Body armour delay blamed for soldier's 'friendly fire' death
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent

(Filed: 01/08/2006)

The refusal by the Defence Secretary to agree immediately that there was an "urgent operational requirement" for body armour led to a soldier dying in Iraq, a report said yesterday.

A list of failures, from poor equipment to inadequate training, were highlighted in an Army Board of Inquiry report into the "friendly fire" death of Sgt Steve Roberts released by the Ministry of Defence.

Sgt Roberts was shot by his own men as they attempted to kill a crazed Iraqi who was attacking him with bricks they believed might have been hand-grenades.

But a series of errors resulted in the squadron sergeant of the 2Bn Royal Tank Regiment dying from a machine gun round fired from one of his own Challenger 2 main battle tanks.

Sgt Roberts would have survived if he had not been forced to hand back enhanced combat body armour (ECBA) two days before the invasion because there was not enough to go round, the report said.

The armour, with large front and back anti-ballistic plates, would have prevented the 7.62mm round from piercing his chest.

Sgt Roberts and four other members of his 12-man squadron had to return their ECBA because the infantry and soldiers driving "soft-skinned" vehicles were considered more in need of it.

The final shipment of ECBA did not get to the troops until 16 days after the invasion began because of a delay in the order, in part because of the need not to appear to be preparing for war while diplomatic efforts continued.

An urgent request for ECBA was made by military commanders in September 2002.

The Secretary of State's office, then run by Geoff Hoon, refused the request.

It was not until three months later, after "further clarification" that the request was granted but it was to prove too late for Sgt Roberts.

The report criticised the Ministry of Defence for failing to give "timely attention at the appropriate level" to shortages in the life-saving kit.

It blamed an "unachievable timeframe" between the deployment of troops to Kuwait and the start of hostilities, as well as shortcomings in the supply chain.

more

Attacks across Iraq kill more than 70

By ROBERT H. REID Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Bombings and shootings killed more than 70 people in Iraq on Tuesday in a surge of bloodshed as U.S. forces prepare to take back Baghdad's streets from gunmen. The dead included 20 Iraqi troops, a U.S. soldier and a British soldier.

The American soldier, who was assigned to the 1st Armored Division, died "due to enemy action" in Anbar province west of Baghdad, the U.S. command said. In a separate statement, the military said a U.S. soldier from the 16th Corps Support Group died the day before in a roadside bombing south of the capital.

In further violence, officials confirmed that about 45 Shiite Muslims were kidnapped over the last two weeks on the main highway to Syria and Jordan. The highway passes through Sunni insurgent strongholds west of Baghdad.

The deadliest attack Tuesday occurred when a roadside bomb devastated a bus packed with Iraqi soldiers near Beiji, 155 miles north of Baghdad. All 24 people aboard were killed, Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said. All but four of the dead were Iraqi soldiers, police said.

Troops Fight to Expand Foothold in Ramadi
U.S., Iraqi Forces Move Block-by-Block To Retake Western City From Insurgents

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; A12

RAMADI, Iraq -- Under a blistering sun, 1st Lt. Matthew Arabian gripped his M-4 rifle and sprinted across a Ramadi intersection cratered by bombs, ducking through a hole blasted in an adjacent brick wall.

"We call that the circle of death," said Arabian, 34, of Vienna, Va., crouching to avoid snipers who target the crossroads from as far away as 900 yards. Around him were gutted buildings and trash-strewn streets, evidence of more than two years of combat in Ramadi.

"We're in the heart of an insurgent hotbed," said Arabian, his face streaked with sweat. "We've walked into their back yard."

From a new military outpost set up in a cluster of abandoned homes in Ramadi's eastern Mulaab district, Arabian and his infantry platoon are fighting for ground. Ramadi, the capital of Iraq's western Anbar province, has sunk into virtual anarchy under the stranglehold of a skilled, well-financed and ruthless insurgency. Now, for the first time, U.S. and Iraqi forces are engaged in a block-by-block campaign to retake the area.

The U.S. strategy here aims to avoid a full-scale military onslaught like the one that demolished much of the nearby city of Fallujah in November 2004, flattening hundreds of homes, emptying it of people and leaving it struggling to rebuild. The senior U.S. commander in Ramadi, Army Col. Sean MacFarland, does not rule out major combat operations. But he makes it clear he sees no value in sending U.S. troops "crashing through like a bull in a china shop."

