That really does nail it, right? President Barack Obama cannot call out Mitt Romney when he is standing on stage with him. After? After, he can act all big and talk smack.
I believe the kids call that a "loser."
This is not a loser, this is a really great piece of writing:
When we vote for presidential candidates from either the Republican or Democratic Parties we are not deciding whom we like better. We are legitimating what those candidates do and stand for. When and if you cast a vote for Obama you are saying that you are okay with what he has done – his presidential kill list, his drone attacks, his refusal to prosecute torturers, his perpetuating of torture and places like Gitmo, his suspension of habeas corpus, due process, and the rule of law, his vengeful attacks on whistleblowers, his mass incarceration and mass deportations, his failure to address global warming, his failure to defend women’s abortion rights, in general, his Janus faced attitudes towards nearly everything under the sun that matters. You’re saying that you endorse this because you are not refusing to delegitimate it by publicly refusing to vote in their elections charade. This is the message you are sending. Is that the message you want to send?
The momentousness and virulence of Obama's legacy cannot be overstated: he has completed the rupture from the rule of law and unaccountability that Bush and Cheney pioneered so spectacularly. By refusing to prosecute Bush and Cheney's numerous crimes - not only their violations of domestic and international law with aggressive wars and torture et al and their ubiquitous and warrantless surveillance, but their repeated overruling of Congressional intent and laws - he has legitimated those lawless and tyrannical actions. He has made them the new norm. Not only, however, has he legitimated them and thereby greased the path for every subsequent president who does the same and worse, but he has himself forged forward in the reactionary direction of Bush and Cheney and gone even further than they dared. As he has done this, he has covered it all under the thick coat of honeyed words and shameless deceitfulness and through his skillful two-faced presentation of self won over those who otherwise resisted these same horrid behaviors when they were being committed by Republicans.
As neoliberal policies that tout the market and globalization as the solution to all problems spread, they can only do so by assiduously obscuring what they actually are for and the results that they inevitably bring. Because neoliberal policies are so damaging to the living standards of the people, bringing on disaster after disaster on the micro and macro levels, they cannot honestly be presented or else the vast majority of the world would rise in rebellion against it.
Here then is where people like Obama play such an important role in rebranding these policies as either the opposite of what they are or as the ineluctable necessity compared to an allegedly even worse outcome and in so doing, thereby quelling resistance to these atrocious measures. With friends such as these, as the saying goes, who needs enemies? The kind of people who tell you that you should ignore the fact that Obama has been a disaster for the people’s interests and has one-upped even Bush and Cheney in the wrong direction because he’s at least better than Romney are the kind of people who tell battered women that they should stay with their battering husband. They are the kind of people who you need to tell to shut the hell up and get real!
Now what was that great writing from? "Who is Barack Obama Really? An Examination of Obama’s Domestic Policies." And who wrote it? Dennis Loo. Good going, Mr. Loo. Seriously. What a valuable piece of writing. Read the full piece to really enjoy.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Thursday,
October 11, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri continues his
shopping spree, cholera continues in Iraq, Barack's lies to voters about
Iraq get noted, we return to the hearing about the attack on the US
Consulate in Libya, and more.
Yesterday the House Oversight Committee gathered for a hearing. What was the hearing about?
Committee
Chair Darrell Issa: On September 11, 2012, four brave Americans
serving their country were murdered by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya.
Tyrone Woods spent two decades as a Navy Seal serving multiple tours in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2010, he protected the American diplomatic
personnel. Tyrone leaves behind a widow and three children. Glen
Doherty, also a former Seal and an experienced paramedic, had served his
country in both Iraq and Afghanistan. His family and colleagues grieve
today for his death. Sean Smith, a communications specialist, joined
the State Dept after six years in the United States Air Force. Sean
leaves behind a widow and two young children. Ambassador Chris Stevens,
a man I had known personally during his tours, US Ambassador to Libya,
ventured into a volatile and dangerous situation as Libyans revolted
against the long time Gaddafi regime. He did so because he believed
the people of Libya wanted and deserved the same things we have: freedom
from tyranny.
