1.3.06

Veterans Report Mental Distress

Veterans Report Mental Distress

About a Third Returning From Iraq Seek Help

This should be posted on War Crimes since its just as much of a crime to young americans being exposed to trauma and horror every day in Iraq.

More than one in three soldiers and Marines who have served in Iraq later sought help for mental health problems, according to a comprehensive snapshot by Army experts of the psyches of men and women returning from the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places.

The accounts of more than 300,000 soldiers and Marines returning from several theaters paint an unusually detailed picture of the psychological impact of the various conflicts.

Those returning from Iraq consistently reported more psychic distress than those returning from Afghanistan and other conflicts, such as those in Bosnia or Kosovo.

Iraq veterans are far more likely to have witnessed people getting wounded or killed, to have experienced combat, and to have had aggressive or suicidal thoughts, the Army report said. Nearly twice as many of those returning from Iraq reported having a mental health problem -- or were hospitalized for a psychiatric disorder -- compared with troops returning from Afghanistan. Some HAVE comitted suicide or murdered their families, girlfriends, etc.

In questionnaires filled out after their deployment, more than half of all soldiers and Marines returning from Iraq reported that they had "felt in great danger of being killed" there, and 2,411 reported having thoughts of killing themselves, the report said. It did not have comparable data from earlier conflicts.

Earlier research has suggested that 12 to 20 (more) percent of combat veterans develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which produces flashbacks, nightmares, and intrusive thoughts that disrupt work and home life. The new study found that Iraq veterans have mental disorders diagnosed at the rate of 12 percent per year.

Experts cautioned, however, that they do not have good ways to predict how many people will need help over time. Researchers have found that nearly two-thirds of Iraq veterans who "screened positive" for PTSD and other psychiatric disorders are not receiving treatment.

The new report comes at a time when budget constraints are causing worries about the cost of caring for large numbers of veterans seeking help for mental problems; the Department of Veterans Affairs is already contending with a recent surge in demand for help with PTSD from troops whose combat experiences go as far back as the Vietnam War or World War II.

The war in Iraq has also set off a debate over how to define trauma itself, and whether it is appropriate to distinguish those who see combat firsthand from those who do not. The traditional definition of post-traumatic stress disorder, a diagnosis developed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, involved directly experiencing or witnessing a horrifying event, but some experts are asking whether the constant fear of being killed in places such as Iraq might create problems both for people restricted to bases as well as for those who head outside.

"There is no front line in Iraq," said Col. Charles W. Hoge of the division of psychiatry and neuroscience at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, the lead author of the report published yesterday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. "Individuals who are patrolling the streets will be at higher risk of being involved in combat, but folks who are largely located at one base are also targets of mortar and artillery, and everyone in convoys is a target."

Hoge said it is more important to treat the problems that troops report and to evaluate how they function than to argue about whether there were clear-cut events that triggered a trauma, as the definition of PTSD demands.

Other mental health experts disagree. Harvard psychologist Richard J. McNally said that although just being in Iraq might cause chronic stress, it is not the kind of sudden, horrifying experience that is thought to lead to PTSD.

"Being in the war zone does not constitute exposure to trauma," said McNally, who helped write the definition of PTSD for the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic manual. "It is just stressful."

Michael J. Kussman, principal deputy undersecretary for health at the Department of Veterans Affairs, said the department spends $3.2 billion a year on mental health care. Although large numbers of soldiers and Marines are seeking help, Kussman emphasized that most did not immediately receive a psychiatric diagnosis.

"Readjustment and reintegration issues are very common among servicemen returning from any combat," he said. "A large portion of people have this temporary reaction. These are normal reactions to abnormal situations and are not considered mental illnesses."

The president of the American Psychiatric Association, Steven S. Sharfstein, said that though it is too early to say how or whether the conflict in Iraq might change notions of PTSD -- the Institute of Medicine is currently reviewing PTSD diagnosis, treatment and procedures for veterans disability compensation -- he is not surprised by the number of people seeking help.

Some even thought the number cited in the study is too low. Steve Robinson, who heads the National Gulf War Resource Center, a nonprofit organization that advocates for veterans, said the military would have found far larger numbers of troubled former soldiers and Marines if it had done a better job reaching out.

"Upwards of 80 to 85 percent of people serving there have witnessed or been a part of a traumatic event, including engaging the enemy, killing people, or friends or themselves being involved in IED attacks," he said, referring to improvised explosive devices. "In Vietnam, there were safe areas where people could go to rest and recuperate. That doesn't happen in Iraq; every place is a war zone."

Bush Makes Surprise Visit to Afghanistan

Bush Makes Surprise Visit to Afghanistan

His old pals....

NEW DELHI, March 1 -- President Bush made a previously unannounced visit to Kabul Wednesday to rally U.S. troops in Afghanistan and praise embattled Afghan leader Hamid Karzai at a time of rising violence from the Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists.

After a four-hour visit, Bush landed in New Delhi Wednesday evening for two days of high-level talks about India's nuclear program and its booming economy.



Bush is Greeted by Karzai
President Bush walks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai at the Presidential Palace in Kabul, Afghanistan. (Jim Young -- Reuters)
VIDEO | Presidents Bush and Karzai in Kabul

At a joint news conference with President Karzai, Bush expressed his hope that the United States and India could reach an agreement for the cooperative development of nuclear power to help fill the energy gap in India and fuel its rapid economic development.

