0
   

THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 08:44 pm
Quote:
Iraq delays hand Cheney firm $1bn

· Key contract decisions postponed again
· Blair drawn into row over lack of 'level playing fields'

Oliver Morgan, industrial editor
Sunday December 7, 2003
The Observer

Halliburton, the engineering group formerly run by US vice-president Dick Cheney, has been given $1 billion worth of reconstruction work in Iraq by the US government without having to compete for it, thanks to repeated delays in opening up a key contract to competition.
The Houston-based company was controversially awarded a contract to repair Iraq's damaged oil infrastructure without competition in February.

The cost-plus contract means the amount spent by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), which is running the work, is open-ended, rather than being fixed at the outset, because the scope of the damage was unknown. The USACE described the contract as a 'bridge to competition', but original plans to award the work competitively in August have repeatedly slipped. So far, $1.7bn has been made available to Halliburton for the work.

Figures obtained from the USACE by Democrat Congressman Henry Waxman indicate that on 21 August, around the time the contract should have been opened to competition, the amount made available to KBR, the Halliburton subsidiary involved, was $704m. Since then the total has risen by $1.011bn.

Waxman said: 'Since August, when the follow-on contracts were supposed to be awarded, the administration has obligated more than $1bn to Halliburton under the oil infrastructure contract. These inexplicable delays may be good for Halliburton; they are costing taxpayers a bundle.'

The figures have emerged as the UK Government and contractors reacted with dismay to news this week that competitive tendering had again been pushed back to between 15 December and 17 January. Previously it was delayed to mid-October, late October, then year-end.

One leading UK contractor, which made strong representations in Whitehall this week, said: 'We are very disappointed that it has been put back again,' adding that the longer the delay, the more KBR benefited.

Brian Wilson, the Prime Minister's special representa tive on reconstruction, wrote to Blair in advance of President Bush's recent visit, urging him to press for a level playing field in Iraq.

Wilson said: 'These are very important contracts for the future of the Iraqi oil industry.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1101341,00.html
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 08:44 pm
Voice of America just picked it up, running a mention of the Telegraph article as an add-in update to a previously posted Rumsfeldt Visit story.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 08:51 pm
Forgive me for doubting the veracity of the story. Not because of its source, but because of its timing.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 08:56 pm
Believe me, hbob, I've become quite accustomed to being sceptical of such stories.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 08:57 pm
Well, I hope you scepticism extends to both sides of the spectrum.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 09:06 pm
An Adelaide Sunday Mail Article now provides "Official No Comment"

Quote:
Prime Minister Tony Blair's office declined comment on the newspaper report, which featured in early editions published late Saturday.

"We're not prepared to comment but we urge all those involved to provide the Iraq Survey Group with whatever information they believe they have," a spokeswoman for Mr Blair's office said late Saturday. The ISG is the coalition body searching for Saddam's alleged chemical or biological weapons.

No one was available at the Foreign Office to comment on aspects of the newspaper report regarding the MI6 foreign intelligence agency, which supplied information on Iraqi weapons before the war.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 09:11 pm
And just so's we all know...

the Telegraph UK is owned by Conrad Black's Hollinger Corp and sitting on the board is one Richard Perle. Just so's we know.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 09:24 pm
Returning to that thing about Bush visiting funerals or services for American soldiers who died in his war ... and the claim that he has avoided doing so in a way that starkly contrasts with how previous presidents dealt with it ...

Back when we had that debate raging about it on the previous thread, I noted,

nimh wrote:
The only way to validate the assertion that Bush is so uptight about media control that he refuses to personally pay honor to those who died on his orders would be to dig further, see if we can find more recent examples. The only way to validate that this proves something would be then to compare with LBJ's times - did LBJ visit the families of those who fell? Did he enforce a stringent no-photographs-with-coffins policy? I must admit I'm not going to seek all that out ...

Well, Sofia c.s. will be happy to hear that somebody did, and it looks like they were more right than Blatham, Tartarin and I were.

History News Network: Have Presidents in the Past Attended the Funerals of Dead Soldiers?

