More Iranqing – Moon of Alabama

February 22, 2007

More Iranqing

The ninth U.S. helicopter in five weeks has been downed in Iraq – quite a surge. There is really no way for the U.S. to change tactics to avoid this, so expect more of these. For the resistance this is effective as it increases the likelihood of a U.S. retreat.

In contrast, using chlorine containers or tankers as weapons against the civilian population is ineffective. These are no WMDs but stinking chemicals that disperses relativly quickly.

But chlorine could be a usable tool against U.S. forces. Had such a bomb been used against the FOB in Tarmyia, all U.S. troops off the bigger bases would now be ordered to always carry their bulky and heavy ABC protective gear with them. In an Iraqi summer that really would slow things down. That is why I expect this to spread.

While Riverbend believes the rape account that ran over Aljazeerah, Iraqi Konfused Kid has some reasonable doubts, especially regarding the timing and the wording of her statement. This reminds me a bit of nurse Nayirah.

So Maliki may, in principle, be wrong or right, but his reaction of blaming the (possible/likely) victim was dumb. Then again, he may be smart. Maybe his site started the story to increase the Sunni attacks and the following U.S. kinetic reaction on the Sunni population. What do you think?

The situation is confusing. The U.S. is obviously siding with the Iran supported Shia government in Iraq while working on a Sunni coalition against Teheran. Rice’s meeting with four chiefs of Arab secret services is very suspect. Is there any precedent for such a conference?

Badger explains:

Rice’s meeting with the Mukhabarat was reported as a routine affair, even though what is supposed to happen is that a foreign minister meets with her counterparts, or with heads of state, who then formulate policy, and in each country that policy is transmitted to domestic agencies including the Mukhabarat and others, for implementation. Rice’s direct meeting with the assembled Mukhabarat is a sign that the security apparatus of the Arab regimes have become an integrated part of the US administration. The point is made by Abdulbari Atwan in Al-Quds al-Arabi this morning.

Moreover, the meeting had nothing to do with Palestine, he says. Rather, it was about turning up the heat on Iran, and he devotes the rest of his column to a consideration of likely coming events with respect to this.

As Olmert is crying for more sanctions on Iran, Rice will work to push for that. But somehow it is hard to see that a pissed off Putin and the Chinese will agree to further UN action. So how will the heat be increased?

How will the U.S. supply line between Baghdad and Kuwait hold without the Brits? One Prince Harry does not replace a complete British regiment. He will only be a juicier target. So who will keep the line open?

Posted by b on February 22, 2007 at 19:38 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Rape and truth?
In times of war, no matter how pure and glorious the soldiers as seen from back home, or how upstanding the local resisters/authorities, or whatever categories exist, rape is constant of war, and it is always very frequent.
Always. Of women, first (it is consensual) but also of children and men.
Breaking in, random arrest, random killing, random imprisonment; torture (partly admitted, much of it with sadistic sexual overtones) and all the rest implies that rape or milder sexual abuse is the part of the iceberg that is kept under the water, in the sense that only a few occasions are made public. The making public is vital, because it both astonishes, repulses and confesses. It is an exercise in show and tell, and legitimises, in its own way, those horrendous acts, by admitting their existence and insisting on punishment (today mild and forgotten two months later.)
Iraqi women have not been able to admit to being raped, for all the known cultural reasons. Note that Iraqi culture was destroyed in 2003, and many efforts were made to impose US ways; women’s rights, the holy grail of the victim stance, the power of the media, etc. were partly forcibly imposed.
It was inevitable that some woman would, finally, go public – and thus very public – about rape. I thought it might first be a mother, or a male witness; then I realised that that was contra the mainstream memes, and that only a *real* victim would do, only a young and pretty woman, bruised, obviously abused, wrists lacerated, sobbing, etc. could be propulsed onto the silver screen. Television does not show things that cannot have impact. It does not collect testimony from mothers or family members, nor does it document men’s shame as witnesses, bystanders who did not, because they could not, act to stop the rape; or later report it, etc. Powerless indirect participants who hide.
The public raising of this issue, in Iraq, cannot come from: law and order accounting – the police blotter; Gvmt. official statistics; doctor’s words and estimates; women’s associations and their fact finding; the testimony of the women, men and children victims themselves; the law and its court apparatus. None of these function, Iraq is a failed state. All that is left is the sensationalism of the tee-vee. So one gets a scintillating icon, which can be lamented or doubted, c’est selon. It may be true; or not; but that no longer matters, all that counts is ‘how ppl will react.’

