Revealed: Secret Plan to Keep Iraq Under US Control by Patrick Cockburn

Dandelion Salad

by Patrick Cockburn
Global Research, June 5, 2008
The Independent (UK)

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors.

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military “surge” began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. “It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty,” said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: “This is just a tactical subterfuge.” Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its “war on terror” in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called “strategic alliance” without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create “a permanent occupation”. He added: “The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans.”

Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.

© Copyright Patrick Cockburn, The Independent (UK), 2008

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9204

US and Iran: Is an Iraq grand bargain possible? (vid; Porter)

Dandelion Salad

TheRealNews

More at http://therealnews.com/c.ph…
Gareth Porter part 4: Iraq regime torn between US and Iran; the US wants a deal, but on its own terms…

see

Washington’s conflicting strategies on Iran (video; Porter) Part I

Iran, US and the possibility of war (video; Porter) Part II

Iran’s role as a regional power (video; Porter) Part III

War Without End: 2005

Dandelion Salad

Warning

This video may contain images depicting the reality and horror of war/violence and should only be viewed by a mature audience.

MegaNewsbreak

In the second part of Al Jazeera’s year by year focus on the events and the policies that helped shape Iraq and the current chaos in the country, we look at 2005 – the year the trial began of former leader Saddam Hussein. AlJazeeraEnglish

Continue reading

Bogus Claim, al-Maliki Stall U.S. Plan on Iran Arms by Gareth Porter

Dandelion Salad

Analysis by Gareth Porter
ICH
05/15/08

WASHINGTON, May 14 (IPS)

Early this month, the George W. Bush administration’s plan to create a new crescendo of accusations against Iran for allegedly smuggling arms to Shiite militias in Iraq encountered not just one but two setbacks.

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to endorse U.S. charges of Iranian involvement in arms smuggling to the Mahdi Army, and a plan to show off a huge collection of Iranian arms captured in and around Karbala had to be called off after it was discovered that none of the arms were of Iranian origin.

The news media’s failure to report that the arms captured from Shiite militiamen in Karbala did not include a single Iranian weapon shielded the U.S. military from a much bigger blow to its anti-Iran strategy.

The Bush administration and top Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus had plotted a sequence of events that would build domestic U.S. political support for a possible strike against Iran over its “meddling” in Iraq and especially its alleged export of arms to Shiite militias.

The plan was keyed to a briefing document to be prepared by Petraeus on the alleged Iranian role in arming and training Shiite militias that would be surfaced publicly after the al-Maliki government had endorsed it and it used to accuse Iran publicly.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, told reporters on Apr. 25 that Petraeus was preparing a briefing to be given “in the next couple of weeks” that would provide detailed evidence of “just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability”. The centrepiece of the Petraeus document, completed in late April, was the claim that arms captured in Basra bore 2008 manufacture dates on them.

U.S. officials also planned to display Iranian weapons captured in both Basra and Karbala to reporters. That sequence of media events would fill the airwaves with spectacular news framing Iran as the culprit in Iraq for several days, aimed at breaking down Congressional and public resistance to the idea that Iranian bases supporting the meddling would have to be attacked.

But events in Iraq diverged from the plan. On May 4, after an Iraqi delegation had returned from meetings in Iran, al-Maliki’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a news conference that al-Maliki was forming his own Cabinet committee to investigate the U.S. claims. “We want to find tangible information and not information based on speculation,” he said.

Another adviser to al-Maliki, Haider Abadi, told the Los Angeles Times’ Alexandra Zavis that Iranian officials had given the delegation evidence disproving the charges. “For us to be impartial, we have to investigate,” Abadi said.

Al-Dabbagh made it clear that the government considered the U.S. evidence of Iranian government arms smuggling insufficient. “The proof we have is weapons which are shown to have been made in Iran,” al-Dabbagh said in a separate interview with Reuters. “We want to trace back how they reached [Iraq], who is using them, where are they getting it.”

Senior U.S. military officials were clearly furious with al-Maliki for backtracking on the issue. “We were blindsided by this,” one of them told Zavis.

Then the Bush administration’s campaign on Iranian arms encountered another serious problem. The Iraqi commander in Karbala had announced on May 3 that he had captured a large quantity of Iranian arms in and around that city.

Earlier the U.S. military had said that it was up to the Iraqi government to display captured Iranian weapons, but now an Iraqi commander was eager to show off such weapons. Petraeus’ staff alerted U.S. media to a major news event in which the captured Iranian arms in Karbala would be displayed and then destroyed.

But when U.S. munitions experts went to Karbala to see the alleged cache of Iranian weapons, they found nothing that they could credibly link to Iran.

The U.S. command had to inform reporters that the event had been cancelled, explaining that it had all been a “misunderstanding”. In his press briefing May 7, Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner gave some details of the captured weapons in Karbala but refrained from charging any Iranian role.

The cancellation of the planned display was a significant story, in light of the well-known intention of the U.S. command to convict Iran on the arms smuggling charge. Nevertheless, it went completely unreported in the world’s news media.

A report on the Los Angeles Times’ Blog “Babylon & Beyond” by Baghdad correspondent Tina Susman was the only small crack in the media blackout. The story was not carried in the Times itself, however.

The real significance of the captured weapons collected in Karbala was not the obvious U.S. political embarrassment over an Iraqi claim of captured Iranian arms that turned out to be false. It was the deeper implication of the arms that were captured.

Karbala is one of Iraq’s eight largest cities, and it has long been the focus of major fighting between the Mahdi Army and its Shiite foes. Moqtada al-Sadr declared his ceasefire last August after a major battle there, and fighting had resumed there with the government operation in Basra in March. Thousands of Mahdi Army fighters have fought there over the past year.

