Thursday, March 8, 2007

Averting a U.S.-Iran clash

Outside View

MOSCOW, March 7 (UPI) -- Iran is unwilling to obey the demands of the world community to slow down uranium enrichment. Under Article 41 of the United Nations Charter's Chapter VII, it can resort to additional measures to influence Iran without the use of force. While the Iranian Six have been deliberating a new draft resolution, emotions are running high around Iran itself.

By tradition, on the eve of the U.N. Security Council's regular March session on Iran's nuclear program, Iran and the United States exchanged "preemptive" strikes to show mutual resolve to achieve their goals militarily, if need be.

Iran staged large-scale exercises of its elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, successfully tested its new missiles, and declared that it would continue its nuclear program despite the world community's demand of a moratorium on uranium enrichment and to defend it at all costs, including war with the United States.

In turn, Washington launched a massive media onslaught on Iran. The New Yorker published the Pentagon's plan for air strikes at Iran-based facilities, the British Daily Telegraph reported on Israel's talks with the United States on Israeli aircraft flights over Iraqi territory, and U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney said that no options have been taken off the table. This gives one a feeling of deja-vu -- February 2006 was much the same.

Until now, U.S.-Iranian military confrontation was largely perceived as a bluff. Now that the United States is deploying powerful attack groups of "political pressure" -- to use its own explanation -- both sides seem to be threatening each other for real. Any military mechanism, created for "political pressure," is effective as long as it yields results. Otherwise, it is reduced to an instrument of trivial blackmail, and is militarily devalued. What will the United States do if Iran does not yield to its "political pressure"?

Fighting will be the only option since U.S. prestige is at stake.

Under the circumstances, the United States is not likely to avoid war with Iran. Their regional policies as regards each other and Tehran's attitude to Israel are making this war practically inevitable. In order to avoid it without dramatic changes, one of the sides will have to make huge concessions. The United States will have to give up its interests in the region, whereas Iran will have to curtail its nuclear program and forget about its regional ambitions.

Both sacrifices are unlikely, but a compromise is possible. Iran will have to place its nuclear program under tough International Atomic Energy Agency control; make major adjustments to its policy in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine; and give up its anti-Israeli rhetoric. The United States will have to accept Iran's key role in the region with all the ensuing privileges. Neither side seems to be ready for this.

Meanwhile, in Tehran different political forces have lashed out against the country's nuclear program and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's policy. Addressing the president, the leader of the reformist Islamic Iran Solidarity Party wrote in the prestigious daily Etemad-i Melli that "the brakes are designed to make sure the train arrives at its destination safely, and in time."

These words seem all but a goodwill gesture. In his virtual polemics with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Ahmadinejad said that like a train, the Iranian nuclear program did not have a reverse gear. She replied that it needed "a stop button" rather than a reverse gear.

Maybe, slowing down will help the sides find a compromise?


(Pyotr Goncharov is a political commentator with the RIA Novosti news agency. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti.)

Israeli MP predicts attack on Iran

Related
Effie Eitam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Knesset Member, Effie Eitam
--
Israeli MK predicts attack on Iran

By PAUL LUNGEN
Staff Reporter

Israeli Knesset member Effie Eitam has a reputation as a hawk, but on the question of Iran and its nuclear program, he believes he speaks for the country’s mainstream strategic thinkers.

Diplomatic and political manoeuvres to rein in the Islamic state are feckless and doomed to fail, leaving Israel, with or without the co-operation of the United States, no alternative but to use military force to put an end to the nuclear threat, he says.

“Israel is preparing and will definitely take action,” Eitam predicted. “We will not live under that shadow for our children and grandchildren. Israelis survived the Holocaust not to live under that threat again.”

Eitam delivered his sobering assessment of Israel’s strategic place in the Middle East prior to a public address last week at Beth Emeth Bais Yehuda Synagogue. He was speaking at a fundraiser in support of Aid to Disabled Veterans of Israel, Beit Halochem Canada, a charity that provides rehabilitation, counselling and recreational services to wounded Israeli soldiers. Eitam said the charity is dear to him, as many of his military comrades benefit from its services.