Posted by: Noirette | Feb 22 2007 21:04 utc | 1

You are right Noirette – rape is used as instrument in every war. Recommended reading: A Woman in Berlin – Berlin spring 1945 – 100,000 raped, a tenth thereof died from it (not that the Germans had behaved better in Russia).
But like other instruments of war there are reasons why these tools are used, or sometimes said to have been used by the other side. I try to see through the fog of war. To understand, discuss and blame motives. That certainly requires a voyeristic component.
The media is tool in this too of course, used and abused.
—
In For the Long Haul

As Democrats and Republicans back home try to outdo each other with quick-fix plans for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and funds, what few people seem to have noticed is that Gen. David Petraeus’s new “surge” plan is committing U.S. troops, day by day, to a much deeper and longer-term role in policing Iraq than since the earliest days of the U.S. occupation. How long must we stay under the Petraeus plan? Perhaps 10 years. At least five. In any case, long after George W. Bush has returned to Crawford, Texas, for good.
…
Under Petraeus’s plan, a U.S. military force of 160,000 or more is setting up hundreds of “mini-forts” all over Baghdad and the rest of the country, right in the middle of the action. The U.S. Army has also stopped pretending that Iraqis—who have failed to build a credible government, military or police force on their own—are in the lead when it comes to kicking down doors and keeping the peace. And that means the future of Iraq depends on the long-term presence of U.S. forces in a way it did not just a few months ago. “We’re putting down roots,” says Philip Carter, a former U.S. Army captain who returned last summer from a year of policing and training in the hot zone around Baquba.
…

I doubt the roots will hold – not enough troops to sustain five more years at any higher level (which would be needed) – much higher casualty rates through Petraeus plans of FOBs – too many different insurgencies.

Posted by: b | Feb 22 2007 22:41 utc | 2

Just a thought:
How long will it be until someone comes up with the clame either:
a. The “chemicals” the U.S. found in a warehouse raid today were Saddams WMDs or
b. these “chemicals” came from Iran with some nefarious aspect?

Posted by: b | Feb 22 2007 22:54 utc | 3

The conquering and plundering of Iraq can certainly be compared to the gang rape of a woman. As horrible as rape is, it is probably a distraction more than a statement on the viciousness of the whole atrocity bring perpetrated on the Iraqi people.
We seem to be getting way off target here when making this alleged rape a talking point on the subject of Irank.
In 2003 the US decided, under false pretexts to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq because it’s leader royally pissed off the Bushmen and the oiligarchs that had taken over the government.
Saddam, remember, had signed contracts with France’s TotalFinaElf as well as with China, Russia, Italy, Spain and Korea to develop oil fields that had potentials of over 20 billion bbls. to come into effect after International sanctions were lifted. The big US and Brittish Co’s were left out of the picture due to the US enforcement of the sanctions for over ten years. That was bad enough but the real clincher for action by the US and whoever it could coerce, was his intention to accept payment in Euros.
That’s sacrolege!!
Now Iran is threatning to do the same thing. That’s the real problem.
The possible abandonment of the Petro-Dollar and the probable demise of the Dollar itself as the world reserve currency.
It ain’t the oil per se, It’s the Petro-dollar even though it exists only as fluff.
.02

Posted by: pb | Feb 23 2007 2:11 utc | 4

Just curious – in the last week there have been brief initial reports of two more helicopters being downed, a Blackhawk and another one yesterday the type of which I’ve not seen identified – but I have seen no follow-up news beyond the initial reports. The initial report on yesterday’s Blackhawk downing said it made a “hard landing” and that all those aboard were rescued by another U.S. chopper.
Has anyone else seen any further reports on either of these? I don’t know if the dearth of reporting is because the mainstream media is already viewing helicopter downings as so routine that they don’t merit much coverage, or that the U.S. is clamping down on info about these events.

Posted by: Maxcrat | Feb 23 2007 2:20 utc | 5

@ pb – With the British leaving Basra (?!) it might be a good time to re view:The History of Oil.

Posted by: beq | Feb 23 2007 2:41 utc | 6

Whether its 8 or 9 helicopters down this month, its a lot.
There were some 5k shot down in the entire Vietnam war. If we take the years of greatest U..S. activity 1965-73, 8 years, and average the 5k into months — and then divide those months by the number shot down (using a total of 5k for the whole war) we get an average of 6 or so shot down per month.
Not forgetting that during the height of the Vietnam war there were over 550,000 U.S. troops deployed at any givin time — compared to only 150,000 currently deployed in Iraq. Thats 3.7 times the force structure now in Iraq.
So without a calculator (or a mathmatical brain) it looks like that in the last month the U.S. lost on average 4 – 6 times as many helicopters ( compared to force size) as the U.S. was loosing, on average, in Vietnam.

