20.3.06

Third Anniversary of Iraq war is Marked by Protests Around World

Third Anniversary of Iraq war is Marked by Protests Around World

That's a beautiful thing :)

Hundreds of thousands of people will take to the streets in Britain and around the world today to protest over the presence of British and American troops in Iraq, amid increasing official recognition that the country is slipping into civil war.


Demonstrators gather in Rome, Saturday, March 18, 2006, to protest against the U.S.-led war in Iraq.The banner in backgorund reads, Not in our name. U.S. Citizens against the war. Thousands of people held anti-war demonstrations Saturday in global protests that marked the third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq by demanding that coalition troops pull out. (AP Photo/Pier Paolo Cito)
Organisers of the mass demonstration, timed to mark the third anniversary of the morning President George Bush declared war on Iraq on 20 March 2003, hope it will attract similar numbers to the million who protested in London in February that year.

In London this morning, protesters will gather in Parliament Square and march to Trafalgar Square for a rally to be addressed by MPs and other anti-war activists. Similar protests will take place in Basra and Baghdad, as well as in New York, Madrid, Rome, Sydney and many other major cities, calling for the removal of troops.

The march will pass the offices of the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, to underline the allegation that the war was illegal and that Britain and the US are guilty of war crimes. Both Lord Goldsmith's office and the United Nations are already considering a letter, drafted by Tony Benn, the veteran peace campaigner, and co-signed by more than 1,000 leading figures, detailing 28 alleged breaches of the Nuremberg Charter and the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

In Iraq, there were suggestions that the much-trumpeted assault on insurgents, code-named Operation Swarmer, around the city of Samarra, north of Baghdad, was little more than a show of strength designed to intimidate the insurgents. United States military officials claimed the operation, involving 50 helicopters, was the biggest "air assault" since a similar airlift across Iraq just after the war in late April 2003.

Elsewhere in Iraq, the violence continued. Among several incidents, three bodies with bullet holes to the head and signs of torture were found in Baghdad - apparently part of a wave of sectarian violence that has left more than 100 corpses dumped in the city since Monday.

Significantly, the US second-in-command in the country said yesterday that while the plan was for the Iraqi government security forces to control about 75 per cent of Iraqi territory by "the end of summer", the country appeared closer to civil war than at any time since March 2003. "The possibility of civil war may be higher today than it has been in the last three years, yet I believe we are still far away from such an event," said Lieutenant-General Peter Chiarelli. He added that the Iraqi security forces currently controlled about 50 per cent of the country.

Lindsey German, convener of the Stop the War Coalition, said the demonstrations were the first time there would be co-ordinated simultaneous protests in Britain, Iraq and the United States. She added: "We believe a peaceful solution to the chaos caused by the illegal war in Iraq will only be possible when the occupying foreign armies have all been removed, so that the Iraqi people will be free to decide on their own political future.''

The letter from Mr Benn accusing Britain and the US of war crimes includes claims that both countries were involved in "planning and conducting an aggressive war using deceit, including deliberately falsifying reports to arouse passion in support of this war" - a reference to various dossiers presented to Parliament and to the United Nations, which have been largely discredited.

The UN has told Mr Benn that the letter raises "matters of extremely serious concern". The Attorney General's office has promised a reply by early April.

19.3.06

One, Two, Three, What Are We Fighting For?

One, Two, Three, What Are We Fighting For?

In 1965, when Berkeley's Country Joe McDonald wrote "Fixin' To Die Rag," he couldn't have imagined that his anti-war anthem would be applicable in 2006,

And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for - don't ask me I don't give a damn
Sunday is the third anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. Tell me again, what are we fighting for? OIL!

