Monday, April 23, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
US-Israel ties bad for peace: Soros
In the current issue of the New York Review of Books, Soros takes issue with "the pervasive influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC]" in Washington and says the Bush administration's close ties with Israel are obstacles to a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.
Soros, who is Jewish but not often engaged in Israeli affairs, echoed arguments that have fuelled debate in academia, foreign policy think tanks and parts of the US Jewish community.
"The pro-Israel lobby has been remarkably successful in suppressing criticism," wrote Soros. Politicians challenge it at their peril and dissenters risk personal vilification, he said.
AIPAC has consistently declined comment on such charges, but many of its supporters have been vocal in dismissing them.
Historian Michael Oren, speaking at AIPAC's 2007 conference in March, said the group was not merely a lobby for Israel. "It is the embodiment of a conviction as old as this (American) nation itself that belief in the Jewish state is tantamount to belief in these United States," he said in a keynote speech.
The long-simmering debate bubbled to the surface a year ago, when two prominent academics, Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, published a 12,500-word essay entitled "The Israel Lobby" and featuring the fiercest criticism of AIPAC since it was founded in 1953.
AIPAC now has more than 100,000 members and is rated one of the most influential special interest groups in the United States, its political clout comparable with such lobbies as the National Rifle Association.
The AIPAC members are all US citizens and the group receives no funding from the Israeli government.
Its annual conference in Washington attracts a Who's Who of American politics, both Republicans and Democrats.
Unwavering support
Mearsheimer and Walt said the lobby had persuaded successive administrations to align themselves too closely with Israel.
"The pro-Israel lobby has been remarkably successful in suppressing criticism"
George Soros, the billionaire investor
"The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but much of the rest of the world," they wrote.
No other lobby group has managed to divert US foreign policy so far from the US national interest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of Israel are essentially identical, they wrote.
The two academics said that pressure from Israel and its lobby in Washington played an important role in President George Bush's decision to attack Iraq, an arch-enemy of Israel, in 2003.
Mearsheimer and Walt found no takers for their essay in the US publishing world. When it was eventually published in the London Review of Books, they noted it would be hard to imagine any mainstream media outlet in the United States publishing such a piece.
It has been drawing criticism that ranged from shoddy scholarship to anti-Semitism, chiefly from conservative fellow academics and political supporters of the present relationship between Washington and Israel.
In his contribution to the debate, Soros said: "A much-needed self-examination of American policy in the Middle East has started in this country; but it can't make much headway as long as AIPAC retains powerful influence in both the Democratic and Republican parties."
That influence is reflected by the fact that Israel is the largest recipient of US aid in the world.
Going mainstream
Mearsheimer and Walt are now working on expanding their article into a book - to be published in September by Farrar, Straus and Giroux. The company has not commented on online reports that it paid the two authors a $750,000 advance and plans to print one million copies.
Another mainstream publisher, Simon and Schuster, already discovered that not only is it possible to publish criticism of Israel but it can also be good for the bottom line.
Former president Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" shot up the bestseller lists after its publication last November; stayed there for more than three months and is still selling well.
It had an initial print run of 300,000 copies and there are now 485,000 copies in print, said Victoria Meyer, a spokeswoman for Simon and Schuster.
Carter's book and its reference to apartheid provoked angry reactions - more in the United States than in Israel, where leftists opposed to the occupation of the West Bank have been accusing the government of apartheid practices for years and where the word has lost its shock value.
In response to charges of bias and anti-Semitism, Carter said he wanted to provoke a discussion of issues debated routinely and freely in Israel but rarely in the United States.
"This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices," he wrote in the Los Angeles Times during a tour to promote his book. "It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine."
According to Oren, the pro-AIPAC historian, the Carter book and the Mearsheimer-Walt paper had the same "insidious thesis" and suffered from the same flaw - ignoring oil as a driving element in US policies on the Middle East.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Israel and US elections
When voters gave Democrats control of Congress in November, it was generally
agreed they were expressing deep disenchantment with the war in Iraq. It was
also generally agreed that they were not eager to start a war with Iran. Salon
reports that "AIPAC showed its true power-and its continuing ability to steer
American Mideast policy in a disastrous direction-when a group of conservative
and pro-Israel Democrats succeeded in removing language from a military
appropriations bill that would have required Bush to get congressional approval
before using military force against Iran."
America's former ambassador to the United Nations boasted to the BBC that he was
"'damned proud of what we did' to prevent an early ceasefire" during Israel's
assault on Lebanon last summer. In an interview for a BBC radio documentary,
"The Summer War in Lebanon," Bolton also described Israel's goal of "defeating
their enemy militarily" as "perfectly legitimate...and good politics."
America's former ambassador to the United Nations boasted to the BBC that he was
"'damned proud of what we did' to prevent an early ceasefire" during Israel's
assault on Lebanon last summer. In an interview for a BBC radio documentary,
"The Summer War in Lebanon," Bolton also described Israel's goal of "defeating
their enemy militarily" as "perfectly legitimate...and good politics."