History News Network wrote:
Recently, President Bush has been criticized for failing to attend the funerals of the soldiers killed in Iraq. Maureen Dowd noted sarcastically in a recent NYT column that the president had not even bothered to attend the funeral of Specialist Darryl Dent, a "21-year-old National Guard officer from Washington who died outside Baghdad in late August when a bomb struck his truck while he was delivering mail to troops," though the service took place at a church just "three miles from the White House."

Have presidents in the past attended the funerals of soldiers who died in combat? Have they taken note of the deaths of U.S. soldiers? The record is mixed, as can be seen below. It would appear that few presidents have ever actually attended military funerals, though many used the bully pulpit to draw attention to lives lost in the service of their country.

The article goes on to report on each past president. For example:

History News Network wrote:
LBJ attended two funerals for soldiers who died during the Vietnam War. [..]

Richard Nixon does not appear to have attended the funerals of any soldiers killed in Vietnam. He did award posthumous medals of honor to the families of several soldiers [and] on Veterans day in 1971 he visited the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington Cemetery. [..]

Jimmy Carter attended a memorial service for the soldiers killed in the failed rescue of America hostages in Iran in 1980. [..]

Ronald Reagan attended memorial services on several occasions for American soldiers. [..]

President George Herbert Walker Bush does not appear to have attended any funerals for American soldiers. [..]
Bill Clinton attended a service in October 2000 in memory of the 17 sailors killed in the attack on the USS Cole. After the terrorist bombing the Murrah building in downtown Oklahoma City he publicly grieved with the families of the victims. [..]

In short - as TNR summarises it:

TNR wrote:
They find no evidence that FDR attended military funerals [..] Lyndon Johnson attended two funerals out of tens of thousands under his watch in Vietnam. Richard Nixon attended none. [..] The first president Bush attended no military funerals. Neither did president Clinton.

That's a clear enough context on individual funerals. Now, of course Carter and Reagan and Clinton did attend memorial services to pay respect to those who were killed collectively. But then, so did GWB, as the links Fishin' ("Bush recalled a meeting at Fort Stewart, Georgia, a month ago with relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq") and Sofia ("At a military base hard hit by combat deaths, President Bush shed tears Thursday with relatives of Marines killed in Iraq") provided showed.

Now, after they provided those links I already conceded that "We were wrong on the specifics. Bush does not, apparently, shirk away from facing the relatives of people who [served and sacrificed]", but added that it needn't "undermine [our] whole argument".

After all, I pointed out for example, "the Bush administration did suddenly [..] start to implement a protocol that prescribes that there will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel", and "Bush Jr. is the first to break with this tradition [of "memorable ceremonies" to pay respect for the troops] by implementing a protocol that may have been devised in Clinton's last months but wasn't apparently actually acted on before - and did so out of, it would seem, PR motives".

But first, the History News Network points out that actually, "during the first Iraq war a similar ban was in effect."

And second, a conservative blogger reminds us that, aside from the assumed malevolence of the Bush administration, there was actually a very practical reason why the policy has only been enforced since recently:

Quote:
the original Dover policy actually dates back to 1991. The only thing that's changed is that, a civil suit against the restrictions at Dover having been won by the government, it is now being enforced. It would have been enforced [before], else there's no reason to have instituted the policy at all, but for the suit.

As for that "tradition of memorable ceremonies" that Bush allegedly suspended so brusquely, if I look at that list of the HNN I'm really not so sure anymore about there having been any significant change here at all, really.

Even combined with the evidence of the WaPo article Tartarin originally posted, it doesnt look like LBJ or Clinton spent proportionally more attention to grieving with the families or attending ceremonies. For LBJ, we know of two funerals he went to; for Clinton, we know of four public ceremonies (not funerals). The links Sofia + Fishin' gave put Bush at at least two ceremonies. So ...?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 09:33 pm
Good of you to flesh out that "Bodyguard Story", ninh. Laughing

blatham, I know who owns The Telegraph ... I also know that Rupert The Fox owns The Adelaide Sunday Mail, which causes me to wonder why the story hasn't been picked up here by FOX NEWS. Like I said, it could be another "Bodyguard Story". I dunno. The timing is a bit suspect, and there have been similar go-nowheres and totally-debunkeds, as both of us well know.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 09:37 pm
AP's live ticker just crawled this by: Britain's Sunday Telegraph newspaper reports that an Iraqi officer has identified himself as the source of a claim by the British government that Saddam Hussein could have used weapons of mass destruction in less than 45-minutes from the time such a decision was made.