The US invaded Iraq for two reasons: Americans were told that Saddam Hussein and his supporters were an imminent threat to our safety, and the Bush Administration argued that the best way to combat terrorism, in general, was to go on offense, "to fight them there so we won't have to fight them here." There was a tactical objective, defang Iraq so they wouldn't threaten our security, and a strategic objective, hit the terrorists so hard that they would suffer a mortal blow and not have the wherewithal to attack us as they did on 9/11. BU*SH*IT

Of the stated reasons for the invasion, only one has clearly been accomplished: the removal of Saddam Hussein as Iraqi dictator. The other objectives that the Bush Administration talked about in the run up to the war either have not been achieved, or are controversial: No weapons of mass destruction have ever been located. Nor did our armed forces find any of the delivery vehicles - rockets or pilot-less drones-that we were warned about. Americans were told that Saddam Hussein had a connection with Al Qaeda and that this link had to be broken. Paradoxically, the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection that, before the war, many argued was non-existent, has become a dangerous reality over the course of the occupation. The success of the Zarqawi-led forces has, by many estimates, strengthened Al Qaeda recruiting.

As it became clear that the occupation of Iraq would not be the cakewalk that the Bush Administration imagined, the White House propaganda machine started telling Americans that we were fighting for "freedom." Iraq would become a model democracy to serve as an example for the rest of the Middle East.

Three years later, it is difficult to see the freedom that the Bush Administration promised. Iraqi domestic security is so fragile that most citizens' huddle in their homes as civil war swirls around them. Their infrastructure is in worse shape than it was before the invasion. There has been a marked deterioration in the rights and safety of women. And, in general, human rights have suffered.

All of this would be irrelevant if the occupation of Iraq made the US safer. If we accomplished our objective of hitting the terrorists so hard that they lost their capacity to launch another 9/11-style attack. Of course, there has not been another major domestic attack. Nonetheless, there are disturbing signs that our position has grown weaker rather than stronger.

The US is the strongest military power in the world; we spend more on defense than all of our competitors combined. Nonetheless, the Iraqi venture has pointed out glaring weaknesses in our defense posture. The entire world has seen the Bush Administration override sound military advice-the number of troops necessary for an effective occupation-for political purposes. They have seen America make a series of bad decisions indicating that while we may be strong, we are not very smart.

As powerful as the US is, it does not have unlimited resources. Our costly commitment to Iraq has had three deleterious side affects: the first is that it has impaired our ability to fight another, parallel, ground campaign. Faced with the possibility of Iran becoming a nuclear power, the US has only a limited range of options. Because it cannot threaten Iran with an invasion aimed at eliminating its nuclear enrichment capability, the US can bomb Iran, fall back on diplomacy, or simply hope for the best.

The second negative side-affect has been to weaken our commitment to domestic security. After 9/11, there were a number of reports-most notably that of the 9/11 commission-that suggested common-sense steps that needed to be taken to reduce the probability of another major terrorist attack. Most of these steps have not been taken-scanning all incoming cargo containers being a prime example. Part of this failure can be attributed to the incompetence of the Bush Administration, but a major portion is due to the fact that money that should be allocated to nuts-and-bolts homeland security is being spent in Iraq.

Finally, the third side-affect has been the weakening of the US economy. The war in Iraq has added to our already gargantuan national debt. Diverted needed funds for education, healthcare, and repair of a weakening infrastructure.

Has the war in Iraq strengthened freedom in the US? NO Most of us would argue that it has had the opposite affect. It has resulted in our abandoning the Geneva conventions and subjecting captives to torture and unlawful confinement. It has justified a widespread program of ethnic profiling directed at Arab and Muslim foreign nationals. It has produced a program of warrantless domestic eavesdropping on millions of Americans.

It's seen the Administration savagely manipulate the media. Like the Iraqis, our freedoms have been diminished.

When we step back and take a dispassionate look at what the war in Iraq has accomplished, we see that it is far more than a disappointment.

It is a catastrophic blunder that has weakened the United States and threatens the foundations of our Democracy.

Forty years ago, Country Joe called it,

And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates
Ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee we're all gonna die.

Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer and activist. He can be reached at bobburnett@comcast.net.

They Ask, We Ask: Was it Worse Under Saddam?

They Ask, We Ask: Was it Worse Under Saddam?

