Rogue state

WTF?

US helicopter-borne troops have carried out a raid inside Syria along the Iraqi border, killing eight people including four children, Syrian officials say.

The official Syrian news agency Sana said the raid took place in the Abu Kamal border area, in eastern Syria.

It said that American soldiers on four helicopters had stormed a building under construction on Sunday night.

The US says it is investigating. It has previously accused Syria of allowing foreign militants into Iraq.

Syria has summoned the US and Iraqi envoys in Damascus to protest at the raid.

Seriously. WTF?

U.S. military helicopters launched an extremely rare attack Sunday on Syrian territory close to the border with Iraq, killing eight people in a strike the government in Damascus condemned as "serious aggression."

A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the network of al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters moving through Syria into Iraq. The Americans have been unable to shut the network down in the area because Syria was out of the military's reach.

"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official told The Associated Press in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids.

If by "political sensitivity" you mean violation of the UN charter and international laws against, you know, attacking sovereign nations.

Jesus H. Christ in a hot tub, these guys really do want to fuck things up beyond repair.

Late thought: "We are taking matters into our own hands." I thought we had a Commander-in-Chief? Isn't that his job? Since when to "military officials" publicly make foreign policy decisions?

Continue reading Rogue state

Ruh-roh

A draft report by American intelligence agencies concludes that Afghanistan is in a “downward spiral” and casts serious doubt on the ability of the Afghan government to stem the rise in the Taliban’s influence there, according to American officials familiar with the document.

The classified report finds that the breakdown in central authority in Afghanistan has been accelerated by rampant corruption within the government of President Hamid Karzai and by an increase in violence by militants who have launched increasingly sophisticated attacks from havens in Pakistan.

The report, a nearly completed version of a National Intelligence Estimate, is set to be finished after the November elections and will be the most comprehensive American assessment in years on the situation in Afghanistan. Its conclusions represent a harsh verdict on decision-making in the Bush administration, which in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks made Afghanistan the central focus of a global campaign against terrorism.

In case the words aren't clear enough, here's the picture.

You can talk about the surge until the cows come home, but here's the real problem. We've spent $650 billion fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq the past 5 years. That's money we could have probably used for a few other things. And at the end of the day, Afghanistan is going to be as much of a failed state as it was in 2001. Whether the surge worked or not is pretty much irrelevant.

Continue reading Ruh-roh

FCC looking into Iraq War coverage

This is really worth keeping an eye on:

An FCC spokesman confirmed Monday that the commission has asked for information from TV military analysts concerning their possible role in a Department of Defense program to recruit ex-military officers to express support for the Iraq war and other Bush administration policies.

"The [FCC] is looking into the allegations and has sent letters," said the spokesman, who said he did not know how many letters had been sent out.

The commission was asked by some legislators to looks into whether TV stations or networks bear any responsibility for not identifying the analyst's connection to the Pentagon or defense contractors.

U.S. News & World Report said it had obtained a copy of a letter from the FCC to one of the pundits. The FCC declined to make public the letters that were sent in connection with the inquiry.

The Wall Street Journal adds:

The FCC's rules prohibit broadcasters and employees who prepare shows from accepting money, goods or services in exchange for on-air promotion without disclosing that arrangement to viewers or listeners.

Radio broadcasters have mostly run afoul of the FCC's payola rules over the years, but last October, the agency proposed combined fines of $76,000 to two broadcast companies for not telling viewers that columnist Armstrong Williams had received money from the Department of Education in exchange for promoting the No Child Left Behind Act on his shows and other programs.

Continue reading FCC looking into Iraq War coverage

What's wrong with this headine?

US toll in Iraq hits all-time low as month ends

Hey, it's wonderful news that US casualties, as well as Iraqi casualties, continue to decrease. Fewer deaths are always better than more. But i suspect that just picking a month at random, say, April 1989, would put the lie to the claim of "all-time low."

Just sayin'.

Continue reading What's wrong with this headine?

Friday, July 18th - Victory in Iraq Day

We'll be celebrating this day for generations to come, no doubt.

“I am happy to stand in front of you to tell you that this strategy has succeeded. It has succeeded. It has succeeded,” McCain said first at a Kansas City, Mo., town hall meeting.

He then reiterated the line for reporters aboard his campaign bus.

“I repeat my statement that we have succeeded in Iraq — not we are succeeding — we have succeeded in Iraq,” he said. “The strategy has worked and we now have the Iraqi government and military in charge in the major cities in Iraq. Al Qaeda is on their heels and on the run.”