So far, none of the other services seem to have hit on it, but it may be developing. I still dunno.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 09:55 pm
Damn! I gotta go play towtruck driver, so whatever develops over the next couple hours or so is gonna develop without me.

BBC has just put a mention of the Telegraph Article up on their website, and NBC just had a "Breaking News" mention of it. Its growing.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 11:11 pm
Infrablue wrote:
What were the reasons fabricated by bin Laden, Perception?


I admit I had to do a little reseach and I'm not completely satisfied but I want to post what I've got so the trail doesn't evaporate.




The following link contains the text of bin Laden's declaration of war on the US in 1996 from the mountains of Afghanistan. It is a very long and windy diatribe first against the Regime in Saudia Arabia (The House of Saud) and then against the Zionist/ American(crusader) pact which allegedly wants to steal the wealth of the Muslims who inhabit the Arabian penninsula. Last it is an exhortation for the Muslim youth to fight and repel the invaders He uses the promise of martyrdom in paradise in a very persuasive appeal to the young Muslim men to convince them that there is no greater reward than to fight against the crusaders to the last man.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

You will notice the timing of this declarartion------during the middle of the Clinton administration. Bin Laden is emboldened IMO by Clinton's inept handling of Terrorist activities and of our humiliating retreat from Somalia.

Bin Laden starts out with a long winded justification for his forthcoming attack on "The Regime", which is the House of Saud. It seems they are corrupt---imagine that. They have spent billions on military hardware and training but they can't protect the citizens----they must invite the Americans to help protect their asses from Saddam. Seems also that the King promised that the Americans would be gone in a matter of months but now---seven years later-----they are still bespoiling the beautiful landscape.

The first fabrication:
We have just saved them from an invasion by Saddam but because of our duplicity and greed this was an PRE-PLANNED occupation. Saddam has just pulled a surprise attack on Kuwait but this is a preplanned occupation when we must spend billionsof $ moving 500,000 men in to save their stupid asses.

The second fabrication:

The US cut off the water supplies to the Iraqis resulting in the death of 100,000 muslim children. The truth----Saddam drained the marshes in the south of Iraq to punish the Shiites who rose up against him taking away the livelihood of millions of Shiites. Those he couldn't starve to death he shot and buried in mass graves they are still finding.

The third fabrication:

Bin Laden not only wants us out of the land of Mecca but he wants the zionists out of the land of two holy places (Palestine) and he will resort to any sort of lie to justify it;

bin Laden wrote:
My Muslim Brothers (particularly those of the Arab Peninsula): The money you pay to buy American goods will be transformed into bullets and used against our brothers in Palestine and tomorrow (future) against our sons in the land of the two Holy places. By buying these goods we are strengthening their economy while our dispossession and poverty increases.

Muslims Brothers of land of the two Holy Places:


The biggest fabrication of all -----to Muslim youth:

bin Laden wrote:
He (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) also said: "the best of the martyrs are those who do NOT turn their faces away from the battle till they are killed. They are in the high level of Jannah (paradise). Their Lord laughs to them ( in pleasure) and when your Lord laughs to a slave of His, He will not hold him to an account". narrated by Ahmad with correct and trustworthy reference. And : "a martyr will not feel the pain of death except like how you feel when you are pinched". Saheeh Al-Jame' As-Sagheer. He also said: "a martyr privileges are guaranteed by Allah; forgiveness with the first gush of his blood, he will be shown his seat in paradise, he will be decorated with the jewels of belief (Imaan), married off to the beautiful ones, protected from the test in the grave, assured security in the day of judgement, crowned with the crown of dignity, a ruby of which is better than this whole world (Duniah) and its' entire content, wedded to seventy two of the pure Houries (beautiful ones of Paradise) and his intercession on the behalf of seventy of his relatives will be accepted". Narrated by Ahmad and At-Tirmithi (with the correct and trustworthy reference).

Those youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting some one else not from the people of the book.


I'm off to bed
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 11:13 pm
War is good or some.
At U.S. Meeting, Iraq Appears Open for Business
By Michael Janofsky
The New York Times

Thursday 04 December 2003

ARLINGTON, VA - The room had the feel of a souk, a constant buzz, chatter in lots of languages, display tables showing off wares.