In June last year, in al-Jadriyah, a wealthy suburb of Baghdad, the wife of a veterinary surgeon received a call that people in the city have come to dread. It was from an unknown group claiming respon- sibility for kidnapping her husband a few hours earlier and demanding a ransom of $100,000. Her response was not what they expected. She thanked them and urged them to pay her $200 in return for killing her husband, describing him as useless, unemployed and penniless. She desperately needed the money, she said, to buy essential medicine for her youngest son. The gang, assuming they had nabbed the wrong person and were not after all in possession of a professional man of means, released the vet unharmed. His wife's unorthodox reaction had saved him.

The vet was one of the lucky few; thousands more Iraqis have been killed by their kidnappers, many of them after large ransoms have been paid. Even school- children are not spared: at a press briefing this month, Abdul Falah al-Sudani, the minister for education, said that 76 schools around the country have been attacked since April 2003, resulting in the deaths of 64 students and 310 teachers or other school employees. This was threatening to paralyse the entire school system, putting in jeopardy the educational rehabilitation of the country, he said.

The story is the same at the universities. Isam al-Rawi, head of the Teachers' Association of Iraqi Universities, says that more than 200 lecturers have been murdered since the fall of Saddam Hussein, in what he describes as "organised killings". Just last week, four lecturers were kidnapped from al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad and to date no trace of them has been found. Samir, a sports teacher from Fallujah, told me resignedly: "Threats to teachers like myself, and their assassination, have become something normal in Iraq and we have to live with that."

With kidnap gangs singling out the children of professional parents, it is little wonder that families are fleeing the country in what amounts to a severe brain drain. University professors, doctors, engineers and businessmen and their next of kin seek refuge abroad, many in Amman, the Jordanian capital, where tens of thousands of Iraqis have already settled over the past three years. (There are so many of them, in fact, that property prices in Amman are soaring.) The shrinking of the intellectual heart of Iraq has all but extinguished private investment and the consequences are being felt by the entire country at the most basic levels. Unemployment is running at 60 per cent and life for the Iraqi people is more difficult than at any time in living memory.

The frequent bombs, of course, are terrifying, but their effect is all the greater and all the more depressing because a lack of decent hospital facilities has led to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of civilians admitted to the emergency wards. Late last year, Basma, a young medical student I know, returned home in tears one evening from her work at what used to be Iraq's finest hospital, the Medical City in Baab al-Mouaadem, central Baghdad. That afternoon, she explained to her family, two car bombs had exploded in separate neighbourhoods and ambulances had ferried the victims to her hospital. Doctors were standing by in the emergency operating theatre, but they had to make snap decisions about treatment not on the basis of what was medically possible, but to fit the limited equipment and medicines at their disposal.

A 23-year-old man, who had lost an eye, also had both legs and an arm amputated, even though Basma believes these could have been saved in earlier times. A 14-year-old boy had to have his leg amputated to avoid gangrene poisoning, but the hospital had no prosthetic limbs for his rehabilitation.

There is a scarcity of basic equipment that most hospitals store in ample quantities as a matter of course. Many injuries caused by car bombs require silk stitching thread for wounds to delicate parts of the body such as the face. Iraqi surgeons, however, have to use nylon thread, leaving the victims of shootings and bombings with more prominent physical scars to compound their psychological trauma. The situation today, the professionals insist, is even worse than in the last years of the old regime, when essential materials were in short supply because of UN economic sanctions.

Iraqis genuinely hoped that the quality of life in their country would soon rise to meet international standards once Saddam was no longer in power and sanctions had ended. Calculations based on the value of the country's oil reserves suggested that there would be plenty of money to spend on improving public services and strengthening the infrastructure. That optimism has vanished, and reconstruction has proved to be an illusion.

There has been no visible improvement to any of the services that are basic to civil society: drinking water, electricity supply, functioning sewage systems, schools and hospitals. Drinking water used to be available from household taps, but that is no longer safe to drink. Potholes in the roads, which were a com-mon cause of complaint in Saddam's time, not only still exist but are even bigger. There were occasional power cuts in the old days but generally the citizens of Baghdad enjoyed a regular supply. Now they are reduced to electricity for just one hour in every six each day.

