Bin Laden Is `Virtually Impotent,' Bush Adviser Says (Update1)

By Joe Richter

Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Frances Townsend, President George W. Bush's homeland security adviser, said that while al-Qaeda remains a threat to the U.S., Osama bin Laden is a ``virtually impotent'' leader reduced to making propaganda videos.

Intelligence analysts believe a videotape of bin Laden released last week is authentic and are evaluating it to be sure that it's not a ``trigger'' for an attack, Townsend said on the ``Fox News Sunday'' program. Even as al-Qaeda has regained some of its ``operational leadership,'' they ``haven't seemed to be able'' to place operatives inside the U.S., she said.

``We know that al-Qaeda is still determined to attack, and we take it seriously,'' she said. ``But this tape appears to be nothing more than threats. It's propaganda on their part.''

Townsend's characterization of al-Qaeda leader bin Laden was disputed by Senators John McCain, a Republican, and John Kerry, a Democrat, who said the terrorist leader's ability to exploit the Internet and rally his followers makes him a danger.

``He continues to communicate, he continues to lead and he continues to be a symbol for them of leadership in this radical hatred and evil radical Islamic extremism,'' McCain, of Arizona, said on ABC's ``This Week'' program.

The remarks follow the release last week of bin Laden's videotaped message marking the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. Bin Laden made no new threats, and said Islamic radicals will force the U.S. out of Iraq by continuing to ``escalate the killing,'' according to the translation by the Washington-based SITE Intelligence Group.

`On the Run'

``This is about the best he can do,'' Townsend said of the Sept. 11 mastermind. ``This is a man on the run from a cave who is virtually impotent other than these tapes.''

more swill

New armor-piercing grenade causing US casualties in Iraq
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Saturday September 8, 2007

Although improvised explosive devices have until now been responsible for the majority of US casualties in Iraq, a new, armor-piercing hand grenade may pose an even greater threat.

CBS News reports that the Russian-made device is light enough to be thrown by a single insurgent standing alongside a road and is equipped with a parachute so that it falls vertically on its target and can take out even armored vehicles.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been eager to take credit for the use of these grenades, but the US Army is now confirming losses to the weapons as well. video at link

The Wall Street Journal

Listening to Petraeus

By JOHN MCCAIN and JOE LIEBERMAN
September 10, 2007; Page A14

Today, Gen. David Petraeus -- commander of our forces in Iraq -- returns to Washington to report on the war in Iraq and the new counterinsurgency strategy he has been implementing there. We hope that opponents of the war in Congress will listen carefully to the evidence that the U.S. military is at last making real and significant progress in its offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq.

Consider how the situation has changed. A year ago, al Qaeda in Iraq controlled large swaths of the country's territory. Today it is being driven out of its former strongholds in Anbar and Diyala provinces by the surge in U.S. forces and those of our Iraqi allies. A year ago, sectarian violence was spiraling out of control in Iraq, fanned by al Qaeda. Today civilian murders in Baghdad are down over 50%.

As facts on the ground in Iraq have improved, some critics of the war have changed their stance. As Democratic Congressman Brian Baird, who voted against the invasion of Iraq, recently wrote after returning from Baghdad: "[T]he people, strategies, and facts on the ground have changed for the better, and those changes justify changing our position on what should be done."

Unfortunately, many more antiwar advocates continue to press for withdrawal. Confronted by undeniable evidence of gains against al Qaeda in Iraq, they acknowledge progress but have seized on the performance of the Iraqi government to justify stripping Gen. Petraeus of troops and derailing his strategy.

This reasoning is flawed for several reasons.

First, whatever you think of the performance of Iraq's national leaders, the notion that withdrawing U.S. troops will "shock" them into reconciliation is unsupported by evidence or experience. On the contrary, ordering a retreat will only serve to unravel the hard-fought gains we have won.

The recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq was unequivocal on this point: "Changing the mission of Coalition forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization role" -- the Petraeus strategy -- "to a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and counterterrorist operations" -- which most congressional Democrats have been pressing for -- "would erode security gains achieved thus far."

This judgment is echoed by our commanders on the ground. Consider the words of Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, who is leading the fight in central Iraq: "In my battlespace right now, if soldiers were to leave . . . having fought hard for that terrain, having denied the enemy their sanctuaries, what happens is, the enemy would come back."

In addition, while critics are right that improved security has not yet translated into sufficient political progress at the national level, the increased presence of our soldiers is having a seismic effect on Iraq's politics at the local level.