The Israeli daily Haaretz is weighing in on the 2008 presidential race with an
ongoing feature called "The Israel Factor" which rates the candidates'
Israel-friendliness. The overwhelming winner (and the only candidate who wins
the panel's unanimous praise) is former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Former House
Speaker New Gingrich (R), Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) round out the top five. When asked
what makes a candidate "good for Israel," the answers are revealing: "He can
deal in a realistic way with the conflicts of Middle East; he will not be overly
susceptible to world opinion; he is ready to use force when necessary; he knows
Israel and its problems; he will make sure not to pressure Israel into making
concessions that will leave it with indefensible borders; he will take into
account the interests of Israel as he formulates his Middle East policy; he is
emotionally attached to Israel and the things it represents, and is pro-Zionist;
he is well connected within the American Jewish community."
Saturday, March 24, 2007
US and UK fail to find smoking gun
Saturday March 24, 2007
The Guardian
Lt Col Justin Maciejewski said he could not prove Iranian interference in the southern Iraqi city, where UK troops come under regular mortar and rocket attack. But community leaders had told him Iranian agents were paying Iraqis $500 a month (£254) to carry out attacks.
"All the information we are getting from the locals ... is that the vast majority of the violence against us is inspired from outside of Iraq and the people here very much believe that that is Iran," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "There is nothing I have seen that would disprove what they are telling me."
He said the "modern and quite sophisticated weaponry" could not be old munitions left over from the Iran-Iraq war. Both the US and Britain have accused Iran of supplying armour-piercing explosive devices detonated by infra-red triggers, but they have been unable to prove it.
Iraqi militia chiefs admit that hundreds of their fighters have crossed the poorly-guarded border into Iran for training by the Al-Qods [Jerusalem] Force, a branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard that is believed to have trained guerrillas in Lebanon, Bosnia and Afghanistan. The US Central Command claims there are 150 Iranian agents in Iraq, though this is impossible to confirm. "There are very few Iranian nationals in Iraq, or at least very few carrying Iranian documents," one diplomat said. "But they have so much influence on the ground, they are able to operate effectively at arm's length."
An Iranian opposition movement, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, claims Tehran pays 31,690 Iraqis under Al Qods command. Most are affiliated with the Badr Brigade of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which was based in Iran until the overthrow of Saddam. The Badr Brigade has been accused of operating death squads targeting Sunni Muslims. The NCRI even named the commanders of Iranian units in Iraq and procedures for delivering arms and cash across the border. The Headquarters for the Reconstruction of Iraqi Holy Sitescorrect was a regular channel.
But Iran's involvement in Iraq is not all about mischief-making. Economic ties are close, and cash from Iran pours into the Shia holy cities of Najaf and Kerbala. Iran sent a minister to join the US and Syria in recent talks on security in Baghdad. Indeed, experts argue, Iran has a strong interest in stability. "But they can't resist the temptation to make things difficult for the Brits," said the diplomat.
"I don't doubt that the Iranians do have very great influence in Iraq, but they are not manipulating everything behind the scenes," argued Toby Dodge of Queen Mary College, London. "They can keep the pot boiling, and raise or lower the temperature, but they don't create things. "
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claimed accusations that Tehran is arming insurgents were an attempt to find a scapegoat for US "defeats and failures".
Monday, March 19, 2007
The Americans planned to make him a suicide-bomber
An American sniper on the roof of one the buildings in Ahdamiya neighborhood opened fire on a small bus, the bullet caused the burning of the bus.
The passengers who were traveling with the bus [a family] and the driver, miraculously managed to escape the fire.
from the same source, five dead bodies were found in Aana - Anbar province of persons who were arrested a day before by the US occupation forces.
Iraqirabita tell a story about an Iraq interpreter working in an American military base was sent to the city by his bosses to by computer hardware, he took the car but he stopped by friends.
He got suspicious because the Americans call him every now and then asking him if he already in the market, he parked the car in the middle of nowhere ans answered yes, few minutes after that the car exploded. The guy left the country after that to Turkey.
Islamemo [website is off-line at this moment] reported that another US helicopter downed in Haditha, and an Iraqi official denyed that there is an Arab-nationality prisoners in in Iraq.
Friday, March 16, 2007
US-led troops open fire on Afghan police killing five
---
CP
5 Afghan police killed in clash with U.S.-led troops in southern Afghanistan
Fri Mar 16, 6:09 AM
By Fisnik Abrashi
KABUL (AP) - U.S.-led coalition forces mistakenly killed five Afghan police in a clash in a southern province, the government said Friday.
The police were manning a checkpoint in Gereshk district, Helmand province when the clash broke out Thursday evening, said Interior Ministry spokesman Zemeri Bashary.
"Coalition forces mistakenly opened fire on police," Bashary said. "Unfortunately five policemen were killed."
A high-ranking Afghan delegation was sent to the area to investigate, Bashary said. He could not provide further details of how the friendly fire broke out.
U.S. military officials were not immediately available to comment on the matter.
The clash came as NATO-led forces pressed on with their largest operation yet in Afghanistan, trying to secure a region of Helmand province - a stronghold for resurgent Taliban militants.
Lt. Col. Angela Billings, a spokeswoman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Kabul, said their troops were not involved in the clash.
In all, about 47,000 western forces are currently deployed in Afghanistan. NATO leads 36,000 troops, and the U.S.-led coalition maintains a 11,000-strong force engaged in independent anti-terror activities throughout the country.
Helmand is the centre of the Taliban-led insurgency, and also the hub for the country's world-leading opium and heroin trade that is believed to help fund the Taliban but also profits Afghan officials.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Judge rules Khartoum behind attack on USS Cole
US federal judge blames Sudan for al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole in 2000 that killed 17 seamen.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Another U.S. base in the Indian Ocean?