The official list of weapons captured in Karbala includes nine mortars, four anti-aircraft missiles, 45, RPGs and 800 RPG missiles and 570 roadside explosive devices. The failure to find a single item of Iranian origin among these heavier weapons, despite the deeply entrenched Mahdi Army presence over many months, suggests that the dependence of the Mahdi Army on arms manufactured in Iran is actually quite insignificant.

The Karbala weapons cache also raises new questions about the official U.S. narrative about the Shiite militia’s use of explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) as an Iranian phenomenon. Among the captured weapons mentioned by Gen. Jawdat were what he called “150 anti-tank bombs”, as distinguished from ordinary roadside explosive devices.

An “anti-tank bomb” is a device that is capable of penetrating armour, which has been introduced to the U.S. public as the EFP. The U.S. claim that Iran was behind their growing use in Iraq was the centrepiece of the Bush administration’s case for an Iranian “proxy war” against the U.S. in early 2007.

Soon after that, however, senior U.S. military officials conceded that EFPs were in fact being manufactured in Iraq itself, although they insisted that EFPs alleged exported by Iran were superior to the home-made version.

The large cache of EFPs in Karbala which are admitted to be non-Iranian in origin underlines the reality that the Mahdi Army procures its EFPs from a variety of sources.

But for the media blackout of the story, the large EFP discovery in Karbala would have further undermined the credibility of the U.S. military’s line on Iran’s export of the EFPs to Iraqi fighters.

Apparently understanding the potential political difficulties that the Karbala EFP find could present, Gen. Bergner omitted any reference to them in his otherwise accurate accounting of the Karbala weapons.

Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. The paperback edition of his latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam”, was published in 2006.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Has the Battle for America Begun? by Richard C. Cook

Don’t Bomb Iran (video)

Planned US Israeli Attack on Iran: Will there be a War against Iran?

Beating the Drums of a Broader Middle East War

US confession: Weapons were not made in Iran after all

War Without End: 2003 and 2004 (videos)

Dandelion Salad

Warning

This video may contain images depicting the reality and horror of war/violence and should only be viewed by a mature audience.

MegaNewsbreak

Added: May 05, 2008

On May 1 2003 George Bush, the president of the United States, gave a speech on the aircraft USS Abraham Lincoln declaring an “end to major combat operations” in Iraq.

Five years on with violence continuing unabated across the country Al Jazeera’s Hoda Abdel Hamid – in a special five part series – looks at the major events of the Iraq war.

Each week will focus on one of the last five years looking at the events and the policies that helped shape Iraq and the current chaos in the country.

Continue reading

General William Odom Tells Senate: Rapid Withdrawal Is Only Solution

Dandelion Salad

By William E. Odom, LT General, USA, Ret.
ICH
2 April 2008

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON IRAQ

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you again. The last occasion was in January 2007, when the topic was the troop surge. Today you are asking if it has worked. Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success.

I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims.

Last year, General Petraeus wisely declined to promise a military solution to this political problem, saying that he could lower the level of violence, allowing a limited time for the Iraqi leaders to strike a political deal. Violence has been temporarily reduced but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented. And currently we see violence surge in Baghdad and Basra. In fact, it has also remained sporadic and significant inseveral other parts of Iraq over the past year, notwithstanding the notable drop in Baghdad and Anbar Province.

More disturbing, Prime Minister Maliki has initiated military action and then dragged in US forces to help his own troops destroy his Shiite competitors. This is a political setback, not a political solution. Such is the result of the surge tactic.

No less disturbing has been the steady violence in the Mosul area, and the tensions in Kirkuk between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomen. A showdown over control of the oil fields there surely awaits us. And the idea that some kind of a federal solution can cut this Gordian knot strikes me as a wild fantasy, wholly out of touch with Kurdish realities.

Also disturbing is Turkey’s military incursion to destroy Kurdish PKK groups in the border region. That confronted the US government with a choice: either to support its NATO ally, or to make good on its commitment to Kurdish leaders to insure their security. It chose the former, and that makes it clear to the Kurds that the United States will sacrifice their security to its larger interests in Turkey.

Turning to the apparent success in Anbar province and a few other Sunni areas, this is not the positive situation it is purported to be. Certainly violence has declined as local Sunni shieks have begun to cooperate with US forces. But the surge tactic cannot be given full credit. The decline started earlier on Sunni initiative. What are their motives? First, anger at al Qaeda operatives and second, their financial plight.

Their break with al Qaeda should give us little comfort. The Sunnis welcomed anyone who would help them kill Americans, including al Qaeda. The concern we hear the president and his aides express about a residual base left for al Qaeda if we withdraw is utter nonsense. The Sunnis will soon destroy al Qaeda if we leave Iraq. The Kurds do not allow them in their region, and the Shiites, like the Iranians, detest al Qaeda. To understand why, one need only take note of the al Qaeda public diplomacy campaign over the past year or so on internet blogs. They implore the United States to bomb and invade Iran and destroy this apostate Shiite regime. As an aside, it gives me pause to learn that our vice president and some members of the Senate are aligned with al Qaeda on spreading the war to Iran.

Let me emphasize that our new Sunni friends insist on being paid for their loyalty. I have heard, for example, a rough estimate that the cost in one area of about 100 square kilometers is $250,000 per day. And periodically they threaten to defect unless their fees are increased. You might want to find out the total costs for these deals forecasted for the next several years, because they are not small and they do not promise to end. Remember, we do not own these people. We merely rent them. And they can break the lease at any moment. At the same time, this deal protects them to some degree from the government’s troops and police, hardly a sign of political reconciliation.

Now let us consider the implications of the proliferating deals with the Sunni strongmen. They are far from unified among themselves. Some remain with al Qaeda. Many who break and join our forces are beholden to no one. Thus the decline in violence reflects a dispersion of power to dozens of local strong men who distrust the government and occasionally fight among themselves. Thus the basic military situation is far worse because of the proliferation of armed groups under local military chiefs who follow a proliferating number of political bosses.