Nazha al-Said, an elderly lady in her seventies from the Dora neighbourhood in south-eastern Baghdad, didn't mince her words when she spoke to me. She accused the new rulers of being more corrupt than the previous regime, and pointed to the lack of progress in helping people survive summer temperatures that can reach an overwhelming 55 C between June and August. Although some people can sleep on rooftops at night, there is a high risk of suffocation, particularly in neighbour-hoods such as al-Sadr City, where more than three million people are squashed into 25 square kilometres of slums, with several families living together in every house. Most people can't afford electricity generators to power air-conditioners, even if they could find them on sale.

It is bizarre, travelling through a country that has one of the largest oil reserves on earth, to observe the long queues of cars at petrol stations. Drivers have become so resigned to this that they often bring their entire families along to keep them company. It is not unusual to see picnics being laid out along the roadside to pass away the time, while someone guards the car for fear of losing that precious place in the queue. People even risk their lives to fill their tanks - bombs can explode at the rate of five or more per day. The black market is thriving, with gangs selling petrol at hiked-up prices to those willing and able to pay to avoid the dangerous queues. One driver I encountered in Kirkuk was disgusted at the length of a queue we joined. "This city sleeps on a sea of oil and just look at us," he lamented.

Naturally, the biggest concern for Iraqis is security. The civilian death rate is higher than ever, and not a day passes without reports of dozens killed, whether it be from car bombs or sectarian murder. It has become second nature to brief your loved ones as they leave for work, school or the market, reeling off the list of streets and neighbourhoods that have become recent targets for suicide bombers or kidnap gangs, and reminding them to steer well clear.

Identifying particular districts with particular groups is easier than ever. Sectarian cleansing began in Baghdad and elsewhere immediately after the fall of the old regime, with Shias or Kurds going to Sunnis living in predominantly Shia or Kurdish areas, accusing them of being part of Saddam's regime and warning them to move out. Sectarian killings often followed. Sunnis fled in terror, leaving clearly defined Shia and Kurdish areas. Soon Sunnis adopted the same tactics, forcing Shias out of heavily populated Sunni areas such as al-Adhamiyah, Dora and Saidiya.

This is something new in Iraq, a break with history that many Sunnis and Shias are reluctant to acknowledge. I have heard people pour scorn on television news broadcasts warning of a sectarian war and point instead to the large number of mixed marriages in Iraq, said to account for almost 50 per cent of the popula- tion. In addition, they say, the religious leadership of both the Sunnis and Shias are working to calm their supporters and create harmony. Certainly many cross-community bonds survive. A prominent Shia woman, who served as a minister in the interim government of Iyad Alawi, told me she has five sisters and that four of them are married to Sunnis, as is she. She impressed on me how impossible it would be for her sisters to turn against their husbands and children, just because they came from a different branch of Islam. She felt this was the case for the many others across the country who have married into a different sect.

The general sense of insecurity is aggravated by the lack of organised and trustworthy policing. It is widely accepted that many crimes take place right under the noses of the police force, and that the police often fail to intervene and protect people targeted by gangs. The police themselves have been involved in kidnapping and murder. Many blame the increasingly powerful Shia militias that have infiltrated the police. Militia leaders also encouraged their troops to join the payroll of the interior ministry, and Sunni leaders complain that death squads attached to the ministry have killed large numbers of Sunnis.

The scale of death among Iraq's male population may even have unbalanced the country's demographics, with disastrous consequences for women. The number of widows is growing rapidly and the rate at which women are being kidnapped or forced into prostitution is increasing. On 8 March, International Women's Day, Yanar Mohammed, leader of the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq, announced that more than 2,000 women have been kidnapped since the fall of the regime.

Many women live isolated lives, their social contact limited to conversations over the telephone. Those who continue going to work, particularly in the Shia south, can find themselves harassed by Islamic militias. "Morality police" in Basra are likely to stop them as they enter schools and government buildings, checking they are wearing the hijab. This Taliban-style enforcement continues despite guarantees under the new constitution that women should be free to choose how they dress.