In fact, it was a marketplace of sorts, just off the lobby of a Sheraton hotel here, but one with a specific purpose: more than 400 people from 30 countries had gathered Wednesday and Thursday for a conference focusing on how to rebuild Iraq and get a piece of the $18.3 billion Congress has authorized for the effort.

There were bankers, architects, lawyers, engineers, real estate developers, insurance agents, construction specialists, transportation experts, communication company owners, investment counselors and more than 40 Iraqi officials working with the Coalition Provisional Authority, who were eager to meet as many suitors as possible.

If the participants conveyed a common message it was this: despite suicide bombers, snipers and attacks from Saddam Hussein loyalists, Iraq is open for business.

There were sobering reminders of the daily dangers that confront both military personnel and civilians, including one company selling vehicle armor protection and another selling walls so strong that they could withstand .50-caliber bullets. "We're working on one now that will be able to sustain a shoulder-fired rocket attack," said Prentice Perry, vice president of the wall company, Therma Steel. The company motto, he said, is, "We stand behind our walls."

But for the most part, the networking was upbeat, as business and government leaders sought each other out as potential partners in the enormous task of reconstructing the country.

"Our purpose is to help United States companies connect with Middle Eastern countries and with individual Iraqis with lots of emphasis on the alliances already on the ground," said Samir Farajallah, president of New Fields, the United Arab Emirates company that organized this meeting and another one last month. "You hear a lot of negative stories out of Iraq, but the truth of the matter is, there are a lot of very successful stories."

As the ranking Iraqi participating in the conference, Sami al-Maajoun, the minister of labor and social affairs, said he was "very encouraged" by American and British efforts to engage in rebuilding.

So far, the efforts have grown out of an initial round of contracts between the United States and large multinational corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton, to take on big-ticket items like safeguarding oil fields, paving roads and rebuilding schools.

In marked contrast to the openness of the meeting this week, those contracts were often awarded without competitive bidding in a process that has been criticized as being inscrutable to outsiders.

Now, Mr. Maajoun said, Iraq is ready for many more partners.

"Iraqis are crying out for employment," he said. "We want to rebuild. Construction means jobs that will bring Iraq back to the situation it should have been in as far as its own wealth is concerned."

The efforts promise to be anything but easy, complicated by developments on the ground and evolving laws arising from an evolving government. While large projects require direct participation and approval by the United States government, smaller ones may not, and the distinctions are not always clear.

"We explain how the processes work — or not work — and give some idea of how they may work in the future," said Bill Espinosa of Pillsbury Winthrop, a law firm represented at the conference that does extensive work in international development. "We've seen a lot of interest in Iraq, but there is also a lot of frustration involved in a significant way."

One source of that frustration, said Sam Kubba, chief executive of the American Iraqi Chamber of Commerce, are the competing views of how Iraq should achieve self-rule. The Iraqi Governing Council, appointed by the provisional authority, agreed in a vote Sunday that full national elections sought by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's senior Shiite cleric, would be the best way to choose an interim government. The council established a committee to examine whether it was feasible to organize full elections for June.

Mr. Kubba, whose organization of American Iraqi businessmen was set up this year in Washington, called their differences a potential disincentive to future investment, making them "a very serious conflict that holds serious consequences if not resolved."

Still, the uncertain electoral, financial and military landscape did not seem to discourage dozens of those attending the conference from pursuing their goals.

Nick Katsiotis, vice president of a construction company based in Washington, is bidding on two housing projects of 504 units each, one in Mosul and the other in Kirkuk.

Gordon Bobbitt, marketing manager for Kalmar, a Swedish company, was trying to sell huge all-terrain vehicles that can transport shipping crates anywhere.

Igor Salaru, owner of the Brazilian company Icatel, the world's largest manufacturer of pay phones, was seeking Iraqi connections to develop a new system of public phones.

Then there was Hisham Ashkouri, an Iraqi-born architect now living in Boston, who wore a bright red bow tie and carried a case filled with brochures and CD's that show off his latest design — a soaring 31-story hotel and theater complex called Cinema Sinbad that he wants to build in downtown Baghdad.