Issa
also noted that some Americans were injured in the attack. Appearing
before the Committee were the State Dept's Deputy Assistant Secretary
for International Programs Charlene R. Lamb, the State Dept's always
less than truthful Patrick Kennedy (Under Secretary for Management),
Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and the US military's Lt Col
Andrew Wood. In yesterday's snapshot, we covered a portion of the hearing. In addition, last night Kat reported on the hearing with "What we learned at today's hearing," Ava reported on it with "2 disgrace in the Committee hearing" and Wally reported on it with "The White House's Jimmy Carter moment." What does this have to do with Iraq?
A
great deal. No other foreign country has such a large group of people
with the US State Dept in it. Two weeks after the Consulate in Libya
was attacked, rockets were launched at the US Consulate in Basra The
White House falsely blamed the attack in Libya on an "angry mob" that
got out of control while protesting a video on YouTube. There was no
protest in Libya -- and as Issa noted in yesterday's hearing, the State
Dept stated they did not believe there was and did not advance the
notion that there was. But there was a protest at the US Embassy in
Baghdad. Some may scratch their heads over that. That embassy is in
the Green Zone, a heavily guarded section of Baghdad that most Iraqis
cannot even enter. The protest at the US Embassy was one lone person,
an MP with Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc. Whether it has to do with the lies
the White House repeatedly told or with the realities of what went
down, the events in Libya could have taken place at the Basra Consulate
or at any other location across the globe. As Issa noted in the hearing
yesterday, "[. . .] there are hundreds and hundreds of facilities
similar to this around the world, there are thousands of personnel
serving this country who -- at any time, in any country -- could be a
target." A point made even clearer today with Jeffrey Fleishman and Zaid al-Alayaa (Los Angeles Times) reporting, "A Yemeni security investigator at the U.S. Embassy
here was shot and killed Thursday by masked men on a motorcycle in the
latest assassination by militants of political and security targets in
cities across the country." (Cedric and Wally covered the Yemen violence this morning.)
I had no interest in the Democratic Committee members yesterday. As Ruth pointed out in her post last night, PBS' The NewsHour missed the news
from the hearing because they instead focused on turning the hearing
into a horse race. There were not equal sides in the hearing.
You
had one side focused on finding out what happened and how. You had
another side focused on creating drama -- drama is what PBS focused on
leaving their audience highly uninformed. I was being kind and just
emphasizing what mattered in the hearing -- no Democratic contribution
to the hearing mattered. But if you're not getting how bad it is --
from Wally, Ava and Kat's reporting -- then let's note that nonsense
began the minute a Committee Democrat spoke.
Ranking
Member Elijah Cummings: Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. And let
me be very clear, you said that your side of the aisle grieves the loss
of our fellow countrymen. It's not just your side of the aisle, Mr.
Chairman, it's this side of the aisle and our entire country.
Cummings
came in spoiling for a fight. Issa didn't say "my side of the aisle."
He didn't even say "aisle." Does Cummings need a hearing aid or is
"dais" an unfamiliar term? The Committee members face the witnesses
table. The Committee members are on a raised platform -- a "dais,"
Cummings -- and at higher level than the witness -- for psychological
intimidation, to be honest. So Chair Darrell Issa stated, "We join here
today expressing, from this side of the dais, our deepest
sympathies for the families," and the term was "dais." This side. That
means all the Committee members (and staff) seated and facing the
witness table. Is that clear now?
So which is
it, Cummings? Do we need to buy you a hearing aid or a dictionary?
Let us know and maybe don't use your time to lecture others that "we
should listen carefully" unless you're trying to pay homage to Gilda
Radner's Emily Latella.
DC
Rep Eleanor Holmes Norton is a joke and makes DC a joke. Don't give us
all a lecture about how the right questions need to be asked when you
never ask a question and yield your time. Don't think an hour into the
hearing when you want to speak again that you're bringing up Mitt Romney
-- no one else had -- is seen as anything but what it was, partisan
whoring. If you're supposed to represent DC, starting acting a hell of a
lot more mature, start being a lot more professional. We've already
had Eleanor offer junk science and get smacked down by the FBI during
Barack's term. She seems bound and determined to top that. You'd think
she'd be interested in trying to appear professional. Instead, she
makes herself -- and DC statehood by proxy -- a joke. Over 20 years in
office, over 75 years old, maybe it's time for her to consider
retirement?
Only one Democrat did not self-disgrace, US House Rep Dennis Kucinich.