Tuesday, 13 March 2007
India, from a long-term perspective, has every reason to be concerned about the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement between the U.S. and Sri Lanka. THE TEN-YEAR Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) signed by the United States and Sri Lanka on March 5, which provides for among other things logistics supplies and re-fuelling facilities, has major ramifications for the region, particularly India.
However, New Delhi's silence on the development is a reflection of the changed geo-political environment in the post-Cold War era with the emergence of the U.S. as the sole superpower. The new dynamics in India-U.S. ties could be another reason for South Block's silence.
For all the sophistry and spin by the Americans, the ACSA is a military deal and, on the face of it, is loaded in Washington's favour. For the U.S., it is as good as acquiring a base in the Indian Ocean and at little or no cost. In the immediate context, the ACSA suits the Mahinda Rajapaksa Government as an advertisement of its influence with the superpower in general and in its fight against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in particular.
Just a few years ago, such an agreement would have been inconceivable given the sensitivities of India in view of the geographical proximity of Sri Lanka. For example, the grant of permission by Colombo to Voice of America to establish its transmitter in the island and the leasing of oil tanks in Trincomalee port to pro-American firms were major bones of contention between India and Sri Lanka for decades.
Both the subjects were covered elaborately in the exchange of letters between Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sri Lanka's President J.R. Jayawardene as part of the 1987 Indo-Sri Lanka Accord. The key element in the letters was the agreement that given "the importance of nurturing this traditional friendship, it is imperative that both Sri Lanka and India reaffirm the decision not to allow our respective territories to be used for activities prejudicial to each other's unity, territorial integrity and security."
The provisions of the ACSA cannot be described as being detrimental to New Delhi's interests in the current phase of its relations with Washington.
However, in a possible new context India has every reason to be concerned about the pact. A brief summary of the nature of the agreement will illustrate this.
Sri Lanka is the 90th country to sign an ACSA with the U.S.; Washington had been keen on such an agreement for years. The fact it took so long for Colombo to join the ACSA club is illuminating. The agreement provides a framework for increased inter-operability to transfer and exchange logistics supplies, and support and re-fuelling services during peacekeeping missions, humanitarian operations, and joint exercises.
The U.S. is engaged in these operations in different parts of the globe. Sri Lanka, a nation of 20 million saddled with an ethnic conflict, does not have the capabilities or infrastructure for such ventures even if it desired. The definition of some of the operations under the ASCA could be politically tricky. Iraq and Afghanistan are a case in point. Are the U.S. and its allies engaged in peacekeeping operations or waging a war in Iraq and Afghanistan? The answer will depend on who is posing the question to whom.
The categories of allowable goods and services include food, petroleum, and transportation. Of course, the provision of weapons systems or ammunition is expressly prohibited under the agreement. There are examples galore where food and fuel have been used as weapons. Indeed, there are safeguards in the pact that logistics support allowed under it cannot be transferred beyond the forces of the receiving party without consent of the providing party. And all transactions must be mutually agreed upon before any transfer is made.
However, is a foolproof mechanism possible to ensure compliance in letter and spirit of such accords particularly for smaller countries in dealing with a superpower?
Curiously, the signatory to the document from the Sri Lankan side was Gothabaya Rajapaksa, Defence Secretary and brother of the President. The American side was represented by its envoy in Colombo, Robert Blake. The ACSA comes under the Pentagon's jurisdiction. Though the signing ceremony took place in Colombo, the Sri Lankan Government did not deem it necessary to issue any statement on the subject. The Ministries of Defence, Foreign Affairs, and Information merrily circulated the press release issued by the U.S. Embassy in Colombo on the deal.
B. Muralidhar Reddy - The Hindu
Iraqi leader tells aides U.S. benchmark deadline is June 30 or his ouster possible
---
14.03.2007
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fears the Americans will torpedo his government if parliament does not pass a law to fairly divvy up the country's oil wealth among Iraqis by the end of June, close associates of the leader told The Associated Press on Tuesday.
The legislature has not even taken up the draft measure, which is only one of several U.S. benchmarks that are seen by al-Maliki as key to continued American support, a crucial need for the survival of his troubled administration.
U.S. State Department spokesman Tom Casey denied the administration would withdraw support. "The notion that we have in any way shape or form threatened to bring down his government over this law is simply untrue," he said in Washington.
Aside from the oil law, the associates said, American officials have told the hardline Shiite Muslim prime minister that they want an Iraqi government in place by year's end acceptable to the country's Sunni Arab neighbors, particularly Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.
"They have said it must be secular and inclusive," one al-Maliki associate said.
To that end, al-Maliki made an unannounced visit Tuesday to Ramadi, the Sunni Arab insurgent stronghold, to meet with tribal leaders, the provincial governor and security chiefs in a bid to signal his willingness for reconciliation to end the bitter sectarian war that has riven Iraq for more than a year.
Compounding al-Maliki's fears about a withdrawal of American support were visits to Saudi Arabia by two key political figures in an admitted bid to win support for a major Iraqi political realignment. Saudi Arabia is a major U.S. ally and oil supplier.
Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a Shiite Muslim, flew to the Saudi capital Tuesday, a day after the arrival there of Masoud Barzani, leader of Iraq's largely autonomous Kurdish region. Most Kurds are Sunni Muslims.