So, who's the party pooper making this claim:

But he quickly shifted to the need to persevere there, saying that he expected attacks by Al-Qaeda in Iraq “so they can erode support for the al-Maliki government” during the American election campaign.

Oh, it's that John McCain, guy, that's who.

And what does this guy know?:

"I won't go so far as to say that progress in Iraq from a military perspective has reached a tipping point or is irreversible - it has not, and it is not," Mullen said. "But security is unquestionably and remarkably better."

I mean, it's not like he's the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or anything like that.

What's that?

Oh, sorry. Mullen is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Guess we won't be celebrating July 18th as Victory in Iraq Day after all.

Continue reading Friday, July 18th - Victory in Iraq Day

The Lions of Mesopotamia

This is almost too sad for words.

Less than a year ago, the Iraqi National Football Team, the Lions of Mesopotamia, were the feelgood story of the sports world, winning the Asian Cup against almost overwhelming odds, at a time when the situation in Iraq was at perhaps its worst since the the US occupation began. The makeup of the team, which included Sunni, Shia, and Kurds, reflected the best hopes for Iraq, and the victory perhaps signaled that those hopes were realizable.

Alas.

The reality of modern Iraqi politics is such that each government ministry has been dolled out along political – read sectarian – lines. The driving force behind the dissolution of Iraq's sports associations was Jassim Jaafar, minister of youth and sports, a Shia politician who is a member of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), which is part of a Shia political umbrella group along with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party. "You know what's going on? There is a conflict between Shia and Sunni in sport," explained Hani Abdel Saleem, sports editor for leading Arabic daily newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat. "The minister of sport Jassim Jaafar has tried to push Hussein Saeed out. This guy wants him out because he played under Saddam Hussein and is a Sunni. He has said there is no way he will accept him. Jaafar has good contacts with Maliki too. But Jaafar got a letter from [Jalal] Talabani [Iraq's Kurdish President]. The people in Iraq know that Talabani told Jaafar to stop his involvement in trying to remove Hussein Saeed."

The intervention forced Fifa to temporarily reverse its decision and allowed the game to go ahead. Crisis averted? Not exactly. For one, this communiqué sent from the Iraqi government to Fifa doesn't deal with the dissolution of the Iraqi Olympic Committee. It is now a distinct possibility that the country will not be represented in Beijing. More worrying are the political consequences of the controversy, which will be felt long after the final whistle has blown. It raises the spectre that that the position of the unpopular Prime Minister Maliki has become untenable, especially if Iraq lose on Sunday. "Under Saddam Hussein's time the Sunnis controlled sport. Ammar al Hakim [de facto leader of the SIIC] wants to control this now," Ashraq Al-Awsat's political editor Fayad Maad told me. "But Hussein Saeed is more famous than Maliki. This is [politically] a big mistake. People are tired of politics and war. But the people are never tired of football. Yes sure, Maliki is Shia and he is doing what his party ordered him. He is with Hakim, and Hakim wants to control sport. They are idiots. If they were going to do this why not before qualification started or after. Not now."

Continue reading The Lions of Mesopotamia

Iraq: Then and now

Then - As Atrios is fond of replaying, here's Little Tommy Friedman on the Charlie Rose show in 2003 explaining US policy in Iraq:

I think it [the invasion of Iraq] was unquestionably worth doing, Charlie.

...

We needed to go over there, basically, um, and um, uh, take out a very big state right in the heart of that world and burst that bubble, and there was only one way to do it.

...


What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, "Which part of this sentence don't you understand?"

You don't think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we're just gonna to let it grow?

Well, Suck. On. This.

Okay.

That Charlie was what this war was about. We could've hit Saudi Arabia, it was part of that bubble. We coulda hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.

Now -

The incident was first reported by CNN, which broadcast a ceremony at which the top American commander in Baghdad apologized to tribal leaders in Radwaniyah.

"I come before you here seeking your forgiveness," Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond was quoted as saying by the network. "In the most humble manner I look in your eyes today and I say please forgive me and my soldiers."

The commander also read a letter of apology by the shooter, and another military official kissed a Quran and presented it to the tribal leaders, according to CNN.

2013, bitches!

Continue reading Iraq: Then and now

abu muqawama

I don't know if either of my readers has discovered the abu muqawama blog, which is written by current and former US military/DoD people and covers Iraq, Afghanistan, and other military issues with a full dose of snark and a refreshing lack of bullshit. I don't always agree with them, but their take is invaluable in understanding what's going on inside the US military structure.