US
House Rep Dennis Kucinich: Mr. Kennedy has testified today that US
interests and values are at stake in Libya and that the US is better off
because we went to Benghazi. Really? You think that after ten years
in Iraq and eleven years in Afghanistan that our country, the US would
have learned the consequences and limits of interventionism. You would
think that after trillions have been wasted on failed attempts at
democracy building abroad while our infrastructure crumbles at home,
Congress and the administration would re-examine priorities. Today
we're engaging in a discussion about the security failures of Benghazi.
There was a security failure. Four Americans including our ambassador,
Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed. Their deaths are a
national tragedy. My sympathy is with the families of those who were
killed. There has to be accountability. I haven't heard that yet.
We have an obligation to protect those who protect us. That's why this
Congress needs to ask questions. The security situation did not happen
overnight because of a decision made by someone at the State Dept. We
could talk about hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts for funding for
embassy security over the last two years as a result of a blind pursuit
of fiscal austerity. We could talk about whether it's prudent to rely
so heavily on security contractors rather than our own military or State
Dept personnel. We could do a he-said-she-said about whether the State
Dept should have beefed up security at the embassy in Benghazi. But we
owe it to the diplomatic corps who serves our nation to start at the
beginning and that's what I shall do. The security threats in Libya
including the unchecked extremist groups who are armed to the teeth
exist because our nation spurred on a civil war destroying the
security and stability of Libya. And, you know, no one defends Gaddafi.
Libya was not in a meltdown before the war. In 2003, Gaddafi
reconciled with the community of nations by giving up his pursuit of
nuclear weapons. At the time, President Bush said Gaddafi's actions made
our country and our world safer. Now during the Arab Spring, uprisings
across the Middle East occurred and Gaddafi made ludicrous threats
against Benghazi. Based on his verbal threats, we intervented. Absent
constitutional authority, I might add. We bombed Libya, we destroyed
their army, we obliterated their police stations. Lacking any civil
authority, armed brigades control security. al Qaeda expanded its
presence. Weapons are everywhere. Thousands of shoulder-to-air
missiles are on the loose. Our military intervention led to greater
instability in Libya. Many of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, made
that argument to try to stop the war. It's not surprising given the
inflated threat and the grandiose expectations inherent in our nation
building in Libya that the State Dept was not able to adequately protect
our diplomats from this predicatable threat. It's not surprising. And
it's also not acceptable. It's easy to blame someone else -- like a
civil servant at the State Dept. We all know the game. It's harder to
acknowledge that decades of American foreign policy have directly
contributed to regional instability and the rise of armed militias
around the world. It's even harder to acknowledge Congress' role in the
failure to stop the war in Libya, the war in Iraq, the war in
Afghanistan, the war in Pakistan, the war in Yemen, the war in Somolia
and who knows where else? It's harder to recognize Congress' role in
the failure to stop the drone attacks that are still killing innocent
civilians and strengthening radical elements abroad. We want to stop
the attacks on our embassies? Let's stop trying to overthrow
governments. This should not be a partisan issue. Let's avoid the
hype. Let's look at the real situation here. Interventions do not make
us safer. They do not protect our nation. They are themselves a threat
to America. Now, Mr. Kennedy, I would like to ask you, is al Qaeda more
or less established in Libya since our involvement?
Patrick Kennedy: Mr. Kucinich, I will have to take that question for the record. I am not an intelligence expert.
US
House Rep Dennis Kucinich: Oh. You don't have the intelligence, you're
saying? Well I'm going to go on to the next question --
Committee Chair Darrell Issa: Mr. Kucinich, I think the other two may have an opinion.
US
House Rep Dennis Kucinich: Well I wanted to ask Mr. Kennedy. Next
question, Ambassador Kennedy, how many shoulder-to-air missiles that are
capable of shooting down civilian passenger airlines are still missing
in Libya? And this happened since our intervention. Can you answer
that question?
Patrick Kennedy: No, sir. I'll be glad to provide it for the record.
US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: You're saying you do not know?
Patrick Kennedy: I do not know, sir. It's not within my normal purview of operations with the State Dept.
US
House Rep Dennis Kucinich: Does anyone else here know how many
shoulder-to-air missiles that can shoot down civilian airliners are
still loose in Libya? Anyone know?
Eric Nordstrom: The figures that we were provided are fluid but the rough approximation is between ten and twenty thousand.