In the neighborhoods and villages where U.S. forces have moved in, extremists have been marginalized, and moderates empowered. Thanks to this changed security calculus, the Sunni Arab community -- which was largely synonymous with the insurgency a year ago -- has been turning against al Qaeda from the bottom-up, and beginning to negotiate an accommodation with the emerging political order. Sustaining this political shift depends on staying the offensive against al Qaeda -- which in turn depends on not stripping Gen. Petraeus of the manpower he and his commanders say they need.

We must also recognize that the choice we face in Iraq is not between the current Iraqi government and a perfect Iraqi government. Rather, it is a choice between a young, imperfect, struggling democracy that we have helped midwife into existence, and the fanatical, al Qaeda suicide bombers and Iranian-sponsored terrorists who are trying to destroy it. If Washington politicians succeed in forcing a premature troop withdrawal in Iraq, the result will be a more dangerous world with our enemies emboldened. As Iran's president recently crowed, "soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region . . . [and] we are prepared to fill the gap."

Whatever the shortcomings of our friends in Iraq, they are no excuse for us to retreat from our enemies like al Qaeda and Iran, who pose a mortal threat to our vital national interests. We must understand that today in Iraq we are fighting and defeating the same terrorist network that attacked on 9/11. As al Qaeda in Iraq continues to be hunted down and rooted out, and the Iraqi Army continues to improve, the U.S. footprint will no doubt adjust. But these adjustments should be left to the discretion of Gen. Petraeus, not forced on our troops by politicians in Washington with a 6,000-mile congressional screwdriver, and, perhaps, an eye on the 2008 election.

The Bush administration clung for too long to a flawed strategy in this war, despite growing evidence of its failure. Now advocates of withdrawal risk making the exact same mistake, by refusing to re-examine their own conviction that Gen. Petraeus's strategy cannot succeed and that the war is "lost," despite rising evidence to the contrary.

The Bush administration finally had the courage to change course in Iraq earlier this year. After hearing from Gen. Petraeus today, we hope congressional opponents of the war will do the same.

Mr. McCain is a Republican senator from Arizona. Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.

--
"We're one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court." --David Addington, Feb. 2004

The Guardian, Suzanne Goldenberg, September 10

Washington - The Bush administration's most senior advisers on Iraq, the commander of US forces, General David Petraeus, and the ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, will launch a new drive today to defer any exit of troops until April 2008 amid growing doubts about their credibility in Congress and among the public.

In two days of testimony before Congress, Gen Petraeus and Mr Crocker will make the case for the White House that America should maintain the current strategy and force levels in Iraq.

The appearance of Gen Petraeus has drawn comparisons with General William Westmoreland's bullish assessment in 1967 of progress in the Vietnam war, a note underlined by Democratic senators yesterday who said they doubted that the general's testimony would be free of influence from the Bush administration.

"I don't think General Petraeus has an independent view," Dianne Feinstein, a prominent Democratic senator from California, told Fox television.

Dick Durbin, the second ranking Democrat in the Senate, was even more blunt. He told reporters: "By carefully manipulating the statistics the Bush Petraeus report will try and persuade us that the strategy is working."

What Congress Needs To Ask Petraeus and Crocker

Slate
Fred Kaplan
September 6, 2007

The globe will resume spinning on its axis when Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker deliver their long-awaited report on conditions in Iraq. (You may have noticed that the Bush administration has put off all decisions, about everything, pending this fateful event.)

...

The entire article is worth reading, but especially note the third-to-the-last graf:

[Stephen Biddle, a military analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations] also said (again, expressing his personal view) that the strategy in Iraq would require the presence of roughly 100,000 American troops for 20 years—and that, even so, it would be a "long-shot gamble."

--
"We're one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court." --David Addington, Feb. 2004

Remember good old Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf? With the difference that there is nothing funny about it.

IRAQ: Food rationing system failing as Ramadan approaches

09 Sep 2007 14:15:06 GMT
Source: IRIN
Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.

BAGHDAD, 9 September 2007 (IRIN) - The monthly food rationing system on which millions of Iraqis depend is not working properly, according to officials. They warn that delays in food deliveries will have a serious impact on those fasting during the upcoming holy Islamic month of Ramadan (beginning around 13 September), when Muslims go without food and drink from dawn to sunset.

"There are many reasons why the monthly food ration system is not working very well," Muhammad Ala'a Jabber, director of the west Baghdad office for delivering food rations, said. "There is a shortage of food products, the available products are of bad quality and sometimes are expired and there is a delay in delivery to the distribution offices."

According to Jabber, Iraq's food rationing system has continued to worsen since an escalation of sectarian violence began in February 2006. But in the past four months, he said, the problem has reached critical levels.