This article from earlier in the week is a fine example:

At the core of American exceptionalism is a paradox of uniqueness and universality. The American national mythology holds that the United States is simultaneously unique, in the sense of being the first (and perhaps the best) modern liberal democracy, yet also universal, in the sense of representing the "true" aspirations of all humanity. This sense of exceptionalism produces an historical tendency to try to spread the American model around the globe. But there is a longstanding debate going back to the founding of our union about the appropriate means to do so. Should America seek to remake the world by serving as a shining example of its highest ideals (the "exemplarist" approach), or should we more actively intervene to remake the world in our image (the "progressive imperialist" approach)?

go read the whole thing.

Continue reading abu muqawama

What does this mean?

Here's an Reuters story on today's surprise defeat in the US House of Representatives on a bill that would have appropriated around $160 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq:

The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday defeated legislation that would have funded the war in Iraq for another year, in a surprise move that the Senate could overturn.

By a vote of 149-141, the Democrat-controlled House rejected a measure that would have given the Pentagon $162.5 billion to keep the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan running through next summer, slightly below President George W. Bush's request.

A large group of anti-war House Democrats voted against the funds. That, coupled with 132 Republicans voting "present," meaning neither "yes" nor "no," killed the measure for now.

But the Senate is expected to debate its version of a war-funding bill possibly next week and is likely to resurrect the money for the coming year.

As i recall, all appropriations must originate in the House, and be approved by both houses of Congress before being sent to the President for his signature. How can the Senate overturn the House's rejection of these funds? All that can happen is the Senate can pass its version of the bill, but then the House will have to either revisit this appropriation, or start from scratch. Or am i missing something?

UPDATE: Reader crc points out that revenue bills (ie taxes) must originate in the House, but that appropriations bills (ie spending) may originate in either body. Fair point. But the article implies, i think, that the Senate can unilaterally overturn the House's decision, and resurrect the appropriation, on its own. That's just wrong.

Continue reading What does this mean?

Perspective

Bad news from the Army Corps of Engineers on the levee front, and not just around New Orleans:

Across America, earthen flood levees protect big cities and small towns, wealthy suburbs and rich farmland. But the Army Corps of Engineers, the federal agency that oversees levees, lacks an inventory of thousands of them and has no idea of their condition, the corps' chief levee expert told The Associated Press.

The uncertainty, amid an unusually wet spring that has already caused significant flooding across many states, is creating worry even within the corps.

"We have to get our arms around this issue and understand how many levees there are in the country, who's watching over them, what populations and properties are behind them," Eric Halpin, the corps' special assistant for dam and levee safety, said in an interview last month. "What is the risk posed to the public?"

Critics are troubled that the government doesn't know the answer.

Here's the kicker:

Some of what was found was troubling. For example, corps levees in Missouri and Illinois that are supposed to protect against a 500-year flood fall short of even 100-year protection, said Col. Lewis Setliff III, commander of the corps district in St. Louis. Getting those nine levees up to standard would cost an estimated $200 million.

Or about 9 1/2 hours of the Iraq War. Every time something necessary goes unfunded, we need to remind ourselves how much we're spending on a war of choice, every single day. I've said this dozens of times, so once more won't hurt. The model we need to be thinking of when we talk about the war in Iraq is not Vietnam, it's the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980s. And look how poorly that turned out, for all parties.

Continue reading Perspective

"Mr. Gorbachev . . .

If there's one thing that the myth of Ronald Reagan is built on, it's this speech.

Which should make the irony of this news even more painful.

Trying to stem the infiltration of militia fighters, American forces have begun to build a massive concrete wall that will partition Sadr City, the densely populated Shiite neighborhood in the Iraqi capital.

The construction, which began Tuesday night, is intended to turn the southern quarter of Sadr City near the international Green Zone into a protected enclave, secured by Iraqi and American forces, where the Iraqi government can undertake reconstruction efforts.

“You can’t really repair anything that is broken until you establish security,” said Lt. Col. Dan Barnett, commander of the First Squadron, Second Stryker Cavalry Regiment. “A wall that isolates those who would continue to attack the Iraqi Army and coalition forces can create security conditions that they can go in and rebuild.”

On Wednesday night, huge cranes slowly lifted heavy concrete blocks into place under a moonless sky. The barriers were implanted on Al Quds Street, a major thoroughfare that separates the Tharwa and Jamilla districts to the south from the heart of Sadr City to the north.

The avenue was quiet except for the whirring sound of the cranes and thud of the barriers as they touched the ground. Contractors operated the cranes, but American soldiers transported the barriers on trucks and directed their placement.