Prior to visiting Toronto, Eitam was in Washington, where he met with U.S. senators and congressmen and spoke at four think tanks about the current Mideast situation. He also spoke last week in Montreal.

Eitam told The CJN that Israel may have to act alone against Iran within “a window” to two to three years, but he suggested Israel would move before Bush leaves office.

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama, the leading Democratic presidential candidates, have the stomach to tackle Iran militarily, Eitam said, and he wasn’t sure how Republican contenders Rudy Giuliani and John McCain would act.

Eitam said a pre-emptive attack would be justified under the principle of self defence, and at any rate, Israel can’t afford to wait until Iran actually possesses a nuclear device.

He said that with American co-operation – Israeli planes would have to fly over Iraq en route to Iran – the mission would be a success. Israel would enjoy total air domination, would be able to avoid anti-aircraft defences and over time destroy the nuclear facilities.

He said Israel could handle Iranian retaliation, including Hezbollah missile attacks, especially after internal Israel Defence Forces reviews of the Lebanon war and the removal of senior IDF officers.

Eitam predicted the United States would support Israel’s attack – as would other democratic nations, including Canada. The alternative would mean “the genie was out of the bottle.”

What if a suitcase device was smuggled into Toronto and the Canadian government was threatened with a nuclear attack if it didn’t hand over $3 billion to terrorists? “Let’s see what the Canadian government would do then,” he said.

Faced with that sort of threat, many countries will support an Israeli strike against Iran, he said.

And if they don’t? “We are dealing with a nuclear weapon in the hands of Ahmadinejad, who’s already said the bomb is to deal with Israel. So who cares what the Europeans will say?”

As for the United States, Eitam said the rationale for going to war in Iraq – to stop a madman from acquiring weapons of mass destruction – applies exactly to Iran. “It would be a strategic tragedy if the United States stabilizes Iraq, but is so weakened by that operation that the credibility of the president is so low that they couldn’t strike Iran.”

Turning to the Palestinian front, Eitam dismissed the Mecca accord between Hamas and Fatah that created a unity government. “We should be realistic. The Mecca agreement is more false hope, another step of deception designed to save the Hamas government and end the sanctions.”

Eitam, a career military man who led a commando unit during the 1976 Entebbe rescue operation, left the IDF as a brigadier general in 2000 to join the National Religious Party. He split with that party over its support for the Gaza pullout and co-founding the Renewed Religious National Zionist Party.

He attracted controversy late last year when he called for the removal of most West Bank Palestinians and when he called Israeli Arabs a fifth column and traitors.

Eitam said Hamas had not given up any of its core principles, including its goal of destroying Israel.

“It’s not about territory. It’s not about recognition. They’re not interested in any state, and no land will satisfy them. They’re totally recruited by the Islamic revolution and are the spearhead of the Islamic revolution.”

Furthermore, Palestinian culture has deteriorated to such an extent that it is considered legitimate to indoctrinate suicide bombers from the age of six.

“It will take a long time – decades, maybe centuries – to bring Arabic and Islamic culture back to normalcy,” he said.

In the meantime, Israel must remain behind its security barrier, which has produced relative quiet. He predicted that over time, Palestinians’ daily lives would improve as they get an independent road system, roadblocks would disappear and commerce improve.

“It’s not paradise, but it’s a containment situation that in the end will bring more life, hope and respect between the two parties,” he said.

My Very Own Juror: MAUREEN DOWD - Libby Trial

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
THE NEW YORK TIMES
OP-ED COLUMNIST

My Very Own Juror

By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: March 8, 2007

I had a potentially incestuous relationship with a source inside the Beltway.


When the Scooter Libby trial ended, the media was found guilty. By the media. Which likes to obsess on itself. In the media.

The press gave short shrift to poor Scooter, whose downfall came from doing Dick Cheney’s bidding with “canine loyalty,” as Chris Matthews told Don Imus yesterday morning. Scooter’s facing hard time, even though others in the administration also spread the word about Valerie Plame.

But let’s get back to the media decrying the media, and the incestuous Beltway relationship between journalists and sources. Listening to all the lamentations, I excitedly realized I had a potentially incestuous relationship with a source inside the Beltway.