Posted by: anna missed | Feb 23 2007 3:29 utc | 7

senate dems (kerry, biden, levin) drafting legislation to revoke/revise AUMF in iraq. from AP:

Determined to challenge President Bush, Senate Democrats are drafting legislation to limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively revoking the broad authority Congress granted in 2002, officials said Thursday.
While these officials said the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled, one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combating al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrity, and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.

reid’s spokesperson says it will be introduced to rank and file dems early next week. it’s not officially confirmed but they are considering attaching it to anti-terror legislation. this would complicate repug defeat and a bush veto. kerry says he has enough of the non-binding bs. biden wants clarity on and to narrow the original mission.
hopefully, this will become very interesting.

Posted by: conchita | Feb 23 2007 3:43 utc | 8

I do not see why any fraction in Iraq would send a women who has not been raped to claim she has been. If any fraction wants to parade a rape victim, why would they not choose an actual case?
It is not like there seams to be any lack thereof.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Feb 23 2007 4:18 utc | 9

Still trying to make sense of Britain’s decision yesterday to withdraw ~1500 troops. Looks like a an arrangement was worked out btw. London & Wash. Rupert Murdoch’s London Poodle can have political cover by withdrawing a few troops as long as a chunk of the rest are devoted to guarding xUS supply lines (which i heard today they will). This provides him w/enough of an illusion of independence from Wash. to allow him to take a strong stand on Iran the very next day. No Relationship I’m sure…
Britain said Thursday it would work towards more UN Security Council measures leading to Iran’s “further isolation” after Tehran failed to meet the council’s demands to stop enriching uranium. Britain wants Security Council action to ‘further isolate’ Iran

Posted by: jj | Feb 23 2007 5:48 utc | 10

b-, small spelling correction on our idiosyncratic language -it’s ninety, but ninth.

Posted by: jj | Feb 23 2007 5:51 utc | 11

The combination of driving the mahdi army out of Baghdad — and sending many south! where the supply lines go — and withdrawl of some Brits — in the south! where the supply lines go — is more than asking for it! They’re begging for it!

Posted by: anna missed | Feb 23 2007 6:06 utc | 12

Another question for military experts like b, Dan and others:
Why are more helicopters being shot down now?
Are the Iraqis getting smarter at knowing how, is the resistance growing, better missles, or what? I have no clue but I would think the answer to such a question is important in understanding what is progressing – for example, are outsiders (like Iran) supplying better equipment?

Posted by: Rick | Feb 23 2007 6:14 utc | 13

@Rick – 13 – hard to say, but here is my best guess.
From what I collected there are no new missiles. Just guns and older anti-air missiles (SA-7). What is new is the systematic tactic use of machine guns, probably mounted on trucks or a least tripods, against helos. Those guns were there before, old stuff from Saddam, but not used in this role.
This suggests to me new leadership and/or training. A former Air Defense Colonel of Saddam’s army who finally had enough and took over a role with the resistance, consultants from Lebanon, Syria or Iran or someone finally read the proper manual starting here and then reading US Field manual 44-8 Chapert 5.

5-6. To engage aerial platforms effectively, you must follow some basic rules. The first rule to follow is to use a technique known as volume fire (Figure 5-1). The key to success in engaging enemy air is to put out a high volume of fire. The more bullets a unit can put in the sky, the greater the chance the enemy will fly into them. Even if these fires do not hit the enemy, throwing up a wall of lead in the sky can intimidate enemy pilots, ultimately breaking off their attack or distracting them from taking proper aim. One of the most important points about volume fire is that once the lead distance is estimated, you must aim at the estimated aiming point and fire at that single point until the aircraft has flown past that point. Maintain the aiming point, not the lead distance. Once you start firing, do not adjust your weapon.

So how to do such is all open knowledge. Find out the routes the US helos are routinely flying (easy as start and end points are known), set up three small teams with weapons and one or two early warning observers at any point of that route and you will have a pretty good chance of eventually hitting something. When the observer gives alarm, the teams will open fire from three directions and the helo has no chance to avoid those bullets.

Posted by: b | Feb 23 2007 9:13 utc | 14

The London Times (via TPM) Fears grow over Iran

Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, who has previously called for direct talks with Tehran, is said to be totally opposed to military action.
Although he has dispatched a second US aircraft carrier to the Gulf, he is understood to believe that airstrikes would inflame Iranian public opinion and hamper American efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. One senior adviser to Mr Gates has even stated privately that military action could lead to Congress impeaching Mr Bush.
Condoleeza Rice, the Secretary of State, is also opposed to using force, while Steve Hadley, the President’s National Security Adviser, is said to be deeply sceptical.
The hawks are led by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, who is urging Mr Bush to keep the military option “on the table”. He is also pressing the Pentagon to examine specific war plans — including, it is rumoured, covert action.
But Mr Blair, in a BBC interview yesterday, said: “I can’t think that it would be right to take military action against Iran . . . What is important is to pursue the political, diplomatic channel. I think it is the only way that we are going to get a sensible solution to the Iranian issue.”