"Hopefully, we can reach an agreement," Bush said. "If not, we'll continue to work on it until we do. It's in our interests and . . . in the interests of countries around the world that India develop a nuclear power industry because that will help alleviate demand for fossil fuels. . . . So what we are trying to do is have an international consortium that will enable countries to develop nuclear power industries in safe ways, ways that will prevent proliferation."

Iran is free to develop a nuclear power industry as well, he said. However, "Iran must not have a nuclear weapon," he said. "The most destabilizing thing that can happen in this region and in the world is for Iran to . . . develop a nuclear weapon."

Saying that the world is "speaking with one voice to the Iranians," Bush added, addressing Iran, "it's okay for you to have a civilian . . . nuclear power operation, but you shall not have the means, the knowledge, to develop a nuclear weapon."

In his second unannounced visit to a war zone since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists attacks in the United States, Bush flew to Bagram air base north of Kabul, then boarded a U.S. Black Hawk helicopter for a 20-minute flight to the presidential palace compound in the Afghan capital. As the helicopters carrying Bush and his entourage flew low over the landscape to thwart any attempts to shoot them down, a gunner on a chopper carrying journalists and military personnel fired a machine gun burst from a front window. Reporters were later told it was a routine "test fire" at a predesignated location.

After a meeting and a working lunch with Karzai, Bush rode in a motorcade through largely empty streets to the heavily secured U.S. Embassy for a ceremonial ribbon-cutting attended by about 200 people.

Accompanied by first lady Laura Bush and top U.S. officials, the president then choppered back to Bagram for a rally with about 500 mostly American troops. Then the presidential party reboarded Air Force One and flew to India.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the idea of stopping in Afghanistan was first brought to Bush about two months ago and quickly approved. He said planning for the trip -- a closely held secret that was revealed to the accompanying press corps only after departure from the United States -- had been underway for the past month.

Bush said at the brief joint news conference with Karzai that he wanted to send a message of appreciation to Afghans for their progress in building a democracy. "I hope the people of Afghanistan understand that as democracy takes hold, you're inspiring others," he said.

Asked why al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is still on the loose more than four years after U.S.-backed Afghan forces and American air power toppled the radical Islamic Taliban movement and drove him out of Afghanistan, Bush said: "I am confident he will be brought to justice. . . . We're making progress of dismantling al-Qaeda. Slowly but surely, we're bringing the people to justice." He said later that it was not a matter of "if" bin Laden and the deposed Taliban leader, Mohammad Omar, would be captured or brought to justice, but "when."




































When Americans No Longer Own America

When Americans No Longer Own America
by Thom Hartmann

The Dubai Ports World deal is waking Americans up to a painful reality: So-called "conservatives" and "flat world" globalists have bankrupted our nation for their own bag of silver, and in the process are selling off America.

Through a combination of the "Fast Track" authority pushed for by Reagan and GHW Bush, sweetheart trade deals involving "most favored nation status" for dictatorships like China, and Clinton pushing us into NAFTA and the WTO (via GATT), we've abandoned the principles of tariff-based trade that built American industry and kept us strong for over 200 years.

The old concept was that if there was a dollar's worth of labor in a pair of shoes made in the USA, and somebody wanted to import shoes from China where there may only be ten cents worth of labor in those shoes, we'd level the playing field for labor by putting a 90-cent import tariff on each pair of shoes. Companies could choose to make their products here or overseas, but the ultimate cost of labor would be the same.

Then came the flat-worlders, led by misguided true believers and promoted by multinational corporations. Do away with those tariffs, they said, because they "restrain trade." Let everything in, and tax nothing. The result has been an explosion of cheap goods coming into our nation, and the loss of millions of good manufacturing jobs and thousands of manufacturing companies. Entire industry sectors have been wiped out.

These policies have kneecapped the American middle class. Our nation's largest employer has gone from being the unionized General Motors to the poverty-wages Wal-Mart. Americans have gone from having a net savings rate around 10 percent in the 1970s to a minus .5 percent in 2005 - meaning that they're going into debt or selling off their assets just to maintain their lifestyle.

At the same time, federal policy has been to do the same thing at a national level. Because our so-called "free trade" policies have left us with an over $700 billion annual trade deficit, other countries are sitting on huge piles of the dollars we gave them to buy their stuff (via Wal-Mart and other "low cost" retailers). But we no longer manufacture anything they want to buy with those dollars.

So instead of buying our manufactured goods, they are doing what we used to do with Third World nations - they are buying us, the USA, chunk by chunk. In particular, they want to buy things in America that will continue to produce profits, and then to take those profits overseas where they're invested to make other nations strong. The "things" they're buying are, by and large, corporations, utilities, and natural resources.

Back in the pre-Reagan days, American companies made profits that were distributed among Americans. They used their profits to build more factories, or diversify into other businesses. The profits stayed in America.

Today, foreigners awash with our consumer dollars are on a two-decades-long buying spree.

The UK's BP bought Amoco for $48 billion - now Amoco's profits go to England.

Deutsche Telekom bought VoiceStream Wireless, so their profits go to Germany, which is where most of the profits from Random House, Allied Signal, Chrysler, Doubleday, Cyprus Amax's US Coal Mining Operations, GTE/Sylvania, and Westinghouse's Power Generation profits go as well.

Ralston Purina's profits go to Switzerland, along with Gerber's; TransAmerica's profits go to The Netherlands, while John Hancock Insurance's profits go to Canada. Even American Bankers Insurance Group is owned now by Fortis AG in Belgium.