This can hardly be called greater military stability, much less progress toward political consolidation, and to call it fragility that needs more time to become success is to ignore its implications. At the same time, Prime Minister Maliki’s military actions in Basra and Baghdad, indicate even wider political and military fragmentation. We are witnessing is more accurately described as the road to the Balkanization of Iraq, that is, political fragmentation. We are being asked by the president to believe that this shift of so much power and finance to so many local chieftains is the road to political centralization. He describes the process as building the state from the bottom up.

I challenge you to press the administration’s witnesses this week to explain this absurdity. Ask them to name a single historical case where power has been aggregated successfully from local strong men to a central government except through bloody violence leading to a single winner, most often a dictator. That is the history of feudal Europe’s transformation to the age of absolute monarchy. It is the story of the American colonization of the west and our Civil War. It took England 800 years to subdue clan rule on what is now the English-Scottish border. And it is the source of violence in Bosnia and Kosovo.

How can our leaders celebrate this diffusion of power as effective state building? More accurately described, it has placed the United States astride several civil wars. And it allows all sides to consolidate, rearm, and refill their financial coffers at the US expense.

To sum up, we face a deteriorating political situation with an over extended army. When the administration’s witnesses appear before you, you should make them clarify how long the army and marines can sustain this band-aid strategy.

The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order. Only that step can break the paralysis now gripping US strategy in the region. The next step is to choose a new aim, regional stability, not a meaningless victory in Iraq. And progress toward that goal requires revising our policy toward Iran. If the president merely renounced his threat of regime change by force, that could prompt Iran to lessen its support to Taliban groups in Afghanistan. Iran detests the Taliban and supports them only because they will kill more Americans in Afghanistan as retaliation in event of a US attack on Iran. Iran’s policy toward Iraq would also have to change radically as we withdraw. It cannot want instability there. Iraqi Shiites are Arabs, and they know that Persians look down on them. Cooperation between them has its limits.

No quick reconciliation between the US and Iran is likely, but US steps to make Iran feel more secure make it far more conceivable than a policy calculated to increase its insecurity. The president’s policy has reinforced Iran’s determination to acquire nuclear weapons, the very thing he purports to be trying to prevent.

Withdrawal from Iraq does not mean withdrawal from the region. It must include a realignment and reassertion of US forces and diplomacy that give us a better chance to achieve our aim.

A number of reasons are given for not withdrawing soon and completely. I have refuted them repeatedly before but they have more lives than a cat. Let [me] try again [to]explain why they don’t make
sense.

First, it is insisted that we must leave behind military training element with no combat forces to secure them. This makes no sense at all. The idea that US military trainers left alone in Iraq can be safe and effective is flatly rejected by several NCOs and junior officers I have heard describe their personal experiences. Moreover, training foreign forces before they have a consolidated political authority to command their loyalty is a windmill tilt. Finally, Iraq is not short on military skills.

Second, it is insisted that chaos will follow our withdrawal. We heard that argument as the “domino theory” in Vietnam. Even so, the path to political stability will be bloody regardless of whether we withdraw or not. The idea that the United States has a moral responsibility to prevent this ignores that reality. We are certainly to blame for it, but we do not have the physical means to prevent it. American leaders who insist that it is in our power to do so are misleading both the public and themselves if they believe it. The real moral question is whether to risk the lives of more Americans. Unlike preventing chaos, we have the physical means to stop sending more troops where many will be killed or wounded. That is the moral responsibility to our country which no American leaders seems willing to assume.

Third, nay sayers insist that our withdrawal will create regional instability. This confuses cause with effect. Our forces in Iraq and our threat to change Iran’s regime are making the region unstable. Those who link instability with a US withdrawal have it exactly backwards. Our ostrich strategy of keeping our heads buried in the sands of Iraq has done nothing but advance our enemies’ interest.

I implore you to reject these fallacious excuses for prolonging the commitment of US forces to war in Iraq.

Thanks for this opportunity to testify today.

***

Two related audio files:

Media conference call with StandUpCongress.org on April 1st.

Radio show with ThePeopleSpeakRadio.net on March 17th.

h/t: Greg via After Downing Street

Mosaic News – 4/1/08: World News from the Middle East

Dandelion Salad

Warning

.

This video may contain images depicting the reality and horror of war/violence and should only be viewed by a mature audience.

linktv

For more: http://linktv.org/originalseries
“Maliki Stops Random Arrests,” Al Jazeera TV, Qatar
“Basra Suffers Humanitarian Crisis,” Al Arabiya TV, UAE
“Israel Continues Settlements’ Construction,” Dubai TV, UAE
“Ehud Barak Plans to Create New Party,” IBA TV, Israel
“Israel Can Turn Lebanon into a ‘Parking Lot’,” Abu Dhabi TV, UAE
“The Arab Summit was a Success,” Syria TV, Syria
“New Pakistani Cabinet Sworn In,” Al-Alam TV, Iran
“Did Life Change Since the Fall of the Taliban?,” Al Jazeera English, Qatar
Produced for Link TV by Jamal Dajani.

Vodpod videos no longer available. from www.youtube.com posted with vodpod

.

Olbermann: Sadr State of Affairs + Gore More Years? + Worst + Bushed! (9/11)

Dandelion Salad

Ryokibin

Mar. 31, 2008

Sadr State of Affairs

Keith speaks with Sen. Chuck Hagel.

Sadr State of Affairs: Iraq. All quiet on the Western and Eastern Fronts. Unless you count the rockets and guns. Senator Chuck Hagel joins us on that and on the whispers about who might want him, as Vice-President.

Gore More Years?

Keith speaks with Dana Milbank.