"It is rare to find items such as baby formula among rationed food. This never happened under Saddam Hussein's regime when it was common to see an abundance of baby formula," Jabber said.

"The rice which is available is of bad quality and the beans might require hours to cook. The quantity of flour and tea given to each family has decreased and at least 20 percent of families in search of food rations return home empty handed," he added.

Food trucks looted

The Ministry of Trade, which is responsible for the delivery of food rations, said insecurity has been the main reason for the shortages in food ration items.

"Many trucks are looted on their way to Baghdad and other cities. Sometimes there is a delay in delivering products from outside the country but we are working hard to keep the programme functioning properly," Abdel-Aziz Haydar, a media officer at the trade ministry, said.

The monthly food rationing system was introduced by the late former President Saddam Hussein to offset the impact of sweeping trade sanctions imposed on Iraq by the UN after the 1991 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Food products were paid for by Iraqi oil which was exchanged under UN administration.

The food system, which is credited with saving millions of Iraqis from starvation, worked until 2003 when Saddam was ousted by US-led forces. Under Saddam, food rations were nearly double the quantity of today's and consisted of good quality food, recipients and specialists say.

more

Seven U.S. soldiers killed in Baghdad accident
10 Sep 2007 17:40:51 GMT

BAGHDAD, Sept 10 (Reuters) - Seven U.S. soldiers were killed and 11 injured in a vehicle accident in western Baghdad on Monday, the U.S. military said.

It said two suspects being transported in the vehicle were also killed. The military said the cause of the accident was under investigation.

While U.S. soldiers are periodically killed in nonbattle-related circumstances in Iraq, such a high toll from one accident on the ground is rare.

EERILY CALM IN BAGHDAD’S MAIN MILITARY HOSPITAL

Posted: Monday, September 10, 2007 12:48 PM
Categories: Baghdad, Iraq
By Robert Bazell, NBC News' Chief Science and Health Correspondent

..snip...

Almost eerily calm

Despite these events at the beginning of our return to the 28th Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad’s "Green Zone," the fortress-like enclave, the staff here say the past few weeks have been calm – eerily so, in fact.

At the beginning of the so-called "surge" of troops earlier this year, U.S. causalities increased sharply. At the same time, the numbers rounds of mortars and rockets crashing into the Green Zone climbed sharply. When we were here in January it would be normal to hear two or three mortar attacks every day. Soon after the surge began they became much more frequent and accurate – some landing near the hospital. In July one attack killed Maria Ortiz, a warm, expansive Army Captain, and injured another nurse as they were walking back to the hospital from the gym.

But in the past few weeks, the rockets and mortars have almost stopped along with the incoming causalities. I have not heard a single one in two days.

Is it success from the surge or are the attackers holding their fire, awaiting the testimony of Gen. David Petraeus along with so many others? Or could the fury resume with the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan in a few days?

Countries Want U.S. Troops Out of Iraq

Withdraw Immediately One-Year Timetable Remain in Iraq

Mexico 68% 10% 16%

Indonesia 65% 16% 12%

Turkey 64% 15% 11%

Egypt 58% 35% 7%

Brazil 54% 16% 22%

Russia 49% 23% 9%

Spain 47% 21% 18%

China 46% 30% 15%

Chile 44% 28% 16%

France 34% 41% 15%

Nigeria 34% 21% 34%

Germany 33% 39% 24%

Canada 32% 35% 23%

Italy 28% 44% 23%

Britain 27% 38% 27%

Kenya 27% 19% 45%

India 26% 21% 17%

Philippines25% 22% 44%

South Korea24% 39% 33%

United States24% 37% 32%

Israel 24% 28% 40%

Australia 22% 41% 30%

A wrong ID, a wrong turn can mean death

Baghdad was never a beautiful city but as cars whizz through its emptying streets negotiating their way around concrete blocks and checkpoints, the city looks more than ever like a battle zone. But despite those indicators of a city at war, the question many Iraqis have been asking is whether the surge of troops brought in to protect them has made any difference to their lives.

With that in mind the Guardian has spent the past two days travelling the city, gauging that mood.

In the Yarmouk district, like many areas

Ghaith Abdul-Ahad
Tuesday September 11, 2007
The Guardian

At a checkpoint leading on to the airport highway in west Baghdad yesterday, a policeman blocked the traffic. Dressed in a blue checked-uniform, Kevlar helmet, a Kalashnikov slung on his shoulder and a whistle in his hand, the last button of his uniform was missing, exposing a hairy stomach that hung over his military belt.