Foreign companies are buying up our water systems, our power generating systems, our mines, and our few remaining factories.
All because "flat world" so-called "free trade" policies have turned us from a nation of wealthy producers into a nation of indebted consumers, leaving the world awash in dollars that are most easily used to buy off big chunks of America.

As www.economyincrisis.com notes, US Government statistics indicate the following percentages of foreign ownership of American industry:

· Sound recording industries - 97%
· Commodity contracts dealing and brokerage - 79%
· Motion picture and sound recording industries - 75%
· Metal ore mining - 65%
· Motion picture and video industries - 64%
· Wineries and distilleries - 64%
· Database, directory, and other publishers - 63%
· Book publishers - 63%
· Cement, concrete, lime, and gypsum product - 62%
· Engine, turbine and power transmission equipment - 57%
· Rubber product - 53%
· Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing - 53%
· Plastics and rubber products manufacturing - 52%
· Plastics product - 51%
· Other insurance related activities - 51%
· Boiler, tank, and shipping container - 50%
· Glass and glass product - 48%
· Coal mining - 48%
· Sugar and confectionery product - 48%
· Nonmetallic mineral mining and quarrying - 47%
· Advertising and related services - 41%
· Pharmaceutical and medicine - 40%
· Clay, refractory, and other nonmetallic mineral products - 40%
· Securities brokerage - 38%
· Other general purpose machinery - 37%
· Audio and video equipment mfg and reproducing magnetic and optical media - 36%
· Support activities for mining - 36%
· Soap, cleaning compound, and toilet preparation - 32%
· Chemical manufacturing - 30%
· Industrial machinery - 30%
· Securities, commodity contracts, and other financial investments and related activities - 30%
· Other food - 29%
· Motor vehicles and parts - 29%
· Machinery manufacturing - 28%
· Other electrical equipment and component - 28%
· Securities and commodity exchanges and other financial investment activities - 27%
· Architectural, engineering, and related services - 26%
· Credit card issuing and other consumer credit - 26%
· Petroleum refineries (including integrated) - 25%
· Navigational, measuring, electromedical, and control instruments - 25%
· Petroleum and coal products manufacturing - 25%
· Transportation equipment manufacturing - 25%
· Commercial and service industry machinery - 25%
· Basic chemical - 24%
· Investment banking and securities dealing - 24%
· Semiconductor and other electronic component - 23%
· Paint, coating, and adhesive - 22%
· Printing and related support activities - 21%
· Chemical product and preparation - 20%
· Iron, steel mills, and steel products - 20%
· Agriculture, construction, and mining machinery - 20%
· Publishing industries - 20%
· Medical equipment and supplies - 20%

Thus it shouldn't surprise us that the cons have sold off our ports as well, and will defend it to the bitter end.

They truly believe that a "New World Order" with multinational corporations in charge instead of sovereign governments will be the answer to the problem of world instability. And therefore they must do away with quaint things like unions, a healthy middle class, and, ultimately, democracy.

The "security" implications of turning our ports over to the UAE are just the latest nail in what the cons hope will be the coffin of American democracy and the American middle class.

Today's conservatives believe in rule by inherited wealth and an internationalist corporate elite, and things like a politically aroused citizenry and a healthy democracy are pesky distractions.

Everything today is driven by profits for multinationals, supported by the lawmaking power of the WTO. Thus, parts for our missiles are now made in China, a country that last year threatened us with nuclear weapons.

Our oil comes from a country that birthed a Wahabist movement that ultimately led to 14 Saudi citizens flying jetliners into the World Trade buildings and the Pentagon. Germans now own the Chrysler auto assembly lines that turned out tanks to use against Germany in WWII.

And the price of labor in America is being held down by over ten million illegal workers, a situation that was impossible twenty-five years ago when unions were the first bulwark against dilution of the American labor force.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote of King George III in the Declaration of Independence, "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation…" he just as easily could have been writing of the World Trade Organization, which now has the legal authority to force the United States to overturn laws passed at both local, state, and federal levels with dictates devised by tribunals made up of representatives of multinational corporations. If Dubai loses in the American Congress, their next stop will almost certainly be the WTO.

As Simon Romero and Heather Timmons noted in The New York Times on 24 February 2006, "the international shipping business has evolved in recent years to include many more containers with consumer goods, in addition to old-fashioned bulk commodities, and that has helped lift profit margins to 30 percent, from the single digits. These smartly managed foreign operators now manage about 80 percent of port terminals in the United States."

And those 30 percent profits from American port operations now going to Great Britain will probably soon go to the United Arab Emirates, a nation with tight interconnections to both the Bush administration and the Bush family.

Ultimately, it's not about security -- it's about money.

In the multinational corporatocracy's "flat world," money trumps the national good, community concerns, labor interests, and the environment. NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO tribunals can - and regularly do - strike down local and national laws. Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man" are replaced by Antonin Scalia's "Rights of Corporate Persons."

Profits even trump the desire for good enough port security to avoid disasters that may lead to war. After all, as Judith Miller wrote in The New York Times on January 30, 1991, quoting a local in Saudi Arabia: "War is good for business."

Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author of over a dozen books and the host of a nationally syndicated noon-3pm ET daily progressive talk show syndicated by Air America Radio. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are "What Would Jefferson Do?" and Ultimate Sacrifice.

Bush Should Not Visit Gandhi Memorial, Says Peaceniks

Bush Should Not Visit Gandhi Memorial, Says Peaceniks

A group of peaceniks here has demanded that President George W. Bush be kept out from the Mahatma Gandhi memorial at Rajghat during his India visit as "George Bush knows nothing about non-violence".


Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh pours rose petals at Rajghat, memorial of Mahatma Gandhi, on Gandhi's death anniversary in New Delhi January 30, 2006. Mahatma Gandhi, father of Indian nation, was assassinated in 1948. India observes Gandhi's death anniversary as Martyr's day. REUTERS/Kamal Kishore
Peace Action, an organisation based in the Greater Washington Area, said it "denounced" the plan for President Bush to lay a memorial wreath in honour of the champion of non-violence at the Gandhi memorial in New Delhi during his three-day visit beginning Wednesday.

"Mahatma Gandhi was a man of non-violence and peace and is a hero to people all over the world. As his war-strewn presidency shows, George Bush knows nothing about non-violence. Gandhi would in no way condone his actions. Bush should reconsider this cynical, disrespectful display of symbolism," said Kevin Martin, executive director of Peace Action, in a press release.

Furthermore, the group maintained, that Bush was seeking to sign a nuclear deal with India, which was even more contradictory of Gandhi's views.

"Does Bush think Gandhi would bless one of the main purposes of this trip -- to promote nuclear aid to India?" questioned Martin. "Gandhi abhorred nuclear weapons and would surely call for the US and India to pursue the abolition of nuclear weapons."

Peace Action, in its release, claims to be the largest peace and disarmament organisation founded in 1957, and says it has more than 90,000 members nationwide.

28.2.06

Chaos in Iraq Sends Shock Waves Across Middle East and Elevates Iran's Influence

Chaos in Iraq Sends Shock Waves Across Middle East and Elevates Iran's Influence
by Michael Slackman

CAIRO - Shortly before the American-led invasion of Iraq, Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League, warned that the attack would "open the gates of hell." Now, three years later, there is a sense in the Middle East that what was once viewed as quintessential regional hyperbole may instead have been darkly prescient. It did


Iranian protestors burn a U.S. flag during a protest in Tehran, Iran February 26, 2006. More than 1,200 conservative students angered by the destruction of a Shi'ite Muslim shrine in Iraq hurled petrol bombs, stones and eggs at the British embassy in Tehran on Sunday. REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubazl
Even before the bombing of one of Shiite Islam's holiest shrines in Samarra set off sectarian fighting last Wednesday, the chaos in Iraq helped elevate Iran's regional influence — a great concern to many of the Sunni led governments here — while also giving Al Qaeda sympathizers a new a foothold in the region.

But the bombing, and the prospect of a full-blown civil war driven by sectarian divisions, is even more ominous for the Middle East. Nine Middle Eastern countries have sizable populations of Shiites living side by side with Sunnis, and there is concern in many of them that a split in Iraq could lead to divided allegiances and, perhaps, conflict at home.

"The spillover of this is of concern for everybody in the region," said Ali Shukri, a retired Jordanian general who for 23 years served as an adviser to King Hussein. "When you take western Iraq, Anbar Province borders Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia; the southern part of Iraq borders Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. If there is a conflict, a surge in violence, it becomes contagious in the region."

The rising tensions in Iraq are also happening at a time when two other powerful dynamics are at work: the rise of Islamic political parties, like Hamas in Gaza and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and the effort of the Iran's leadership to once again try to spread its ideas around the region. How all these forces combine and ultimately influence each other has become a source of deep worry.

In addition, should fighting increase, local leaders are also bracing for a new influx of refugees and damage to the regional economy. Both factors would have serious consequences for Middle Eastern states that have little or no oil and are already suffering from stagnant economies, including Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Yemen.

The tiny Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan absorbed about a million Iraqis after Saddam Hussein's government fell, and now, faced with serious economic problems, its leaders worry about another flood of refugees rushing across the border.

In Saudi Arabia, officials face the dual threat of a restive Shiite population at home and the increased power of the Iraq-based group that calls itself Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, which has already stated its desire to take down the Saudi monarchy.

The Qaeda group in Iraq has already claimed responsibility for a triple bombing in Amman last year, and several political analysts said they believed that the attempted suicide bombing of a Saudi oil refinery on Friday had its roots in Iraq.

With Egyptians making up a large portion of the foreign fighters in Iraq, and earlier in Afghanistan, some analysts have asked, "If Al Qaeda aligned forces are successful in breaking apart Iraq, will they try to strike in Egypt?" Many have expressed concerns about the regional economy, and, if nothing else, have noted that increased violence will undermine efforts to lift a region stung by high unemployment and economic stagnation.

"Iraq has been like hell for the last three years," said Hesham Youssef, Mr. Moussa's chief of staff in Cairo. "I think it would surpass any expectation if a civil war erupts. This will go even into a much worse scenario, not only for Iraq, but for the region as well."

The most pressing fear in the region remains that civil war would aggravate the split that tore Islam into two major groups centuries ago, Sunnis and Shiites. While the original division was caused by a dispute over who would take over as leader, or caliph, after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, Shiites and Sunnis have developed distinctly different social, political and religious practices over the centuries and have often viewed each other with suspicion.

While Sunnis are a majority in the region, there are large Shiite populations in Oman, Bahrain, Lebanon, Yemen, Kuwait, Syria, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. In some places, Shiites are discriminated against.