He said he was "80 to 90 percent there" with financial backing, government support and a commercial sponsor, the Starwood Hotel and Resorts Company.

"There's always room for problems," he said. "But with my emotional side speaking, if something like this can become a big part of reconstructing Baghdad that can show the local population alternatives to violence and disruption, to me, that's why we're going ahead. That's why I'm working on it."


http://truthout.org/docs_03/120603C.shtml
The Iraq Pie
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2003 01:19 am
We brought these bastards freedom now listen to them piss and moan!!


Quote:
Tough New Tactics by U.S. Tighten Grip on Iraq Towns
By DEXTER FILKINS

Published: December 7, 2003

BU HISHMA, Iraq, Dec. 6 ?- As the guerrilla war against Iraqi insurgents intensifies, American soldiers have begun wrapping entire villages in barbed wire.

In selective cases, American soldiers are demolishing buildings thought to be used by Iraqi attackers. They have begun imprisoning the relatives of suspected guerrillas, in hopes of pressing the insurgents to turn themselves in.


The Americans embarked on their get-tough strategy in early November, goaded by what proved to be the deadliest month yet for American forces in Iraq, with 81 soldiers killed by hostile fire. The response they chose is beginning to echo the Israeli counterinsurgency campaign in the occupied territories.

So far, the new approach appears to be succeeding in diminishing the threat to American soldiers. But it appears to be coming at the cost of alienating many of the people the Americans are trying to win over. Abu Hishma is quiet now, but it is angry, too.

In Abu Hishma, encased in a razor-wire fence after repeated attacks on American troops, Iraqi civilians line up to go in and out, filing through an American-guarded checkpoint, each carrying an identification card printed in English only.

"If you have one of these cards, you can come and go," coaxed Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, the battalion commander whose men oversee the village, about 50 miles north of Baghdad. "If you don't have one of these cards, you can't."

The Iraqis nodded and edged their cars through the line. Over to one side, an Iraqi man named Tariq muttered in anger.

"I see no difference between us and the Palestinians," he said. "We didn't expect anything like this after Saddam fell."

The practice of destroying buildings where Iraqi insurgents are suspected of planning or mounting attacks has been used for decades by Israeli soldiers in Gaza and the West Bank. The Israeli Army has also imprisoned the relatives of suspected terrorists, in the hopes of pressing the suspects to surrender.

The Israeli military has also cordoned off villages and towns thought to be hotbeds of guerrilla activity, in an effort to control the flow of people moving in and out.

American officials say they are not purposefully mimicking Israeli tactics, but they acknowledge that they have studied closely the Israeli experience in urban fighting. Ahead of the war, Israeli defense experts briefed American commanders on their experience in guerrilla and urban warfare. The Americans say there are no Israeli military advisers helping the Americans in Iraq.

Writing in the July issue of Army magazine, an American brigadier general said American officers had recently traveled to Israel to hear about lessons learned from recent fighting there.

"Experience continues to teach us many lessons, and we continue to evaluate and address those lessons, embedding and incorporating them appropriately into our concepts, doctrine and training," Brig. Gen. Michael A. Vane wrote. "For example, we recently traveled to Israel to glean lessons learned from their counterterrorist operations in urban areas." General Vane is deputy chief of staff for doctrine concepts and strategy, at the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command.

American officers here say their new hard-nosed approach reflects a more realistic appreciation of the military and political realities faced by soldiers in the so-called Sunni triangle, the area north and west of Baghdad that is generating the most violence against the Americans.

Underlying the new strategy, the Americans say, is the conviction that only a tougher approach will quell the insurgency and that the new strategy must punish not only the guerrillas but also make clear to ordinary Iraqis the cost of not cooperating.

"You have to understand the Arab mind," Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. "The only thing they understand is force ?- force, pride and saving face."

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top military commander in Iraq, announced the get-tough strategy in early November. After the announcement, some American officers warned that the scenes that would follow would not be pretty.

Speaking today in Baghdad, General Sanchez said attacks on allied forces or gunfights with adversaries across Iraq had dropped to under 20 a day from 40 a day two weeks ago.

"We've considerably pushed back the numbers of engagements against coalition forces," he said. "We've been hitting back pretty hard. We've forced them to slow down the pace of their operations."