"Allawi is there to enlist support for a new political front that rises above sectarian structures now in place," the former prime minister's spokesman, Izzat al-Shahbandar, told the AP.
Barzani spokesman Abdul-Khaleq Zanganah said the two Iraqis met in Kurdistan before the trip for talks on forming a "national front to take over for the political bloc now supporting al-Maliki."
It appears certain the United States was informed about the Allawi and Barzani opening to the Saudis, who are deeply concerned that al-Maliki could become a puppet of Iran, the Shiite theocracy on Iraq's eastern border they view as a threat to the region's stability.
Washington has been reported working more closely with Sunni Arab governments to encourage them to take a greater role in Iraq, particularly in reining in the Sunni insurgency that has killed thousands of U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi Shiites.
The Bush administration is believed to be trying to win support for its operations in Iraq among Arab neighbors by assuring a greater future role for the Sunni minority that ran the country until the U.S. invasion ousted Saddam Hussein four years ago.
One al-Maliki confidant said the Americans had voiced displeasure with the prime minister's government even though he has managed so far to blunt major resistance from the Mahdi Army militia to the joint U.S.-Iraqi security operation in Baghdad. The Shiite militia is loyal to anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose political backing secured the premiership for al-Maliki.
"They have said they are frustrated that he has done nothing to oust the Sadrists, that the oil law has not moved forward, that there is no genuine effort on reconciliation and no movement on new regional elections," said the official, who like the other associates agreed to discuss the situation only if not quoted by name because of the political sensitivities.
Passage of the oil law, which seeks a fair distribution of revenues among all Iraq's sectarian and ethnic groups, has become a major issue for the United States, which had initially counted on financing Iraq's post-invasion reconstruction with oil revenues.
But the decrepit oil infrastructure and violence have left the country producing oil at about the same levels as before the war, at best, and those figures are well below production before the 1991 Gulf War that resulted in U.N. sanctions against the Iraqi oil industry.
The major Sunni bloc in parliament, along with Allawi loyalists in the Shiite bloc, openly oppose the draft measure. Al-Maliki also has lost the backing of the Shiite Fadila Party, and independent Shiite members are split on the bill. Those willing to speak about their opposition voice fears about what they see as too much possible foreign involvement and profit sharing.
The al-Maliki associates said U.S. officials, who they would not name, told the prime minister that U.S. President George W. Bush was committed to the current government but continued White House support depended on positive action on all the benchmarks especially the oil law and sectarian reconciliation by the close of this parliamentary session June 30.
"Al-Maliki is committed to meeting the deadline because he is convinced he would not survive in power without U.S. support," one of the associates said.
Casey, the U.S. spokesman, noted that the oil law is a goal laid out in the Iraqi constitution and repeatedly endorsed by al-Maliki. "However, the terms of that law, the specifics of that law are up to the Iraqis," he said, reports AP.
Standing in the way of forward movement is a recalcitrant Cabinet, which al-Maliki has promised to reshuffle by the end of this week. So far, however, he is at loggerheads with the political groupings in parliament that are threatening to withdraw support for the prime minister if he does not allow the blocs to name replacements for Cabinet positions.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Israel spying in and on the United States
It’s big news in the US that the FBI has overstepped its authority by spying on US citizens illegally. What hasn’t made it to the news - or should I say it did but was pulled after running as a story just once - is that while the FBI and other government agencies are spying on American citizens, a foreign country (and supposed US ally) is spying on the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.
Who is this ally? Well, it is a not secret that the best and biggest ally of U.S. is Israel. They are paid billions of dollars every year and Israel sucks these billions of dollars from U.S. budget to support the Zionist regime and its crimes. However, the irony of the story is that Americans are actually willingly (or should I say forced, if we talk about AIPAC?) paying Israel to betray their country and stab them in the back and use part of that money to spy on Americans.
Here a series of four parts investigation report by FOX news (the one which you trusted always for accurate news), which give us the details of Israel links and fact about their spying on YOU and Israel links to 9/11 and terrorism ties. Of course this is disappearing story that’s too hot to handle. Imagine that Israelis were caught but later shipped to Israel as “art students”. Not only that, believe it or not, they have records of all your phone calls. In fact, they have records about you which your government does not have. [Hat tip: Robin]
Enjoy the show:
Israeli 911 terrorism ties FOX news report now CLASSIFIED 1:
They may have known things they didn’t tell U.S. before September 11th. Continuation of more CLASSIFIED information on Israeli spying, ‘classified’ links to 911 and more.
It's Israel that incites hate
March 11, 2007 12:36 am
BETHLEHEM, Palestine--I am surprised that you find so terrible some of the quotes you record ["A steady diet of hate for kids in Palestine," Feb. 11] from Palestinian textbooks, such as "Palestine will be liberated by its men, its women, its young ones and its elderly." Surely something of this sort was said by Americans fighting for their independence during the Revolutionary War. Their desire to sacrifice for freedom echoes some of our first generals: "[A]ppealing to Heaven for the justice of our cause, we determine to die or be free" (Joseph Warren, American account of the Battle of Lexington, 1775).
I spent three months in Palestine and Israel. I have been a witness to injustice that rarely makes it to mainstream news in the U.S.
I have spent time with families whose houses have been demolished; families who are left with no means of income after their fields have been destroyed; men who have been tortured in prison and who are nevertheless seeking a nonviolent way to resist; children who have been shot while playing; children who have been beaten by soldiers; and children whose siblings are in jail simply for being members of a political party.