But in weighing the regional impact of the Iraq war, and the potential for intra-Muslim conflict, Iran, the only Shiite-led government in the world, clearly looms largest. By many accounts, the shifting dynamics in Iraq have served to strengthen Iran's hand at a time when it is defying Europe and the United States by moving forward with a nuclear program. Iran says it wants to develop nuclear energy; the West says it suspects Iran is trying to build weapons and has had the International Atomic Energy Agency refer Iran's case to the United Nations Security Council.

The Iranian leadership has condemned the blast as the work of the Israelis, the Americans and the British, leveling a charge that aims to rally all Muslims behind it; it has also called for calm in Iraq, thereby winning grudging appreciation of regional leaders, and it still has the chaos in Iraq as a foil to deflect American attention from Iran's own nuclear program, analysts in the region said.

"It is true that the elements involved in the explosion were a couple of misled and radical Sunnis, but everyone knows that these people are the puppets of the occupying forces, who incur heavy costs, design very accurate plans and encourage such weak persons to do whatever they want," read an editorial in the Iranian paper Jomhuri-ye Eslami.

"During the past years, these elements have been trained with the budget of America and England in order to have an anti-American face but to be the agents of America. They are in fact the children of the Satan that has occupied Iraq at the moment."

Under almost any chain of events, from the development of a democratically elected government in Iraq to the fracturing of the country into ethic zones, Iran faces the prospect of emerging as a far more influential power regionally in the near future than at anytime since the 1979 revolution, political analysts said.

"There was always a balance between Iraq and Iran," said Abdel Raouf El Reedy, a former ambassador to the United States who now serves as chairman of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs, an independent research center in Cairo. "Now, if Iraq disintegrates and there is sectarian division between the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis, then Iran will become the dominant power in the region."

But it is difficult to determine Iran's immediate intentions in Iraq, whether it is a force for calm, an agitator for destabilization or a bit of both. With the election in June of an ideologically hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran had abandoned any conciliatory approach to the West, moving forward with its nuclear program.

In taking such a confrontational approach, Iran has tried to reach out to the Arab world. By calling for Israel to be wiped off the map and calling the Holocaust a myth, Mr. Ahmadinejad has tried to unite Muslims — Sunni and Shiite — under a pan-Islamic umbrella controlled by Iran.

While that oratory has left Iran more isolated from the West, it has increasingly found a degree of unity and support in the region. The recent outrage over the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, which set off more than a month of protests, also helped unite Muslims in opposition to a common perceived enemy.

That unity, and the prospect of Iran spreading its revolutionary ideas among Sunnis, could be undermined if there is a fevered civil war pitting Iraq's Sunnis against its Shiite majority.

"If it does start to divide them, then everybody will clinch to power like hell and they will be at each other necks like crazy because nobody will want to lose," said Mr. Shukri, the retired Jordanian general.

So far, Iran has stuck to its script and has tried to transform the attack on a Shiite shrine, which it condemned, into another point to rally all Muslims. But there are many people around the region who question Iran's sincerity, and who see in the chaos in Iraq a hand from Tehran.

"I know the Iranian government does not want to have a stable area," said Muhammad al-Zulfa, a member of the Shoura Council of Saudi Arabia, a consultative assembly appointed by the king. "So I'm afraid they want to keep the Americans busy in Iraq or somewhere else, in Syria, or Lebanon. Maybe the Iranian government wants to have a hand in all these areas."

At the moment, if there is any hint of the possibility for direct confrontation between Shiites and Sunnis, it was offered in Lebanon, by Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the Iranian-backed Hezbollah. He blamed America and militant Sunnis, like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, for the chaos in Iraq.

He singled out a practice among some extremists known as takfir, in which one Muslim declares another an apostate, and then kills him.

"Let's not blame each other," he said at a rally last week. "We shouldn't give them that opportunity. We should limit the accusations to the American occupation, its agents and the takfiri murderers. Toward those our rage should be directed."

Industry Study Withheld Data on Carcinogen: Report

Industry Study Withheld Data on Carcinogen: Report
by Deborah Zabarenko

Workplace watchdogs and industry advocates agree: too much hexavalent chromium -- the same chemical at the heart of the movie "Erin Brockovich" -- puts people at risk for lung cancer. But how much is too much?

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration is set to rule on that on Tuesday. But in the run-up to the decision, the journal Environmental Health reported that industry-commissioned scientists withheld data suggesting even small amounts of the known carcinogen, which is used in the steel, aerospace, electroplating and industries, can be deadly.

"We think we have an example in which all of the standard elements of scientific distortion are present: hiding behind the lawyers, statistical manipulation, failure to publish ... all that kind of stuff which comes right out of the tobacco industry playbook," said Dr. Peter Lurie, one of the report's authors.

Kate McMahon-Lohrer, an attorney at the firm Collier Shannon Scott and counsel for the industry group Chromium Coalition, vehemently disagreed with the Environmental Health report.

"That charge is absolutely and completely false and it's outrageous and libelous," she said.

In a telephone interview, McMahon-Lohrer acknowledged that hexavalent chromium raises workers' cancer risk at high doses, but said there was debate about the risk from low doses. She denied any industry-sponsored research was withheld from OSHA.

David Michaels, who heads the project on scientific knowledge and public policy at George Washington University and was a senior author of the report, said studies commissioned by a chromium industry group showed even low doses elevate cancer risk.

"Industry had commissioned a study which looked at newer facilities where exposures were much better-controlled and that study showed that workers with relatively low exposure to hexavalent chromium had greatly increased risk of lung cancer," Michaels said by telephone.