Committee Chair Darrell Issa: The gentleman's time has expired. Did you want them to answer anything about al Qaeda growth?
US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: If anyone there knows.
Committee Chair Darrell Issa: If anyone has an answer on that one, they can answer and then we'll go on.
US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: Yeah, is al Qaeda more or less established in Libya since our involvement?
Lt Col Andrew Wood: Yes, sir. There presence grows everday. They are certainly more established than we are.
Only
Dennis Kucinich conducted himself in a consistent manner. Regardless
of was in the White House, Dennis would have made the same remarks to
the same events.
The
rest of the Democrats came in eager to attack the Republicans on the
Committee and eager to discredit the hearing. It was not pretty and did
not speak to the better qualities of the United States of America. It
did not speak to 'obstructionist Republicans.' It did demonstrate that
members of the Committee on the Democratic side were more interested in
covering for the White House than they were in demanding answers as to
how four Americans ended up dead. It was not a glorious moment for DC.
Since we're spending a second day on the hearing and since we've
already done one day's worth of work on this issue, we can take a moment
to note that the Democrats were disruptive and distractive. And that's
about all that's worth noting about their embarrassing behavior.
Let's do two excerpts from the hearing for when the State Dept's Lamb was being questioned.
Chair
Darrell Issa: Ms. Lamb, yesterday you told us in testimony that you
received from Mr. Nordstrom a recommendation but not a request for more
security and you admitted that in fact you had previously said that if
he submitted a request, you would not support it. Is that correct?
Charlene Lamb: Sir, after our meeting last night, I went back and re -- At the time --
Chair
Darrell Issa: First, answer the question. Then I'll let you expand.
Did you say that yesterday? That you would not support it if he -- if
he gave you the request?
Charlene Lamb: Under the current conditions, yes.
Chair Darrell Issa: Okay. And then last night, you discovered what?
Charlene
Lamb: I went back and reviewed the July 9 cable from which I was
referring and that was not in that cable. I've been reviewing lots of
documents.
Chair Darrell Issa: Well we have a July 9th cable. It's one of them that I put in the record --
Charlene Lamb: Yes.
Chair
Darrell Issa: -- that in fact has the word "request." It doesn't meet
your standards of perhaps what you call a formal request, you described
that, but it does request more assets. If you looked at the July 9th
cable -- and this less than 60 days, roughly 60 days beforehand -- it
says summary and action request, "Embassy Tripoli requests continued TDY
security support for an additional 60-days." Now yesterday you told
us, under penalty of perjury essentially, that it wasn't a request, it
was a recommendation. Does the word request mean request? And are you
prepared to say today that they requested these assets above and beyond
what they had on September 11th rather than that they simply
recommended?
Charlene
Lamb: Sir, we discussed that there was no justification that normally
comes with a request. That cable was a very detailed and complex cable
outlining --
Chair
Darrell Issa: Right. Well we've now read that cable. And you're
right, it is detailed and in several more places expresses concerns.
The September 11th cable from the now deceased Ambassador expresses
current concerns on that day. Repeatedly in the cables that were denied
to us, what we see is people telling you that al Qaeda type
organizations are coming together. Now the problem I have is that the
State Dept is basically saying that, "Mr. Nordstrom didn't do his job,
he didn't make a formal request with justification. The Ambassador
didn't do his job. He didn't make a good enough case." And that's what
you're standing behind here today? In addition to saying, "Well there
were five people there therefore --"? A embassy -- a compound owned by
us and serving like a consulate was in fact breached less than 60 days
before -- aproximately 60 days before -- the murder of the ambassador
in that facility. Isn't that true?
Charlene Lamb: Sir, we had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of nine-eleven for what had been agreed upon.
Chair
Darrell Issa: Okay, my time has expired. To start off by saying that
you had the correct number and our ambassador and three other
individuals are dead, people are in the hospital recovering because it
only took moments to breach that facility somehow doesn't ring true to
the American people.
We'll jump ahead to right after Patrick Kennedy confirmed that privately he was terming the attack a terrorist attack.
US
House Rep Dan Burton: [. . .] because today, as I listen to people, and
you, Ms. Lamb, have described these attackers in a number of ways but
you don't mention terrorist at all? Why is that? I mean the compound
had been attacked once before and breached. And these people had all
these weapons -- projectiles, grenades. All kinds of weapons. Why
would you call this anything but a terrorist attack? And why do you
call them attackers?