I went to Nativity grade school in D.C. with Juror No. 9, Denis Collins. I had an unrequited crush on his brother when I was in seventh grade. His dad was my dad’s lawyer, and both were Irish immigrants. My brother Kevin coached his brother Kevin in touch football. Our moms were in the Sodality together. His mom once chastised me for chatting up a little boy in church. We started in journalism together, Denis at The Washington Post as a sportswriter and Metro reporter, and me at The Washington Star as a sportswriter and Metro reporter.

This was a sure thing. I could get him to come over to my house and spill all the secrets of the jury that had convicted the highest-ranking White House official to be found guilty on a felony since Iran-contra days.

Unfortunately, Denis spilled them on the way over. By the time he got to my house, he was already so overexposed he announced, “I’m sick of hearing myself talk.”

--MORE--

The private war of women soldiers: Rape big problem

Many female soldiers say they are sexually assaulted by their male comrades and can't trust the military to protect them. "The knife wasn't for the Iraqis," says one woman. "It was for the guys on my own side."

By Helen Benedict

Mar. 07, 2007 | As thousands of burned-out soldiers prepare to return to Iraq to fill President Bush's unwelcome call for at least 20,000 more troops, I can't help wondering what the women among those troops will have to face. And I don't mean only the hardships of war, the killing of civilians, the bombs and mortars, the heat and sleeplessness and fear.

I mean from their own comrades -- the men.

I have talked to more than 20 female veterans of the Iraq war in the past few months, interviewing them for up to 10 hours each for a book I am writing on the topic, and every one of them said the danger of rape by other soldiers is so widely recognized in Iraq that their officers routinely told them not to go to the latrines or showers without another woman for protection.

The female soldiers who were at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, for example, where U.S. troops go to demobilize, told me they were warned not to go out at night alone.

"They call Camp Arifjan 'generator city' because it's so loud with generators that even if a woman screams she can't be heard," said Abbie Pickett, 24, a specialist with the 229th Combat Support Engineering Company who spent 15 months in Iraq from 2004-05. Yet, she points out, this is a base, where soldiers are supposed to be safe.

Spc. Mickiela Montoya, 21, who was in Iraq with the National Guard in 2005, took to carrying a knife with her at all times. "The knife wasn't for the Iraqis," she told me. "It was for the guys on my own side."

Comprehensive statistics on the sexual assault of female soldiers in Iraq have not been collected, but early numbers revealed a problem so bad that former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ordered a task force in 2004 to investigate. As a result, the Defense Department put up a Web site in 2005 designed to clarify that sexual assault is illegal and to help women report it. It also initiated required classes on sexual assault and harassment. The military's definition of sexual assault includes "rape; nonconsensual sodomy; unwanted inappropriate sexual contact or fondling; or attempts to commit these acts."

Unfortunately, with a greater number of women serving in Iraq than ever before, these measures are not keeping women safe. When you add in the high numbers of war-wrecked soldiers being redeployed, and the fact that the military is waiving criminal and violent records for more than one in 10 new Army recruits, the picture for women looks bleak indeed.

Last year, Col. Janis Karpinski caused a stir by publicly reporting that in 2003, three female soldiers had died of dehydration in Iraq, which can get up to 126 degrees in the summer, because they refused to drink liquids late in the day. They were afraid of being raped by male soldiers if they walked to the latrines after dark. The Army has called her charges unsubstantiated, but Karpinski told me she sticks by them. (Karpinski has been a figure of controversy in the military ever since she was demoted from brigadier general for her role as commander of Abu Ghraib. As the highest-ranking official to lose her job over the torture scandal, she claims she was scapegoated, and has become an outspoken critic of the military's treatment of women. In turn, the Army has accused her of sour grapes.)

"I sat right there when the doctor briefing that information said these women had died in their cots," Karpinski told me. "I also heard the deputy commander tell him not to say anything about it because that would bring attention to the problem." The latrines were far away and unlit, she explained, and male soldiers were jumping women who went to them at night, dragging them into the Port-a-Johns, and raping or abusing them. "In that heat, if you don't hydrate for as many hours as you've been out on duty, day after day, you can die." She said the deaths were reported as non-hostile fatalities, with no further explanation.