HIDDEN DATA

"Industry criticized OSHA for not having data about the effects of low-level exposure, when industry in fact had that data and was hiding it," Michaels said.

The film "Erin Brockovich" focused on the dangers of contact with hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium VI, through polluted water. The current matter deals with airborne chromium VI that some 380,000 U.S. workers might inhale on the job.

At present, there is no OSHA standard for how much chromium is acceptable in American factories; the only standard that exists dates from 1943, when the maximum on-the-job dose was set to prevent "nasal perforation" and skin irritations.

That 63-year-old standard is 52 micrograms per cubic meter of air. In 2004, OSHA proposed a standard of 1 microgram per cubic meter, and has been collecting data on it since then, from industry and other groups. The watchdog group Public Citizen asked for a 0.25 microgram per cubic meter level.

OSHA estimated that a 1 microgram level would cause two to nine excess deaths for every 1,000 workers exposed during their lifetimes, above the agency's target of one excess death per 1,000 workers.

If the level is raised to 5 micrograms, OSHA estimated it would cause five to 45 excess deaths for every 1,000 workers.

An OSHA spokesperson declined to comment about what the decision might be, except to say the agency expected to meet the Tuesday deadline, as ordered by a federal court.

Michaels said the issue is broader than the chromium VI case. Quite a bit broader. I lived In Delaware for 14 years.

"I'm hoping that the entire system rethinks the role of industry in providing scientific data," he said. "I'd like to see rules that say ... if industry participates in regulatory proceedings, they have an obligation to provide all relevant data, not just the data that supports their position."

Bush Policies Are Weakening National Guard, Governors Say

Bush Policies Are Weakening National Guard, Governors Say

Thanks for getting a clue

WASHINGTON - Governors of both parties said Sunday that Bush administration policies were stripping the National Guard of equipment and personnel needed to respond to hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, forest fires and other emergencies.


The National Guard plays an incredibly valuable role in the states. What we are concerned about...is that when our troops are deployed for long periods of time, and their equipment goes with them but does not come back, the troops are very strained, and they no longer have the equipment they were trained to use.

Tens of thousands of National Guard members have been sent to Iraq, along with much of the equipment needed to deal with natural disasters and terrorist threats in the United States, the governors said here at the winter meeting of the National Governors Association.

The National Guard, which traces its roots to the colonial militia, has a dual federal-state role. Governors normally command the Guard in their states, but Guard members deployed overseas in support of a federal mission are under the control of the president.

The governors said they would present their concerns to President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Monday. In a preview of their message, all 50 governors signed a letter to the president opposing any cuts in the size of the National Guard.

"Unfortunately," the letter said, "when our National Guard men and women return from being deployed in foreign theaters, much of their equipment remains behind." The governors said the White House must immediately re-equip Guard units "to carry out their homeland security and domestic disaster duties."

Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a Republican and chairman of the governors association, said: "The National Guard plays an incredibly valuable role in the states. What we are concerned about, as governors, is that when our troops are deployed for long periods of time, and their equipment goes with them but does not come back, the troops are very strained, and they no longer have the equipment they were trained to use."

Nearly one-third of the American ground forces in Iraq are members of the Army National Guard.

This month the Pentagon backed away from a budget proposal to reduce the authorized strength of the National Guard to 330,000 soldiers, from 350,000.

"We have no intention of cutting the number of Guard or Reserve brigades, reducing the number of Guard or Reserve soldiers, or cutting the level of Guard or Reserve funding," said the Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker.

Gov. Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho, a Republican, said Sunday that he was still "very concerned." The administration may have set aside the proposal on authorized strength, but it has not restored money to the budget to pay for 350,000 Guard members, he said.

In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said that "extensive use of the Guard's equipment overseas has significantly reduced the amount of equipment available to governors for domestic needs."

Since 2003, the report said, the Army National Guard has left more than 64,000 pieces of equipment, valued at more than $1.2 billion, in Iraq. The Army has not kept track of most of this equipment and has no firm plans to replace it, the report said.

Governor Kempthorne said the National Guard was bearing "a totally disproportionate share" of proposed cuts in the growth of the Army's budget over the next five years, even as the Guard's responsibilities at home were increasing.

Governors of both parties said a Pentagon plan to reorganize the Army National Guard would significantly weaken its ability to save lives and property at home.

After Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, more than 40,000 Guard members helped evacuate storm victims, distributed food and water, provided emergency medical care, repaired homes and restored power.

Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco of Louisiana, a Democrat, said: "The Guard played an awesome role. We should be increasing the number of National Guard combat brigades, not reducing it."

Two other Democrats, Govs. Tom Vilsack of Iowa and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, said the strength and resources of Guard units in their states were being depleted.

"We are not only missing National Guard personnel," Ms. Sebelius said. "We are also missing a lot of the equipment that's used to deal with situations at home, day in and day out."

Despite assurances from top administration officials, Mr. Vilsack said, "many of us are very concerned about what we're hearing, that the Pentagon, the administration, might reduce the resources for the National Guard so they can redirect resources to pay for more boots on the ground, more full-time military."

David M. Walker, the comptroller general of the United States, who heads the Government Accountability Office, said the governors had some basis for their concerns.

"The Army cannot account for over half the equipment that Army National Guard units have left overseas," Mr. Walker said. "And it has not developed replacement plans for the equipment, as Defense Department policy requires."