The lives of Palestinians are devalued at the expense of Israelis. Palestinian children have little or no access to play areas, because of Israeli building restrictions and continued confiscation of land. While settlements atop hills in Palestine use water for swimming pools, gardens, and open spaces, Palestinians must pay four times as much to Israel for water.
Sewage from these settlements often runs directly onto Palestinian farmland.
Palestinian children in refugee camps face raids, where soldiers come in the middle of the night, break into their houses, and sometimes make an arrest or simply break things and leave.
You state that Palestinians do not learn about the Holocaust. Well, Israelis are not taught in school about the history of their country beyond the Jewish perspective. It is not taught, for example, that in the 1948 war more than 400 Palestinian towns were destroyed, and thousands of Palestinians were expelled or killed.
I have found that Israeli soldiers know little about why they receive orders, and Israeli civilians are ignorant of what happens in the West Bank. Please consider the following typical examples:
The first week I was here, I met a Palestinian family whose 11-year-old son was shot from a watchtower while playing on his porch.
I told an Israeli girl in her 20s about it. Her reply: "That couldn't have happened. It would have been on the news."
Two weeks ago we received a phone call from a family whose sons, 17 and 18 years old, had been beaten and arrested by the Israeli Defense Force in the village of Budrus.
I called the spokesperson for the IDF. I did not get in direct contact with the general. Instead I talked to an office worker. His response: "This doesn't have to do with us. We just talk to the media. But soldiers do not hurt innocent people. I am really sorry."
Last week I asked an Israeli soldier if he knew where the Green Line (the internationally recognized border that gives Palestine 22 percent of its original territory) is--since bulldozers, 12 kilometers away from this border, removed 700-year-old olive trees, the livelihood of 200 people.
His answer: "I don't know where the border is. I am just following orders."
There are actually many schools in Palestine that teach about Israelis and Palestinians living peacefully together. The Hope Flowers School near Bethlehem works to bring Palestinian and Jewish Israelis together to teach about reconciliation.
This school faces a court order--from Israel--that its cafeteria be demolished to make room for a security road. In addition, the school's water well will be taken. This school is even denied the right to repair the road that leads to the school.
Palestinians do not need to learn hate from textbooks. They can learn it when they see what happens to their friends and families, their schools, and their land. They learn it by having dignity and rights taken away.
The Web site Palestinian Media Watch teaches Americans to hate. It turns the parents and teachers of Palestine into caricatures of terrorists whom we can easily blame.
Every parent and teacher I have met here is struggling to meet basic needs--and at the same time is teaching children that education is the key to freedom. But you cannot tie a cat down and ask it to make peace.
It would be much more useful if the Web site were devoted to America's role in unilaterally supporting Israel and how we can reach a solution that is just.
It would also be helpful if Americans came to visit Palestine, to see for themselves.
Caroline Borden, from Catlett, works in Bethlehem, Palestine.
Copyright 2007 The Free Lance-Star Publishing Company.
The Baghdad Talks
Sunday, March 11, 2007
On to Istanbul
The group agreed on the idea of creating three working groups, one to deal with security, the other to deal with the refugee problem, and a third to deal with natural resources. The Iraqi foreign minister Zebari, who vouchsafed this information, was unable or unwilling to say who would be on the committees, when they would meet, what their agendas would be, and so on.
There will be a followup meeting of the neibhbors, this time with the G-8 apparently, and the consensus seems to be that Istanbul was the lucky applicant for this, beating out Baghdad, Cairo, and Berlin. Khalilzad noted in his press-remarks that if it is held in Istanbul, then Rice will attend, and apparently this was taken as the decisive thumbs-up. The Istanbul meeting will be in April, apparently.
Interestingly, among the Iraqi-party statements in connection with yesterday's meeting, it was left to the Fadhila party to point out the meaninglessness of the mantra about "only talking about Iraq". There is also the little matter of the role of the United States of America and Britain, Fadhila said in its statement, considering that they have played quite an important role in changing the political equilibrium of Iraq since 2003 (Al -Mada, Sunday, p3).
But on the whole, the distilled reporting ended up creating a picture of teenage dating behaviour. They (US on one side and Iran and Syria on the other) succeeded in "breaking the ice", although Khalilzad noted he and the Iranians were never alone out of earshot of the others. And they agreed to meet again. Al-Hayat noted that it was only the sound of mortar fire outside that reminded the participants that there are other groups that need to be consulted in this.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
U.S. government to grovel to Israel Lobby
"In addition to the four top Democrat and Republican Congressional leaders -- House Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH), the Vice President, and Israeli Foreign Minister Livni, other conference speakers include: House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (via satellite), Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz, Israeli Opposition Leader and Likud Party Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Sallai Meridor, Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman, and many others of note."
---
AIPAC Policy Conference: March 11-13, 2007
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee will hold its annual Policy Conference, March 11-13, at the Washington, D.C. Convention Center. Headlining this year's conference will be all four leaders of Congress -- Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH). Set to be AIPAC's largest Policy conference ever, the conference will bring together more than 6,000 AIPAC delegates from across the nation. Portions of the conference are open to members of the press with federal press credentials who pre-register to attend.