Not everyone realizes how different the Iraq war is for women than any other American war in history. More than 160,500 American female soldiers have served in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East since the war began in 2003, which means one in seven soldiers is a woman. Women now make up 15 percent of active duty forces, four times more than in the 1991 Gulf War. At least 450 women have been wounded in Iraq, and 71 have died -- more female casualties and deaths than in the Korean, Vietnam and first Gulf Wars combined. And women are fighting in combat.

Officially, the Pentagon prohibits women from serving in ground combat units such as the infantry, citing their lack of upper-body strength and a reluctance to put girls and mothers in harm's way. But mention this ban to any female soldier in Iraq and she will scoff.

"Of course we were in combat!" said Laura Naylor, 25, who served with the Army Combat Military Police in Baghdad from 2003-04. "We were interchangeable with the infantry. They came to our police stations and helped pull security, and we helped them search houses and search people. That's how it is in Iraq."

Women are fighting in ground combat because there is no choice. This is a war with no front lines or safe zones, no hiding from in-flying mortars, car and roadside bombs, and not enough soldiers. As a result, women are coming home with missing limbs, mutilating wounds and severe trauma, just like the men.

All the women I interviewed held dangerous jobs in Iraq. They drove trucks along bomb-ridden roads, acted as gunners atop tanks and unarmored vehicles, raided houses, guarded prisoners, rescued the wounded in the midst of battle, and searched Iraqis at checkpoints. Some watched their best friends die, some were wounded, all saw the death and mutilation of Iraqi children and citizens.

Yet, despite the equal risks women are taking, they are still being treated as inferior soldiers and sex toys by many of their male colleagues. As Pickett told me, "It's like sending three women to live in a frat house."

Rape, sexual assault and harassment are nothing new to the military. They were a serious problem for the Women's Army Corps in Vietnam, and the rapes and sexual hounding of Navy women at Tailhook in 1991 and of Army women at Aberdeen in 1996 became national news. A 2003 survey of female veterans from Vietnam through the first Gulf War found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans from Vietnam and all the wars since, who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder, found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while in the military. And in a third study, conducted in 1992-93 with female veterans of the Gulf War and earlier wars, 90 percent said they had been sexually harassed in the military, which means anything from being pressured for sex to being relentlessly teased and stared at.

"That's one of the things I hated the most," said Caryle García, 24, who, like Naylor, served with the Combat Military Police in Baghdad from 2003-04. García was wounded by a roadside bomb, which knocked her unconscious and filled her with shrapnel. "You walk into the chow hall and there's a bunch of guys who just stop eating and stare at you. Every time you bend down, somebody will say something. It got to the point where I was afraid to walk past certain people because I didn't want to hear their comments. It really gets you down."

"There are only three kinds of female the men let you be in the military: a bitch, a ho or a dyke," said Montoya, the soldier who carried a knife for protection. "This guy out there, he told me he thinks the military sends women over to give the guys eye candy to keep them sane. He said in Vietnam they had prostitutes to keep them from going crazy, but they don't have those in Iraq. So they have women soldiers instead."

Pickett heard the same attitude from her fellow soldiers. "My engineering company was in the first Gulf War, and back then it had only two females," she said. "One was labeled a whore because she had a boyfriend, and the other one was a bitch because she wouldn't sleep around. And that's how they were still referred to all these years later."

In the current Iraq war, which Pickett spent refueling and driving trucks over the bomb-ridden roads, she was one of 19 women in a 160-troop unit. She said the men imported cases of porn, and talked such filth at the women all the time that she became worn down by it. "We shouldn't have to think every day, 'How am I going to go out there and deal with being harassed?'" she said. "We should just have to think about going out and doing our job."

Pickett herself was sexually attacked when she was training in Nicaragua before being deployed to Iraq. "I was sexually assaulted by a superior officer when I was 19, but I didn't know where to turn, so I never reported it," she told me.

Jennifer Spranger, 23, who was deployed at the beginning of the war with the Military Police to build and guard Camp Bucca, a prison camp for Iraqis, had a similar experience.

"My team leader offered me up to $250 for a hand job. He would always make sure that we were out alone together at the beginning, and he wouldn't stop pressuring me for sex. If somebody did that to my daughter I'd want to kill the guy. But you can't fit in if you make waves about it. You rat somebody out, you're screwed. You're gonna be a loner until they eventually push you out."