Posted by: b | Feb 23 2007 9:17 utc | 15

US intelligence on Iran does not stand up, say Vienna sources

Much of the intelligence on Iran’s nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by American spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, according to diplomatic sources in Vienna.
…
most of the tip-offs about supposed secret weapons sites provided by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have led to dead ends when investigated by IAEA inspectors, according to informed sources in Vienna.
“Most of it has turned out to be incorrect,” said a diplomat at the IAEA with detailed knowledge of the agency’s investigations. “They gave us a paper with a list of sites. [The inspectors] did some follow-up, they went to some military sites, but there was no sign of [banned nuclear] activities.”
“Now [the inspectors] don’t go in blindly. Only if it passes a credibility test.”
One particularly contentious issue concerned records of plans to build a nuclear warhead, which the CIA said it found on a stolen laptop computer supplied by an informant inside Iran. In July 2005, US intelligence officials showed printed versions of the material to IAEA officials, who judged it to be sufficiently specific to confront Iran.
Tehran rejected the material as forgeries and there are still reservations about its authenticity in the IAEA, according to officials with knowledge of the internal debate inside the agency.
“First of all, if you have a clandestine programme, you don’t put it on laptops which can walk away,” one official said. “The data is all in English which may be reasonable for some of the technical matters, but at some point you’d have thought there would be at least some notes in Farsi. So there is some doubt over the provenance of the computer.”
…

I wrote about The Laptop in November 2005 🙂

Posted by: b | Feb 23 2007 9:38 utc | 16

Hey maxcrat, both anna missed and I have an answer to your question why the shootdowns of US helicopters gets little US airplay.
He says there are a lot being shot down, by machine guns (geek mode: perhaps .50 calibre (1/2 inch wide bullets) fired like a hundred a minute or so in the general direction of the copter) — a new tactic says anna missed.
And I say that of coursethe media policy is no bad news from Iraq or for that matter Afghanistan or Israel.
Only good news, because the US troops are going to be there for a long while. Do you remember that the Roman emporers needed to keep their legions afield, away from Rome because they were too powerful and could easily take the capitol.
They had to keep a-conquering to simply feed and pay themselves, and the Empire too was fed for a while.
So Caesar, I guess he was a general, took the troops into Rome by crossing the Rubicon instantly crowned himself emperer.
Doesn’t it make you wonder what generals with names like Petraeus harbor in their hubristic hearts. These men and women scream hubris and entitlement and power and its abuse.
We all know the guy or girl who always chose the game to play, was the banker in Mononpoly(tm) and played Risk to win — and did win.
That’s the type we have here but with real dominoes and so on.
Just thought I would point it out.
Also, Conchita thanks for the positive news about Senator Reid finding procedural methods to stop the occupation of Iraq. The nogoodnicks need to be opposed in every possible way.
I came up with a response to critics of the Daily Kos. Kos and co. are educating the consumer, providing valuable information along with the Democratic-party cheerleading, and organizing a disorganized group of people.
Clearly they haven’t got a snowball’s chance in hell, wasn’t it last year that political-nerd site DailyKos sped past Slashdot.org, the computer nerd site, to have the largest daily visitorship in the known world. Go figure.
A betrayal of our weak progressive dreams by a new Internet tiger. Maybe he is the next Bill Gates.

Posted by: jonku | Feb 23 2007 11:58 utc | 17

b,
In case anyone hasn’t told you this lately,you are amazing.

Posted by: Bea | Feb 23 2007 12:03 utc | 18

Above is ironic and don’t you know that once people learn how to do something, especially motiviated people, they go ahead and do it without regard to the other agendas of the ones they learned it from.
At least that has been my experience. I celebrate the information and organizational training, reaching out to us library-challenged, bandwidth-deficient Internet hangers-on. We are not brain-dead, just a little short on information resources. Fully capable of voting, marching and communicating.
That keeps it interesting.

Posted by: jonku | Feb 23 2007 12:05 utc | 19

Regarding Blair and the british troops, it is important to know that Blair is resigning and handing over to Brown. So maybe he wants to get credit for pulling the troops home (or at least making the decision to) before he leaves?

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Feb 23 2007 13:50 utc | 20

In the UK: Brown is trailing his Conservative rival by double-digits. After 3 consecutive Parliamentary wins in the last 10 years for the New Labour Party, Iraq threatens to turn out the current government. So withdrawal from Iraq does have a political value for Brown…even if it’s not the purpose. BTW, it appears that Prince Harry will be headed with his combat unit to Iraq anyway.

Posted by: infoshaman | Feb 23 2007 14:45 utc | 21

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/23/82254/4386
about the british troop “reduction” – excellent diary on dkos by welshman where he points out that there is no reduction. they are simply recycling – pulling some out of iraq, sending others to afghanistan. he posits that it was a well coordinated piece of propaganda most likely jointly executed by britain and the u.s.