Charlene
Lamb: Sir, I have just presented the fact as they've come across. I am
not making any judgments on my own and I am leaving that --
US
House Rep Dan Burton: Okay. Well let me ask a couple of other
questions. There were 16 troops that were there at that compound and
they requested them to be kept there. And they sent a suggestion to you
that they be kept there. And then you responded saying that if that
was presented to you, you would not accept that. Was that your sole
decision?
Charlene Lamb: Sir, they were not in Benghazi. They were in Tripoli. I just want to make sure that we're --
US House Rep Dan Burton: I understand.
Charlene
Lamb: Okay. And when the cable came in where RSO Nordstrom laid out
all of his staffing requirements and needs, I asked our desk officer to
go back and sit down with him or through e-mails and telephone
conversations to work out all the details and line up exactly how many
security personnel, armed security personnel did he need --
US House Rep Dan Burton: Okay, okay. But you did not agree with that assessment that they needed those there.
Charlene Lamb: No, sir. We had been training people --
US House Rep Dan Burton: I just --
Charlene Lamb: -- people, Libyans to replace them.
US House Rep Dan Burton: No. Did you not say that if that was presented to you, you would not accept it?
Charlene Lamb: He was posing --
US House Rep Dan Burton: Did you or did you not say that?
Charlene Lamb: Yes, sir, I said that personally I would not support it. He could request it --
US House Rep Dan Burton: Why is that? Why is that?
Charlene Lamb: Because --
US House Rep Dan Burton: You know about all these other attacks which had taken place. There had been twelve or fourteen.
Charlene Lamb: We had been training the local Libyans and arming them --
US House Rep Dan Burton: Well now --
Charlene Lamb: -- for almost a year.
US
House Rep Dan Burton: -- let me interrupt to say that the local Libyan
militia that was there, many of them that were there were supposedly
told by friends and relatives that there was going to be an imminent
attack on that compound. And so many of them left. They didn't want to
be involved in the attack --
Charlene Lamb: Sir, with due respect -- Wait-wait-wait.
US
House Rep Dan Buton: -- so I don't understand why you say out of hand
that there was no need for those 16 troops to be there.
Let's
move to the man the Democrats on the Committee thought they were
serving -- when, in fact, they're supposed to serve the people and they
take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Michael Gordon and Bernard
Trainor have an important new book entitled The Endgame.
It's a major book that should be inspiring discussions and agreements
and disagreements, the op-ed pages and public affairs programs should be
focused on this book. Instead it's largely greeted by silence because
the authors commit a mortal sin: They dare to criticize Barack.
But you can't tell the story of Iraq without taking on Barack and his craven nature.
Maybe
it would just be considered a venial sin if it weren't an election
year? But here are Gordon and Trainor telling the story of how Barack
lied to people and what a big fake he is. For example, you may remember
then-Senator Hillary Clinton came out against the Status Of Forces
Agreement in theory (it had been written at that time). She stated,
rightly, that treaties go through the Senate per the Constitution. She
said it and Barack, who never had an independent or original thought of
his own had to play myna bird, began repeating it. Others were in
agreement as well. Senators Joe Biden, Russ Feingold, the entire Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. That's because the Bush administration
was going to by-pass the Senate. And Congress -- House and Senate --
didn't approve of that.
And then Barack got
the nomination and created a little page at the website where he and Joe
were going to continue to oppose this. The Constitution, he insisted,
must be honored.
Until, of course, that pesky Constitution might cause a problem for Barack. From the book:
Another
important step to facilitate an agreement [with Iraq] was quietly taken
by the Obama team. Throughout the campaign, Obama and his aides had
publicly insisted that the SOFA needed to be subjected to Congressional
review. But that raised the possibility that the Iraqis might make
politically painful concessions only to see the Americans balk. Colin
Kahl, a political science professor who had been advising the Obama
campaign, had been invited by Odierno to Baghdad to participate in a
strategy review in October And he soon concluded that it was in the
campaign's interest to support the negotiating efforts in Baghdad. The
SOFA the Bush administration was working on was consistent with Obama's
approach and if it failed now the new president would need to spend the
first few months of his administration trying to resurrect the agreement
-- or dealing with the chaos in Iraq that might result from a hasty
American pullout. Kahl sent the Obama campaign an email urging that it
avoid criticism of the agreement. "If we win the election we don't want
to have our Iraq policy consumed by renegotiating the agreement in the
early portion of 2009," he wrote.