In the Battle for Baghdad, U.S. Turns War on Insurgents

In the Battle for Baghdad, U.S. Turns War on Insurgents

PATROL BASE SWAMP, Iraq -- Here, in a half-ruined house bristling with dull black machine guns and surrounded by green sandbags, shin-deep mudholes, and shadowy palm groves, lies the leading edge of the U.S. war in Iraq.

This remote outpost, manned by Bravo Company of a unit in the 101st Airborne Division, is the forwardmost American position in the so-called Triangle of Death southwest of Baghdad. Some U.S. commanders say the region is now the focal point in their campaign against Iraq's stubborn insurgency. It's a tough fight: Just getting U.S. troops established here in the canal-laced fields of the Euphrates River Valley meant running a gantlet of roadside bombs, with one platoon encountering 14 in a three-hour stretch.


Interviews with U.S. soldiers -- from top generals to front-line grunts in Tall Afar, Mosul, Ramadi, Balad and throughout Baghdad -- as well as briefings at the U.S. military headquarters for the Middle East in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar, reveal a markedly different war from that seen in 2003 and 2004, or even last year.

Current U.S. military commanders say they have come to understand that they are fighting within a political context, which means the results must first be judged politically. The pace and shape of the war also have changed, with U.S. forces trying to exercise tactical patience and shift responsibilities to Iraqi forces, even as they worry that the American public's patience may be dwindling.

The war also has changed geographically. Over the last three years, it has developed a pattern of moving around the country, from Fallujah to Najaf to Mosul and Samarra and back to Fallujah. Last summer and fall it was focused in Tall Afar, in the northwest, and in the upper Euphrates, in the remote western part of Anbar province near Syria.

This year the war seems to hinge on the battle for Baghdad. Inside the capital, that promises to be primarily a political fight over the makeup of the future government of Iraq -- and whether it can prevent a civil war, a threat that appeared much more likely this week with the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra and retaliatory attacks on Sunni mosques and clerics.

U.S. officials don't talk much about the prospects of civil war. It is unclear what role the United States would play if such a war broke out, but military strategists said American forces would be used to try to minimize violence but not to actually intervene between warring groups.

On Baghdad's outskirts, the war remains very much a military campaign. The flat agricultural plain south and southwest of the capital "is what I would call the most lethal area in Baghdad," said Col. Todd Ebel, the brigade commander there.

This is the war of the Iyahs, as American troops call the cluster of hard-bitten towns named Mahmudiyah, Yusufiyah, Latifiyah and Iskandariyah that over the last two years became insurgent strongholds. Not coincidentally, these towns, between Baghdad and Karbala, also are on the fault line between Sunni Iraq and Shiite Iraq and likely would be a flash point for a civil war.

"The insurgency belongs to the 4 ID and the Marines -- it's Baghdad and the west," said a senior U.S. military intelligence official in Qatar who declined to be identified by name because of his line of work. (Ebel's 101st Division brigade running Patrol Base Swamp and operating southwest of Baghdad is attached to the 4th Infantry Division, which has responsibility for the Baghdad area.) Senior military officials describe the Marine Corps' fight in western Anbar province more as an effort to contain an insurgency they expect to remain chronic in that area.

Here in the area south and west of Baghdad, the push by the Army's 4th Infantry was launched in recent months to give the capital some breathing space. "My job, above all things, is to keep them out of Baghdad," said Capt. Andre Rivier, the Swiss-American commander of Patrol Base Swamp. "The important thing is to keep them fighting here. That's really the crux of the fight." By taking the battle to rural-based insurgents, the Army hopes to gain the initiative, pressuring the enemy at a time and place of the Americans' choosing, rather than simply trying to catch suicide bombers as they drive into the capital.

Despite its proximity to the city, this area was visited surprisingly sporadically by U.S. troops over the last three years. Even now there are pockets where no American faces have been seen, and there still are no-go areas for U.S. troops where the roads are heavily seeded with bombs. Following counterinsurgency doctrine, Ebel doesn't want to take areas and then leave them. So he moves his forces slowly, first establishing a checkpoint, then conducting patrols to study the area and its people, and then, after a pause, pushing his front line half a mile forward and putting up another checkpoint.

CONTINUED 1 2
Next

Port Deal To Have Broader Review

Port Deal To Have Broader Review

The Bush administration said yesterday that it has accepted a proposal from a Dubai maritime company to conduct a 45-day review of the national security implications of the company's plans to take control of significant operations at six U.S. ports.

The announcement by Dubai Ports World, brokered by the White House and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), appears to satisfy the demands of many members of Congress, who had threatened to force a security review if the administration would not conduct one. The deal also offered pledges to reassure the United States that the ports deal would not pose any threats to American safety and security.



Dubai Ports World, a maritime company in the United Arab Emirates that plans to take control of significant operations at six U.S. ports in a deal expected to be completed on Thursday, oversees operations at this port in Djibouti in Eastern Africa.
Dubai Ports World, a maritime company in the United Arab Emirates that plans to take control of significant operations at six U.S. ports in a deal expected to be completed on Thursday, oversees operations at this port in Djibouti in Eastern Africa. (By Ahmed Jadallah -- Reuters)

The administration had approved DP World's $6.85 billion purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O) earlier this month without conducting a security review, after a broad interagency panel that looked at the transaction concluded the takeover of port operations in the United States would not affect the nation's safety.

But last week, members of both political parties erupted in furor, questioning the administration's judgment and promising to delay the deal, if not scuttle it. After President Bush vowed to veto any legislation that would thwart the Dubai company's plans, the most public clash between the Republican Congress and the Bush White House seemed in the offing. But yesterday's announcement may have headed off any showdown.