Instead, U.S. and Iraqi forces are advancing one step at a time into key locations in Ramadi's walled neighborhoods, setting up small outposts of about 100 troops each. The goal is to slowly choke off the insurgents' ability to move freely, making them easier to capture or kill. Meanwhile, Iraqi soldiers, backed by U.S. troops, are to take the lead in patrolling around the outposts, creating small zones of safety for residents that will gradually spread.

Ramadi has lost as much as a quarter of its population of 400,000 since the insurgency began. The city has no effective government and few police officers. Insurgents assassinate officials with impunity, and recently issued a death threat against anyone entering the heavily shelled Government Center downtown. Last month, after the provincial highways director defied the threat, he was captured and beheaded, his body dumped in the street, according to a U.S. military officer.

more

SOLDIER: 101st Keyboard Brigade Refuses to Answer Hypocrisy
by davidsirota

The New Republic was one of the strongest and most aggressive voices pushing for the invasion of Iraq. Their editor, Peter Beinart, led the charge, attacking Democrats who dared to question the move. He and the magazine have yet to seriously consider how easy it is to advocate for a massive military operation based on lies when the advocates themselves never have to face the blood-and-guts consequences of their advocacy. Now, of course, the New Republic and Beinart would like everyone to forget their record, as Beinart pushes a new book trying to position himself as a "liberal" foreign policy guru and a chest-thumping "hawk." But at least one Army lieutenant catches Beinart and his magazine in some dishonest and grossly self-serving editing.

dkos diary

Report: Evidence Supports Haditha Allegations

Listen to this story...

Day to Day, August 2, 2006 · Military investigators have found there is evidence supporting allegations that U.S. Marines killed unarmed civilians in the Iraqi town of Haditha last November, according to unnamed Pentagon sources.

Los Angeles Times reporter Tony Perry talks with Alex Chadwick about the Pentagon's ongoing investigation and what happens next for the Marines held as suspects.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5601036

Thousands of Shi'ites march in Baghdad
02 Aug 2006 18:55:24 GMT
Source: Reuters

Iraq in turmoil
More
(Updates with two U.S. servicemen killed in Anbar)

By Omar al-Ibadi and Michael Georgy

BAGHDAD, Aug 2 (Reuters) - Thousands of Shi'ite civilians charged with guarding neighbourhoods in Iraq marched through Baghdad on Wednesday to demand an end to the sectarian violence that is ravaging the country.

Young men in uniforms and headbands, members of what are known as the popular committees, chanted as a speaker urged them to protect the neighbourhoods from the Saddam Hussein loyalists leading a Sunni insurgency against the Shi'ite-led government.

"Stamp on terrorism," he said.

The crowd included members of the Badr Organisation, one of the armed Shi'ite groups that Sunni Arabs accuse of running militia death squads, a charge they deny.

"We have to benefit from this wide popular base, and the state and Iraqi people should form these popular regional committees from the best of our young men to face terrorism," Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, one of Iraq's most powerful Shi'ite leaders, told the crowd.

"They will defend people of districts; Sunnis, Shi'ites, Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen. They do not differentiate between anybody. They will provide support for the official security apparatus."

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, whose reconciliation plan has failed to reduce sectarian bloodshed, has promised to disband the militias many fear will push the country into civil war.

"The first enemy is the Baathist Saddam loyalists and their henchmen, the Islamic extremists," Hakim said.

Officially, the event was held to mark the third anniversary of the death of Hakim's brother, Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer al-Hakim, in a bombing in the southern city of Najaf.

But the speeches also covered some of the most explosive issues in Iraq, such as federalism, which is opposed by Sunnis who fear it will leave them deprived of oil in resource-poor central Iraq.

ROADSIDE BOMBS

"We believe that implementation of a federal system in Iraq will achieve justice and rebuild Iraq and guarantee the unity of the Iraqi people and land," Hakim said.

more

Comment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't look now

US soldiers' 'trophy videos' of Iraq make uncomfortable viewing for the American government next to TV networks' coverage

Chris Shaw
Friday August 4, 2006
MediaGuardian.co.uk

Iraq: hundreds of hours of soldiers' footage have been posted on the internet. Photograph: AP

Last week the Pentagon ordered American servicemen in Iraq to stop posting private video clips on the internet.
These "trophy videos" have become one of the more extraordinary by-products of modern-day warfare as soldiers - like everyday tourists - send video images ranging from the comic to the utterly horrific back home to impress friends and titillate the fans of "uncensored war".