In that way, the new American approach seems to share the successes of the Israeli military, at least in the short term; Israeli officers contend that their strategy regularly stops catastrophes like suicide bombings from taking place.

"If you do nothing, they will just get stronger," said Martin van Creveld, professor of military history and strategy at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He briefed American marines on Israeli tactics in urban warfare in September.

The problems in Abu Hishma, a town of 7,000, began in October, when the American military across the Sunni triangle decided to ease off on their military operations to coincide with the onset of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

In Abu Hishma, as in other towns, the backing off by the Americans was not reciprocated by the insurgents. American troops regularly came under mortar fire, often traced to the surrounding orchards.

Meanwhile, the number of bombs planted on nearby roads rose sharply. Army convoys regularly took fire from a house a few miles away from the village.

The last straw for the Americans came on Nov. 17, when a group of guerrillas fired a rocket-propelled grenade into the front of a Bradley armored personnel carrier. The grenade, with an armored piercing tip, punched through the Bradley's shell and killed Staff Sgt. Dale Panchot, one of its crewmen.

The grenade went straight into the sergeant's chest. With the Bradley still smoldering, the soldiers of the First Battalion, Eighth Infantry, part of the Fourth Infantry Division, surrounded Abu Hishma and searched for the guerrillas. Soldiers began encasing the town in razor wire.

The next day, an American jet dropped a 500-bomb on the house that had been used to attack them. The Americans arrested eight sheiks, the mayor, the police chief and most members of the city council. "We really hammered the place," Maj. Darron Wright said.

Two and a half weeks later, the town of Abu Hishma is enclosed in a barbed-wire fence that stretches for five miles. Men ages 18 to 65 have been ordered to get identification cards. There is only way into the town and one way out.

"This fence is here for your protection," reads the sign posted in front of the barbed-wire fence. "Do not approach or try to cross, or you will be shot."

American forces have used the tactic in other cities, including Awja, the birthplace of Saddam Hussein. American forces also sealed off three towns in western Iraq for several days.

"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them," Colonel Sassaman said.

The bombing of the house, about a mile outside the barbed wire, is another tactic that echoes those of the Israeli Army. In Iraq, the Americans have bulldozed, bombed or otherwise rendered useless a number of buildings which they determined were harboring guerrillas.

In Tikrit, residents pointed out a home they said had been bulldozed by American tanks. The occupants had already left, they said.

"I watched the Americans flatten that house," said Abdullah al-Ajili, who lives down the road.

American officers acknowledge that they have destroyed buildings around Tikrit. In a recent news conference, General Sanchez explained the strategy but ignored a question about parallels to the Israeli experience.

"Well, I guess what we need to do is go back to the laws of war and the Geneva Convention and all of those issues that define when a structure ceases to be what it is claimed to be and becomes a military target," General Sanchez said. "We've got to remember that we're in a low-intensity conflict where the laws of war still apply."

In Abu Hishma, residents complain that the village is locked down for 15 hours a day, meaning that they are unable to go to the mosque for morning and evening prayers. They say the curfew does not allow them time to stand in the daylong lines for gasoline and get home before the gate closes for the night.

But mostly, it is a loss of dignity that the villagers talk about. For each identification card, every Iraqi man is assigned a number, which he must hold up when he poses for his mug shot. The card identifies his age and type of car. It is all in English.

"This is absolutely humiliating," said Yasin Mustafa, a 39-year-old primary school teacher. "We are like birds in a cage."

Colonel Sassaman said he would maintain the wire enclosure until the villagers turned over the six men who killed Sergeant Panchot, though he acknowledged they may have slipped far away.

Colonel Sassaman is feared by many of Abu Hishma's villagers, who hold him responsible for the searches and razor wire around the town. But some said they understood what a difficult job he had, trying to pick out a few bad men from a village of 7,000 people.

"Colonel Sassaman, you should come and live in this village and be a sheik," Hassan Ali al-Tai told the colonel outside the checkpoint.

The colonel smiled, and Mr. Tai turned to another visitor.

"Colonel Sassaman is a very good man," he said. "If he got rid of the barbed wire and the checkpoint, everyone would love him."