The sun was setting quickly and the policeman shouted, blew his whistle and pointed his gun at a queue of impatient drivers ordering them to stay in line.

Something was happening but none of the drivers of the dozens of cars waiting in the early evening heat knew what it was.

About 30 gunmen milled around the checkpoint. Two young men in Iraqi army uniforms sat on the front of an armoured personnel carrier. Three men, wearing blue shirts and dark blue trousers stood next to a green SUV.

A further dozen gunmen wearing camouflage uniforms, red berets and carrying the insignia on their shoulders of the Ministry of Interior commandos stood in the shade of concrete blast walls that make the checkpoints.

The commandos are accused of being nothing but a Shia death squad, so when one of them, wearing weight-lifting wristbands, passed between cars looking at faces the drivers' heads sunk into their chests and they looked away.

One driver suggested that others join him in driving on a parallel road that passed through west Baghdad neighbourhoods, assuring others that the area had become safe.

"Ami [my uncle] do you want to kill us," one driver said, raising his two hands. "The roads are filled with fake checkpoints killing people on the haweya [ID card]."

"And what do you know about this checkpoint," answered the man and nodded towards the gunmen. "Look at them, they are militiamen."

more

Reports Iranian arms reaching Taliban worry U.S.
11 Sep 2007 16:18:30 GMT

By Sayed Salahuddin

KABUL, Sept 11 (Reuters) - The United States is concerned over reports that Iranian-made weapons are crossing the Afghan border and reaching Islamist Taliban insurgents, a top U.S. diplomat said on Tuesday.

Iran supported Afghan groups fighting the Taliban in the 1990s and played a crucial role in helping to topple the Taliban's Sunni government, ousted by the 2001 U.S.-led invasion, by supporting their Mujahideen foes.

The Shiite Islamic Republic has repeatedly in the past denied accusations by U.S. officials that it is arming the resurgent Taliban, who are largely active in southern and eastern areas close to the border with Pakistan.

"We are concerned by reports, which we consider to be reliable, of Iranian explosively formed projectiles and other kinds of military equipment coming from Iran across the border and coming into the hands of the Taliban," U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told reporters on a visit to Kabul.

He did not elaborate.

The Taliban, like the Iranian government, have rejected U.S. reports that they are acquiring Iranian arms, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai has hailed relations with Iran as good.

Iran was among the Islamic countries and Western powers that provided arms and funds to some Afghan factions during the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union in the 1980s, and explosives experts are still clearing Iranian-made landmines laid during the 1990s

bit more

Iraqi government welcomes Petraeus report

Meanwhile, an aide to the Shiite religious leader is slain and more lawmakers threaten to quit the Cabinet.

By Tina Susman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
9:27 AM PDT, September 11, 2007

BAGHDAD -- Iraq's government today put a positive spin on reports provided to the U.S. Congress assessing the country's political and security situation, but a religious assassination and a threatened government walkout were reminders of the instability on the ground here.

Near the southern city of Basra, a representative of Iraq's highest-ranking Shiite leader, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, was gunned down in his home Monday night, according to officials of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. Hussein Husseini was the second Sistani aide to be killed this month in southern Iraq, where the Badr Organization, a militia loyal to the council, is vying for power with the army loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr.

The council, the country's largest Shiite political group, claims allegiance to Sistani, putting its followers at odds with those loyal to Sadr.

At a meeting today of the Sadr parliamentary bloc, a spokesman said the bloc's 30 lawmakers might pull out of the main Shiite alliance headed by Prime Minister Nouri Maliki. The spokesman, Sheik Salah Ubaidi, said the Sadrists were unhappy with government progress on the security, economic and public services fronts and would decide in coming days whether to abandon Maliki.

more

There's a bit of buzz at Debka over Israeli incursions into Syria, Syria's reaction to these incursions, and an apparent reconfiguration of American carrier groups in the Persian Gulf.

I did inhale.

The military is in talks with elements of cleric Sadr's powerful group, which is accused of attacks against soldiers, but which holds sway in much of Baghdad and parts of Iraq.

Los Angeles Times, By Ned Parker, September 12

BAGHDAD -- -- U.S. diplomats and military officers have been in talks with members of the armed movement loyal to Muqtada Sadr, a sharp reversal of policy and a grudging recognition that the radical Shiite cleric holds a dominant position in much of Baghdad and other parts of Iraq.

The secret dialogue has been going on since at least early 2006, but appeared to yield a tangible result only in the last week -- with relative calm in an area of west Baghdad that has been among the capital's most dangerous sections.