Concepts of justice and law have little meaning for ordinary Iraqis. They watch the televised trial of Saddam Hussein, but it seems surreal - a kind of reality-TV show, but one far removed from their own reality. When Saddam is found guilty, as inevitably he will be, it will do little to change the grim and ever-worsening situation on the ground.

Zaki Chehab works for al-Hayat newspaper and for Lebanese broadcasting, and is the author of Inside the Resistance (Nation Books).

Nuclear Reactors Found to Be Leaking Radioactive Water

Nuclear Reactors Found to Be Leaking Radioactive Water

WASHINGTON - With power cleaner than coal and cheaper than natural gas, the nuclear industry, 20 years past its last meltdown, thinks it is ready for its second act: its first new reactor orders since the 1970's.


Illinois officials stood Thursday by a map that showed an underground pipeline believed to be leaking at the Braidwood Generating Station. (M. Spencer Green/Associated Press)
But there is a catch. The public's acceptance of new reactors depends in part on the performance of the old ones, and lately several of those have been discovered to be leaking radioactive water into the ground.

Near Braceville, Ill., the Braidwood Generating Station, owned by the Exelon Corporation, has leaked tritium into underground water that has shown up in the well of a family nearby. The company, which has bought out one property owner and is negotiating with others, has offered to help pay for a municipal water system for houses near the plant that have private wells.

In a survey of all 10 of its nuclear plants, Exelon found tritium in the ground at two others. On Tuesday, it said it had had another spill at Braidwood, about 60 miles southwest of Chicago, and on Thursday, the attorney general of Illinois announced she was filing a lawsuit against the company over that leak and five earlier ones, dating to 1996. The suit demands among other things that the utility provide substitute water supplies to residents.

In New York, at the Indian Point 2 reactor in Buchanan, workers digging a foundation adjacent to the plant's spent fuel pool found wet dirt, an indication that the pool was leaking. New monitoring wells are tracing the tritium's progress toward the Hudson River.

Indian Point officials say the quantities are tiny, compared with the amount of tritium that Indian Point is legally allowed to release into the river. Officials said they planned to find out how much was leaking and declare the leak a "monitored release pathway."

Nils J. Diaz, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said he would withhold judgment on the proposal until after it reached his agency, but he added, "They're going to have to fix it."

This month, workers at the Palo Verde plant in New Mexico found tritium in an underground pipe vault.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, which is critical of nuclear power safety arrangements, said recently that in the past 10 years, tritium had leaked from at least seven reactors. It called for a systematic program to ensure there were no more leaks.

Tami Branum, who lives close to the Braidwood reactor and owns property in the nearby village of Godley, said in a telephone interview, "It's just absolutely horrible, what we're trying to deal with here." Ms. Branum and her children, 17-year-old twin girls and a 7-year-old boy, drink only bottled water, she said, but use municipal water for everything else. "We're bathing in it, there's no way around it," she said.

Ms. Branum said that her property in Godley was worth about $50,000 and that she wanted to sell it, but that no property was changing hands now because of the spill.

A spokesman for Exelon, Craig Nesbit, said that neither Godley's water nor Braidwood's water system was threatened, but that the company had lost credibility when it did not publicly disclose a huge fuel oil spill and spills of tritium from 1996 to 2003. No well outside company property shows levels that exceed drinking water standards, he said.

Mr. Diaz of the regulatory agency, speaking to a gathering of about 1,800 industry executives and government regulators last week, said utilities were planning to apply for 11 reactor projects, with a total of 17 reactors. The Palo Verde reactor was the last one that was ordered, in October 1973, and actually built.

As the agency prepares to review license applications for the first time in decades, it is focusing on "materials degradation," a catch-all term for cracks, rust and other ills to which nuclear plants are susceptible. The old metal has to hold together, or be patched or replaced as required, for the industry to have a chance at building new plants, experts say.

