figures show 35 percent of all war-related killings occurred in northern provinces. The figure one year ago was 22 percent.

The final death count for August also will likely be further oriented to the north after the savage Aug. 14 attack by suspected al-Qaida truck bombers near the Syrian border in Ninevah province. At least 500 villagers from the Yazidi sect were killed in the deadliest civilian attack of the war.

In the first months of this year, many extremists fled to Baghdad and regions to the north after Sunni tribesmen in Anbar, the sprawling desert province west of the capital, turned on their erstwhile al-Qaida allies.

Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said many militants are trying to hang onto footholds in central Iraq.

"Most of the force shifts are still in the Baghdad ring and Diyala," he said in a recent interview, predicting more spectacular attacks in the days leading to next month's report to Congress by U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

"Will it lead to more bloody attacks as they try to exploit the American political debate? Yes."

Nora Bensahel, a military analyst at the Rand Corp., said that northern Iraq had become increasingly destabilized over the past few months.

The insurgents have made a "concerted effort to concentrate attacks in other parts of the country," Bensahel said, in part to escape the increased U.S. troop presence in Baghdad and in part to give the impression that no place in Iraq is safe.

Mostly, she said, the insurgents have shifted their focus to the Baghdad suburbs, but they are particularly keen to undermine the notion that northern Iraq is a "success story" for Washington and its key Iraqi partners — including the Kurds who have maintained a near-autonomous state in the north since the early 1990s.

Staging attacks in the north "has a symbolic effect," she said.

And beyond that, Bensahel said the tactic puts the United States in a difficult situation.

"There isn't an ability to move north in any significant numbers without abandoning Baghdad" — a change in strategy that Washington is not prepared to make, she said.

But a huge problem also looms in the south, the center of Shiite political and spiritual influence and the site of Iraq's main oil fields.

There are daily gunbattles between the Mahdi Army militia — loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr — and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the powerhouse Shiite political party that controls most of the bureaucracy and police forces in southern Iraq.

This month, the governors of two southern provinces loyal to the Supreme Islamic Council were killed in roadside bombings.

The clashes are expected to grow more intense as Britain draws downs its forces in southern Iraq over the coming months. The effect of the shrinking British presence is already being felt, said Cordesman in an assessment released Aug. 22.

"The end result was to turn the four provinces in southeastern Iraq over to feuding Shiite factions whose actions were mixed with corruption, extortion and links to criminal activities," he wrote.

And there are increasing signs that whole regions of the south are inclined to seek increased autonomy from the center — moves that many Iraqis fear could lead to partition of the country.

In Najaf — the spiritual heart for Shiites around the world — the provincial spokesman, Ahmed Deibel, told AP early this month that the gas turbine generator there had been removed from the national electricity grid. The unilateral action has contributed to several nationwide power blackouts.

He said the provincial plant produced 50 megawatts, while the province needed at least 200 megawatts.

"What we produce is not enough even for us. We disconnected it from the national grid (Aug. 1) because the people in Baghdad were getting too much, leaving little electricity for Najaf," he said.

British troops: "Iraq is Unwinnable"

British troops tried a surge strategy one year ago. It brought short-term success that evaporated as soon as the surge ended. Perhaps we are looking at the future of our own military in the British experience. If so, it will take more than accusations of treason made by an increasingly isolated Party to avoid the situation presented below:

full story from BBC

Troops argue Iraq is 'unwinnable'

By Paul Wood Defence correspondent, BBC News

A belief that Iraq is unwinnable, fears that Afghanistan could go the same way and an overwhelming feeling that the government has not looked after the Armed Forces properly in return for the sacrifices they make.

That is what emerges from the answers given by hundreds of servicemen and women in response to the online questionnaire we posted here a few weeks ago. We received nearly 2,000 replies to a set of questions about life in the forces.

Those who contacted us did so in defiance of Queen's Regulations. It is forbidden for members of the Armed Forces to talk to the media unsupervised.

There is a good constitutional reason for that. Britain does not have the kind of politicised military which intervenes to change policy, or governments. But many servicemen and women are deeply worried and so are speaking out.

We are trying to do as much as we can to pay back our service personnel for all that they do for us - that is massively appreciated Bob Ainsworth Armed Forces Minister

Behind many of the problems lies the stretch - some would say overstretch - in our forces.

"We don't have the resources to do the tasks we're asked to do," said one RAF man who spoke to us. "We are at complete saturation point. If anything else happens, we won't be able to deal with it."

He was only echoing warnings given by senior officers, such as the head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt.

The government said, however, it was doing all it could to pay back service personnel for their efforts.

Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth said: "I don't believe or accept that we have broken the covenant with our service personnel.

"I spoke to General Dannatt before he left for Afghanistan and he agreed with me on this. There are issues that we have got to address and we are addressing.

"We are trying to do as much as we can to pay back our service personnel for that that they do for us - that is massively appreciated."

Iraq has undoubtedly put a strain on the British military. Many of those who responded to our questionnaire - admittedly a self-selecting group - thought Iraq was unwinnable and that British Forces should not be there.

Iraq is a lost cause Parachute Regiment officer

"It's getting hotter and hotter. And more soldiers wouldn't help. It's just more target," said one veteran of Basra.

Another wrote: "I am about to do my second tour of Basra. I don't think the public are aware how bad it actually is out there, getting rocket attacks every day and no let up."

One Parachute Regiment officer reflected the anguish that Iraq has caused within the services.

"Iraq is a lost cause," he said. "I don't think we can't achieve much. It is a difficult moral dilemma though. We owe it to the Iraqi people to stabilise their country and secure it for them. But at the same time it is unwinnable."

By contrast, most of the serving personnel who contacted us did think British forces should be in Afghanistan, although they worried about whether this conflict, too, was winnable.