The private war of women soldiers: Rape big problem
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 GarcÃa, 24, who, like Naylor, served with the Combat Military Police in Baghdad from 2003-04. GarcÃa 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 GarcÃa 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:
U.S.: Iraqi insurgent attacks intensifying; US general calls for talks with militants
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. Photograph: Chris Hondros/Getty Images
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.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Lawyergate: Michael Battle the executive director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys resigns
Senator complained about fired attorney
By JENNIFER TALHELM, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago
The Justice Department said Monday that Republican Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record) called Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his deputy four times to complain about a U.S. attorney who claims he was fired for not rushing a corruption probe.
Meanwhile, a watchdog group called on a Senate committee to investigate whether Domenici, of New Mexico, violated congressional ethics rules. And a House subcommittee said it was issuing new subpoenas compelling two other fired U.S. attorneys — Daniel Bogden of Nevada and Paul Charlton of Arizona — to testify.
"Even months after the firings, we still haven't gotten straight answers from the Department of Justice, which changed its own story this weekend and admitted the firings weren't based on job performance," said Rep. Linda Sanchez (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., who chairs the subcommittee.
New details emerged Monday as lawmakers prepared to grill federal prosecutors and Justice Department officials in two sets of hearings Tuesday examining whether the Bush administration's ouster of at least eight U.S. attorneys was politically motivated.
Domenici acknowledged Sunday that he contacted his state's prosecutor, U.S. attorney David Iglesias, in October 2006 to ask about his investigation into an alleged Democratic kickback scheme. But Domenici insists he never pressured or threatened Iglesias, though he said he had long sought Iglesias' ouster.
On Monday, Justice officials confirmed portions of that account, saying Domenici had called Gonzales on three occasions — September 2005, as well as in January and April 2006 — to question whether Iglesias was "up to the job."
In the first week of October 2006, Domenici then made another "similar and very brief call" to deputy attorney general Paul McNulty about the U.S. attorney's performance, said Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse.
"During those calls, Senator Domenici — who initially recommended David Iglesias for the position — expressed general concerns about the performance of U.S. Attorney Iglesias and questioned whether he was 'up to the job,'" Roehrkasse said. "At no time in these calls did the senator mention the public corruption case."
Regarding Iglesias' performance, Roehrkasse said, "The department had a five-and-a-half year record in which to evaluate Mr. Iglesias and made decisions on his overall performance as a manager."
The department also said that Michael Battle — a senior Justice official who directed the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys and who had personally informed the ousted U.S. attorneys of their removal — would leave his post March 16.
Battle, who has held his post since June 2005, notified U.S. attorneys of his decision in January and had informed the department last summer that he wished to pursue opportunities in the private sector, the department said. Battle was not involved in the actual decision-making that led to the prosecutors' ouster, the department said.
"His departure is not connected to the U.S. attorney controversy whatsoever," Roehrkasse said.
But Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., a member of the Judiciary Committee, which is holding one of the hearings, said the timing of Battle's resignation raises questions as to whether he is "another casualty of the U.S. attorney's imbroglio."
Iglesias, a Republican, has insisted that he received strong performance reviews. He says he is certain that the call for his ouster was neither performance-related nor the result of any misconduct.
Domenici acknowledged Sunday that he called Iglesias to ask about the criminal investigation. He said he had been frustrated with Iglesias' work and had recommended months before calling him in October that the Justice Department replace him. Domenici said Iglesias' office seemed unable to move more quickly on immigration and other high-profile cases, even as Domenici worked to get them more resources.
The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said it was concerned that Domenici had improperly sought political advantage by seeking to speed the investigation before the congressional elections.
"If, as it appears, Sen. Domenici pressured a sitting U.S. attorney to push a criminal case to benefit a political party, the ethics committee should take swift and harsh action," said Melanie Sloan, the group's executive director. "No member of Congress can be permitted to manipulate our system of justice for political gain."
Ethics experts said Domenici's conduct may have violated Senate rules, which generally bar communications between members of Congress and federal prosecutors about ongoing criminal investigations.
In his statement Sunday, Domenici said he had a brief conversation with Iglesias last year and asked "if he could tell me what was going on in that investigation and give me an idea of what time frame we were looking at."
"In retrospect, I regret making that call and I apologize," Domenici said. "However, at no time in that conversation or any other conversation with Mr. Iglesias did I ever tell him what course of action I thought he should take on any legal matter. I have never pressured him nor threatened him in any way."
Iglesias, who serves in the Navy Reserve and partially inspired the Tom Cruise character in the 1992 movie "A Few Good Men," said last week that he was shocked to receive two separate phone calls in mid-October from lawmakers who asked about details of the investigation and seemed eager to see an indictment before the 2006 election.
___
Associated Press writers Hope Yen and Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.
AP Journalists Claim US Soldiers Deleted Images After Killings
Afghan media: U.S. troops deleted images
By AMIR SHAH
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
KABUL, Afghanistan -- Afghan journalists covering the aftermath of a suicide bomb attack and shooting in eastern Afghanistan Sunday said U.S. troops deleted their photos and video and warned them not to publish or air any images of U.S. troops or a car where three Afghans were shot to death.
Afghan witnesses and gunshot victims said U.S. forces fired on civilians in cars and on foot along at least a six-mile stretch of road in Nangarhar province following a suicide attack against the Marine convoy. The U.S. military said militants also fired on American forces during the attack.
The U.S. military and Afghan officials said eight Afghans died and 34 were wounded in the violence. One Marine was also injured.