There are hundreds of hours of this stuff posted up on a range of internet sites - most of it is fairly crudely shot and edited and usually set to thrash metal soundtracks.

But these homemade war videos offer an insight into modern warfare and the psyche of the average serviceman which conventional broadcast news and current affairs coverage cannot get close to.

Some of the material - like the famous Show Me the Way to Amarillo Peter Kay video rip-off by British servicemen - is clearly just an innocent exercise in overcoming the boredom between patrols, but it is the stuff shot on patrol that really has the power to shock.

Images I have seen recently include a close up of a suicide bomber exploding in two, an insurgent being shot through the head by an American sniper, full scale firefights between US patrols and insurgents plus endless images of body parts scattered about in the aftermath of the latest bomb explosion.

This footage is often supported by a running commentary of "awesome" and suchlike from the cameraman who has literally strapped a digital camera onto his helmet or gun barrel and shot the video while he was shooting insurgents.

So why do servicemen want to film this stuff and why do they want to share it with the folks back home ?

One filmmaker compared his material with a video game: "you're stepped away from reality ... you're seeing it through the camera lens."

Another said it was the only way he could feel proud of his work, "like a big game hunter feels proud of his kills".

Yet another said it made him feel good to bring the gruesome reality of a soldier's life in Iraq to those living safely behind their "clean, white picket fences at home".

In each case, the taking and posting of trophy video served as some kind of relief from the psychological stresses of serving as a soldier in such a violent and acutely dangerous place.

To some extent this stuff is also the flip side of the horror movies of hostages being decapitated with kitchen knives that are posted on the internet by the insurgents.

Already embarrassed by the notorious Abu Ghraib prison abuse photos, the US government has successfully shut down some of the more extreme "war porn" websites.

But in truth it is almost impossible to keep track of this stuff - hence the attempt to stop it at source by banning laptops from US military camps in Iraq.

more

Leaked memo: Civil war most likely outcome in Iraq

roundup from CSM

there were two sects of Islam

Former Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith is claiming President George W. Bush was unaware that there were two major sects of Islam just two months before the President ordered troops to invade Iraq, RAW STORY has learned.

In his new book, The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End, Galbraith, the son of the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith, claims that American leadership knew very little about the nature of Iraqi society and the problems it would face after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.

Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam--to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”

Research by RAW STORY has confirmed a surprising lack of public statements from the president regarding the branches of Islam, but did uncover at least one mention of their existence. A fact sheet released by the White House in December of 2001 does indeed use the term Sunni to describe a Lashkar-E-Tayyib, "the armed wing of the Pakistan-based religious organization, Markaz-ud-Dawa-wal-Irshad." Other mentions, not originating from the White House, were common in government documents and proceedings, as well as in media coverage of the middle east.

Other reports also place Bush announcing newfound knowledge of the differences between Muslim groups shortly before entering the Iraq war.

In an interview with RAW STORY, Ambassador Galbraith recounted this anecdote from his book to exemplify “a culture of arrogance that pervaded the whole administration.”

“From the president and the vice president down through the neoconservatives at the Pentagon, there was a belief that Iraq was a blank slate on which the United States could impose its vision of a pluralistic democratic society,” said Galbraith. “The arrogance came in the form of a belief that this could be accomplished with minimal effort and planning by the United States and that it was not important to know something about Iraq.”

The Bush Administration’s aims when it invaded Iraq in March 2003 were to bring it democracy and transform the Middle East. Instead, Iraq has reverted to its three constituent components: a pro-western Kurdistan, an Iran-dominated Shiite theocracy in the south, and a chaotic Sunni Arab region in the center.

Galbraith argues that because the new Iraq was never a voluntary creation of its people--but rather held together by force--America’s ongoing attempt to preserve a unified nation is guaranteed to fail, especially since it’s divided into three different entities.

“You can’t have a national unity government when there is no nation, no unity, and no government,” said Galbraith. “Rather than trying to preserve or hold together a unified Iraq, the U.S. must accept the reality of Iraq’s breakup and work with the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunni Arabs to strengthen the already semi-independent regions.”