"Iraq and Afghanistan are two completely different theatres," said one lieutenant who spoke to us at length. "The main difference is that people in Afghanistan actually want us there. Unlike Iraq.

"But the longer it takes [for us] to improve the lives of ordinary people in Afghanistan, the worse that situation will get," he added.

One soldier agreed: "We can win in Afghanistan and are winning. We just don't have enough resources to cover all the ground."

Again, we should stress that this was a self-selecting group. But these opinions reflect those you hear at bases here, and in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And the overwhelming view said they felt the military covenant was not being honoured. This is originally an army concept, but it applies to all the forces. It is the deal done between the soldier and the nation: look after me, and I will risk my life for you.

Most of those who answered our questionnaire thought the government was not honouring its side of the bargain.

'Shocking morale'

"The forces are underfunded, personnel are leaving in their droves," said one man in response to our questionnaire.

One soldier wrote: "We are underfunded by a tight-fisted government who wants to fight wars on the cheap. Young soldiers are dying on a regular basis for less than £50 a day, and yet we are supposed to be grateful for the £2,300 'bonus' we receive at the end of a tour.

"Compare that against an MP's expenses and you'll see why good soldiers are leaving in droves."

I, like many, am just counting the days until I qualify for my pension and can leave the demoralised and destitute armed forces Unnamed sailor

Another said: "Life in the armed forces? All you currently read on this matter is true.

"Shocking morale, little done to reduce constant overseas deployments, whilst cutting back our numbers in the middle of two major conflicts, [military] hospitals closed, inquests taking four years, shocking quality of accommodation, poor pay, and 30-minute phone calls a week from theatre.

"Prisoners get the same and we pay tax."

One sailor, just back from Iraq after a six-month tour, wrote: "The armed forces have been cut back year on year. Although the workload has increased enormously, I have never known such a state of apathy and low morale within the armed forces as there is today.

"I, like many, am just counting the days until I qualify for my pension and can leave the demoralised and destitute armed forces."

'Close to failing'

There were other concerns, in particular the number of casualties and how they are treated back in the UK.

One serviceman wrote: "For every fatality, there are many 'broken' soldiers who have suffered hideous injuries. If the sheer scale of those injuries was made common knowledge, the public would be shocked and disgusted."

He went on: "The government prefers to evade that issue. The armed forces are being asked to provide more and more with less and less. The system is extremely close to failing."

Much of what was said to us, in response to our questionnaire is also being said by senior officers, occasionally in public.

Members of the armed forces are not saying they will not go to Iraq and Afghanistan, that they will not do their duty.

But this group who contacted us, and many others, are warning that because the armed forces are so reliable, it is easy to take them for granted.

The overwhelming view is that the armed forces cannot go on like this indefinitely.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/6961380.stm

Published: 2007/08/23 21:42:57 GMT

Iraqi democracy is expendable for "success"

The invasion of Iraq was supposed to create a stable, prosperous democracy that would serve as a beacon of hope to the Middle East. Now it's neither stable nor prosperous, and possibly it won't be a democracy, either.

It's certainly failed as a beacon, except one of despair. Instead it's an endless fountain of refugees who are fleeing the miraculous success of the surge. It was also supposed to create a strong ally in the War On Terror, but the Iraqi government is instead moving closer to Iran. The surge has also created "good" terrorists, those who side with our forces while carrying out their terrorist activities, so it's far from clear how this is an improvement in the War On Terror. Somehow converting terrorists over to 'our side' has become the mission, not rooting out and destroying terrorism itself.


story from the Daily Telegraph:

Iraq: Democracy is not essential, says the US

By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 9:31am BST 24/08/2007

Disillusion with Iraq's elected leaders has forced President George W Bush's senior advisers to contemplate a future without democracy - a goal that was at the heart of the rationale for the US-led invasion.

Frontline generals in Iraq spoke openly yesterday of the need to have a government that could function and guarantee security above all else, including democratic legitimacy.

Brig Gen John Bednarek, who commands forces in Diyala province, told CNN that "democratic institutions are not necessarily the way ahead in the long-term future".

Maj Gen Benjamin Mixon, the commander of Task Force Lightning, which has played a central role in the new "surge" strategy, said: "That is the $50,000 question - what will this government look like? Will it be a democracy? Will it not?"

Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen David Petraeus, the senior US commander in Iraq, said in a statement that they were "now engaged in pursuing less lofty and ambitious goals than was the case at the outset", though they insisted that they were committed to preserving Iraq's democratic institutions.

Their comments could be seen as straight-talking from those facing the daily realities of Iraq on the ground, but may signal a shift soon by the administration away from the holy grail of establishing a fully-functioning, multi-party, multi-ethnic government.

They contradicted the bullish rhetoric of Mr Bush, who in a speech this week cited the enthusiasm shown by Iraqis for voting as justification for a prolonged US presence there.

Iraqis have turned out in large numbers for several polls since the 2003 invasion that overthrew Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, the last of which elected the first popular government for 50 years.

The performance of the Shia prime minister Nouri al-Maliki and his cabinet has however exasperated Washington and led to calls by influential senators, including Hillary Clinton, likely to be the Democrat presidential contender next year, for their removal, albeit by democratic means.

Mr Bush expressed his displeasure with his Iraqi ally on Tuesday, saying "clearly, the Iraqi government's got to do more". He rowed back on his comments the following day, after they were seen as calling for a change of leadership.

A National Intelligence Assessment released last night expressed deep doubts that Mr Maliki could overcome sectarian divisions within parliament and meet benchmarks intended to promote political unity, such as a deal on distributing oil revenues.