Suddenly,
the Constitution no longer mattered. But thought this became campaign
strategy in October, please note, Barack (and Joe) would wait until
after the election to strike the promise from the campaign site.
What
is easiest for Barack is the road to take. Protecting the Constitution
was the road not taken. Treaties go through Congress and Barack was a
constitutional professor (he was no such thing, but the press did love
to lie). Barack was going to restore the Constitution! Yet before he
even won the election, he'd already decided to screw over the
Constitution because heaven forbid that his administration might have to
do some heavy lifting and negotiate a treaty if the Bush one fell apart
in the Senate.
The deceit never
ended with Barack. The first thing I'll do, my first day in office --
he loved to say that, remember? He loved to say it. He just never
meant it. Again, before the election Barack and his enablers found a
way to screw over the voters who believed he'd made a promise to pull
all troops out of Iraq in 16 months, one brigade a month. From the
book.
While the
candidate had billboarded the sixteen-month deadline, Kahl was familiar
with the fine print. There was wiggle room to be had and in a
confidential memo to the new White House team Kahl pointed it out. In
accordance with sound bites from the campaign, the White House Web site
noted Obama's timeline, but notably did not set a start date. Aligning
the start of any withdrawal with the day the president announced his
Iraq plan -- not inauguration day -- would add a month or so. What is
more, Obama had never committed himself to the pullout of all American
troops from Iraq. The candidate had discussed retaining some kind of
residual force in Iraq to protect American diplomatic personnel and to
target terrorists.
Gordon knows
that because Gordon conducted that lengthy interview. But most voters
only knew the tent revivals Barack offered as he channeled Burt
Lancaster's Starbuck in The Rainmaker as he went town to town running his con.
The
book's a very important document. People should be reading it,
discussing it, arguing over it. But it's an election year and the Cult of St. Barack has decreed that thou must not question the Christ-child.
And
no one must question why Iraq's on a spending spree and not bringing
any of those petro-dollars to the US which, you may remember, has still
not recovered from the Great Recession. Dar Addustour notes
Nouri al-Maliki left Moscow yesterday for Prague. In Russia, Iraq's
prime minister and chief thug completed weapons deals valued at $4.2
billion. RIA Novosti observes,
"Arms industry analyst Ruslan Pukhov of the Center for Analysis of
Strategy and Technologies, a Moscow-based think tank, said the deal
showed Baghdad's desire to break Washington's monopoly of arms supplies
to the new government there." Defense Industry Daily offers up "Baby Come Back: Iraq is Buying Russian Weapons Again:"
The first challenge the deal must overcome is Parliamentary. Maliki can sign the deal, but Iraq's legislature has to authorize the money for the purchases in its budgets. There has already been some pushback from that quarter, and time will tell how Maliki fares.
The next challenge will involve fielding, though this an easier hurdle. Iraq never really stopped operating Russian weapons, including tanks, artillery, helicopters, and guns. Some were scavenged and restored from the Saddam-era military. Others were provided by US allies. Still others, like Iraq's Mi-17 helicopters, were bought using the USA itself as an intermediary. What's different about these buys is that they involve a direct relationship with a new source for support, and also involve new roles within Iraq's reconstituted military. Working our those kinks, and training to use their equipment's full capabilities without endangering their own forces, is going to take work and time.
At The National Interest, Paul Pillar is more interested in figuring out what the deal means:
We can draw several implications from this news. One is that it fills in further the picture of what legacy was left in Iraq by the U.S. war that ousted Saddam. The regime that emerged from the rubble is not only increasingly authoritarian and narrowly sectarian and not only chummy with Iran; it also is becoming a client of Moscow. A trifecta of failure.
A second lesson concerns the notion that committing military support to a new regime in the making is essential for having a good relationship with it and to be considered a friend rather than a adversary once such a regime comes to power. This idea is being heard increasingly as an argument for doing more to assist rebels in Syria. We need to get in on the ground floor with the new bunch and accept risks and commit major resources, it is said, in order to be held in favor by whatever regime emerges from that rubble. But the United States got in on the ground floor more than once in Iraq—with the Baathists in 1958 and with the successors to Saddam after he was overthrown. In the latter case it did so with the expenditure of enormous resources. And look how much friendship and influence it bought.