Tritium, a form of hydrogen with two additional neutrons in its nucleus, is especially vexing. The atom is unstable and returns to stability by emitting a radioactive particle. Because the hydrogen is incorporated into a water molecule, it is almost impossible to filter out. The biological effect of the radiation is limited because, just like ordinary water, water that incorporates tritium does not stay in the body long.

But it is detectable in tiny quantities, and always makes its source look bad. The Energy Department closed a research reactor in New York at its Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, largely because of a tritium leak.

And it can catch up to a plant after death; demolition crews at the Connecticut Yankee reactor in Haddam Neck, Conn., are disposing of extra dirt that has been contaminated with tritium and other materials, as they tear the plant down.

After years of flat employment levels, the industry is preparing to hire hundreds of new engineers. Luis A. Reyes, the executive director for operations at the regulatory commission, told the industry gathering last week, "We'll take your résumé in hard copy, online, whatever you can do," eliciting laughter from an audience heavy with executives of reactor operators and companies that want to build new ones.

U.S. Owes Restitution to East Timor

U.S. Owes Restitution to East Timor

POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y. -- The logic of reparations for war-related crimes has become especially powerful in the aftermath of the Nazi-perpetrated Holocaust, as a way to address both past and associated present injustices. Such thinking led the United Nations Security Council, with strong U.S. support, to impose a $52 billion reparations bill on Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government in 1991, after its invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

Like reasoning should now lead the United States to agree to pay restitution to East Timor, for supporting the mass killings and destruction in that country. This is the effective demand of an East Timorese commission of inquiry's report handed over last month to the United Nations.

The some 2,500 pages provide chilling detail on many of the worst atrocities committed during Indonesia's reign of terror in the former Portuguese colony. But most explosive is the truth commission's recommendation that Indonesia and its Western backers, such as the United States, provide reparations for their roles in East Timor's plight.

It was 30 years ago in December that Indonesia's military launched a full-scale invasion of East Timor. The war and subsequent occupation resulted in many tens of thousands of deaths, widespread rape and sexual enslavement of women and girls, and, in the waning days of Jakarta's presence, systematic destruction of the territory's buildings and infrastructure. Today, East Timor is one of the world's poorest countries.

Washington greatly enabled Indonesia's crimes in East Timor. Indeed, the truth-commission report characterizes U.S. political and military assistance as "fundamental" to the 1975 invasion and the occupation that endured until late 1999.

Declassified government documents reveal that Jakarta was so worried about how Washington would react to its aggression that Suharto, Indonesia's dictator, vetoed earlier plans to invade East Timor. Only after consulting Washington on multiple occasions -- and, most important, receiving the green light from President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger the day before the invasion -- did Suharto launch an all-out attack.

Over the almost 24 years of brutality that followed, U.S. Democratic and Republican administrations alike provided invaluable diplomatic cover and many billions of dollars' worth of weapons, military equipment and training, and economic aid to Jakarta.

Yet despite the systematic atrocities and the resulting hardships in now-independent East Timor, neither Indonesia nor the United States has acknowledged or apologized for their actions, never mind made amends.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi people have shelled out almost $20 billion, mostly to Kuwait's state oil company and government, and, shockingly, continue to pay, despite the end of Saddam's government.

Irrespective of the merits of forcing the Iraqi people to pay for the crimes of a dictatorial regime -- especially one long backed by Washington until the Kuwait invasion -- the U.N. reparations set an important precedent. It is one not easily ignored by a U.S. government that has supported the reparations regimen from the get-go, and has also championed the need to hold accountable direct perpetrators of gross crimes, as well as those complicit in them.

No less than President Bush has forcefully staked out such a position. Speaking to Congress nine days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush held the Afghan government co-responsible for that terrorism: "By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder."

Fortunately, unlike in the case of al-Qaida and its Taliban sponsor, no one advocates military attacks against those responsible for the crimes committed in East Timor -- only that they acknowledge their sins and pay reparations to a tiny country that they devastated.