The Decider speaks to his base, ignores the public

The Decider, in his own words, and in his own little world:

Good morning. This week I traveled to Kansas City to address the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I spoke about the ideological struggle that our Nation faces in the 21st century, and the lessons we can draw from the advance of freedom in Asia in the 20th century. America's enduring presence and perseverance on that continent aided the rise of democracy, helped transform American enemies into American allies, and made our country safer.

Yes, and Bush's remarks were widely ridiculed, including his quotes about Japan which were bitterly denounced by the man he quoted. Of course, Vietnam is not a democracy, nor is Laos. It was not "America's enduring presence" that turned Vietnam from an enemy to an ally; rather, it was the wisdom to withdraw and let the Vietnamese determine thier own course. In the case of Cambodia, the U.S. bombed it into oblivion and supported the overthrow of Prince Norodim Sihanouk in the mistaken belief that they couldn't get anyone worse in power. Instead, the Khmer Rouge stepped up to the plate out the ruins of the generous bombings and began an unparalleled genocide that was only stopped by the invasion of "enemy" Vietnam. In Vietnam itself, the "democracy" that the U.S. backed was one in which only one party was allowed to participate in elections. Opposition parties were summarily imprisoned, executed, and obliterated in Thieu's Vietnam. As it turned out, the communists did not "follow us home". The millions killed in Vietnam died in a civil war, in which the U.S. had the major share as executioner. 16 years in Vietnam only destroyed that country and did nothing to make it an ally or to "make our country safer". No talk of "democracy" in Burma, one will notice.

Next week I will address the members of the American Legion at their annual convention in Reno. In that speech, I will focus on the Middle East and why the rise of a free and democratic Iraq is critical to the future of this vital region and to our Nation's security.

So Bush will again make another speech in front of politically-supportive audience and repeat the same talking points which have brought his credibility to zero. Ho-hum.

I will also provide an update on the developments we are seeing from our new strategy in Iraq. Every month since January, U.S. forces have killed or captured an average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists. And in June our troops launched a surge of operations that is helping bring former Sunni insurgents into the fight against al Qaeda, clear the terrorists out of population centers, and give families in liberated Iraqi cities a safer and more normal life.

And yet Al-Qaeda and "other extremists" seem to have no trouble replacing these numbers.
The "former Sunni insurgents" we are using to wipe out Al-Qaeda are not loyal to the Iraqi government, so we are merely making a lateral move there. And we are using "terrorists" (the Shia militias) to "clear the terrorists out", so it's not really a mark of progress on that score, either. And "families in liberated Iraq" are fleeing the country in record numbers, not feeling "safer" or living "a more normal life". So, no progress on this score. See this post for more facts on the surge's dismal record.

As security improves, more Iraqis are stepping forward to defend their democracy. Young Iraqi men are signing up for the army. Iraqi police are now patrolling the streets. Coalition and Iraqi forces have doubled the number of joint operations. As the Iraqi people feel more secure, they are also forming neighborhood watch groups. They're volunteering important information about the terrorists and extremists hiding in their midst. And the increase in tips helps account for the marked reduction in sectarian murders.

The Iraqi Army is in miserable shape, it is only at a third of the forces Bush anticipated, the Iraqi military and police are not loyal to the government, and sectarian killings are up. More surge facts here.

By driving out the terrorists from cities and neighborhoods, we're creating the conditions for reconciliation -- especially at the local level. In communities across Iraq, citizens are seeing their local and provincial governments return to operation. Despite continuing violence, leaders in places like Anbar, Najaf, and Ninewah are now working through local provincial councils to approve funds to finance the rebuilding of homes and neighborhoods, to fight corruption, and to create new jobs.

In fact, by driving the terrorists (or at least the "terrorists" who don't temporarily ally themselves with us) out, we instead displace the violence to new areas. Petraeus once offered his "balloon analogy", which said that as you apply the pressure in one area, it is merely moved to another area. Any progress that has come in Anbar has come from the militias, not from the government, and the provincial governments are a no-show. Reconstruction efforts are an embarrasing failure. The electricity is on for only a few hours, and serious problems are now obvious in the water-delivery infrastructure. The country is facing a "humaitarian crisis", and the economy is in shambles. That is why 50,000 Iraqis a month are fleeing the country.

Here at home, it can be easy to overlook the bravery shown by Iraqi troops and Iraqi civilians who are in the fight for freedom. But our troops on the ground see it every day. Last week, a team of American soldiers was meeting with an Iraqi citizens group near Baghdad. Suddenly, a suicide bomber came running around a corner and headed straight for our soldiers and the Iraqi civilians.

One Iraqi man saw what was happening and ran to intercept the bomber. As he pushed the terrorist away, the bomb detonated -- killing both men, but sparing four American soldiers and eight Iraqi civilians. Army Staff Sergeant Sean Kane is one of those who says he owes his life to this brave Iraqi. Sergeant Kane says, "He could have run behind us or away from us, but he made the decision to sacrifice himself to protect everyone." Sergeant Kane spoke to the Iraqi man's father, who said that even if his son had known the outcome beforehand, he "would not have acted differently."

Great. An Iraqi doesn't want suicide bombers destroying his neighbourhood. Who would? Is Bush seriously floating the idea that someone opposed to the occupation is saying that the Iraqi people want to be blown up? We've thrown 30,000 troops into Iraq to bring stability, and the bombings continue, the sectarian killings continue, and the government crumbles. The point is, that despite what the average Iraqi wants, the surge isn't providing security. It's merely working at the margins and moving violence to once-peaceful areas. And as for those who "overlook the bravery shown by the Iraqi troops", I'd have to point to Rear Adm Fox:
"US commanders warn that Iraqi forces are not ready to handle security alone, in part due to tensions between ordinary Iraqis and police, who the United States says have often been infiltrated by Shiite militia."There is a certain element of the Iraqi security forces and in particular the Iraqi police ... that have had shortfalls in terms of loyalty ... to the central government," Rear Admiral Mark Fox, the top military spokesman in Iraq, told a news conference."