The discussions have been complicated by divisions within Sadr's movement as well as the cleric's public vow never to meet with Iraq's occupiers. Underlying the issue's sensitivity, Sadrists publicly deny any contact with the Americans or British -- fully aware the price of acknowledging such meetings would be banishment from the movement or worse.

The dialogue represents a drastic turnaround in the U.S. approach to Sadr and his militia, the Mahdi Army. The military hopes to negotiate the same kind of marriage of convenience it has reached in other parts of Iraq with former insurgent groups, many Saddam Hussein loyalists, and the Sunni tribes that supported them. Both efforts are examples of how U.S. officials have sought to end violence by cooperating with groups they once considered intractable enemies.

September 12, 2007
For Iraqis, General’s Report Offers Bitter Truth
By ALISSA J. RUBIN | BAGHDAD, Sept. 11

NYT — Iraqis found themselves in a difficult position on Tuesday as they reflected on the report to Congress by Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. Although they say there is nothing they want more than to have American soldiers leave Iraq, they also say there is nothing they can afford less.

More than 20 Iraqis of different sects and ethnicities said in interviews across the country that they viewed the report favorably because it — or, at least the parts shown on television in Iraq — portrayed the situation accurately. They also said it signaled that there would be little change in the status quo.

Most of those who wanted a quicker pullback were politically close to the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr, who has advocated immediate withdrawal. But even Mr. Sadr’s supporters left room for negotiation when it came to suggesting dates for withdrawal.

“We prefer the occupation forces get out today,” said Salah al-Ubaidi, the spokesman for Mr. Sadr’s office in Najaf. But he added: “The exact timetable of the withdrawal, in my opinion, is up to these forces to decide. It is up to the professionals in the security field.”

Mostly, Iraqis appeared rueful about their vulnerability and the need to allow foreign troops to help keep order for some time to come. Politicians were more measured in their views, and most stuck to the line that any withdrawal should be pegged to the readiness of Iraqi troops.

A city employee in Baquba, the capital of Diyala Province, vividly described his ambivalence.

“The withdrawal of the occupation forces is a must because they have caused the destruction of Iraq, they committed massacres against the innocents, they have double-crossed the Iraqis with dreams,” said the worker, Ahmad Umar al Esawi, a Sunni. “I want them to withdraw all their troops in one day.”

Dropping his voice, he continued: “There is something that I want to say although I hate to say it. The American forces, which are an ugly occupation force, have become something important to us, the Sunnis. We are a minority and we do not have a force to face the militias. If the Americans leave, it will mean a total elimination of the Sunnis in Iraq.” ...

I'm surprised that more references haven't been made to the Sunday WaPo article by DeYoung, Wicks, et al, on the lack of consensus amongst the leading players involved with Iraq war in general, and the "surge" in particular, where Petraeus seems to be the tail wagging the dog, and Fallon and Lute largely ignored. Veteran political operative Ed Gillespie was charged by the WH with organising the PR push (for "surging") within the US, and Petraeus - General PowerPoint himself - was given the "CoDel" and media head-of-sales position in Iraq. The endpoint to all this? - Cheney administration's insistence on keeping the war going at least up to January, 2009, despite the acute disagreement existing within the Pentagon, and in spite of the American public's seeming desire to have this disaster wound up at any cost.

http://tinyurl.com/2hd8kz

And the most striking aspect of the Petraeus-Crocker testimony - indeed, with discussions concerning the entire future of the war and its aftermath - is the near-absence of any reference to either the wishes of the Iraqi people or its (genuine) political leaders. Whatever will be decided as to the evolving US position in Iraq will be strictly mandated by US political calculations, full stop. In fact, the feckless arguments echoing across the Beltway stand in gross contrast to recent opinion polls within Iraq, where the bulk of those contacted reject claims of "improved security" and diminished confidence in the occupation, etc., etc.

(via Marc Lynch)

What Iraqis Think, Again

What do Iraqis think about the surge? The first nationwide opinion survey since February has just been released, and it provides absolutely essential context for this week's debate over Iraq. The survey should help Americans cut through the spin and get a better view of what Iraqis really think. The BBC/ABC/NHK survey, conducted in all 19 provinces during August, finds that 70% of Iraqis believe that security has deteriorated in the areas covered by the US "surge", and 11% say it has had no effect. Only 11% say that security in the country as a whole has improved in the last six months. And 70% say that the conditions for political dialogue have gotten worse in the last six months. Bottom line: Iraqis overall, and especially Sunnis, are more opposed to the American presence than ever, do not think the surge has accomplished either its military or its political goals, and have dwindling confidence in the US forces.