Thus, by the end of the week, we have had a highly successful piece of propaganda. The sad and discredited Blair has been able to claim British success in Iraq to justify his involvement there, just before the May elections and his own leaving office in the Summer, all for the price of a reshuffling of troops.
In the States, the White House has been able to claim that this is all a sign of success in Iraq whilst disguising the need for even further troop reinforcements to meet the worsening situation in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Anonymous | Feb 23 2007 18:00 utc | 22

sorry, post above was me moving too quickly. here is the link to welshman’s diary properly formatted.

Posted by: conchita | Feb 23 2007 18:21 utc | 23

jonku, just a small anecdote,
In an interesting and somewhat ironic twist, tonight 911blogger.com won a bid for 1 minute of airtime on Air America Radio – specifically on ‘The Sam Seder Show’.
‘The Sam Seder Show’ is a progressive radio show which airs weekdays from 9am to noon weekdays on Air America, and which I frequently listen to on my lunch break. Sam routinely hosts leaders of the ‘progressive blogosphere’ on his show including Markos – the founder of dailykos.com, and the sponsor of the 1 minute give away. The contest (details here) was part of a fund raiser for their YearlyKos Convention – which is where the ‘ironic’ part comes in.
link
Kos sponsered the one minute, and the winners were people who are banned on Kos.

Posted by: Noirette | Feb 23 2007 18:31 utc | 24

Either these guys are nuts, or they want to provoke a Shia revolt.
Son of Key Iraq Shiite Arrested at Iran’s Border

A son of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the head of Iraq’s dominant Shiite political bloc, was seized today by United States forces in southern Iraq as he tried to re-enter the country after visiting Iran.
The son was identified as Ammar al-Hakim, an Iraqi official said. It was not immediately clear why he was detained.
Abdul Aziz al-Hakim is the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a powerful political party that has long formed the backbone of the dominant Shiite political coalition in Iraq.
In December he was at the center of tensions between the United States in Iran when American forces seized two Iranians at his compound in Baghdad. Washington has accused Iran of fueling violence in Iraq.
The Iraqi official said American forces, who had been waiting for Mr. Hakim, stopped his convoy, removed him from his vehicle, handcuffed him, took off his turban, put him in an American humvee and drove him to a base near Kut in southern Iraq.
In Baghdad, an advisor to Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, Haitham al-Husseini, confirmed that the son had been detained.

Rethinking: They are nuts AND want to provoke a Shia revolt.

Posted by: b | Feb 23 2007 19:27 utc | 25

b #25,
Last week they raided leading SCIRI parliament member and leading cleric al Saghir’s offices in Baghdad — and now they’re arresting Hakim’s son? It really does look like the U.S. is eroding all support for Maliki out from under him. I can’t see how Maliki will last more than a couple of months. Unless he’s like bush and is allowed to continue on with only his wife and dog supporting him.

Posted by: anna missed | Feb 23 2007 20:00 utc | 26

They let Hakim’s son go after holding him for twelve hours. The American ambassador apologized personally.
The clown show continues.

Posted by: Dick Durata | Feb 23 2007 20:21 utc | 27

am
i wouldn’t count on the dog

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 24 2007 0:37 utc | 28

Theres probably a deeper story about the recent high loss of U.S. helicopters in Iraq. A story that does’nt necessarily involve the people shooting them down — but an institutional one that accounts for a greater reliance, and use of helicopters in theater.
In 1948 the U.S. military had a big pow-wow, called the Key West Agreement where they re-defined inter service use of fixed wing aircraft along with mission parameters of their use. Hence, the Navy has a pretty full spectrum of fixed wing aircraft, that can be called upon for a variety of missions, most notably, in support to its ground forces, the Marines. The Army on the other hand, was more less prohibited from having its own fixed wing aircraft, being supposedly relient on the Air Force for its ground support. Except that over time, the Air Force has made many moves to define its particular mission away from ground support and onto the the more spectacular long range high tech broad strategic air command type mission. A case in point here would be the C-123 aircraft used to great (multi-purpose) support missions in Vietnam, and immediatly retired and not replaced after the war.
The Army, throughout this evolution has been victimized by both the ban on fixed wing aircraft, and the Air Force’s intrangence on taking up the slack — and has led the Army to an ever growing reliance on the helicopter to fill the void of close air support, troop movements, re-supply transport, etc.
So, what might be happening in Iraq, is the Army has been forced into an overburdened reliance on helicopters. Which has made their profile ubiquitious and hencforth predictable, or in other words more vulnerable.