The story does not end there. Later that same night, the citizens group contacted the local director of the National Police and told him the location of the al Qaeda cell believed to be responsible for the attack. The National Police immediately conducted a raid that resulted in four arrests.

Hooray! How many of those who reported this will soon be victims of death squads or Al-Qaeda? The story does not end where Bush left it, either. One can point to citizens reporting crimes here at home, and arrests being made, but nobody suggests that crime can be eliminated. It is only working on the margins.

We are still in the early stages of our new operations. But the success of the past couple of months have shown that conditions on the ground can change -- and they are changing. We cannot expect the new strategy we are carrying out to bring success overnight. But by standing with the Iraqi people as they build their democracy, we will deliver a devastating blow to al Qaeda, we will help provide new hope for millions of people throughout the Middle East, we will gain a friend and ally in the war on terror, and we will make the American people safer.

We have been in Iraq for 4 1/2 years. We have been hearing of "promising progress" for that entire time. The surge doesn't exist in a vacuum. Four years preceded it. Four years of battling Al-Qaeda, killing and arresting "insurgents", even torturing them, did not solve the problem. Al-Qaeda is not "devastated", and if we drive them out, then they will go somewhere else and create new problems in Somalia or Afghanistan. They will come back as soon as the pressure is gone, and they are in fact doing this in areas where the surge has 'succeeded'. The al-Maliki government is cozying up to Iran, as would be expected of a partisan Shiite coalition, and Iran is not an ally in the War On Terror. Provincial elections are stalled. Nobody in the Middle East is looking at Iraq with "hope" or as a positive example of "democracy". Elements within the White House itself are now saying that democracy must be abandoned in Iraq if we are to "succeed". And the primary fear-mongering regarding Americans' safety has come from the White House.

Thank you for listening.

I wish you would try it sometime, Mr. Bush.
No mention of the British in Basra, nor of the collapse of the Iraqi government. Bush promised big things with the surge, and the result is not much more than we had before the surge. Morale is low among the troops, and the Afghan war is not going well. A major PR campaign has not impressed the American public, and Republicans continue to beat away on their old "dissent is treason" line. Bush's base is increasingly isolated and hanging on to a bizarre fear of an imminent Islamic takeover in America that the occupation of Iraq is somehow supposed to be preventing. With a little over a year before elections, and the surge not being able to be maintained beyond April due to a shortage of troops, one must look at what Iraq will look like without the 30,000 occupation troops already there. Will Republicans continue to denounce dissenting troops that return to be "traitors"? How will that square with the "support the troops" mania they have relied on up to now? How long can "moderate" Republicans like Jim Ramstad (my rep, btw) wring their hands and hope for good news before the public sees them as nothing more than tools of an unpopular Administration? Stay tuned.

"Boots on the ground" extend a middle finger

Listen to the "boots on the ground", eh?

This quote from the article is the salient point:

"Some say two wars are being fought here: the one the enlisted men see, and the one that senior officers and politicians want the world to see."
Indeed. Guess which one the neocons see? Guess which side the "support-the-troops" warmongers come down on?

Every positive pronouncement from senior officers whose careers are on the line is treated as gospel truth by war supporters, and every critical remark from the "boots on the ground" is dismissed as "treason" and "traitor-talk". Soldiers who speak out are pilloried; officers who parrot the script they are given are extolled as heroes.

story from L.A. Times

GIs' morale dips as Iraq war drags on

With tours extended, multiple deployments and new tactics that put them in bare posts in greater danger, they feel leaders are out of touch with reality.

By Tina Susman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 25, 2007

YOUSIFIYA, IRAQ -- In the dining hall of a U.S. Army post south of Baghdad, President Bush was on the wide-screen TV, giving a speech about the war in Iraq. The soldiers didn't look up from their chicken and mashed potatoes.

As military and political leaders prepare to deliver a progress report on the conflict to Congress next month, many soldiers are increasingly disdainful of the happy talk that they say commanders on the ground and White House officials are using in their discussions about the war.

And they're becoming vocal about their frustration over longer deployments and a taxing mission that keeps many living in dangerous and uncomfortably austere conditions. Some say two wars are being fought here: the one the enlisted men see, and the one that senior officers and politicians want the world to see.

"I don't see any progress. Just us getting killed," said Spc. Yvenson Tertulien, one of those in the dining hall in Yousifiya, 10 miles south of Baghdad, as Bush's speech aired last month. "I don't want to be here anymore."

Morale problems come as the Bush administration faces increasing pressure to begin a drawdown of troops.

<>

The signs of frustration and of flagging morale are unmistakable, including blunt comments, online rants and the findings of surveys on military morale and suicides.

Sometimes the signs are to be found even in latrines. In the stalls at Baghdad's Camp Liberty, someone had posted Army help cards listing "nine signs of suicide." On one card, seven of the boxes had been checked.

"This occupation, this money pit, this smorgasbord of superfluous aggression is getting more hopeless and dismal by the second," a soldier in Diyala province, north of Baghdad, wrote in an Aug. 7 post on his blog, www.armyofdude.blogspot.com.

"The only person I know who believed Iraq was improving was killed by a sniper in May," the blogger, identified only as Alex from Frisco, Texas, said in a separate e-mail.

The Army's suicide rate is at its highest in 23 years: 17.3 per 100,000 troops, compared with 12.4 per 100,000 in 2003, the first year of the war. Of the 99 suicides last year, 27 occurred in Iraq.