Spranger and several other women told me the military climate is so severe on whistle-blowers that even they regarded the women who reported rape as incapable traitors. You have to handle it on your own and shut up, is how they saw it. Only on their return home, with time and distance, did they become outraged at how much sexual persecution of women goes on.

Having the courage to report a rape is difficult enough for civilians, where unsympathetic police, victim-blaming myths, and simple fear prevent 59 percent of rapes from being reported, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice. But within the military, reporting is even more risky. Military platoons are enclosed, hierarchical societies, riddled with gossip, so any woman who reports a rape has no realistic chance of remaining anonymous. She will have to face her assailant day after day, and put up with rumors, resentment and blame from other soldiers. Furthermore, she runs the risk of being punished by her assailant if he is her superior.

These barriers to reporting are so well recognized that even the Defense Department has been scrambling to mend the situation, at least for the public eye. It won't go so far as to actually gather statistics on rape and assault in Iraq (it only counts reported rapes in raw numbers for all combat areas in the Middle East combined), but in 2006 the DOD did finally wake up to the idea that anonymous reporting might help women come forward, and updated its Web site accordingly.

The Web site looks good, although some may object that it seems to pay more attention to telling women how to avoid an assault than telling men not to commit one. It defines rape, sexual assault and harassment, and makes clear that these behaviors are illegal. The site now also explains that a soldier can report a rape anonymously to a special department, SAPR (Sexual Assault Prevention and Response), without triggering an official investigation -- a procedure called "restricted reporting." And it promises the soldier a victim's advocate and medical care.

On closer scrutiny, however, the picture is less rosy: Only active and federal duty soldiers can go to SAPR for help, which means that neither inactive reservists nor veterans are eligible; soldiers are encouraged to report rapes to a chaplain, and chaplains are not trained as rape counselors; if soldiers tell a friend about an assault, that friend is legally obliged to report it to officials; soldiers must disclose their rank, gender, age, race, service, and the date, time and/or location of the assault, which in the closed world of a military unit hardly amounts to anonymity; and, in practice, since most people in the Army are men, the soldier will likely find herself reporting her sexual assault to a man -- something rape counselors know does not work. Worse, no measures will be taken against the accused assailant unless the victim agrees to stop being anonymous.

The DOD insists on the success of its reforms, the proof being that the number of reported military sexual assaults rose by 1,700 from 2004 to a total of 2,374 in 2005. "The success of the SAPR program is in direct correlation with the increased numbers of reported sexual assaults," Cynthia Smith, a Defense Department spokeswoman, wrote to me in an e-mail.

In fact, as anyone familiar with sexual assault statistics knows, nobody can ever tell whether increases in rape rates are due to more reporting or more rapes.

My own interviewees and advocates on behalf of women veterans say these reforms are not working. They say there is a huge gap between what the military promises to do on its Web site and what it does in practice, and that the traditional view that reporting an assault betrays your fellow soldiers still prevails.

"Are soldiers who report sexual assaults in the military still seen as betraying their comrades?" I asked Smith.

"Our soldiers are being fully trained that sexual assault is the most under-reported crime," she wrote in reply. "In that training, not reporting a sexual assault is the betrayal to their comrades."

Back in real life, Pickett watched several of her friends try to report sexual harassment and assault since the 2005 reforms, and she said that none of them were sent a victim's advocate, a counselor or a chaplain. "These women are turning perpetrators in and they're not getting anyone to speak on their behalf," she told me. "There's no one sitting in that room with you, so you're feeling all alone." In the end, she added, it boils down to the woman's word vs. the man's, and he is the one with the advocate, not her.

Meanwhile, the studies I have cited, along with the other past and present studies of veterans, who feel freer to talk than soldiers because they are out of the military, show that women soldiers are suffering post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of military sexual abuse. All soldiers with PTSD come home to some combination of sleeplessness, nightmares, bursts of temper, flashbacks, panic attacks, fear and an inability to cope with everyday life. They often turn to drugs or alcohol for escape. Some become depressed, others commit suicide. Many are too emotionally numb to relate to their families or children. But those who have been sexually assaulted also lose their self-respect, feel they have lost control over their lives, and are particularly prone to self-destruction.