The Goracle: Al Gore to save the day? Nah…

World’s Worst

Worse: Walmart

Worser: Ohio Judge Richard Bernat

Worst: Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell

Bushed!

Iraq & 9/11-Gate

Mortgage-Gate

Mukasey Said What-Gate? (9/11)

see

Iran Brokers Call for Ceasefire; Bush reduced to Irrelevancy in Iraq; Fighting Continues

Iraq In The Balance By Scott Horton (+ video)

Bush’s Legacy Leads to Iran By Heather Wokusch

Sadr orders fighters to stand down

The Smart Way Out of a Foolish War by Zbigniew Brzezinski

The sieges of Basra & Sadr City: another US war crime in Iraq

Iraqi police in Basra shed their uniforms, kept their rifles & switched sides

Dandelion Salad

by James Hider
uruknet.info
Times
March 28, 2008

Abu Iman barely flinched when the Iraqi Government ordered his unit of special police to move against al-Mahdi Army fighters in Basra.

His response, while swift, was not what British and US military trainers who have spent the past five years schooling the Iraqi security forces would have hoped for. He and 15 of his comrades took off their uniforms, kept their government-issued rifles and went over to the other side without a second thought.

Such turncoats are the thread that could unravel the British Army’s policy in southern Iraq. The military hoped that local forces would be able to combat extremists and allow the Army to withdraw gradually from the battle-scarred and untamed oil city that has fallen under the sway of Islamic fundamentalists, oil smugglers and petty tribal warlords. But if the British taught the police to shoot straight, they failed to instil a sense of unwavering loyalty to the State.

“We know the outcome of the fighting in advance because we already defeated the British in the streets of Basra and forced them to withdraw to their base,” Abu Iman told The Times.

“If we go back a bit, everyone remembers the fight with the US in Najaf and the damage and defeat we inflicted on them. Do you think the Iraqi Army is better than those armies? We are right and the Government is wrong. [Nouri al] Maliki [the Iraqi Prime Minister] is driving his Government into the ground.”

…continued

h/t: Mary

***

Police refuse to support Iraqi PM’s attacks on Mehdi Army

by Patrick Cockburn
uruknet.info
independent.co.uk
Saturday, 29 March 2008

US and British forces are increasingly playing a supporting role in the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s stalled offensive against the Mehdi Army militia. American aircraft launched air strikes in Basra yesterday and fought militiamen on the streets in Baghdad while British advisers have also been assisting Iraqi troops in Basra.

Mr Maliki retreated from his demand that militiamen hand over their weapons by yesterday and extended the deadline to 8 April. This is a tacit admission that the Iraqi army and police have failed to oust the Mehdi Army from any of its strongholds in the capital and in southern Iraq. The Iraqi army has either met stubborn resistance from Mehdi Army fighters or soldiers and police have refused to fight or changed sides. “We did not expect the fight to be this intense,” said the officer from a 300-strong commando unit that has been pinned down in the Tamimiyah district in Basra, where the supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of the Mehdi Army, have strong support.

The officer said four of his men were killed and 15 wounded in the fighting. “Some of the men told me that they did not want to go back to the fight until they have better support and more protection,” he added. The Interior Ministry threatened that the men would be court-martialled for refusing to fight. Government troops arriving in Basra complain that they are being fired on by local police loyal to Mr Sadr. Members of one police unit had fist fights with their officers after they refused to join the battle.

The failure of Mr Maliki to make good his threat so far to eliminate the Mehdi Army and growing signs of dissent in army units is damaging his authority, “It is possible that Muqtada and the Mehdi Army will emerge from this crisis stronger than they were before,” warned one Iraqi politician who did not want his name published.

Fears that Mr Maliki’s surprise assault on the Mehdi Army is faltering without any real gains on the ground probably explains why US aircraft are dropping bombs in Basra and US armoured vehicles made an incursion into Sadr City in Baghdad. The explosion of violence over the past four days is making a mockery of George Bush’s claim that America had turned the corner in Iraq.

The crisis has also presented the British Government with a dilemma. If the 4,100 British troops at the airport remain spectators to the battles in the city, critics will ask what they are doing there. But if they intervene in what is essentially a battle between two Shia factions they will be dragged back into the struggle for Basra in which nobody is likely to emerge the winner.

Mystery surrounds Mr Maliki’s motive in launching an assault on the Mehdi Army after Mr Sadr renewed his six-month ceasefire last month. A likely explanation is that Mr Maliki, who has little support outside the holy city of Kerbala, was under pressure from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), his main ally, to attack the Sadrists now. The Sadrists were expected to do well against ISCI in provincial elections which are to be held in October under an agreement brokered by the US Vice-President Dick Cheney during his visit to Baghdad earlier in the month.

ISCI wanted to crush the Sadrists before the poll and this would be easier to do before the US reduces the numbers of its troops in Iraq. But, unless Mr Maliki’s attack picks up steam over the next week, he will have done nothing except damage his own standing. Demonstrators have already been denouncing him as an American puppet and demanding that he go.

A measure of the anarchy in Iraq is that it is unclear who controls large swaths of the country. By one report the Mehdi Army has taken over the centre of the city of Nassariya. The Green Zone in Baghdad, the headquarters of the Iraqi government and of US political influence, is being mortared every day. One mortar round killed two guards outside the Vice-President’s office in the zone. Nobody knows on whose side sections of the security services belong. The Iraqi spokesman for “the surge”, which Mr Bush has lauded as successful, was kidnapped by police commandos, who shot dead his guards before abducting him. A curfew was in force in the capital yesterday.


FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Mosaic News – 3/26/08: World News from the Middle East

Dandelion Salad

Warning

.