The team building the barrier was protected by M-1 tanks, Stryker vehicles and Apache attack helicopters. As the workers labored in silence, there was a burst of fire as an M-1 tank blasted its main gun at a small group of fighters to the west. An Apache helicopter fired a Hellfire missile at a militia team equipped with rocket-propelled grenades, again interrupting the night with a thunderous boom. A cloud of dark smoke was visible in the distance through the Stryker’s night-vision system.

Concrete barriers have been employed in other areas of Baghdad. As the barriers were being erected in other neighborhoods, some residents said they feared being isolated. But walls have often proved to be an effective tool in blunting insurgent attacks.

I'm trying to imagine the effect of, say, Ahmadinejad standing in Baghdad giving a speech that included the line: "Mr. President, Tear down this wall."

That would be pretty effective, dontcha think?

Continue reading "Mr. Gorbachev . . .

Viewing Iraq

I mentioned in passing in a comment that, depending on your preferred news source, you could have a completely different understanding of events in Iraq this past week.

Here's a quick example. First, an AP story that will undoubtedly appear in many US newspapers in the morning.

"Any government that presumes to represent the majority of people must confront criminal elements or people who think they can live outside the law," Bush said at the White House. "And that's what's taking place in Basra and in other parts of Iraq. I would say this is a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq."

It's also a key juncture for Bush in the five-year-old war that has claimed 4,000 American lives, worn U.S. forces thin and dominated his presidency.

Bush said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's crackdown in Basra against Shiite militias vying for control of the oil-rich region is a positive milestone in the birth of a democratic nation. The Iraqi prime minister's decision to move against enemy elements in Basra shows "evenhanded justice" and the Iraqi government's willingness to go after both Sunni and Shiite insurgents and outlaws, he said.

Just as important is how the violence plays out. The ability of Iraqi security forces to control places like Basra will color the president's decision on whether to order more U.S. troop withdrawals beyond the five U.S. brigades already returning home by July — something that's already looking unlikely.

The renewed violence, which has followed months of relative calm, threatened to unravel a fragile cease-fire with followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. How much U.S. troops are drawn into the fight will be a telling sign of the Iraqi forces' ability to protect the nation.

Bush stressed that those Iraqi forces remained in the lead, yet U.S. forces stepped deeper into the fight.

U.S. pilots assisting Iraqi forces conducted airstrikes on Basra on Friday. American jets dropped bombs in the city, marking a sharp escalation in the fight against insurgents the Pentagon accuses of having links to Iran.

Here's the London Times:

The intention was to withdraw British forces from frontline duties and concentrate on training Iraqis and offering support when needed. But the problem from the outset has been the failure of the Iraqi army and police to take control of the city, a mission that British troops, with the advantage of modern equipment and training, had failed to do during their four years in southern Iraq. Instead the Shia Muslim militias — the Mahdi Army loyal to Moqtadr al-Sadr, the Badr Brigades of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the smaller Fadillah Party — effectively took over the streets.

The three groups were in open contest for control of the city. The battle has little to do with ideology but everything to do with economics. Basra is the hub of Iraq’s valuable oil industry and the militias are making millions by taking their cut of the exports.

The problem now facing the British is how to respond to the fast-changing situation.

Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, who flew to Basra to take personal control, said that his forces would fight “to the end” against the militias. Unfortunately for him, the end may come sooner than he expected. The Iraqi Army contingent of 30,000 troops has failed to dislodge the Mahdi Army, there are widespread reports of defections from the police to the militias and there are clear signs that the operation could backfire badly.

Before you make the assumption that the Times is taking some DFH, bring 'em home tack, the article goes on to cast the blame for the situation on the British failure to secure Basra in its desire to bring its troops home quickly, credits the surge for reducing violence in Baghdad, and proposes that the US step in to restore order in the south of Iraq as the solution. Probably not going to go over well in the Pentagon.

But it's a more honest portrayal of the situation on the ground than you're likely to read in your morning paper tomorrow.

Continue reading Viewing Iraq

All you need to know about what's going on in Iraq this week

Maliki on Wednesday gave militants in Basra 72 hours to surrender themselves and their weapons, but on Friday extended the deadline for handing over the weapons until April 8.

"All those who have heavy and intermediate weapons are to deliver them to security sites and they will be rewarded financially," he said in a statement issued by his office.

You don't even have to read between the lines. Maliki put his foot down, and no one listened to him. He tried to bust Moqtada al-Sadr's movement ahead of the upcoming elections, and it's backfiring. His forces aren't fighting for him, and he's counting on us to bail him out.

Lovely.