Advocates of human rights and international law in the United States should take seriously the recommendation for reparations from East Timor's truth commission, and call upon Congress to hold hearings on the matter. Making restitution would provide critical long-term resources to help the East Timorese eliminate the pervasive, profound poverty that now afflicts their country, while setting a principled example for other Western governments to follow. And setting a precedent of accountability for U.S. foreign policy just might make policymakers in Washington think twice about backing state terror abroad again.

Joseph Nevins, an assistant professor of geography at Vassar College, is the author of A Not-So-Distant Horror: Mass Violence in East Timor (Cornell University Press, 2005).

U.S. War Spending to Rise 44% to $9.8 Bln a Month, Report Says

U.S. War Spending to Rise 44% to $9.8 Bln a Month, Report Says

U.S. military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will average 44 percent more in the current fiscal year than in fiscal 2005, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said.

Spending will rise to $9.8 billion a month from the $6.8 billion a month the Pentagon said it spent last year, the research service said. The group's March 10 report cites "substantial'' expenses to replace or repair damaged weapons, aircraft, vehicles, radios and spare parts.

It also figures in costs for health care, fuel, national intelligence and the training of Iraqi and Afghan security forces -- "now a substantial expense,'' it said.

The research service said it considers "all war and occupation costs,'' while the Pentagon counts just the cost of personnel, maintenance and operations.

The House approved emergency funding that includes the military spending last night by a vote of 348-71. The measure authorizes $72 billion for war costs and almost $20 billion for hurricane relief. The Senate is expected to pass it next month.

Congress already has approved $50 billion in supplemental war funding for the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, after spending $100 billion last year. To date, Congress has approved about $337 billion for the wars since Sept. 11, 2001.

2007 Funding

The administration has said it also will seek $50 billion in war funding for fiscal 2007 to serve as a bridge fund until needs are assessed. That will be on top of the $439.3 billion defense budget the president submitted.

The request the House approved last night includes $67.6 billion for war operations, much of it in costs for personnel and repair and replacement of equipment; about $4.9 billion to train and equip Afghan and Iraqi security forces; and about $2 billion for defenses against roadside bombs, which have been a leading cause of death for U.S. servicemen in Iraq.

To date, 2,310 members of the U.S. military have died in Iraq since the war began three years ago, 1,808 of them in combat, according to the Pentagon.

The hurricane money approved last night will go toward housing, enhancing levees and public safety projects in Louisiana and Mississippi following the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina last August, the administration has said.

Spending on the wars and hurricane relief will help widen the federal budget deficit to a record $423 billion this fiscal 2006, an increase from last year's $319 billion deficit, the administration forecast last month.

$87 Billion Already

Of the $87 billion already approved for hurricane relief and rebuilding, $31 billion has been earmarked for health and social services, school repairs, payments to farmers and unemployment insurance; $41 billion is going for temporary housing and flood insurance payments and $15 billion is set aside for levee and road repairs and repairs to damaged federal facilities, according to the administration.

The measure passed last night includes an amendment to prohibit a Dubai-owned company from operating port facilities in the U.S. DP World, the third-largest container port operator, has already promised it will sell its U.S. operations to a U.S. buyer. Most lawmakers conceded the issue was moot but wanted their opposition to the original deal to be on record.

Other amendments provide extra money for anti-drug operations in Colombia and peacekeeping efforts in the Darfur region of Sudan.

Anger is a First Step to Political Action Against Administration's Behavior

Anger is a First Step to Political Action Against Administration's Behavior

Sometimes I feel as if the president and I are in a bad marriage.

It was never a love match, but I was willing to give the guy a shot. That is, until he started giving national forest land to the loggers and policy-writing privileges to the energy companies. Then there was the war. The lies about the war. The torture and the excuses for torture, the illegal detainees...

Pretty soon, I couldn't stand it. I wanted OUT! But after a while, I got so tired of being angry all the time that, like a beleaguered wife, I just grew resigned.