Posted by: anna missed | Feb 24 2007 3:09 utc | 29

That’s funny, Noirette. I wonder what the 1-minute audio will be, or if they will air it at all!
As a reader of the Internet for the last few years, I have enjoyed the discussions on the Kos site. Not my favorite but a good place to read active political thought.
Criticising Kos is a valid method but just like the BBC or any other pillar of the media misses the point that it is a huge website, I think the biggest one, and has little relationship to this blog for example.
We are a community of some hundred posters and some thousand readers, Kos has a million readers a day. That is big.
So let’s keep that in mind — Kos’s homepage posts are clear, vetted and spell checked. I find him a sympathetic character, still in development, learning about his power.
I wasn’t joking about Markos Militsas being the next Bill Gates. He already has a forum, in general I like what he says about publicizing the abuse of power within the US government, and also welcome the straightforward participation that website encourages.
Again, I think that the knowledge gained from the example of the Kos site has a positive effect beyond the site itself.

Posted by: jonku | Feb 24 2007 9:30 utc | 30

jonku, i don’t disagree with your thoughts about dkos. i would like to add (as i always do) that for me it is not so much kos’ voice i look for at the site, but the other writers there. the site has changed and there are more front page posters than before and there is a good mix of interests in that group – kagro x, susang, meteor blades, mcjoan, etc. kos has chosen to focus on elections and writes almost exclusively about it. i read his stuff very selectively because i am more interested in issues, but i think it is good that he is keeping track of races throughout the country. armando is also back, posting under a different name, and i find his legal analysis an invaluable resource. he has written some excellent diaries lately about the recent dc appeals court decision on habeas corpus and gitmo. bonddad provides excellent economic analysis, and, last but hardly least, jerome continues to pump out energy diaries and has joined forces with others to have greater impact. so, yes, i think the site is worthy of consideration and respect. some dismiss it as an echo chamber, but anyone reading jerome’s diary yesterday, which was written more or less as a rebuttal of a front page diary which claimed that the u.s. was justified in going into afghanistan, and the discussions in the comments attached to it, would be hard pressed to make that claim. it is not moa but i think it is a valid forum if you do not expect more of it than it is.

Posted by: conchita | Feb 24 2007 16:32 utc | 31

anna missed #29
Read an article somewhere in the past week, which gave figures for numbers of helicopter flights by Army in Iraq over past three years. Sorry I can’t point to it. You are right. Numbers have increased almost exponentially. The historical background you give is far more interesting than anything in the newspaper story.
Reports also cite military saying tactics of insurgents have improved with new emphasis on shooting helicopters, including, as you say, studying routes and schedules. That’s from the scarce, better news reports. Other reports just echo some politico-military talking point about another “cell of al Queda in Iraq” causing all the trouble.

Posted by: small coke | Feb 24 2007 17:59 utc | 32

the good general giap knew that the war against the helicopters was critical – as it is today in iraq & afghanistan
the book ‘we were soldiers once'(?)by an american general also outlines the critical importance of the helicopter for us forces
& i’d suggest all the helicopters have been taken down not by mechanical failure but by the ever increasing forces opposed to the occupation(s)

Posted by: r’giap | Feb 24 2007 19:21 utc | 33

Reports also cite military saying tactics of insurgents have improved with new emphasis on shooting helicopters, including, as you say, studying routes and schedules.
My paper noted that shoot downs became a factor After the fools started training Iraqis to fly the helicopters.

Posted by: jj | Feb 24 2007 20:30 utc | 34

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/06/iraq-resistance-bigger-badder-and.html
Quote:
[A] spokesperson for the 11 largest Sunni insurgent groups said they can’t accept the plan because they don’t recognize the current Iraqi government.
They want a quick end to foreign troops in Iraq, Iraqi prisoners released from all Iraqi and U.S. jails and the United States and other coalition countries to allocate money to rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure destroyed by war.
They also want all negotiations to be monitored by the United Nations or Arab League.
Despite repeated attempts to smear the resistance as an anti-civilian sectarian movement riddled with psychos and under the thumb of Zarqawi and his putative successors, it is understood by US intelligence that the movement is indeed an anti-occupation resistance.

Posted by: vbo | Feb 26 2007 2:10 utc | 35

Damn, damn, damn…
41 Students Die in Baghdad College Suicide Bombing

A suicide bomber struck Sunday outside a college campus in Baghdad, killing at least 41 people and injuring dozens as a string of other blasts and rocket attacks left bloodshed around the city. Most of the victims were students at the college, a business studies annex of Mustansiriyah University.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 26 2007 13:55 utc | 36

US Bombing Outskirts of Baghdad
fuk

Posted by: annie | Feb 26 2007 17:26 utc | 37

UPDATE 3-Iraq cabinet ENDORSES LANDMARK DRAFT OIL LAW
til hell freezes over

Posted by: annie | Feb 26 2007 17:46 utc | 38

UPDATE 3-Iraq cabinet ENDORSES LANDMARK DRAFT OIL LAW
til hell freezes over

Posted by: annie | Feb 26 2007 17:47 utc | 39

Anyone else wondering if more than meets the eye is shaking Iraqi leaders recently? Sadr leaves town. Al-Hakim’s son detained. Prez Talabani takes medical leave in Jordan. VP Abdul-Mahdi is bombed, not killed.
Juan Cole finds an arabic report that Iraqi govt officials are leaving the country.