I have yet to meet an Iraq war veteran of either sex who does not suffer from some form of post-traumatic stress disorder, but officially the number of Iraq veterans with PTSD is estimated to be about 30 percent for those newly back from war, according to a 2004 study of combat veterans in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The extent and severity of PTSD in women who have had to cope with both combat and sexual assault in Iraq is still being studied, but as it is known that these are two of the highest predictors of PTSD, it is logical to assume that the combination is pretty bad. "When you are sexually assaulted by people who are your comrades, PTSD can be worse than in other circumstances," said Paula Shnurr, a research professor of psychiatry who conducted a new Veterans Administration study of therapy for women veterans with PTSD, published last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association. "You feel incompetent and helpless, like children feel when abused by the very people who are supposed to look after them," Schnurr told me. "The people you depend on have attacked you."

I am not claiming that sexual persecution is universal in the military, or that it is inevitable. Several soldiers I interviewed told me that if a commander won't tolerate the mistreatment of women, it will not happen, and studies back this up. Jennifer Hogg, 25, who was a sergeant in the Army's National Guard, said her company treated her well because she had a commander who wouldn't permit the mistreatment of women. But another National Guard soldier, Demond Mullins, 25, who served with the infantry in Iraq for a year from 2004-05, told me that a commander in his camp turned a blind eye to rape all the time. "One time a woman was taking a shower late, and guys went and held the door closed so she couldn't get out, while the others went in to rape her," he said.

Some commanders not only turn a blind eye to assault and harassment but engage in it themselves, a phenomenon known in the military as "command rape." Because the military is hierarchical, and because soldiers are trained to obey and never question their superiors, men of rank can assault their juniors with impunity. In most cases, women soldiers are the juniors, 18 to 20 year old, and are new to the military and war, thus vulnerable to bullying and exploitation.

Callie Wight, a psychosocial counselor in women veterans' health in Los Angeles, has been treating women who were sexually assaulted in the military for the past 11 years. In all that time, she told me, she has only seen a handful of cases where a woman reported an assault to her commander with any success in getting the assailant punished. "Most commanders dismiss it," she said. A nine-month study of military rape by the Denver Post in 2003 found that nearly 5,000 accused military sex offenders had avoided prosecution since 1992.

At the moment, the most shocking case of military sexual assault is that of Army Spc. Suzanne Swift, 21, who served in Iraq in 2004. Swift was coerced into sex by one commanding officer, which is legally defined as rape by the military, and harassed by two others before she finally broke rank and told. As a result, the other soldiers treated her like a traitor for months.

Unable to face returning to the assailant, she went AWOL during a leave at home, and was arrested and put in jail for desertion. At first the Army offered her a deal: It would reduce her punishment if Swift would sign a statement saying that she had never been raped. She refused, saying she wouldn't let the Army force her to lie.

The Army court-martialed Swift, and stripped her of her rank. She spent December in prison and was then sent to Fort Irwin in the Mojave Desert, far away from her family. She must stay in the Army for two more years, and may face redeployment. The men who assaulted her received nothing but reprimanding letters.

Swift's mother, Sara Rich, has set up a Web site with a petition calling for her daughter's release: More than 6,700 veterans and soldiers have signed it, and 102 of them signed their names to stories of their own sexual persecution in the military.

Swift's case, and those of her petitioners, illustrate the real attitude of the military toward women and sexual assault, the one that underlies its fancy Web site and claims that it supports soldiers who've been raped.

The real attitude is this: If you tell, you are going to get punished. The assailant, meanwhile, will go free.

Which brings up an issue that lies at the core of every soldier's heart: comradeship.

It is for their comrades that soldiers enlist and reenlist. It is for their "battle buddies" that they risk their lives and put up with all the miseries of sandstorms, polluted water, lack of sanitation, and danger. Soldiers go back to Iraq, even if they've turned against the war, so as not to let their buddies down. Comradeship is what gets men through war, and is what has always got men through war. You protect your battle buddy, and your battle buddy protects you.

As an Iraq veteran put it to me, "There's nobody you love like you love a person who's willing to take a bullet for you."