The latest in a series of mental health surveys of troops in Iraq, released in May, says 45% of the 1,320 soldiers interviewed ranked morale in their unit as low or very low. Seven percent ranked it high or very high.

In Yousifiya, troops occupy the sun-scorched grounds of a former potato-processing plant. They use pit latrines and get showers only when there is enough water. They jog around a shade-less concrete lot that serves as a helipad and mortar-launching site. Other troops in this area have far less comfortable surroundings.

Army Maj. Rob Griggs believes rough conditions are good for the mission. Without comforting distractions, troops are more driven to complete their jobs, said Griggs, who is on his fifth deployment, including two in Iraq, since enlisting 17 years ago.

"It allows them to focus on why they are here," said Griggs, who sleeps and lives in half of a 20-foot metal shipping container on the Yousifiya base. Having troops live in the same spare conditions as many Iraqis do also helps convince people that the Americans are genuine about wanting to make things better, he said.

But the disparities in living and working conditions among soldiers heighten resentments, chipping away at morale. So does the feeling that the mission is futile, a belief fueled by the Iraqi political stalemate and the unreliability of Iraqi forces.

"There are two different wars," said Staff Sgt. Donald Richard Harris, comparing his soldiers' views with those of commanders in distant bases. "It's a dead-end process, it seems like."

Asked to rank morale in his unit, Harris gave it a 4 on a 10-point scale. "Look at these guys. This is their downtime," he said, as young soldiers around him silently cleaned dust from their rifles at a battle position south of the capital. A fiery wind blasted through the small base, an abandoned home surrounded by sandbags and razor wire

No progress

Baghdad is where the surge is most heavily concentrated, and where the surge was supposed to show the biggest results. While violence continues there, it spreads to new areas as well.

However, these stories are pointed to as proof that the "enemy" is "on the run". The "enemy" seems to have quite a few suicide bombers, and unless these guys are coming back from the dead, they seem to be finding new ones to take their places. Eventually, everyone on the planet willing to blow themselves up will be dead, and we will "win". I guess that is our strategy.

story from Xinhua

4 Iraqi soldiers killed, 11 U.S. soldiers wounded in two suicide bombings in north of Baghdad

Two suicide car bombers struck a joint U.S. and Iraqi military outpost in northern Baghdad, killing four Iraqi soldiers and wounding 11 U.S. troops, the U.S. military said on Thursday.

The attacks took place on Wednesday when the two suicide vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices hit the outpost, a military statement said.

Four other Iraqi soldiers were also wounded in the attacks, it added.

The statement did not say where exactly the incident occurred, but said that eight of the U.S. wounded were transported to Camp Taji, some 20 km north of the capital. The remaining three U.S. and the four Iraqi wounded soldiers were evacuated to a medical facility.

It said that eight local Iraqis were detained for suspect of having information about the attacks.

Earlier on Wednesday, 14 U.S. soldiers were killed when their helicopter crashed in northern Iraq, the U.S. military said.


The military said in a statement that the 14 soldiers, assigned to Task Force Lightning, died when the Black Hawk helicopter they were riding went down in northern Iraq.

Source: Xinhua

...and from Reuters:

* BAGHDAD - At least 13 people were killed in clashes between U.S. forces and gunmen in the Shula district of northwestern Baghdad overnight, a police source at a hospital said. U.S. force said they killed eight militants in the clash.

* DIWANIYA - Gunmen killed two construction workers in a drive-by shooting in Diwaniya, 180 km (112 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

* DIWANIYA - Police said they found a body riddled with the bullets in central Diwaniya.

*HAWIJA - Gunmen killed a barber in a drive-by shooting in central Hawija 70 km (43 miles) southwest of the northern city of Kirkuk, police said.

* HAWIJA - Police said they found a body with gunshot wounds and signs of torture in central Hawija.

SALAHUDDIN PROVINCE - One U.S. soldier was killed and four wounded as a result of an explosion that struck them while on patrol in Salahuddin Province north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said.

MOSUL - A booby-trapped parked car containing two dead bodies exploded in central Mosul on Thursday, police said. Two people including a policeman were killed in the blast and 12 were wounded.

RIYADH - Police found one body with gunshot wounds and signs of torture in the town of Riyadh 60 km (40 miles) southwest of Kirkuk on Thursday, police said.

NUMANIYA - Gunmen killed a policeman in Numaniya 120 km (72 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

Does this sound like an improving situation? Violence is spreading to areas that were previously peaceful, and continuing in areas that were previously violent.

Coalition forces attacked inside Kabul

Our troops are now being attacked inside the capital, which has been the only area the coalition has been able to call their own. Karzai has often been called "The Mayor of Kabul", but his control of that city has been strained recently because his government has not paid its employees for several weeks. The Afghan government is widely ignored by warlords outside of the capital, in a situation parallel to the provincial governments in Iraq, making the Karzai government increasingly irrelevant.

Again, we are seeing the same inverted logic in the Afghan war that has been a mainstay in the Iraq effort: attacks show the enemy is "desperate", increased violence means that peace is "just around the corner", political instability can be overcome with airstrikes and bullets, and we just need more time for the magic to work.

Suicide bomber hits Western troop convoy in Kabul

KABUL (Reuters) - A suicide car bomber struck a convoy of Western troops in the Afghan capital on Saturday and wounded up to four soldiers, a NATO spokesman said.

The attack happened on a road leading east from Kabul which is regularly used by NATO and U.S.-led troops.

Two to four foreign soldiers were taken to hospital after the blast, a spokesman for the NATO-led force said.

Violence has surged in Afghanistan in the past 19 months, the bloodiest period since U.S.-led troops toppled the Taliban government in 2001.