BBC's Rami Ruhayem shares, "Until recently, Mr Maliki seemed to possess a magical ability to keep both Washington and Tehran happy. But recent events suggest Baghdad could eventually face the unnerving possibility of having to choose one or the other." All Iraq News reports that Nouri has met with the Czech Republic's Prime Minister and explained that they wish to increase economic and military ties. In Prague today, he's also declared that he hopes to work with the Czech Republic in building oil refineries in Iraq. AP adds, "The prime ministers of the Czech Republic and Iraq say their countries are negotiating a possible deal for the Iraqi military to acquire Czech-made subsonic L-159 military airplanes." AFP quotes Nouri declaring, "A certain agreement has been reached."
As Nouri goes on a weapons spending spree, Iraq still can't provide its people with the basics. Electricity goes in and out. Potable water is a dream in many areas. Potable water is especially an issue this time of year as the annual cholera outbreak arrives in Iraq. All Iraq News reports that water trucks are being used in Baghdad. These trucks contain potable water -- safe drinking water. Al Mada reports that Baghdad is very afraid of a cholera outbreak as Sulaymaniyah and Kirkuk have seen outbreaks and at least two people have recently died due to cholera. Alsumaria reports that local government in Babylon is assembling a body to address any cholera outbreaks. A national plan to address the health crisis remains absent -- this despite the fact that the cholera outbreaks are now a yearly occurrence and have been for years now. Only in Nouri's Iraq. But, hey, Nouri is stockpiling weapons.
The first challenge the deal must overcome is Parliamentary. Maliki can sign the deal, but Iraq's legislature has to authorize the money for the purchases in its budgets. There has already been some pushback from that quarter, and time will tell how Maliki fares.
The next challenge will involve fielding, though this an easier hurdle. Iraq never really stopped operating Russian weapons, including tanks, artillery, helicopters, and guns. Some were scavenged and restored from the Saddam-era military. Others were provided by US allies. Still others, like Iraq's Mi-17 helicopters, were bought using the USA itself as an intermediary. What's different about these buys is that they involve a direct relationship with a new source for support, and also involve new roles within Iraq's reconstituted military. Working our those kinks, and training to use their equipment's full capabilities without endangering their own forces, is going to take work and time.
At The National Interest, Paul Pillar is more interested in figuring out what the deal means:
We can draw several implications from this news. One is that it fills in further the picture of what legacy was left in Iraq by the U.S. war that ousted Saddam. The regime that emerged from the rubble is not only increasingly authoritarian and narrowly sectarian and not only chummy with Iran; it also is becoming a client of Moscow. A trifecta of failure.
A second lesson concerns the notion that committing military support to a new regime in the making is essential for having a good relationship with it and to be considered a friend rather than a adversary once such a regime comes to power. This idea is being heard increasingly as an argument for doing more to assist rebels in Syria. We need to get in on the ground floor with the new bunch and accept risks and commit major resources, it is said, in order to be held in favor by whatever regime emerges from that rubble. But the United States got in on the ground floor more than once in Iraq—with the Baathists in 1958 and with the successors to Saddam after he was overthrown. In the latter case it did so with the expenditure of enormous resources. And look how much friendship and influence it bought.
BBC's Rami Ruhayem shares, "Until recently, Mr Maliki seemed to possess a magical ability to keep both Washington and Tehran happy. But recent events suggest Baghdad could eventually face the unnerving possibility of having to choose one or the other." All Iraq News reports that Nouri has met with the Czech Republic's Prime Minister and explained that they wish to increase economic and military ties. In Prague today, he's also declared that he hopes to work with the Czech Republic in building oil refineries in Iraq. AP adds, "The prime ministers of the Czech Republic and Iraq say their countries are negotiating a possible deal for the Iraqi military to acquire Czech-made subsonic L-159 military airplanes." AFP quotes Nouri declaring, "A certain agreement has been reached."