So how does this work for women? A few find buddies among the other women in their squads, but for most there are no other women, so their battle buddies are men. Some of these men are trustworthy. Many are not.

How can a man who pressures you for sex every day, who treats you like a prostitute, who threatens or punishes you if you refuse him, or who actually attacks you, be counted on to watch your back in battle?

"Battle buddy bullshit," said García from the Military Police. "I didn't trust anybody in my company after a few months. I saw so many girls get screwed over, the sexual harassment. I didn't trust anybody and I still don't."

If this is a result of the way women are treated in the military, where does it leave them when it comes to battle camaraderie? I asked soldier after soldier this, and they all gave me the same answer:

Alone.

IAEA Freezes Assistance Programs to Iran

The UN is pulling their staff. Expecting a bombing campaign, are we?
---
Thursday March 8, 2007 12:31 PM

AP Photo XPZ111

By GEORGE JAHN

Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Delegates to a 35-nation meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Thursday approved the suspension of nearly two dozen nuclear technical aid programs to Iran as part of U.N. sanctions imposed because its nuclear defiance.

A defiant Tehran said it would not bow to pressure on its nuclear program.

The decision to deprive Iran of 22 projects was taken by consensus and was expected. Even nations on the IAEA board normally supportive of Iran backed it because it was recommended by agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, on authority of the U.N. Security Council.

``I have not heard anyone express dissatisfaction'' with ElBaradei's recommendations, said Ramzy Ezzeidin Ramzy, Egypt's chief IAEA representative, before the decision, reflecting the meeting's widespread unanimity on the issue.

Chief Iranian delegate Ali Ashgar Soltanieh dismissed the decision, along with other international moves to pressure his country to suspend uranium enrichment, as the work of a ``few countries ... to deprive Iran from its inalienable rights for (the) peaceful use of nuclear energy.''

The ``Iranian nation is a peace-loving nation but will never tolerate any pressure or intimidation,'' he told the meeting.

He also said Israel's undeclared nuclear program endangers ``both regional peace and security.''

Those comments were in response to a letter from 17 Arab nations plus Palestinian authorities that called for Israel to be put under agency inspections. The letter asserted that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert last year acknowledged that his country had nuclear weapons - something Olmert has denied doing.

Israel, in a brief statement, said it had no plans to change its nuclear policies, said an IAEA official who was inside the closed meeting and spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.

The suspensions of technical cooperation fell under the provision of U.N. Security Council sanctions agreed Dec. 23 to punish Iran for defying a council demand that it freeze its uranium enrichment activities. The five permanent council members now are consulting on additional sanctions after Tehran ignored a new ultimatum to stop enrichment last month.

Council diplomats in New York said these could include a travel ban, an expanded list of people and companies subject to an asset freeze, an arms embargo and trade restrictions, but they cautioned that differences remained.

While Iran says it has the legal right to develop an enrichment program to generate nuclear power, the Security Council has called on it to end such activities because of fears it could misuse the process to produce fissile material for warheads.

Before the decision on technical aid, Soltanieh accused the United States and Israel of threatening military attacks on its nuclear facilities and said Security Council sanctions against his country were illegal.

Washington in turn criticized Tehran for ignoring Security Council demands to freeze enrichment and said Iranian ``intransigence'' in answering questions about its nuclear program raises the level of concern that it might be seeking to make atomic arms.

Those comments, inside and on the sidelines of the meeting, came as part of a review of a report by ElBaradei that confirmed Iran had defied a Security Council deadline on enrichment last month.

Soltanieh accused the U.S. and Israel of ``continuing to make threats against Iran's ... (nuclear) facilities.'' But he suggested that Tehran's nuclear program would survive any aggression, citing ElBaradei in declaring that nuclear ``knowledge cannot be bombed.''

While not directly threatening attacks, both Israel and the U.S. have not ruled out any option in trying to stop what they say is an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Soltanieh denied such aims, saying: ``Weapons of mass destruction have no place in the Islamic Republic of Iran's defense doctrine.'' Iran steadfastly insists it is not interested in nuclear arms and wants to enrich uranium not to create the fissile core of warheads but to generate energy.

Outside the meeting, he attributed international pressure on Iran to give up enrichment to ``the poisonous food served up by a few (IAEA) members and sent to New York,'' to the Security Council.