A freelance photographer working for The Associated Press and a cameraman working for AP Television News said a U.S. soldier deleted their photos and video showing a four-wheel drive vehicle in which three people were shot to death about 100 yards from the suicide bombing. The AP plans to lodge a protest with the American military.
The photographer, Rahmat Gul, said witnesses at the scene told him the three had been shot to death by U.S. forces fleeing the attack. The two AP freelancers arrived at the site about a half hour after the suicide bombing, Gul said.
"When I went near the four-wheel drive, I saw the Americans taking pictures of the same car, so I started taking pictures," Gul said. "Two soldiers with a translator came and said, 'Why are you taking pictures? You don't have permission.'"
It wasn't clear why the accredited journalists would need permission to take photos of a civilian car on a public highway.
Gul said the U.S. troops took his camera, deleted his photos and returned it to him. The journalists came across another American, showed their identification cards, and he agreed that they could take pictures.
advertising
A Western military official who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to release the information said the troops were Marine Special Operations Forces, the Marine Corps component created in February 2006 of the U.S. Special Operations Command.
"The same soldier who took my camera came again and deleted my photos," Gul said. "The soldier was very angry ... I told him, 'They gave us permission,' but he didn't listen."
Gul's new photos were also deleted, and the American, speaking through a translator, warned him that he did not want to see any AP photos published anywhere. The American also raised his fist in anger as if he were going to hit him, but he did not strike, Gul said.
Lt. Col. David Accetta, a U.S. military spokesman, said he did not have any confirmed reports that coalition forces "have been involved in confiscating cameras or deleting images."
Khanwali Kamran, a reporter for the Afghan channel Ariana Television, was in a small group of journalists working alongside Gul. Kamran said the American soldiers also deleted his footage.
"They warned me that if it is aired ... then, 'You will face problems,'" Kamran said.
Taqiullah Taqi, a reporter for Afghanistan's largest television station, Tolo TV, said Americans were using abusive language.
"According to the translator, they said, 'Delete them, or we will delete you,'" Taqi said.
A freelance cameraman for AP Television News said that about 100 yards from the bomb site, a U.S. officer told him that he could not go any closer to the scene but that he could shoot footage. The cameraman asked not to be named for his own safety.
"Then I started filming the suicide attack site, where there was a body and U.S. soldiers, and farther away, there was a four-wheel drive vehicle in which three people were shot to death," he said.
As he was filming, he said, a U.S. soldier and translator "ordered us not to move." The cameraman said they were very angry and deleted any footage that included the Americans, as well as part of an interview from a demonstration. Hundreds of Afghans had gathered to protest the violence.
Reporters Without Borders condemned the actions of the U.S. forces, saying they dealt with the press poorly.
"Why did the soldiers do it if they don't have anything to hide? The situation is very tense in Afghanistan, and the media should be able to report about it freely and safely," said Jean-Francois Julliard, a spokesman for the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders.
Afghan, US forces attack Pakistan Army
By Mushtaq Yusufzai
PESHAWAR: The Afghan Army and US forces based in Afghanistan attacked a joint post of the Pakistan Army and paramilitary Frontier Corps at Lowara Mandi in North Waziristan agency on the Pak-Afghan border while US gunship helicopters were noticed violating Pakistan’s airspace during the past two days.
The US troops also took away a local shepherd to their base on Sunday when they entered the Pakistani territory. However, Pakistani officials denied the attack and termed it beyond truth. Official as well as tribal sources informed The News from Miramshah, headquarters of North Waziristan Agency, that it was second attack by the Afghan and coalition forces on Pakistani security post during the past one week.
They said the post, which is known as Kunar post, was attacked with 12.7 machineguns Saturday night. However, no loss of life or damage to property was reported in the attack. According to sources, Pakistani forces did not retaliate and it was possible the target were fighters either crossing into Afghanistan’s Paktika province or North Waziristan at night.
Eyewitness told this scribe on phone that Afghan and US military personnel held a local tribal shepherd, Sher Ali son of Gul Khan and took him to a US base on the other side of the border in Paktika.
“There were 16 US troops and several Afghan army soldiers who came in four vehicles and put Sher Ali in their vehicle and took him to Afghanistan,” explained a local tribesman. He said since there was no border line between the two neighbouring countries, it was possible that the tribal shepherd mistakenly crossed into Afghanistan and was thus caught by the troops.
Local tribal people have been noticing US gunship helicopters flying several kilometres inside Pakistani territory for the last several days. Meanwhile, the Afghan and US forces Sunday set up a new security post near Khost province on Ghulam Khan border and installed heavy weapons there.
Pakistani officials told The News they were demanding similar posts from Afghan and US officials on the border to check cross-border movement of terrorists, as it was difficult for Pakistan to check the long porous border between the two countries alone.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
American Mamlukes
By M. Shahid Alam
It is a fact little known in the West, outside the circle of historians of Islamicate societies, that Islamicate states often employed soldiers and bureaucrats who were ‘slaves’ of the king or emperor.
Commonly, these ‘slaves’ were recruited as young boys: they were levied from the ranks of the ruler’s Christian subjects or bought as ’slaves’ from areas outside the Islamicate world. These ‘slaves’ were converted to Islam, tested, sorted by aptitude, and given an education that prepared them for employment in the service of the sovereign. The smartest ‘slaves’ could became generals or rise to the highest ranks in the civilian bureaucracy.