Has Petraeus's counter-insurgency strategy and the surge won respect for the American presence? No. Only 15% express confidence in US/UK occupation forces, down from 18% in February, with 58% expressing "no confidence at all" - the highest in any of these surveys dating back to 2003. 80% say that the US has done a bad job in Iraq. 79% oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq. 72% say that the presence of US forces is making security worse.

When should US forces leave? 47% say "leave immediately" - by far the highest support for immediate departure on record (it was 35% in February). 34% say stay until security is restored, 10% say stay until the Iraqi government is stronger. Only 2% say "remain longer but leave eventually".

What about the Sunnis, whose Great Awakenings and embrace of the United States has become the centerpiece of the Petraeus strategy and the great hope of KaganWorld? Only 1% of Sunnis say they have confidence in American forces. Only 1% of Sunnis support the American presence in Iraq. Only 1% of Sunnis say that security has improved in Iraq as a whole in the last 6 months. 72% of Sunnis say that the US forces should leave immediately. 95% of Sunnis say that the presence of US troops makes security worse. 93% still see attacks on coalition forces as acceptable.
(much more...)

http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2007/09/what-iraqis-thi.html

Can anyone still make the claim that "...if they ask us to leave, we will leave..." is an operative position for the US in Iraq?

Two of the seven active duty soldiers who wrote a recent New York Times op-ed expressing opposition to the war were killed in Baghdad on Monday, reports Joe Strupp of Editor & Publisher.

hat tip to Dan Froomkin, in whose blog I first saw it... I don't think a single blogger missed it today.

--
"We're one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court." --David Addington, Feb. 2004

... this vid over at C&L.

Filmmaker Rick Rowley of Big Noise Films:

…(W)hen General Petraeus says that they’re merely applauding these tribes from the sidelines, he’s lying. I mean, while we were embedded with the Americans, we saw American military commanders hand wads of cash to tribal militias. And when he says that they are facilitating their integration into the country’s security forces, what he means is they’re pressuring Iraq’s government to incorporate these militias wholesale into the police forces. In fact, that’s one of the promises that these tribes are given, that after working with the Americans for a few months, they’ll become Iraqi police, be armed by the Iraqi state and be put on regular payroll. So it’s completely disingenuous, what he’s saying.

http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/iraq/000628.php#more

Fallujah Finds a False Peace

Inter Press Service
By Ali al-Fadhily*

FALLUJAH, Aug 28 (IPS) - Fallujah is quiet these days. After all the fighting and destruction of 2004, U.S. and Iraqi forces call this success. Many residents are not so sure.

Fallujah, 60km west of Baghdad, produced some of the strongest resistance yet to U.S. forces and their Iraqi collaborators. These forces led two severe assaults on the city, in April and November of 2004. Three-quarters of the city was destroyed, massive numbers of people were killed.

There has been little by way of reconstruction.

The city sees no more of the kind of resistance attacks of old, and no more of the 2004 kind of crackdown. "We are so happy that our city is peaceful and quiet after all the battling that killed thousands of our citizens," a captain in the local police force of Fallujah, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS. "We can patrol the streets without fear now, and arrest any person that we suspect to be a terrorist."

There has been a good deal of this, residents say. Hundreds of suspected resistance fighters are now held at the Fallujah police station. Many have been killed on the streets; the police speak of finding "unidentified bodies".

Several of those found dead had been arrested earlier, eyewitnesses and families of several of the men killed have said.

"This is fascist behaviour that shows the brutality of the Americans and the so-called Iraqi government," a former member of the Fallujah city council who asked to be referred to as Mahmood told IPS. "Those young guys were executed without any trial. This brutality was not known in our city before this occupation began."

Journalists inside the city are also quiet after a few of them were arrested and held for several days.

One of the detained journalists spoke with IPS on condition of anonymity. Visibly shaken, he said that a major in the Fallujah police force had told him that freedom of the media had been misused and that the police would not allow it any more. He said the major told him that "the news you transmit to the world will be what we tell you, not what you pick up from the street".

Residents speak of other reasons why the city is relatively quiet.

"But of course the city is quiet," Rahemm Othman, a high school teacher, told IPS. "They are banning car movement, and that would make it as quiet as the dead. We are being subjected to slow death here, and the world is so happy about it." The local police and the U.S. military banned car movement in May.

Everything is costlier as a result. "A jar of propane gas costs over 20 dollars, and the groceries are too much for us to afford," Um Muhammad, a mother of four whose husband was detained four months ago told IPS. "I have no income, and people who used to help me are not able to do so any more. Everybody is getting poor because people cannot go to work."