Reflecting the U.S. stance, chief delegate Gregory L. Schulte accused Iran of ignoring ``the serious international concerns expressed by the Security Council'' in demanding a freeze of enrichment.

Schulte also criticized Iran for continuing to build facilities that will produce plutonium - another possible pathway to nuclear arms - and thus again ignoring a Security Council demand. He cited ElBaradei in saying that his agency cannot conclude that Iran's program is peaceful unless Tehran stops stonewalling on questions posed by his agency. And he urged Tehran to reverse a ban on 38 IAEA inspectors, all from countries that back Security Council action against the Islamic republic.

On North Korea, Japan and other nations urged Pyongyang to honor its commitments under a six-nation deal that ultimately commits it to scrap its nuclear weapons program. ElBaradei plans to go to the communist nation March 13 as part of the agreement, a possible prelude to the return of IAEA monitors after a more than four-year hiatus.


Associated Press writer Palma Benczenleitner contributed to this report.

On the Net:

www.iaea.org

Goodbye Yellowcake Road


© Steve Bell 2007 steve.bell@guardian.co.uk

Libby lied, troops died
March 8 2007, Sidney Blumenthal: 'Scooter' is but a part of a sordid political tragedy.

U.S.: Iraqi insurgent attacks intensifying; US general calls for talks with militants

Related
U.S.: Iraqi insurgent attacks intensifying
---
12.45pm update

US general calls for talks with militants

· Force 'not sufficient' to end Iraq violence
· 2,200 US military police to join crackdown
· 'Surge' should last until 2008, says commander


Mark Tran and agencies
Thursday March 8, 2007
Guardian Unlimited


General David Petraeus gives his first press conference since taking over command of US forces in Iraq
General David Petraeus gives his first press conference since taking over command of US forces in Iraq. Photograph: Chris Hondros/Getty Images


The US commander in Iraq today said military force alone was "not sufficient" to end the violence and political talks must eventually include some militant groups now opposing the US-backed government.

The announcement came as the Pentagon announced the deployment of an extra 2,200 US military police to Iraq to help deal with an anticipated increase in detainees during the latest US-led security crackdown, and the US day-to-day commander in Iraq was reported to have recommended current troop levels are maintained into 2008.

General David Petraeus, a counter-insurgency expert, was picked by Mr Bush in a last attempt to tackle the sectarian violence in Baghdad which is threatening to rip the country apart. US policy in Iraq is at present the deployment of 21,500 more troops to help the Shia-led government of Nuri al-Maliki.

A parallel increase in military police was requested by Gen Petraeus, but at his first news conference in Baghdad since taking charge of American forces last month, he said it was political negotiations with militants that "will determine in the long run the success of this effort".

He said he saw no immediate need for more US combat troops other than those already announced, but a report in the New York Times said his day-to-day commander, Lieutenant-General Raymond Odierno, had made the confidential assessment that heightened troop levels be maintained until February 2008.

Gen Odierno's view reflects the counter-insurgency doctrine favoured by Gen Petraeus of leaving troops in areas they enter rather than withdrawing and letting insurgents return.

Gen Petraeus today said Baghdad had seen encouraging signs of progress despite "sensational attacks", pointing to a fall in sectarian killings and fewer people leaving their homes in recent weeks in the capital.

But nine US soldiers were killed in two separate roadside bombings this week in spite of a security crackdown now in its fourth week.

And the increase in US forces has not prevented a spate of attacks in the past three days on Shia pilgrims making their way to the holy city of Kerbala. At least 150 have been killed, including more than 100 outside the capital. It was "too early to discern significant trends, [but] there have been a few encouraging signs", Gen Petraeus told reporters.

The attacks - mostly blamed on Sunni insurgents - are seen as attempts to provoke a civil war with Shia militia.

Gen Petraeus said it was "critical" for leaders to halt any drift toward sectarian conflict and added that US forces were ready to help provide additional security for the pilgrims if asked by Iraqi authorities.

But he saw no role for the Shia militia known as the Mahdi Army, whose fighters guarded pilgrims in the past two years.

He said "extremist elements" in the militia had been engaged in "true excesses" in the past - a reference to suspected gangs killing Sunnis.