SOURCE
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2003 01:28 am
Israeli experience.
It sure seems to have worked for the Israelis.

What next a huge fence?

Here's an idea. Ask GW to get in touch with God to get more instructions.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2003 01:42 am
Quote:
"You have to understand the Arab mind," Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. "The only thing they understand is force ?- force, pride and saving face."

In bright shiny letters, the ignorant statement of the year.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2003 01:53 am
Saving face.
The way the Iraqis have been gettin' their face slammed in the dirt it wouldn't surprise me if Capt. Brown gets his blown off, not that I am hoping for that.

The Israelis have kept up thier knack of being hated. They have thousands of years of practice at it.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2003 02:06 am
Re: Saving face.
pistoff wrote:
The way the Iraqis have been gettin' their face slammed in the dirt it wouldn't surprise me if Capt. Brown gets his blown off, not that I am hoping for that.

The Israelis have kept up thier knack of being hated. They have thousands of years of practice at it.

Thousands? No, but at least 20.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2003 07:08 am
How are things going in the other war?

Quote:

Coalition Strike in Afghanistan Kills 9 Children
By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.

Published: December 7, 2003

ABUL, Afghanistan, Sunday, Dec. 7 ?- United States warplanes attacking a suspected member of the Taliban killed nine children in the southeastern province of Ghazni on Saturday, Afghan and American military officials confirmed Sunday morning. One man was also killed in the attack, they said.

Advertisement

In a statement issued early on Sunday from the headquarters of the American-led military forces at Bagram Air Base near Kabul, the military said ground forces searching the area after the attack found the bodies of the children as well as the body of the suspect.

"Coalition forces regret the loss of any innocent life," the statement said. It said the troops remaining in the area "will make every effort to assist the families of the innocent casualties and determine the cause of the civilian deaths."

The statement said a commission was being set up to investigate the incident. It did not describe the air attack in any detail.

Maj. Christopher E. West, an Army spokesman at Bagram, said the aircraft involved was an A-10 attack jet, a type that flies low and fires guns and rockets in support of infantry. A-10's are frequently in action over Afghanistan.

Haji Masud, an official in the governor's office in Ghazni, confirmed the attack and said it had been aimed at Mullah Wazir, a former member of the Taliban movement. "They bombed Mullah Wazir's house and civilians were also killed," he said in a telephone interview on Sunday morning. He gave no further details and said an official Afghan delegation had gone to the area to investigate.

A spokesman for President Hamid Karzai in Kabul said that when first reports arrived from the region, the American military had denied that the attack occurred. Mr. Karzai has frequently asked the United States military to take greater care with bombing raids on civilian areas and with they intelligence it receives, which has often proved erroneous. There have been hundreds of civilian casualties from bombing raids during the past two years. At least 48 people were killed in July 2002 when American planes fired on a village where a wedding party was in progress.

In another incident, eleven people from one family were killed when a bomb landed on their house near the Pakistani border in Paktika Province. The United States military quickly acknowledged the mistake, saying the attack was aimed at a group of militants whe were trying to escape across the border.

On Oct. 30. American planes bombed a village in the northern province of Nuristan, killing six members of one family, most of them women and children, and two religious students in the village mosque. The military has not yet confirmed that its planes were in the area that night.

In their statement, the United States military said it the targeted man had been involved in the killings of two contractors working on Afghanistan's main highway connecting the capital with the cities of Kandahar and Herat. There have been no reported killings of contractors. Several Afghan security policemen were killed in an attack on the road in September.

An officer at the main headquarters of Central Command in Tampa, which runs the military operations in Afghanistan as well as Iraq and elsewhere in the region, referred questions to the Bagram headquarters.

American and allied forces in Afghanistan "follow stringent rules of engagement to specifically avoid this type of incident while continuing to target terrorists," the statement said.

The aircraft opened fire on the suspect in what whas described as "an isolated rural site" south of the town of Ghazni, the statement said.

The attack came about 10:30 on Saturday morning. Ghazni is about 80 miles southeast of Kabul on the road to Kandahar, the former stronghold of the Taliban movement that governed Afghanistan before the United States and Afghan opposition forces overthrew it two years ago.

The military said the strike on Saturday was carried out "after developing extensive intelligence over an extended period of time" that determined the suspect's whereabouts.