On Friday night, a rocket landed inside a hospital compound in Kabul but caused no casualties or damage, hospital officials said on Saturday.

Taliban insurgents occasionally fire rockets into Kabul although they rarely cause casualties. Friday's attack hit the Wazir Akbar Khan area of Kabul where many foreign embassies and aid organisations have their offices.

"It was 11 p.m. when a rocket hit inside the Wazir Akbar Khan compound," said a doctor who worked at the Wazir Akbar Khan hospital. "No one was wounded or killed, and the hospital received no damage. It hit a garden inside the hospital."

No group claimed responsibility for the attack.

Afghan troops killed 19 Taliban insurgents in clashes in Ghazni province, southwest of Kabul, on Friday, the provincial governor told Reuters on Saturday.

Six more Taliban rebels were killed when they ambushed a police patrol in the southeastern province of Paktika on Friday, the Interior Ministry said on Saturday.


This article: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1354972007

Last updated: 25-Aug-07 16:24 BST

Austria not supporting anti-Iranian propaganda

Earlier this week we saw India reject the U.S. State Department's efforts to whip up an anti-Iranian frenzy, and now Austria has weighed in as well. The U.S. has proposed an anti-missile defence system to protect Europe from Iran, with deeper agendas involving creating a counter to the SCO. So far only Poland and the Czech Republic have bought into this effort, and they have most likely been lured by promises of increased U.S. support for entry to NATO. Just as Macedonia is being played by the U.S, Eastern Europe is seeing an effort to peel it off from the E.U. by promising some kind of "client-state" status. On the one hand, the U.S. is selling a fear-based approach of an Iranian attack along with a carrot-based approach of promises of aid, support, protection, and of course, money if they go along for the ride.

All that I will add at this point is that these Eastern European nations should look at the way Britain has been hung out to dry by the U.S. When Britain fell for the exact same approach, they wound up bringing their military to the brink of collapse, ringing up huge debts, involved in two wars, and being treated as an unreliable ally when they couldn't "keep up". Now, if Britain couldn't meet the demands of being a U.S. ally, how do these Eastern European countries imagine they will be able to "make the grade" in their bid to "play with the big boys"?

U.S. Rejects Austria's Criticism of Missile Defense Plan


The State Department Thursday rejected comments by Austria's defense minister that the U.S. missile defense system planned for central Europe is unnecessary and amounts to a Cold War-style provocation. U.S. officials say the system, to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic, is intended to counter a potential missile threat from Iran.

The State Department is vigorously defending the anti-missile plan in the face of comments by Austrian Defense Minister Norbert Darabos that the program makes no sense, and will only re-ignite Cold War debates in Europe.

Darabos, of Austria's left-leaning Social Democratic party, told the Vienna newspaper Die Presse that he did not see any Iranian threat to Europe, and that the issue of that country's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions should be resolved through negotiations, as in the case of North Korea.

Responding at a news briefing, State Department Acting Spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos called the Austrian official's remarks unhelpful and said the U.S. missile defense plan reflects new, post-Cold War, realities:

"Such comments are not helpful, and we now face a new strategic environment that requires us to move beyond Cold-War thinking," he said. "The proposed system under discussion with Poland and the Czech Republic is solely defensive in nature and is directed at emerging threats in the Middle East."

Russia has strongly objected to the U.S. plan, saying it would undercut its strategic nuclear deterrence, and in protest last month said it was suspending its role in a 1990 treaty limiting conventional forces in Europe.

Gallegos said the U.S. has been open and transparent in all its dealings on the defense system and is conducting expert-level talks on the issue with Moscow, with a second round of that dialogue due to be held in September.

At a summit of the G-8 industrial powers in June, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed an alternative anti-missile plan between Russia and NATO, and offered to include in it a Russian radar site in Azerbaijan, which borders Iran.

Bush administration officials have been cool to the idea and have said the U.S. plan, involving the placement of 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic, is moving forward.

The issue is expected to dominate an unusual "two-plus-two" meeting, planned for early October in Moscow, of the U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense and their Russian counterparts.

Czech Republic Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg also challenged the Austrian Defense Minister's criticism of the plan, saying it has never been a provocation and is needed to ensure the security of all of Europe.

Neither the Czech nor Polish governments has given final approval to host the U.S. system, but both are expected to do so by the end of the year. U.S. officials hope the system can be operational by 2012, though skeptical congressional Democrats are trying to slash funding for it.

VOA News

Iraqis flee the surge's "success"

If things are "improving" so much, why have the numbers of Iraqis fleeing their homes and country gone up since the surge began?




full story from NYT

BAGHDAD, Aug. 23 — The number of Iraqis fleeing their homes has soared since the American troop increase began in February, according to data from two humanitarian groups, accelerating the partition of the country into sectarian enclaves.

Despite some evidence that the troop buildup has improved security in certain areas, sectarian violence continues and American-led operations have brought new fighting, driving fearful Iraqis from their homes at much higher rates than before the tens of thousands of additional troops arrived, the studies show.

The data track what are known as internally displaced Iraqis: those who have been driven from their neighborhoods and seek refuge elsewhere in the country rather than fleeing across the border. The effect of this vast migration is to drain religiously mixed areas in the center of Iraq, sending Shiite refugees toward the overwhelmingly Shiite areas to the south and Sunnis toward majority Sunni regions to the west and north.

Though most displaced Iraqis say they would like to return, there is little prospect of their doing so. One Sunni Arab who had been driven out of the Baghdad neighborhood of southern Dora by Shiite snipers said she doubted that her family would ever return, buildup or no buildup.

“There is no way we would go back,” said the woman, 26, who gave her name only as Aswaidi. “It is a city of ghosts. The only people left there are terrorists.”