The al-Maliki government may in any case be collapsing. KarbalaNews.net alleges in Arabic that fair numbers of cabinet ministers and parliamentarians have fled abroad, going AWOL with no permission. It says that a couple of weeks ago a web site published a list of 360 names of Iraqi officials that the US military is determined to detain, without any permission from the Iraqi government. The list contained both Sunni and Shiite names, and those listed are accused either of administrative corruption or of ties to death squads. Many of those who went abroad were on the list. Personally, I can’t understand on what grounds US troops can arrest elected Iraqi officials. Force majeure? In any case, you can’t run a government if dozens of its officials are living in Amman and Jordan (the problem of absenteeism actually has been a longstanding one.)

Posted by: small coke | Feb 26 2007 19:09 utc | 40

small coke. i noticed all those incidents you mentioned and thought the last 2 re al mahdi and talabani may have been connected to the oil law. talabani fell sick directly after being present at the press announcement re kurds accepting the present draft. directly afterward someone from the oil ministry said it was not necessarily an affirmation from him. now, so soon, it has been endorsed. what i am wondering is, how many members of parliment need to be present to get this legislation enacted? not something i would imagine passing without serious threat/consequences.

Posted by: annie | Feb 26 2007 20:53 utc | 41

via e-mail I received from Antonia Juhasz:
Iraq Oil Law Runs into Opposition
The next ten days or so could be critical…
Also from the same:

ARE U.S. OIL COMPANIES GOING TO “WIN” THE IRAQ WAR?”
“Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas—reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.” — Chevron’s CEO Kenneth Derr, 1998.
HELL NO!
Dear Friends,
On Monday, the Bush administration and U.S. oil companies came one step closer to “winning” the war in Iraq when the Iraqi Cabinet passed a new national oil law.
The brainchild of the Bush administration and its corporate allies, the law is the smoking gun exposing Bush’s war for oil.
It would transform Iraq’s oil system from a nationalized model all-but-closed to U.S. oil companies, to a commercialized model, all-but-fully privatized and opened to U.S. corporate control.
The law now goes to the Iraqi Parliament for consideration in early March.
It’s simple: the Bush administration and Big Oil are trying to get the best deal and the most oil possible out of a war-ravaged and desperate people. They are holding 25 million Iraqis – and 150,000 American troops — hostage to their oil agenda.
There is time, if we shine enough sunlight, to expose the oil agenda driving the war and support Iraqis who believe that now is not the time for their government to rush into contracts that will lock in the fate of their most valuable resource for a generation.
I have very happily teamed up with Oil Change International http://www.priceofoil.org to raise awareness about this law and to get the U.S. government and our oil corporations off of Iraq’s Back.
YOU CAN:
+ Participate in Protests against War AND Climate Change on the 4-Year Anniversary of the Iraq War.
Oil Change International (www.PriceOfOil.org), Global Exchange (www.Globalexchange.org), and more Organizations and Groups Every Day are joining with Hundreds of communities throughout the US, and the world, to hold protest events on March 17-19, to mark the 4-year anniversary of the Iraq war.
We urge environmentalists and climate change activists to join with peace activists and organize protests on these dates at the headquarters and gas stations of the oil companies leading the charge in Iraq: Chevron, ExxonMobil, Marathon, ConocoPhillips, Shell and BP. What better locations to send a message about war, oil and the consequences of oil addiction?
List your protest at http://www.unitedforpeace.org.
MARCH 19 – In the Bay Area, I’ve joined with activists planning a Rally, Protest, and Nonviolent Direct Action at Chevron’s World Headquarters on March 19 7:00-11:00am in San Ramon. Visit http://www.myspace.com/ChevronProtest.
+ Learn about an international network of organizations organizing protests under the heading “Hands Off Iraq’s Oil!” Visit their website http://www.HandsOffIraqiOil.org/.
+ Let your elected officials know that you oppose U.S. government pressure on the Iraqis to pass an oil law that benefits U.S. corporations while harming the economic security of Iraqis.
+ Let the media hear from you! Contact your local newspaper and radio stations and encourage them expose the oil agenda behind the war. Write Letters to the Editor. Call in on local Radio Shows. Write your own Op Ed, your own article, and more!
+ Share this information with your friends, neighbors, community and colleagues.
+ Hold your own rally, protest, press conference, direct action, or festival and spread the word!
+ With the media? Contact Celia Alario to arrange for great interviewees at 310-214-6830 or celiaalario@earthlink.net.
+ More Information on protests and the oil law will be posted soon at
Oil Change International http://www.PriceOfOil.org.
BACKGROUND
Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, U.S. oil companies were shut out of
Iraq’s oil industry with the exception of limited marketing contracts.
As a result of the invasion, if the oil law passes, U.S. oil companies will emerge as the corporate front-runners in line for contracts giving them control over the vast majority of Iraq’s oil under some of the most corporate-friendly terms in the world for twenty to thirty-five years.
The law grants the Iraq National Oil Company oversight only over “existing” fields, which is about one-third of Iraq’s oil. Exploration and production contracts for the remainder of Iraq’s oil will be opened to private foreign investment. Neither Iraqi public nor private oil companies will receive any preference in contracting decisions.
Contrary to the Bush administration’s claims, Iraq does not need foreign oil corporations in order reap the benefits of its oil. Prior to the U.S. invasion, Iraq produced an average of 2.5 million barrels of oil a day. Since the invasion, the Iraqis have averaged approximately 2.2 million barrels of oil a day. This amount has dropped recently due to the surge in violence to about 1.7 million barrels a day. Because Iraq’s oil is the cheapest in the world to produce, only about sixty cents a barrel, and oil is selling today at $61 per barrel – the return on any investment is enormous. At its current low rate of production, Iraq is expected to generate more than $30 billion from its oil this year alone – more than enough to keep the industry running and the economy stable.
If the new law passed, Iraq’s oil system would be utterly unique in the Middle East and in virtually any oil rich nation. For example, Kuwait, Iran and Saudi Arabia all maintain nationalized oil systems and have outlawed foreign control over oil development. They all hire foreign oil companies as contractors to provide specific services, as needed, for a limited duration, without giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced.
We all know that the Bush administration began planning for the Iraq war well before the September 11 terrorist attacks. In fact, former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil has explained that by February 2001, the administration was well passed debating whether or not to attack Iraq, but rather discussing the logistics of how to invade.
Few people know that just month later, in March 2001, Cheney’s Energy Task Force was working on a series of maps and lists outlining Iraq’s entire oil productive capacity and the foreign companies lined-up to cash-in. The task force included representatives from all of the major U.S. oil and energy service companies, including Halliburton, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. In addition to maps, they compiled two lists entitled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts as of 5 March 2001” that listed all the companies – none of them American – that were in negotiations with, or had already signed, oil contracts with Saddam Hussein. Because of the sanctions against Iraq, however, none of the contracts were actually in force. But the writing was on the wall. Global public opinion had turned against the sanctions. If the sanctions were removed while Saddam Hussein was in power, oil companies from China, Russia, France, and elsewhere would get their hands on Iraq’s oil, while ! U.S. companies would be left out.
So, the administration invaded and replaced Saddam Hussein and his regime. It is now on the verge of reopening the Iraqi oil industry for itself and its corporate allies.
Most Iraqis remain in the dark about the new oil law. Iraq’s oil workers had to travel to Jordan to learn details of the law from the London-based research organization Platform. As a result, in September 2006, the nation’s five trade union federations—between them representing hundreds of thousands of workers—released a public statement rejecting “the handing of control over oil to foreign companies, whose aim is to make big profits at the expense of the Iraqi people, and to rob the national wealth, according to long-term, unfair contracts, that undermine the sovereignty of the state and the dignity of the Iraqi people.” They demanded a delay in consideration of any law until all Iraqis could be included in the discussion.
Support Iraqis by demanding an End to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and End to U.S. government and corporate pressure on Iraq’s fragile government; and an End to all wars for oil!
LEARN MORE:
Read “Oil Grab in Iraq” by Antonia Juhasz and Raed Jarrar, Foreign Policy In Focus, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4020
“Iraqis Will Never Accept This Sellout to the Oil Corporations” by Kamil Mahdi. http://www.bushagenda.net/article.php?id=314.
“It’s Still About the Oil in Iraq,” the Los Angeles Times, by Antonia Juhasz http://www.bushagenda.net/article.php?id=301
The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time (HarperCollins, April 2006) by Antonia Juhasz. http://www.TheBushAgenda.net.
Peace,
Antonia
http://www.PriceofOil.org

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 2 2007 6:10 utc | 42

Follow up e-mail:
Hi Friends,
Apologies for sending another message. However, I included an incorrect website address for the organizers of the March 19 protest against Chevron. To learn more go to Protest Chevron!
best,
Antonia

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 2 2007 6:15 utc | 43

Viagra.

Free viagra sample. Viagra. Story comparison viagra. Cheapest viagra. Female viagra. Viagra hgh. Re viagra cello. Discount viagra.

Posted by: Recreational viagra. | Jan 6 2010 8:09 utc | 44

Back to Main