Medical services also continue to suffer under the vehicle ban. Doctors at Fallujah General Hospital told IPS that the government in Baghdad is not supplying them with medicines and medical equipment.

"The officials of the Ministry of Health tell us we are terrorists, and so we do not deserve their support," a doctor said. "As if they own Iraqi money and it is up to them whether to give it or not."

The Ministry of Health was headed by Ali al-Shemari from the group of Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr until Sadr withdrew from the government Apr. 16.

"To say Fallujah is quiet is true, and you can see it in the city streets," said Shiek Salim from the Fallujah Scholars' Council. "The city is practically dead, and the dead are quiet."

One after another, residents spoke of Fallujah finding the quiet of the dead. The streets are empty except for the occasional person walking to clinic, or at some of the few markets still open. Most shops remain closed, others open only a few hours.

Residents say unemployment is above 80 percent. Most of the rest who have some work are government employees. The huge industrial area has been closed by U.S. and Iraqi Army units.

"After sacrificing thousands of our beloved, Americans and their tails want to kill the rest of us," said a 50-year-old woman at the football field that was turned into a graveyard following the April 2004 U.S. siege of the city, in which residents say at least 700 were killed.

Intent on demonstrating progress in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is expected to recommend removing U.S. troops soon from several areas where commanders claim security has improved, including Fallujah.

But resistance has not died altogether. Five U.S. soldiers were killed when their helicopter was shot down Aug. 14 near al-Taqaddum airbase on the outskirts of Fallujah.

At least 20 U.S. soldiers were killed in al-Anbar province to the west of Baghdad in July, several of them in Fallujah area. According to the U.S. Department of Defence, 1,257 U.S. soldiers have died in al-Anbar province, more than in any other Iraqi province.

(*Ali, our correspondent in Baghdad, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who travels extensively in the region)

August 28, 2007

Sep 14, 2007

THE ROVING EYE
Behind the Anbar myth
By Pepe Escobar

After the elaborate theatrics just performed in the house of mirrors of Washington, US President George W Bush is now recommending to the nation what he told top Iraq commander General David Petraeus to recommend to him. Only those paying more attention to the botched comeback of the "fat" lip-synching Britney Spears will be fooled by Petraeus, the iPod general - a player of what is fed by his master's voice, the White House.

The facts are stark: by next summer, and even next September

(two months before the presidential election), Washington will have the same number of boots on the ground (130,000) in Iraq's US$3-billion-a-week war that it had before the "surge", compounding - indeed amplifying - the existing ethical, political and strategic disaster.

Petraeus' key argument this week to prove his steering of the Bush-devised "surge" was a "success" was to spin the close collaboration between the occupation and the Shi'ite-dominated Iraqi government in Baghdad on the one side with Sunni tribal leaders in al-Anbar province on the other. Petraeus framed it as if this "sustainable" solution was a huge counterinsurgency success of his own making. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The success story in Anbar is not due to the general's wily ways, but to an Iraqi sheikh: Abdul Satter Abu Risha, the leader of a coalition of tribes, including 200 sheikhs, formed in the autumn of 2006 under the name Anbar Sovereignty Council (now it's called Iraq Awakening).

Asia Times Online talked to Abu Risha this past spring in Iraq. He explained, crucially, that he had set up the council after his father and two brothers were killed by al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers. Yes, it was personal. Petraeus then joined the bandwagon. Abu Risha is not, and never was, a Salafi-jihadi. He considers himself an Iraqi nationalist. He's not in favor of a caliphate. But he's definitely in favor of restored power to Sunni Iraqis

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II14Ak04.html
MORE

The Guardian, Richard Norton-Taylor, September 13

Al-Qaida has revived, extended its influence, and has the capacity to carry out a spectacular strike similar to the September 11 attacks on America, one of the world's leading security think tanks warned yesterday.

There is increasing evidence "that 'core' al-Qaida is proving adaptable and resilient, and has retained an ability to plan and coordinate large-scale attacks in the western world despite the attrition it has suffered", said the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). "The threat from Islamist terrorism remains as high as ever, and looks set to get worse," it added.

"The US and its allies have failed to deal a death blow to al-Qaida; the organisation's ideology appears to have taken root to such a degree that it will require decades to eradicate," it continued.

[The have a cheery view of global warming, too:]

· that if climate change is allowed to continue unchecked, its affects will be catastrophic "on the level of nuclear war".

Police: Bomb Kills Sheik Working With US

By SAMEER N. YACOUB
The Associated Press
Thursday, September 13, 2007; 10:06 AM

BAGHDAD -- The most prominent figure in a U.S.-backed revolt of Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida in Iraq was killed Thursday by a bomb planted near his home in Anbar province, 10 days after he met with President Bush, police and tribal leaders said.

Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha was leader of the Anbar Salvation Council, also known as the Anbar Awakening _ an alliance of clans backing the Iraqi government and U.S. forces.

Officials said his assassination would be a huge setback for U.S. efforts in Iraq, because it sends a message to others who are cooperating with coalition forces or thinking about cooperating against al-Qaida.

...

No group claimed responsibility for the assassination but suspicion fell on al-Qaida in Iraq, which U.S. officials say has suffered devastating setbacks in Anbar thanks to Abu Risha and his fellow sheiks. It's unclear how his death would affect U.S. efforts to organize Sunnis against the terrorist network.

Abu Risha was among a group of tribal leaders who met with Bush on Sept. 3 at al-Asad Air Base in Anbar province.

It was not the first time that Abu Risha has been targeted. A suicide bomber tried and failed to kill him on Feb. 19. That same day, gunmen ambushed a minivan on the main highway from Baghdad to Anbar and killed all 13 passengers who were accused of opposing al-Qaida in Iraq.

In June, a suicide bomber blew himself up in the lobby of Baghdad's Mansour Hotel during a meeting of U.S.-linked Sunni tribal leaders, killing 13 people and wounding 27. Among those killed was the former governor of Anbar and sheik of the al-Bu Nimir tribe, Fassal al-Guood _ a key ally of Abu Risha. A day later, al-Qaida in Iraq claimed responsibility for the attack.

"It is a major blow to the council, but we are determined to strike back and continue our work," said Sheik Jubeir Rashid, a senior member of Abu Risha's group. "Such an attack was expected, but it will not deter us."

He said the bombing took place at 3:30 p.m. as Abu Risha was returning home.

A Ramadi police officer said Abu Risha had received a group of poor people at his home earlier in the day, as a gesture of charity marking the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The officer, speaking on condition of anonymity out of security concerns, said authorities believed the bomb was planted by one of the visitors.

Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said that after the first blast that killed Abu Risha, a car bomb exploded nearby.

"The car bomb had been rigged just in case the roadside bomb missed his convoy," Khalaf said. There were no casualties from the car bomb, he added.

.....

General blames Iran for fatal Baghdad rocket attack

US military spokesman Major-General Kevin Bergner speaks during a press conference in Baghdad, Iraq, 13 September 2007. Bergner gave an update on the security operations in Iraq. EPA/MOHAMMED JALIL - POOL

US military spokesman Major-General Kevin Bergner speaks during a press conference in Baghdad, Iraq, 13 September 2007. Bergner gave an update on the security operations in Iraq. EPA/MOHAMMED JALIL - POOL

By Rich Bowden Sep 13, 2007, 13:04 GMT

Baghdad, Iraq, (M&C) - A U.S. general has blamed Iran for supplying the rocket which killed one and injured eleven in an attack on the headquarters of the American military in Iraq on Tuesday. Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner said the rocket was a 240 mm, which the Iranian government had been known to supply to extreme Shiite elements in Iraq.

Maj. Gen. Bergner said the rocket was launched from the Rasheed district, west of Baghdad, which he claimed was a stronghold of the Mahdi Army militia of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

He said the type of rocket had been "...received from Iranian sources in the past and used against coalition forces.''

''The Iranian... rocket is the only 240-millimeter rocket found or fired in Iraq to date, and Jaish al-Mahdi [Mahdi army] is the only group known to fire that rocket,'' he said to reporters.

more

First of all there was no ERROR related to the 'misplaced' nuclear weapons.

The nuclear warheads in question was an AGM-129. It is a NUCLEAR only delivery weapon, nothing else like it.

These warheads were mounted on the exterior of the B-52 according to the story.

IMPORTANTLY The B-52 flew to Barksdale, THE staging area for transit of weapons to Iraq/Iran.

This was a test run. It could not have been anything else, and it would have had to be on the orders of the President of the United States.

But here is where it gets dicey.

The Military is in open revolt over the whole Iran expansion concept of the civilian military leadership. Someone in the Pentagon had to have leaked the movement of the warheads, and that is when it was declared a 'mistake.'

There is no other way. The military itself is trying to stop the civilian leadership from their military options. This was likely a direct violation of the chain of command to the extent it could be accomplished. The nuclear weapons had to be returned, or the test had to be ended. It kept nuclear weapons out of the Iraq/Iran theater.

Any thoughts. I believe the military is nearing an open revolt. They are blocking all the back-channel military operations. This is also why the President is looking so exhausted these days -

He is planning the apocalypse.