This video may contain images depicting the reality and horror of war/violence and should only be viewed by a mature audience.

linktv

For more: http://linktv.org/originalseries
“Maliki Gives Sadr 72 Hours in Basra,” Al Arabiya TV, UAE
“1000 Sunni Families Live Harmoniously in Sadr City,” Al Arabiya TV, UAE
“Battle for Basra’s Oil,” Al Jazeera English, Qatar
“Palestinians Fed Up with Israelis in West Bank,” Al Jazeera English, Qatar
“Hamas is Also a Problem for Arab Countries,” IBA TV, Israel
“Israel Kills Palestinian Journalists,” Al Aqsa, Gaza
“Western Journalists Invited to Gaza,” Al Aqsa, Gaza
“Saudi Arabia Increases Oil Production,” Saudi TV, Saudi Arabia
“Kuwait Holds Camel Beauty Pageant,” Nile TV, Egypt
Produced for Link TV by Jamal Dajani.

Vodpod videos no longer available. from www.youtube.com posted with vodpod

.

Operation Iraqi Freedom Exposed – Bush Negotiates Permanent Presence in Iraq By Marjorie Cohn

Dandelion Salad

By Marjorie Cohn
12/03/07 “ICH

The revelation that Bush will sign an agreement for a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq before his term is up confirms the real reason he invaded Iraq and changed its regime.

It was never about weapons of mass destruction. It was never about ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. And it was never about bringing democracy to the Iraqi people. These claims were lies to cover up the real motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom: to create a permanent American presence in Iraq. With Bush’s November 26, 2007 announcement that the United States and Iraq were negotiating a permanent “security relationship,” his lies have been exposed.

Bush declared, Iraqi leaders “understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency.” His outline for the permanent U.S.-Iraqi “Economic” relationship is “to encourage the flow of foreign investments to Iraq.” Two senior Iraqi officials told the Associated Press that Bush is negotiating preferential treatment for U.S. investments.

This isn’t the first time Bush has tried to turn Iraq into an investment haven for U.S. oil companies. He used to tout the “Iraqi oil law,” which would transfer control of three-quarters of Iraq’s oil to foreign companies, as the benchmark for Iraqi progress. But in the face of opposition by the Iraqi oil unions, the parliament has refused to pass that law.

All along, Bush has been building mega-bases In Iraq. Camp Anaconda, which sits on 15 square miles of Iraqi soil, has a pool, gym, theater, beauty salon, school and six apartment buildings. Our $600 million American embassy in the Green Zone just opened. The largest embassy in the world, it is a self-contained city with no need for Iraqi electricity, food or water.

Although Bush has negotiated terms to keep U.S. troops in Iraq in perpetuity, the majority of American people oppose a permanent American occupation of Iraq.

So do many Iraqis. University of Michigan Juan Cole’s blog, “Informed Comment,” cited an Al-Hayat report in Arabic that the Sadr Movement and the Sunni Iraqi Accord Front rejected the “memorandum of understanding” between the United States and Iraq that Bush and Nuri al-Maliki signed. These groups say this agreement would be illegal unless agreed to by the legislature, and they complain about the absence of any timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

No wonder Iraqis oppose the U.S. occupation. The organization Just Foreign Policy has estimated that 1,118,846 Iraqis have been killed since Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Australian born journalist John Pilger wrote, “The scale of death caused by the British and U.S. governments may well have surpassed that of the Rwanda genocide, making it the biggest single act of mass murder of the late 20th century and the 21st century.”

Yet Congress refuses to reign in the President. When Bush announced that violence is down in Baghdad so he can withdraw 5,000 troops, the Democratic candidates cheered, diverting their criticism to the lack of political progress in Iraq. But with so many Iraqis dead, there are fewer to kill.

We the people have to keep the pressure on. As we demand the United States withdraw completely from Iraq, we must also forbid Bush to attack Iran. Our voices must be heard – by Congress, by the media, and throughout the world.

Marjorie Cohn is president of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, where she teaches criminal law and procedure, evidence, and international human rights law. She lectures throughout the world on human rights and US foreign policy. Please visit her website http://www.marjoriecohn.com/
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

The Two Biggest Public Secrets, and How Bush Just Signing Statemented Iraq By David Swanson + Statement by the President

The Iraqi Miracle – From Invasion to “Partnership” By James Rothenberg

Dandelion Salad

By James Rothenberg
11/28/07 “ICH

What the U.S. had in mind for Iraq was already clear in the Fall of 2001, even though it would take another year and a half to implement the attack, mercilessly known as shock and awe. By the time of the attack, many millions of U.S. citizens knew full well the real motivation behind it. Not that it mattered, or could matter.

The propaganda campaign waged by the government proved too effective for the scared, at large population. Their gullibility level was pushed to record heights by the administration’s deep handbag of shifting rationalizations and calls to patriotism. In short, the population was overmatched.

With some admirable exceptions, congresspersons, not known for gullibility, went along for different reasons. Ultimately not to stick their necks out.

A politician’s main job is to stay elected. This is true because they are not limited to a single term. If they were limited to a single term they might be more inclined to assert their individuality. The usual argument against the single term limit is that by then they are just learning their way around. But that’s the trouble – that there is a “way around”. That means knowing who to kiss up to, who’s useful, who will deal and who will pay. Do we really think that if we had a totally new Congress nothing could get done, because nobody knows their way around? We did have an all new Congress in this country. Once.

The media, again with a few admirable exceptions, took the occasion to demonstrate their compliancy. Distinguished less by gullibility than by hard-boiled cynicism, they nonetheless faithfully repeated every administration handout without challenge, indeed, without comment.

Now what was it that was so clear to some from the very beginning? That a takeover of Iraq was a natural way to establish a permanent military presence in the heart of the resource-rich Middle East. This was not a departure from longstanding American foreign policy goals but merely its latest iteration. Iraq happens to harbor the second largest proven oil reserves and oil just happens to be entering its scarcity mode.