Galbraith further argues that the invasion of Iraq destabilized the Middle East while inadvertently strengthening Iran. One of the administration's intentions in invading Iraq was to undermine Iran, but instead, the Iraqi occupation has given Tehran one of its greatest strategic triumphs in the last four centuries.

Once considered to be Iraq’s worst enemy, Iran has now created, financed and armed the Shiite Islamic movements within southern Iraq. Since the Iraqi Parliamentary elections of 2005, the Shiites have made considerable political gains and now have substantial influence over the country’s U.S.-created military, its police, and the central government in Baghdad. In addition, Iraq is developing economic ties with Iran that Galbraith believes could soon link the two countries’ strategic oil supplies.

Galbraith says that, “thanks to George W. Bush, Iran today has no closer ally in the world than the Iraq of the Ayatollahs.” As a result, he argues, sending U.S. forces into Iraq, has in effect, made them hostage to Iran and its Iraqi Shiite allies and left the U.S. without a viable military option to halt Iran’s drive to obtain nuclear weapons.

A seasoned diplomat, Galbraith served as the first U.S. ambassador to Croatia, where he negotiated the 1995 Erdut Agreement that ended the Croatian war.

Galbraith fears the United States may have lost the war on the very day it took Baghdad. “The American servicemen and women who took Baghdad were professionals--disciplined, courteous, and task-oriented,” said Galbraith. “Unfortunately, their political masters were so focused on making the case for war, so keen to vanquish their political foes at home, felt certain that Iraqis would embrace American-style democracy, yet they were so blinded by their own ideology that they failed to plan for the most obvious tasks following military victory.”

Galbraith believes that the Bush Administration’s effort will only leave the U.S. with an open-ended commitment in circumstances of uncontrollable turmoil. In the end, he believes, America’s most important objective is to avoid a worsening civil war.

“There is no easy exit from Iraq,” said Galbraith. “The alternative, however is to continue the present strategy of trying to build national institutions-displaced in the 2003 invasion-but how can you do that where this now is no longer an existing nation?”

08/04/2006 @ 10:51 am
Filed by Christian Avard Raw Story

David Bier
CADRE Intel Mgr
http://groups.google.com/group/publicintel

Hearing Begins in Iraq Rape-Slaying Case

Sunday August 6, 2006 11:01 AM

AP Photo DN101

By RYAN LENZ

Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A U.S. military court began a hearing Sunday to determine if five American soldiers should be tried in the alleged rape-slaying of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl.

Three of the girl's relatives also were killed in the town of Mahmoudiya on March 12, which is among the worst incidents in a series of cases alleging U.S. troops killed or abused Iraqi civilians.

The soldiers - Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, Spc. James P. Barker, Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman and Pfc. Bryan L. Howard - are charged with conspiring to rape the girl along with former Pfc. Steven D. Green, who was arrested in North Carolina in June.

A fifth soldier from the same unit, Sgt. Anthony W. Yribe, is charged with failing to report the attack but is not alleged to have been a direct participant.

The Article 32 hearing, the civilian equivalent of a grand jury proceeding, will decide whether there is enough evidence to convene a court-martial for the five soldiers. Green has pleaded not guilty in federal court and is being held without bond.

According to an FBI affidavit, the soldiers drank alcohol before abandoning their checkpoint, changed clothes and headed to the victims' house, about 200 yards from a U.S. military checkpoint in a Sunni Arab area south of Baghdad. The soldiers are also accused of setting fire to the girl's body to destroy evidence.

David Sheldon, Barker's Washington-based attorney, has said the stressful environment in the Mahmoudiya area - known in Iraq as the ``Triangle of Death'' - contributed to the soldiers' behavior.

U.S. officials are concerned the case will strain relations with Iraq's new government if Iraqis perceive the soldiers receive lenient treatment. The case has already increased demands for changes in an agreement that exempts U.S. soldiers from prosecution in Iraqi courts.