Carlotta Gall reported from Kabul and John H. Cushman, Jr. from Washington.




Sorry I asked ....

SOURCE
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2003 08:21 am
This piece was in today's NYTimes Op-Ed section.

"A Million Miles From the Green Zone to the Front Lines" by Lucian K. Truscott IV

Excerpts:

A colonel in Baghdad (who will go nameless here for obvious reasons) told me just after I arrived that senior Army officers feel every order they receive is delivered with next November's election in mind, so there is little doubt at and near the top about who is really being used for what over here. The resentment in the ranks toward the civilian leadership in Baghdad and back in Washington is palpable. Another officer described the two camps, military and civilian, inhabiting the heavily fortified, gold-leafed presidential palace inside the so-called Green Zone in Baghdad, as "a divorced couple who won't leave the house."

***

Why were the soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division ?- who were trained to clean latrines but not to build them ?- given the daunting task of making the cities and villages of northern Iraq work again? Because when they were ordered 300 miles north of Baghdad after the city fell, there was no one else around to do it. Even today, seven months later, it is still largely the job of the soldiers in Bravo Company and the other units of the 101st to make the system work in Mosul and its outlying provinces.

The Coalition Provisional Authority nominally has the job of "rebuilding" Iraq ?- using $20 billion or so of the $78 billion that recently flew out of America's deficit-plagued coffers. But during the time the 101st has been in Mosul, three regional coalition authority directors have come and gone. Only recently, long after the people of Mosul elected their mayor and city council, was a civilian American governance official sent to the area. And, according to the division leadership, not a nickel of the $20 billion controlled by the provisional authority has reached them.

"First they want a planning contractor to come in here, and even that step takes weeks to get approved," one officer in Mosul complained of the civilian leadership. "The planners were up here for months doing assessments, and then more weeks go by because everything has to be approved by Baghdad. If we sat around waiting for the C.P.A. and its civilian contractors to do it, we still wouldn't have electricity and running water in Mosul, so we just took our own funds and our engineers and infantry muscle and did it ourselves. We didn't have the option of waiting on the guys in the Green Zone."

**

The super-defended Green Zone is the biggest, most secure American base camp in Iraq, but there is little connection between the troops in the field and the bottomless pit of planners and deciders who live inside the palace. Soldiers from the 101st tell me that they waited months for the Bechtel Corporation to unleash its corporate might in northern Iraq. "Then one of the Bechtel truck convoys got ambushed on the way up here three weeks ago, and one of the security guys got wounded," an infantryman told me. "They abandoned their trucks on the spot and pulled out, and we haven't seen them since."

**

"It's really not helpful when people down in Baghdad and politicians back in Washington refer to the `disorganized and ineffective' enemy we supposedly face," said one young officer, as we walked out of a battalion battle briefing that had been concerned largely with the tactics of an enemy force that is clearly well organized and very, very effective. After spending more than a week with the soldiers of Bravo Company, I know that they resent not only the inaccuracy of such statements, but the implication that soldiers facing a disorganized and ineffective enemy have an easy job.

No matter what you call this stage of the conflict in Iraq ?- the soldiers call it a guerrilla war while politicians back home often refer to it misleadingly and inaccurately as part of the amorphous "war on terror" ?- it is without a doubt a nasty, deadly war. And the people doing the fighting are soldiers, not the civilian employees of Kellogg, Brown & Root, or the officials of the Coalition Provisional Authority, or the visiting bigwigs from the Defense Department.

The troops in Bravo Company don't pay much attention to the rear-guard political wars being waged back in Washington, but they loved President Bush's quick visit to Baghdad on Thanksgiving. While it was clearly a political stunt, they were quick to credit the risks he took. I can confirm that flying in and out of Baghdad ?- even at night, when it's safest ?- is not for the faint of heart. A C-130 on approach takes a nervous, dodgy route, banking this way and that, gaining and losing altitude. Hanging onto one of those web-seats by only a seat belt (no shoulder harnesses), you're nearly upside down half the time ?- it would feel like the ultimate roller-coaster ride, except it's very much for real....

I can't do a link here because it is password protected, but I will cut and past the whole piece if anyone requests it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/04/2026 at 03:38:40