As Nouri goes on a weapons spending spree, Iraq still can't provide its people with the basics. Electricity goes in and out. Potable water is a dream in many areas. Potable water is especially an issue this time of year as the annual cholera outbreak arrives in Iraq. All Iraq News reports that water trucks are being used in Baghdad. These trucks contain potable water -- safe drinking water. Al Mada reports that Baghdad is very afraid of a cholera outbreak as Sulaymaniyah and Kirkuk have seen outbreaks and at least two people have recently died due to cholera. Alsumaria reports that local government in Babylon is assembling a body to address any cholera outbreaks. A national plan to address the health crisis remains absent -- this despite the fact that the cholera outbreaks are now a yearly occurrence and have been for years now. Only in Nouri's Iraq. But, hey, Nouri is stockpiling weapons.
As usual, what Nouri can't address, the KRG has to. Press TV (link is transcript and video) reports:
Government
ministries in Iraq's Kurdistan Region are pulling together to prevent
the spread of cholera. Over 70 people are being tested for cholera every
day amid an epidemic in the region's Sulaymaniyah province. Those
affected are scattered throughout the province, making it difficult to
pin point the exact source of the outbreak.
Turning to violence, All Iraq News reports that 1 lawyer, Mohammed Mjul Sultan, was shot dead in Mosul today and a Mosul roadside bombing left four police officers injured. Alsumaria reports
another Mosul bombing left two police injured, another Mosul roadside
bombing left 2 dead, 1 corpse was discovered in Mosul, the son of a
Kirkuk police director was kidnapped, and mass arrests saw 77 Iraqis
hauled from their homes.
In other news, Focus Information Agency notes
the Turkish Parliament voted today to continue -- for at least another
year -- "the government's mandate to order military strikes against
Kurdish rebels holed up in neighboring Iraq." Hurriyet Daily News explains,
"Parliament authorized cross-border operations into northern Iraq in
2007 and has extended the mandate each year since then. The motion would
authorize the government to determine the scale, scope and timing of
military action. The current mandate of the motion expires Oct. 17." The Voice of Russia says Turkish war planes again bombed northern Iraq today.
Meanwhile,
it's not up there with one of Chris Hill's many infamous tantrums while
he was the US Ambassador to Iraq but it is rather disturbing. AFP report
that Robert Beecroft, the new US Ambassador to Iraq arrived in Iraq
today "and was sworn into his new position." To quickly recap, Brett
McGurk couldn't keep it in his pants and he ended up losing his
nomination. (Most were surprised that Barack would ever nominate
someone who had savaged him in a column but that's Barack, he only
respects the people who don't give him love -- ah, Daddy issues.) September 11th,
the White House announced they were nominating Beecroft for the post.
Despite many being out of DC to campaign for re-election (a third of the
Senate seats will be elected in November), Senate Foreign Relations
Committee Chair John Kerry moved heaven and earth to get a hearing up
and going for September 19th. Days later, September 22nd,
Beecroft was confirmed by a voice vote. Good for Kerry for pulling it
off -- the hearing, the vote -- and so quickly but while he was busting
his butt, did anyone realize Beecroft was not in any hurry to get to
Iraq. September 22nd he was confirmed and October 11th he arrived. He
has now topped Chris Hill's travel record (however, unlike Hill, he did
not tell the Committee that the minute he was confirmed he would hop a
flight to Iraq -- Hill did make that promise, Hill did break that
promise).
In the US,
there's a presidential election weeks away. The Green Party candidate
is Jill Stein. Libby Liberal is supporting her. Libby has an action she'd like others to take part in:
I
am proposing several actions for citizens troubled by the NewsHour's
blackout of third party candidates. A blackout of the issues of the
constituencies of third party candidates.
I propose similarly concerned fellow citizens:
Boycott the PBS NewsHour between October 15th and 19th, 5 broadcast days.
Email
a complaint to the NewsHour about the lack of coverage of third party
candidates (come on, it will only cost you a few minutes):
Send a U.S. snail mail complaint (again a matter of minutes and a stamp):
MacNeil/Lehrer Productions
2700 South Quincy Street
Arlington, VA 22206
Contact PBS Ombudsman, Michael Getler:
Getler's address & phone:
Public Broadcasting Service
2100 Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA 22202
703-739-5290
She has an analysis of PBS that you should read
but I'm stopping her suggestions there. She goes on to suggest local
PBS stations be contacted. Great idea if it were the summer. It's too
late for your local stations to do anything. A few months back, they
might have some pull. But with the elections weeks away, PBS content
supplier is the one to contact, not your local stations. (However,
contacting local stations may help local Greens get covered and that
might be what Libby's going for.)