The morning newspaper carries an Associated Press story detailing the signing by President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki of a “declaration of principles” between the two countries, which, for those still interested in the real reason we invaded Iraq, amounts to a full confession. Not in front of the International Criminal Court (that’s not for us) but mainstreamed, normalized, now fit to print.

Iraq’s government will “embrace a long-term U.S. troop presence in return for U.S. security guarantees [referred to in another business as a protection racket] as part of a strategic partnership…an enduring relationship in military, economic and political terms.” In addition, the agreement provides for U.S. support for the “democratic regime in Iraq against domestic and external dangers” (the “danger” being that they would be outside our influence).

One should not be surprised that Iraq’s U.S. supported leaders find amenable the terms set for them by Washington. What else would one expect between a dependent client state and its master, the client obliged to obey and the master prepared to reward useful service?

The agreement specifically seeks (details have to be worked out you see) “preferential treatment for American investments.” At this point we might recall that the clever war marketeers chose not to use Operation Iraqi Liberation which would be lampooned as OIL.

Cutely, Lt. Gen. Lute, Bush’s adviser on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, claims the question of whether military bases are required is “on the negotiating table”. Not according to the Iraqi officials cited in the same story who “foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops” at those bases.

In keeping with established practices of imperialist plunderers, the invader now guarantees the security of the invaded. When you think security, don’t think of being secure. Think prison and graveyard. The security is for the government. And when a state of emergency is declared in this country (just suppose), think that the emergency has nothing to do with the population. The emergency will be real, but it will be to the government.

James Rothenberg – jrothenberg@taconic.net

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Dems Oppose Permanent Bases in Iraq, But What Will They Do About The Ones Bush Built? (Kucinich)

Fact Sheet: U.S.-Iraq Declaration of Principles for Friendship & Cooperation

Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation & Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq & the USA

Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation & Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq & the USA

Dandelion Salad

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
The White House
November 26, 2007

As Iraqi leaders confirmed in their Communiqué signed on August 26, 2007, and endorsed by President Bush, the Governments of Iraq and the United States are committed to developing a long-term relationship of cooperation and friendship as two fully sovereign and independent states with common interests. This relationship will serve the interest of coming generations based on the heroic sacrifices made by the Iraqi people and the American people for the sake of a free, democratic, pluralistic, federal, and unified Iraq.

The relationship of cooperation envisioned by the Republic of Iraq and the United States includes a range of issues, foremost of which is cooperation in the political, economic, cultural, and security fields, taking account of the following principles:

First: The Political, Diplomatic, and Cultural Spheres

1. Supporting the Republic of Iraq in defending its democratic system against internal and external threats.

2. Respecting and upholding the Constitution as the expression of the will of the Iraqi people and standing against any attempt to impede, suspend, or violate it.

3. Supporting the efforts of the Republic of Iraq to achieve national reconciliation including as envisioned in the Communiqué of August 26.

4. Supporting the Republic of Iraq’s efforts to enhance its position in regional and international organizations and institutions so that it may play a positive and constructive role in the region and the world.

5. Cooperating jointly with the states of the region on the basis of mutual respect, non-intervention in internal affairs, rejection of the use of violence in resolving disputes, and adoption of constructive dialogue in resolving outstanding problems among the various states of the region.

6. Promoting political efforts to establish positive relationships between the states of the region and the world, which serve the common goals of all relevant parties in a manner that enhances the security and stability of the region, and the prosperity of its peoples.

7. Encouraging cultural, educational, and scientific exchanges between the two countries.

Second: The Economic Sphere

1. Supporting Iraq’s development in various economic fields, including its productive capabilities, and aiding its transition to a market economy.

2. Encouraging all parties to abide by their commitments as stipulated in the International Compact with Iraq.

3. Supporting the building of Iraq’s economic institutions and infrastructure with the provision of financial and technical assistance to train and develop competencies and capacities of vital Iraqi institutions.

4. Supporting Iraq’s further integration into regional and international financial and economic organizations.

5. Facilitating and encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments, to contribute to the reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq.

6. Assisting Iraq in recovering illegally exported funds and properties, especially those smuggled by the family of Saddam Hussein and his regime’s associates, as well as antiquities and items of cultural heritage, smuggled before and after April 9, 2003.

7. Helping the Republic of Iraq to obtain forgiveness of its debts and compensation for the wars waged by the former regime.

8. Supporting the Republic of Iraq to obtain positive and preferential trading conditions for Iraq within the global marketplace including accession to the World Trade Organization and most favored nation status with the United States.

Third: The Security Sphere

1. Providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace.

2. Supporting the Republic of Iraq in its efforts to combat all terrorist groups, at the forefront of which is Al-Qaeda, Saddamists, and all other outlaw groups regardless of affiliation, and destroy their logistical networks and their sources of finance, and defeat and uproot them from Iraq. This support will be provided consistent with mechanisms and arrangements to be established in the bilateral cooperation agreements mentioned herein. 3. Supporting the Republic of Iraq in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces to enable them to protect Iraq and all its peoples, and completing the building of its administrative systems, in accordance with the request of the Iraqi government.

The Iraqi Government in confirmation of its resolute rights under existing Security Council resolutions will request to extend the mandate of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter for a final time. As a condition for this request, following the expiration of the above mentioned extension, Iraq’s status under Chapter VII and its designation as a threat to international peace and security will end, and Iraq will return to the legal and international standing it enjoyed prior to the issuance of U.N. Security Council Resolution No. 661 (August, 1990), thus enhancing the recognition and confirming the full sovereignty of Iraq over its territories, waters, and airspace, and its control over its forces and the administration of its affairs.