"We recognize that there are concerns regarding DP World's acquisition of P&O's U.S. terminal operations. Despite having already obtained approval by the federal government, we continue to take voluntary steps to assure people that the security of the U.S. will not be harmed as a result of this acquisition," said Edward H. "Ted" Bilkey, DP World's chief operating officer.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "We are pleased that Dubai Ports reached a middle ground with Congress. The transaction was closely scrutinized by the appropriate national security and intelligence officials, and important safeguards are in place. We believe, however, the additional time and investigation at the request of the company will provide Congress with a better understanding of the facts, and that Congress will be comfortable with the transaction moving forward once it does."

Eric Ueland, Frist's chief of staff, said yesterday that the Senate majority leader would ask the relevant committees to continue oversight while the administration conducts its review, and he said the company will have to continue its efforts to reassure lawmakers.

But, he said, Frist and GOP leaders would not tamper with the secretive interagency administration panel, known as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), during the review. The committee said yesterday in a statement that it welcomes the announcement and that it will "promptly initiate the review process and fulfill Dubai's request for a full investigation."

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), who supports the deal, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the new agreement "spells out unequivocally the willingness of this company to give every means of support to help work this thing out."

Warner called the ports deal diplomatically and economically vital to the United States. "This is going to establish a precedent, and it's got to be done in a way not to choke off other opportunities," he said.

Lawmakers who had threatened to block or delay the deal welcomed a longer investigation. Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) said the new proposal probably would quell calls for emergency legislation in Congress this week. He said a deeper investigation is necessary of a United Arab Emirates-owned company operating U.S. ports.

"This was only 4 1/2 , five years ago that they were very close to bin Laden, they were supporting Taliban," King, who heads the House Homeland Security Committee, said on "Meet the Press." "And unless there's been a complete transformation, I have real concerns."

Next

An Assertive India Girds for Negotiations With Bush - New York Times

An Assertive India Girds for Negotiations With Bush - New York Times

NEW DELHI, Feb. 27 — When President Bush lands in India early Wednesday, he will encounter an ever ambivalent American ally with one important difference from the past: this India has new power to assert its views, some of which align with Mr. Bush's agenda and some of which do not.

A performer removed his mask after an anti-Bush rally in New Delhi last week. Despite the protests, many Indians say they admire America.

Demonstrators burned effigies of President Bush near a New Delhi mosque last week before his planned visit and waved "Hush Bush" signs.~Scott Eells for The New York Times

Much has changed, in fact, since the last visit here by an American president, in 2000, when President Clinton's address to the Indian Parliament was received so enthusiastically that lawmakers climbed over benches to shake his hand.

Facing prospects of protests, President Bush is not expected to address Parliament at all. But that is not to say that India has morphed into an anti-American redoubt. There is still in most quarters enthusiasm for relations.

But in the past six years, India has also become a more confident partner — in trade and in America's campaigns against terrorism and nuclear proliferation — which touch India both obliquely and directly as it looks abroad in pursuit of its own interests like never before. Meanwhile, India's endemic prickliness shows no signs of remission.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta, president of the nonpartisan Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, sees in his country what he calls "a great admiration for U.S. power," a capacity that many Indians find worthy of emulation. "This is a power that acts independently, acts freely, is not constrained," he said. "It's not so much an anti-American view than wanting to replicate that."

That fine balance is most visible in talks over whether to reward India with access to American nuclear technology, an issue about which both sides would like to announce a deal this week. They are not there yet, as the talks rub up against the one thing that many Indians, particularly in the political elite, hold dear: the idea of India's independence.

Little else may actually unite opinion here. Indeed, the many shades of political opinion found in this feisty country of one billion defy any easy rendering — of an India as either for or against the United States. India has fundamentalists of the Hindu and Muslim persuasion, Maoist guerrillas, free marketers, newly minted millionaires and Marxist lawmakers with posters of Che Guevara on their office walls.

The Pew Global Attitudes Project found Indians last year to be among the most cheerful in their appraisal of both the United States and President Bush. In a survey published this week in the Indian newsweekly Outlook, two-thirds of Indians "strongly" or "somewhat" regarded Mr. Bush as "a friend of India," even as 72 percent called the United States "a bully."

In the same survey, conducted by A. C. Nielsen, nearly two-thirds of respondents said India should go its own way and defy American objections on a natural gas pipeline to Iran. Perhaps most striking, fewer than half the Indians surveyed said they would want to "settle down in the U.S."

The conflicting currents come as relations between the countries have undergone a revolution, and are more entwined than ever before, making commonplace today what would have been unthinkable even a few years ago.

Indians are buying American arms. The two military powers are conducting joint counterinsurgency exercises. Indians are among the fastest growing immigrant groups in the United States, and charity money from America — something that would be held in suspicion in the recent past — is helping to train Indian nurses to care for people with AIDS.

But it is the nuclear deal that is potentially most fraught for both sides. In contradiction to its stand against nuclear proliferation with countries like Iran, the White House has promised India access to civilian nuclear technology, provided that New Delhi comes up with a plan to separate its civilian and military programs.

As beneficial as such a deal would be to this vast, energy-starved nation, it is this demand that has exposed a deep vein of postcolonial pride in the Indian political culture. Why, even pro-American voices are asking, should Washington be allowed to exert leverage over the contours of the nuclear program in India, long a defiant opponent of the global nonproliferation treaty?

Photobucket