Statistics collected by one of the two humanitarian groups, the Iraqi Red Crescent Organization, indicate that the total number of internally displaced Iraqis has more than doubled, to 1.1 million from 499,000, since the buildup started in February.

Those figures are broadly consistent with data compiled independently by an office in the United Nations that specializes in tracking wide-scale dislocations. That office, the International Organization for Migration, found that in recent months the rate of displacement in Baghdad, where the buildup is focused, had increased by as much as a factor of 20, although part of that rise could have stemmed from improved monitoring of displaced Iraqis by the government in Baghdad, the capital.

The new findings suggest that while sectarian attacks have declined in some neighborhoods, the influx of troops and the intense fighting they have brought are at least partly responsible for what a report by the United Nations migration office calls the worst human displacement in Iraq’s modern history.

The findings also indicate that the sectarian tension the troops were meant to defuse is still intense in many places in Iraq. Sixty-three percent of the Iraqis surveyed by the United Nations said they had fled their neighborhoods because of direct threats to their lives, and more than 25 percent because they had been forcibly removed from their homes.

The demographic shifts could favor those who would like to see Iraq partitioned into three semi-autonomous regions: a Shiite south and a Kurdish north sandwiching a Sunni territory.

Over all, the scale of this migration has put so much strain on Iraqi governmental and relief offices that some provinces have refused to register any more displaced people, or will accept only those whose families are originally from the area. But Rafiq Tschannen, chief of the Iraq mission for the migration office, said that in many cases, the ability of extended families to absorb displaced relatives was also stretched to the breaking point.

“It’s a bleak picture,” Mr. Tschannen said. “It is just steadily continuing in a bad direction, from bad to worse.”

He also cautioned that reports of people going back to their homes were overstated. As the buildup began, the Iraqi government said that it would take measures to evict squatters from houses that were not theirs and make special efforts to bring the rightful owners back.

“They were reporting that people went back, but they didn’t report that people left again,” Mr. Tschannen said. He added that Iraqis “hear things are better, go back to collect remuneration and pick up an additional suitcase and leave again. It is not a permanent return in most cases.”

American officials in Baghdad did not respond to a request for comment, but the national intelligence estimate released Thursday confirmed that Iraq continues to become more segregated through internal migration. “Population displacement resulting from sectarian violence continues,” it found, “imposing burdens on provincial governments and some neighboring states.”

Afghan war "success"

Recently Bush has made his trademark optimistic remarks about the "success" in Afghanistan. However, the European media has been reporting for years now that this is a disastrous situation.
Two stories: the first, a Radio-Canada reporter lives through a mine hit, with his escort "lucky" enough to only lose his leg. Second, U.S. bombers kill three British troops by mistake in Helmand. They called in an airstrike, and when it came it bombed them. Add this to the insults by U.S. military and the neocons regarding British withdrawal from Basra, and British public opinion is taking a dramatic turn.

Patrice Roy yesterday recounted the blast that killed two Canadian soldiers in an interview, translated here from French, with a CBC radio reporter