Taking into account the principles discussed above, bilateral negotiations between the Republic of Iraq and the United States shall begin as soon as possible, with the aim to achieve, before July 31, 2008, agreements between the two governments with respect to the political, cultural, economic, and security spheres.

President of the United States of America
George W. Bush

Prime Minister of the Republic of Iraq
Nouri Kamel Al-Maliki

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Fact Sheet: U.S.-Iraq Declaration of Principles for Friendship & Cooperation

Olbermann: Grand Old Party Pooper + Generals Dissent + Iraq of Ages + Worst (videos)

Bush and Maliki Destroy Iraq’s Constitution to Save It h/t: After Downing Street

A Tale of One City, Now Two By Ali al-Fadhily

Dandelion Salad

By Ali al-Fadhily*
IPS

BAGHDAD, Nov 12 (IPS) – The separation of religious groups in the face of sectarian violence has brought some semblance of relative calm to Baghdad. But many Iraqis see this as the uncertain consequence of a divide and rule policy.

Claims are going the rounds that sectarian violence in Iraq has fallen, and that the U.S. military “surge” has succeeded in reducing attacks against civilians. Baghdad residents speak of the other side of the coin – that they live now in a largely divided city that has brought this uneasy calm.

Continue reading

Iraqi probe finds Blackwater mercenaries fired without provocation in Baghdad massacre by Kate Randall

Dandelion Salad

by Kate Randall
Global Research, October 8, 2007
wsws.org

An official Iraqi investigation into the deadly shooting involving Blackwater USA found that the security contractors opened fire without provocation on September 16 in a main square in Baghdad, killing 17 Iraqis and wounding 22.

The probe also found that the massacre amounted to a deliberate crime and recommended those involved face trial, a demand that has been rejected by US authorities in all cases of atrocities committed by both contractors and US military personnel in Iraq. It will also reportedly recommend compensation to the victims and their families.

The Iraqi investigative committee, which was commissioned by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, said the Blackwater guards at no time came under direct or indirect fire before shooting up the intersection in Nisour Square. Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement, “It was not touched even by a stone.”

The Iraqi probe’s findings were in line with those of a US military report last week as well as a New York Times examination of the shooting incident, both of which took testimony from multiple eyewitnesses. A joint US-Iraqi investigation into the killings held its first meeting into the shootings on Sunday, a full three weeks following the deadly incident.

Blackwater officials continue to maintain that they acted in self-defense and were fired upon and approached by what they perceived as possible suicide car bombers. According to the Washington Post, US military officials were denied access to Blackwater managers for interviews at the company’s compound in Baghdad’s Green Zone.

Speaking on condition of anonymity to the Post about the US military’s findings, a US military official said, “It was obviously excessive, it was obviously wrong. The civilians that were fired upon, they didn’t have any weapons to fire back at them. And none of the IP [Iraqi police] or any of the local security forces fired back at them.” The official also said that the Blackwater mercenaries appeared to have fired grenade launchers as well as machine guns.

A US military unit working with Iraqi police was in the area of the shooting at the time, and also helped transport civilian victims to hospitals. US soldiers have viewed video of the incident and reviewed statements from eyewitnesses, according to the Post.

The Pentagon is conducting a review of its relationship with the contractors it employs, one indication of tensions between the military and the US State Department over the operations of security firms in Iraq. The military has also stopped issuing weapons permits to the contractors until it can review who has them and how they have been used.

The New York Times report, published October 3, was based on interviews with 12 Iraqi eyewitnesses, several Iraqi investigators and a US official familiar with an American investigation into the shootings. It indicates that 17 were killed and 24 wounded in the incident.

According to the Times account, the car carrying the first people to be killed did not approach the Blackwater convoy in the square until the driver in the car—subsequently identified as Ahmed Haithem Ahmed—had been shot in the head and lost control of the vehicle, possibly moving forward as his dead weight fell on the accelerator.

Ahmed’s mother, Mahassin Kadhim, cried out “My son, my son. Help me, help me!” A traffic policeman tried to get the young driver out of the car, but the car was moving forward out of control. Following an initial burst of gunfire, the security guards unleashed a torrent of bullets, even as Iraqis were turning their vehicles around and attempting to flee.

Mrs. Kadhim was apparently shot as she held her son in her arms. The car then caught fire after the Blackwater guards fired some type of grenade into the vehicle. Earlier accounts had said the mother had been holding a baby, but it now appears that the charred remains of her son, the driver, were mistaken for those of an infant. Ahmed’s father later counted 40 bullet holes in the car.

Based on the description of an Iraqi lawyer who was wounded in the shooting, the account confirms preliminary findings of the American investigation that at least one of the Blackwater guards called out for the shooting to stop, screaming, “No! No! No!” No witnesses reported any gunfire coming from Iraqis in and around the square.

Truck driver Fareed Walid Hassan told the Times, “The shooting started like rain; everyone escaped his car.” He said he saw a woman dragging her child’s body. “He was around 10 or 11. He was dead. She was pulling him by one hand to get him away. She hoped that he was still alive.”

Iraqi investigators also say that Blackwater helicopters flying overhead fired into cars, leaving bullet holes in car roofs. Several minutes later in a separate, previously unreported shooting, a Blackwater convoy—perhaps the same one—moved north and opened fire on another line of traffic. According to an Iraqi Interior Ministry official who spoke to the Washington Post, Blackwater guards fired from all four vehicles in this convoy.

An earlier deadly incident involving Blackwater is being investigated by the US Justice Department. Andrew J. Moonen, 27, is the primary suspect in the killing of Raheen Khalif, one of the bodyguards of Iraqi Vice President Adil Abdul Mahdi, on December 24, 2006. Moonen, a Blackwater firearms technician, reportedly shot Mahdi three times with his Glock 9-millimeter pistol while in a drunken stupor.