UPDATE: And the backtracking begins:

Al-Maliki's office also announced it has given residents in Basra until April 8 to turn over "heavy and medium-size weapons" in return for unspecified monetary compensation.

The deadline is separate from the three-day ultimatum announced Wednesday for gunmen to surrender their arms and renounce violence or face harsher measures, government adviser Sadiq al-Rikabi said.

The move instead appeared to be aimed at noncombatants who may have weapons like machine-guns and grenade launchers either for smuggling purposes or to sell to militants or criminal gangs.

Continue reading All you need to know about what's going on in Iraq this week

Killed his own people

At what point does the charge become applicable in the new Iraq?

Iraq's prime minister vowed Thursday to fight "until the end" against Shiite militias in Basra despite protests by tens of thousands of followers of a radical cleric in Baghdad and deadly clashes across the capital and the oil-rich south.

Mounting anger focused on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is personally overseeing operations against the militias dominated by Muqtada al-Sadr's supporters amid a violent power struggle in Basra, Iraq's southern oil hub.

The Iraqi leader made his pledge to tribal leaders in the Basra area as military operations continued for a fourth day with stiff resistance.

"We have made up our minds to enter this battle and we will continue until the end. No retreat," he said in a speech broadcast on Iraqi state TV.

. . .

Street battles that started Tuesday in Basra and Sadr City have spread to several other neighborhoods and southern cities, leaving more than 200 dead, including civilians, Iraqi troops and militants. That three-day figure was a rough estimate provided by police and hospital officials who could not give a more specific breakdown.

Iraqi officials reported 17 more people killed in overnight clashes in Sadr City, raising the total there to 40.

The death toll in the Shiite city of Hillah, 60 miles south of Baghdad, also rose to at least 60 in fighting that continued into Thursday, according to a senior police official who asked not to be identified because of security concerns.

The U.S. military said four suspected Shiite extremists were killed in an airstrike but it had no further details.

The police chief in Kut, Abdul-Hanin al-Amara said 40 gunmen had been killed and 75 others wounded in that southeastern city.

Continue reading Killed his own people

Surgin'

Many people were killed and wounded by a U.S. air strike called in support of Iraqi forces in the town of Hilla south of Baghdad, Iraqi security sources said.

One police source said at least 11 people were killed and 18 wounded in the strike, launched after Iraqi security forces called for support following street battles with Shi'ite militia members in the city's Thawra neighborhood. Another police source said 29 people were killed and 39 were wounded.

Two other security sources said the combined total of dead and wounded was in the dozens, although they were unable to give precise casualty figures. All of the sources spoke under condition they not be named.

A spokeswoman for U.S. forces south of Baghdad said she was checking the reports.

That ain't good. It's gonna be hard to keep those reduced levels of violence going for much longer, don't you think?

UPDATE:

In Hilla, several Iraqi security sources spoke of large-scale casualties after a U.S. air strike called to help Iraqi police fighting militiamen. U.S. forces confirmed the helicopter strike but denied there were large numbers killed.

Take that at face value, or with a large grain of salt.

Continue reading Surgin'

Five years

I hear we're still winning.

Continue reading Five years

US General: One more F. U. in Iraq

The United States may be forced to halt planned troop withdrawals from Iraq unless Iraqi authorities move faster to create jobs and improve basic services, a top U.S. general said on Wednesday.

Major-General Mark Hertling, commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, said both central and regional authorities had to take action if hard-won security gains were not to be reversed.

"I think we have six months to make a difference and this today is the start line," he said in an interview with Reuters and another agency at a conference where governors from seven northern provinces aired grievances with government ministers.

Continue reading US General: One more F. U. in Iraq

Weird

Reuters:

Pomp and ceremony greeted Ahmadinejad on his arrival, the fanfare a stark contrast to Bush's rushed and secretive visits.

Ahmadinejad held hands with Talabani as they walked down a red carpet and a military band played their countries' national anthems. It was Iraq's first full state welcome for any leader since the U.S.-led invasion.

Ahmadinejad's motorcade drove from Baghdad's airport to Talabani's presidential palace. Visiting foreign dignitaries normally fly by helicopter to avoid the dangerous airport road.

Continue reading Weird

Why does the US Army hate America?

"The cumulative effects of the last six-plus years at war have left our Army out of balance, consumed by the current fight and unable to do the things we know we need to do to properly sustain our all-volunteer force and restore our flexibility for an uncertain future," said Gen. George Casey, chief of staff of the Army.

Continue reading Why does the US Army hate America?

Cost of freedom?

From the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation:

Continue reading Cost of freedom?