Aug 24, 2007 04:30 AM

Radio-Canada reporter Patrice Roy was sitting beside Canadian Forces medic Christian Duchesne when the armoured vehicle they were riding in hit a road mine near Kandahar, Afghanistan. Duchesne and a second soldier, Mario Mercier, were killed, as well as an Afghan interpreter. Roy suffered only shock but his cameraman, Charles Dubois, was seriously wounded and had his leg amputated below the knee.
Roy yesterday relived the horrifying experience in an interview, translated here from French, with a CBC radio reporter:
Roy: We left very early in the morning with a company whose mission was to take a mountain, or re-take a mountain. It was 16 kilometres between there and our departure point.
We were told it would be pretty light going, that they didn't think the Taliban would be listening.
But we quickly noticed that the operation would be a lot more complicated.
The Taliban started firing rockets all over the place, not directly at our vehicle because we were following behind, but at the ones ahead. So for 13 hours we drove around a village in the LAV3; we were near the mountain but couldn't go up.
And Charles Dubois, our cameraman who was injured, took some extraordinary pictures of that operation because, from our vantage point, we could see everything in relative security.
Toward the end of the day, after 13 hours, they decided to go up to the post they were supposed to reach – the target – and it's while we were climbing up the last bend on the mountain that there was a flash, a massive shock, in the LAV3.
When I came to, my cameraman Charles was beside me in a great deal of pain, and the others had been ejected.
The vehicle, the back of the vehicle, was completely smashed. Obviously there was a first aid operation set up, etcetera. It was quite difficult. Then we were evacuated ... to the base at Kandahar, where Charles was treated. And now we're leaving in a few hours for Germany, to the hospital there, and then to Canada.
Brooks Decillia (CBC reporter): Before you went up that hill, how would you characterize the battle? Tell me about that.
Roy: I'm not a soldier but I think that, even by military standards, it was a major battle.
They weren't expecting it to be that major, in the area where we were there was no expectation we would come under so much fire. The Taliban were attacking with small arms, with rockets.
Anything that lasts 13 hours is quite long ... We stayed in a four-square-kilometre area for four or five hours to take positions where the mines could be cleared, because mines are the biggest danger.
And the soldiers had de-mining equipment working ahead of us to remove the mines, but clearly the machine missed one.
But it was a major engagement, it was the first significant operation for the (Royal) 22nd (Regiment), there had been patrols beforehand, in the last month, but this was an operation, what they called a show of force in a region that had been completely overtaken by the Taliban.
The Canadians were there a year ago, they left, and they said we should go back ... It's difficult to imagine how all that area could have been secured even in a year because all the Canadian tanks that go there are attacked whether there's eight, one or two.
Decillia: Describe the moments leading up to the explosion and then what happened.
Roy: We were arriving. Charles and I were extraordinarily tired, we hadn't slept the night before because we had travelled by night and I was writing a little stand-up (report) because we had built the story as a visual summary of the previous 48 hours.
So in those hours I was taking notes about what was happening, and at that point I was writing the conclusion and I was reading it out loud, changing a word here and there.
At the moment when I leaned my head down and scratched out a word, there was a flash, a tremendous noise, it was a flash, and then we found ourselves – I'm not even sure I lost consciousness, but anyway, what's certain is that, once again, the force of the explosion was massive.
We think maybe they put two or three mines there because LAV3s are vehicles that we were told are very robust.
It was a shock. It's rare to find people who have encountered that, and people said, military people who know, like, first aid people, ambulance attendants, told me you'll see, you'll have more control than you expect.
For about 15 minutes you become almost insensible.
I wanted to look after Charles, the soldiers. They started first aid, and all that mattered was to get out of there fast.
I was quite anxious because I was thinking `We're civilians, and the first people they'll evacuate are the soldiers, not us, not Charles.'
Except that the soldiers' misfortune was lucky for us in a way, because they died on the spot and there were two injured people left, a soldier and Charles.
So we were evacuated by the first American helicopter.
Decillia: What did you see after the explosion?
Roy: I saw the LAV completely cut open. I saw people below, I saw panic, obviously, people were screaming. I heard screams everywhere. ... I saw Charles who had blood and, fortunately, it was only his leg.
Although we can say that we were caught up in this extraordinary mishap, and even though we're conscious of the risks we run in theatre, we were relatively lucky; in my case, obviously very lucky.
Decillia: What's going through your mind?
Roy: Nothing ... I was focused on trying to get help.
I was concerned they might not help us as much because we're civilians, but in the end they helped us. ... Afterward, in the helicopter, when we got back, I thought `We could have stepped on another mine, we could have... . But that was after.
It was almost like we were in an altered state, I imagine it was the adrenaline, I don't know.
But I have to tell you, when I saw the American helicopter arrive, it's `Phew, let's get out of here.'
Decillia: Your family, what did you tell them. ...
Roy: Well, first I reassured my wife. I was afraid of rumours, you know how it is.
Rumours start flying right and left. Some thought I was dead. ... when you go to Afghanistan, even when nothing's happening, you know, you're reporting here, people are worried about you, they wonder a bit `Why did he go?'
So, if in addition to that a mine explodes, it's the proof that they were right (to be worried) and the proof that it's true that it's dangerous to cover a war, and Charles and I knew it.
It was the fourth time Charles had been here. He's an unbelievable cameraman who is strong, who knows where to go, who doesn't take risks.
He was very unlucky but ... it's a mix of `Wouldn't we be better off to stay in the camp and wait for news from the front and report it as best we can?' This is not a traditional war – mines, there's nothing more treacherous in the world than a landmine.
We knew the Taliban were shooting at us, and (the military) set it up in such a way we weren't exposed in our vehicle, but nobody can do anything about a mine.

Three British troops killed by "friendly fire":

Three British soldiers have died in what appears to have been a friendly fire explosion in Helmand
Three British soldiers were killed by a bomb dropped on their position by a US war plane during fierce fighting in Afghanistan, it was confirmed today.
At least two other men from 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment were injured in the friendly fire incident. One of these was described as critically ill.
The 60-strong foot patrol had called in air support after they came under intense attack from Taliban insurgents in Helmand province yesterday evening.
The MoD said the men were killed by a "single bomb" dropped from one of two US F15 aircraft called to help repel the enemy. A statement said: "Their patrol was attacked and during the intense engagement that ensued, close air support was called in from two US F15 aircraft.

"A single bomb was dropped and it is believed the explosion killed all three soldiers who were declared dead at the scene."
The injured soldiers were evacuated by helicopter to the medical facility at Camp Bastion, the UK headquarters, for treatment.
The next of kin have been informed, the MoD said, adding the incident was one of "profound sadness." Officials said an investigation is now under way. The deaths take the toll of British dead in Afghanistan since operations began in 2001 to 73. There have been 11 deaths in the last two months during increasingly heavy fighting.
In March 2003 Lance Corporal Matty Hull was killed and three other British soldiers injured when a US plane fired on them by mistake despite their vehicles being clearly marked.

Yesterday's "fighting patrol" was intended to disrupt Taliban activity and reassure local residents north west of Kajaki in Helmund, they called for air support. A bomb was dropped and unfortunately three of our guys were killed," said a source.
The MoD said: "It was an airstrike which British soldiers called in and what went wrong will be subject to an investigation."
A spokesman said that there well- rehearsed systems between the allies to try to prevent friendly fire incidents.
"There's a raft of mechanism in place to try to prevent these things. But these are daily occurances and these air strikes have saved the lives of countless British soldiers. In combat nothing is 100 per cent fool proof," he said.
The troops were part of an operation to secure the Kajaki damn - described by the military as one of the most strategically important sights in Southern Afghanistan.
British forces and engineers are trying to repair the hydroelectric damn so it can provide power for the Helmand province.
"Our troops have been working for some time to secure the area around the damn," said the MoD.
The 500-strong Ist Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment, known as the "Vikings", have been deployed on their current stint of duty in Helmand since April. They are due to return to the UK in October.
The regiment last year set up a memorial fund to provide a permanent tribute to those who had already died. They are part of 12 Mechanised Brigade's deployment and have responsibility for the northern sector of the Helmand, which over the last year has seen some of the fiercest fighting with the Taliban. The Vikings defend key locations from attack such as the important town of Sangin, the merchant town of Nowzad and the strategically important hydroelectric dam at Kajaki.