‘Slaves’ we call these members of the emperor’s household because they were the property of the emperor: in Arabic, mamlukes. But how appropriate is this description? Aside from the manner in which they were recruited, however, these mamlukes had little in common with the slaves who worked the plantations in the Americas. More appropriately, they were life-time employees in the service of the emperor. Ernest Gellner has drawn attention to the parallels between these ‘slaves’ and today’s wage workers.
These ‘slave’ soldiers were first employed by the Abbasids, but with time their use spread to other states. In Egypt, these ‘slaves’ captured power in 1250, but continued their reliance on other mamlukes. This institution was put to its best use by the Ottomans, the longest enduring empire in Islamic history.
How did the institution of mamlukes come to form the mainstay of several states in Islamic history?
Our explanation will strike most Westerners as improbable. The Islamicate rulers had hit upon the idea of employing ‘slaves’ as a solution to the difficulties of governance in egalitarian societies. This egalitarianism was the gift of ecology. The Bedouin who lived off the deserts of the Middle East could not be tied to a master or a piece of land; his camels and the vast deserts did not allow this. Over time, through migrations and conquests, the Bedouins imprinted their egalitarian ethos on the settled societies of the Middle East.
Once the Bedouins - and, later, horse nomads - created their own states or empires in the Middle East and Europe, the ruling dynasty found it difficult to retain the loyalty of the tribesmen in their army and administration. Challenges to the ruling dynasty were all too frequent since there were few barriers of hierarchy to restrain the ambitious members of their own or related tribes. Raised in an egalitarian ethos, ambitious and gifted tribesmen were easily persuaded that they had an equal right to kingship.
In time, some rulers learned to circumvent these challenges by replacing their tribesmen - their equals - with ‘slaves’ trained for service in the army and bureaucracy. The slaves were hired when they were young; they were recruited from alien populations to ensure their status as outsiders, without a local constituency; they were trained in loyalty to the emperor; and the most talented ‘slaves’ had unlimited opportunities for advancement. In short, the mamluke system ensured that the slaves had few resources or incentives to challenge their master. The state had solved its loyalty problem: it had manufactured a class of loyal, life-time ‘slave’ employees.
Is the mamluke system specific to the ecology of arid and semi-arid lands and the nomadic life they support? The evidence indicates that this system was a solution primarily to the problems of disloyalty that had their roots in an egalitarian ethos: its connections to the sources of this ethos in nomadic life are more tenuous. Arguably, then, whenever rulers confront an egalitarian society, giving rise to frequent challenges to their power from below, they will seek to circumvent these challenges by creating institutions that serve the same functions as the mamluke system.
Can we discern any parallels to this mamluke system in the modern Western societies as they moved from the hierarchy of feudalism to more open, egalitarian societies created by the growing dominance of capitalist institutions? In the decentralized polities of feudal Europe, with power vested in the hands of thousands of large landowners, the primary problems of governance were keeping down the serfs and checking the ambition of rival landowners. However, as feudal Europe moved towards the formation of stronger states - facilitated by the greater use of gunpowder - and they needed larger standing armies, it became too risky to hire serfs to do the fighting. Serfs with training in guns could raise rebellions. They preferred to rely upon foreign mercenaries: they were more dependable because they were outsiders, and when disbanded they would return to their homes beyond the territory of the king.
Citizen armies appeared in Europe’s emerging nation states when techniques of the military drill were slowly perfected during the seventeenth century. The drill helped to mould the serfs into malleable tools, disciplined, obedient, and trained in loyalty to the king and the nation. Over time, as nationalist indoctrination was joined to the drill, the risks of rebellions from citizen armies diminished. They became the norm over much of Europe. Modern Europe acquired its ‘slave’ armies with help from the drill and nationalist ideologies.
When industrial capitalism produced democratizing forces in society, a variety of mechanisms came into play to minimize the risk of challenges from below as the vote was extended downwards. On the one hand, the ‘drill’ was refined and expanded: to its existing tools were added schooling, wage work and rising consumption. Schooling indoctrinated the electorate in the ‘benefits’ of citizenship. Wage work added threats of joblessness and privation. Addiction to consumerism blocked out the anger over inequities. It also kept the consumer toiling as hard or harder than before to pay for new consumer goods.
Neutralizing the newly empowered citizens was not enough: the representatives they voted into government would have to be neutered. It is far easier to cover election expenses by taking money from those with deep pockets – the corporations and lobbies – than raising money from the voters. As election expenses rose, the discipline that corporations and lobbies exercised over the elected representatives deepened; they began to pick and put them into office.
Unlike the mamlukes, the senators and representatives in the US Congress are not captured as slaves from neighboring countries. In practice, however, their interests are so closely tied to those of their ‘owners’ - the corporations and lobbies - that they retain precious little interest in the concerns of the people who vote them into office. Indeed, when we examine the loyalty with which they render their services to their true ‘owners,’ the dead Ottoman emperors might well envy the system of representation that produces these American mamlukes.
Thus, two egalitarian systems - the Islamicate and American - had produced similar responses to the challenge of power from below: they instituted two close variants of the mamluke system.
M. Shahid Alam is professor of economics at Northeastern University. He is author of Challenging the New Orientalism (IPI: 2007). Visit his website at: http://aslama.org.
© M. Shahid Alam.