U.S. officials have assured Iraqis that the case will be pursued vigorously and that the soldiers will be punished if convicted. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has demanded an independent investigation into the case.

more
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5997001,00.html

The Bush administration insists Iraq is a long way from civil war, but the contingency planning has already begun inside the White House and the Pentagon. President Bush will move U.S. troops out of Iraq if the country descends into civil war, according to one senior Bush aide who declined to be named while talking about internal strategy. "If there's a full-blown civil war, the president isn't going to allow our forces to be caught in the crossfire," the aide said. "But institutionally, the government of Iraq isn't breaking down. It's still a unity government." Bush's position on a pullout of U.S. troops emerged in response to news-week's questions about Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Warner warned last week that the president might require a new vote from Congress to allow troops to stay in Iraq in what he called "all-out civil war." But the senior Bush aide said the White House would need no prompting from Congress to get troops out "if the Iraqi government broke down completely along sectarian lines."

The White House prefers to focus on the more positive aspects of last week's testimony from Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The generals gave a bleak assessment of the sectarian violence, but added that civil war was only a possibility, not a probability. In fact, the U.S. military in Iraq has completed several elements of contingency planning in case of civil war, based on lessons learned from Bosnia and Kosovo. The military's approach revolves around three principles. The first is to stop massacres by physically separating communities, moving minorities out of harm's way if necessary. The second is to stop the flow of paramilitary gangs across the country. And the third is to halt any incitement to violence on Iraqi TV and radio. Baghdad would pose the biggest problem, requiring a strict curfew and a ban on road traffic. The security measures would include widespread checkpoints and a ban on carrying firearms or explosives.

The administration hasn't made its definition of full-blown civil war explicit. But in March, when Iraq's former prime minister Ayad Allawi said the country was already fighting a civil war, Bush disagreed, noting the existence of Iraq's nonsectarian Army and government. If the country did someday meet the definition of civil war and the U.S. pulled out, military officials warn, the consequences would be disastrous. "All the neighboring powers would be drawn in," said one senior military official who has examined the scenarios and is not authorized to speak on the record. "It would become a regional war."

—Richard Wolffe and John Barry
Newsweek August 14, 2006 issue
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14206642/

David Bier
CADRE Intel Mgr
http://groups.google.com/group/publicintel

By Simon Usborne
Published: 07 August 2006

An Iraqi medic has provided graphic testimony against four American soldiers accused of raping a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and killing three of her relatives. The US military hearing, which began in Baghdad yesterday and is expected to last several days, will decide whether there is sufficient evidence to take the case to a court martial.

The medic, who was not named for his own safety, told the hearing he was the first to arrive at a house in Mahmoudiya, south of Baghdad, after the 12 March attack. He said he found the girl, Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, lying naked in the house, her torso and head burned. She had a single bullet wound beneath her left eye. In the next room, he said he found the body of Abeer's sister, Hadeel, the back of her head blown out by a bullet. Qassim and Fikhriya, the children's parents, were also dead, their mother's torso riddled with bullets. After witnessing the scene, he said he was ill for weeks.

Sgt Paul Cortez, Specialist James Barker, Pte Jesse Spielman and Pte Bryan Howard face charges of rape and murder. According to an FBI affidavit, the men changed into civilian clothes after a drinking session and walked to the victims' house, 200 metres from their military checkpoint in a Sunni area south of Baghdad. After the attack the soldiers are accused of setting fire to the victim's body in an attempt to cover their tracks.

Steven Green, also accused of taking part in the attack but no longer in the US Army, was arrested in North Carolina in June and has pleaded not guilty to a federal court. He is being held without bond. Sgt Anthony Yribe is charged with failing to report the attack but is not alleged to have taken part.

Mindful that any perceived leniency will strain relations with the newly elected Iraqi government, US officials have assured Iraqis that the accusations will be taken seriously and that if found guilty, the four soldiers will be severely punished. The Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has demanded an independent investigation.

Reporters are prevented from observing the hearing, and the witnesses' identities are being kept secret for fear they could be targeted by insurgents for collaborating with US authorities. But yesterday, after the secret testimony of two other witnesses, reporters were allowed in to hear the medic's account. Military prosecutors showed the man a series of gory images of the crime scene to confirm whether the bodies were in the same position as when he entered the house.

Defence attorneys alleged the photos were staged and questioned whether the victims were already dead when they were sprayed with American bullets. The lawyer for Specialist Barker said the soldiers' behaviour was influenced by the stressful environment in the Mahmoudiya area, known as the "Triangle of Death".

If a court martial is given the go-ahead and the soldiers are then found guilty, those accused of murder could face the death penalty

bit more

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1217434.ece

By RYAN LENZ,
Associated Press Write

Click to read the details of the sickening story. Warning: hold on to your stomach.