Within 36 hours, Blackwater arranged with the State Department to have Moonen flown out of Iraq. He was reportedly hired two months later by another private contractor, Combat Support Associates, to work in the region. Moonen, a former army paratrooper, is presently living in the Seattle area and no charges have yet been filed in the incident.

According to a report compiled by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, based largely on internal Blackwater email messages and State Department documents, the acting ambassador at the US Embassy in Baghdad suggested at the time that Blackwater pay the dead man’s family $250,000 in an effort to stop the Iraqi government from calling for the company to be banned from the country.

According to the Times, “Blackwater eventually paid the family $15,000, according to the report, after an embassy diplomatic security official complained that the ‘crazy sums’ proposed by the ambassador [identified by the State Dept. as Margaret Scobey] could encourage Iraqis to try to ‘get killed by our guys to financially guarantee their family’s future.’”

In the face of continuing revelations over the September 16 incident and Blackwater’s violent record, the State Department is pretending to be reining in the private security operatives, ordering new security procedures for American diplomatic convoys in Iraq on Friday.

The new State Department procedures will require that agents from the department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security ride with Blackwater security details, that the bureau review shooting incidents and that convoys communicate with US military units. Video cameras will be mounted in security vehicles and radio transmissions from Security convoys will be recorded.

On Thursday, the US House of Representatives also overwhelmingly approved a bill that would bring US government contractors in the Iraq war zone under the jurisdiction of American criminal law and would require the FBI to investigate any allegations of wrongdoing.

Popular outrage in Iraq against Blackwater and other US-hired security contractors has mounted in the wake of the shootings. In an effort aimed at damage control, and reflecting tensions between the US military and government officials over the mercenary operations, the US State Department has begun three investigations into the incident.

The State Department measures and Congressional legislation can be expected, however, to have little impact of the operations of Blackwater and other security firms. They serve the purpose of providing an appearance of “oversight” while the mercenary operations continue. At present there is no indication that Blackwater will be withdrawn from Iraq, or that any of the personnel involved will be punished, either in Iraqi or US courts.

Despite numerous complaints about the violent and aggressive behavior of Blackwater, the State Department has continued to utilize the company. Janessa Gans, a US official in Iraq from 2003 to 2005, complained to high-level embassy officials after Blackwater guards transporting her in Irbil in northern Iraq fired on a car driven by an older man carrying a young woman and three children. (See “I survived Blackwater”)

A heavily armored Blackwater vehicle in Gan’s speeding convoy smashed into the car as the driver frantically tried to get out of the way. After she complained to her driver, “It was an old guy and a family, for goodness’ sake. Was it necessary for them to destroy their poor old car?” the driver responded, “Ma’am, we’ve been trained to view anyone as a potential threat. You don’t know who they might use as decoys or what the risks are. Terrorists could be disguised as anyone.”

Despite this and other incidents in which security contractors have indiscriminately terrorized the population, inflicting casualties and destroying property, to date, no criminal charges have been filed against them. Blackwater and other security firms—like the US military itself—are immune from prosecution under Iraqi law under a decree issued by the US in the early days of the occupation.

The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), enacted in 2000, extended US federal criminal jurisdiction to felony crimes committed overseas by contractors working on behalf of the Defense Department. The bill passed Thursday by the US House extends the authority of MEJA to contractors working for any agency, including the State Department, which contracts the bulk of the Blackwater security guards.

It is highly unlikely that this legislation will result in any prosecutions of military contractors. According to Peter W. Singer of the Brookings Institution, who has followed the contractor issue, while as many as 20 potential criminal cases involving contractors have been referred to the Bush administration’s Justice Department, none have been pursued. He told the New York Times, “They have disappeared into a black hole.”

The House bill is not retroactive, so it would not apply to the contractors involved in the September 16 incident. Democrats agreed as well to insert language requested by the White House into the bill specifying that it was not intended to impede intelligence efforts.

There are an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 security contractors in Iraq. In the case of the Blackwater guards protecting the US diplomats in Baghdad, their activities are seamlessly integrated into the operations of the US State Department.

A Blackwater contractor, in fact, wrote the initial “spot report” on the September 16 incident on the letterhead of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security for the embassy’s Tactical Operations Center. This report claimed the Blackwater convoy responded properly to an insurgent attack, and made no mention of civilian casualties.

Despite outraged posturing on the part of Congressional Democrats and several Democratic presidential candidates over Blackwater’s activities, it is framed within the confines of protecting the “US mission” in Iraq and concern over the damage it might inflict on the “war on terror.”

On October 2, Blackwater founder and CEO Erik Prince appeared before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. In his opening remarks to the hearing, committee Chairman Henry Waxman (Democrat of California), stated that central to the committee’s examination into Blackwater would be whether the private mercenary outfit is “helping or hurting our efforts in Iraq.”

Waxman asked, “The question for this hearing is whether outsourcing to Blackwater is a good deal for American taxpayers, the military, and our national interest in Iraq” and went on to praise Prince for his four years of service in the elite Navy SEALS. The committee agreed to a State Department request not to specifically question Prince on the September 16 shooting incident at the hearing.

Just the day before the House committee hearing, a new US government contract with Blackwater took effect. Presidential Airways Inc., which is owned by Blackwater’s corporate parent, Prince Group LLC, has been awarded a four-year contact to supply specialized airplanes, crews and equipment for flight operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.

Blackwater USA has government contracts totaling at least $800 million, providing security to US Ambassador Ryan Crocker and other diplomats in Iraq. The company’s private security guards earn as much as $1,200 a day. It is estimated that 40 percent of the money authorized by Congress to fund the war goes to private military contractors, who constitute a critical component of the neo-colonial occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Kate Randall, wsws.org, 2007
The url address of this article is:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7023

see

Making a Killing: A Blackwater Timeline from Mother Jones