"Oh, the feds are so strapped for cash that they're going to make the folks in public housing pay more to get their toilets unclogged," I would read. "Bet that'll make a big dent in a $400 billion deficit." Shrug. "Oh, 50 people were kidnapped in one fell swoop in Iraq, now that the place is in utter chaos? That'll really burnish America's image as a nation builder." Shrug. "Guess I'll go get a Starbucks."

But even as I was giving up, one wife was going the opposite direction. She'd been kind of meek for a while, almost Stepford-ish in her eagerness to please, but finally, she'd had enough. "There are lots of things that we should be angry and outraged about," she told a crowd last week. To be angry, she declared, is "a badge of honor!"

Hillary Clinton was finally mad. And darned if the rest of the country isn't ready to be mad, too.

While the GOP has tried to taint Clinton as too angry to appeal to voters, her approval ratings actually went up after her rant. Now she's at 52 percent. Bush is at 38 percent.

The numbers tell you that it's not just Hillary who has had enough of this administration. It's a majority of Americans, tired of illegal wiretapping and lax port security. Tired of scandals that we can barely keep track of. Tired of being chided about our addiction to oil, and then learning the president's budget slashed millions from a federal alternative fuel research facility.

Americans can see that Bush's tenure has been marked by this kind of hypocrisy and incompetence, same as we witnessed during Hurricane Katrina. But until now, except in Cindy Sheehan, we haven't seen much anger.

Maybe that's because the Democrats actually believed the Republican mantra that anger is a useless, even destructive emotion.

They shouldn't have. Anger may be no substitute for action, but without it, there often isn't any action. Ask a mistreated wife. It takes anger to wake up, walk out and start a better life.

Hillary, at last, is angry. So am I. And so, it seems, is the country. Good. Because that's the first step toward change.

Skenazy is a columnist at the New York Daily News.

Stop Bush's War

Stop Bush's War

"By some estimates," according to a recent article in Foreign Affairs, "the number of Iraqis who have died as a result of the [U.S.] invasion has reached six figures — vastly more than have been killed by all international terrorists in all of history. Sanctions on Iraq probably were a necessary cause of death for an even greater number of Iraqis, most of them children."

Not everyone agrees that Iraqi deaths have reached six figures. President Bush gave an estimate of 30,000 not too long ago. That's probably low, but horrendous nevertheless. In any event, there is broad agreement that the number of Iraqis slaughtered has reached into the tens of thousands. An ocean of blood has been shed in Mr. Bush's mindless war, and there is no end to this tragic flow in sight.

Jeffrey Gettleman of The Times gave us the following chilling paragraphs in Tuesday's paper:

"In Sadr City, the Shiite section in Baghdad where the [four] terrorist suspects were executed, government forces have vanished. The streets are ruled by aggressive teenagers with shiny soccer jerseys and machine guns.

"They set up roadblocks and poke their heads into cars and detain whomever they want. Mosques blare warnings on loudspeakers for American troops to stay out. Increasingly, the Americans have been doing just that."

Everyone who thought this war was a good idea was wrong and ought to admit it. Those who still think it's a good idea should get therapy.

Last Friday and Saturday, a conference titled "Vietnam and the Presidency" was held at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston. Discussions about the lessons we failed to learn from Vietnam, and thus failed to apply to Iraq, were pervasive.

Some of the lessons seemed embarrassingly basic. Jack Valenti, who served as a special assistant to Lyndon Johnson, reminded us how difficult it is to "impress democracy" on other countries. And he noted something that the public and the politicians seem to forget each time the glow of a brand-new war is upon us: that wars are "inhumane, brutal, callous and full of depravity."

Think Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo. Think suicide bombers and death squads and roadside bombs. Think of the formerly healthy men and women who have come back to the United States from Iraq paralyzed, or without their arms or legs or eyes, or the full use of their minds. Think of the many thousands dead.

Most of the people who thought this war was a good idea also thought that the best way to fight it was with other people's children. That in itself is a form of depravity.

Among those who played a key role in the conference was David Halberstam, the author of "The Best and the Brightest," which is not just the best book about America's involvement in Vietnam, but a book that grows more essential with each passing year. If you read it in the 70's or 80's, read it again. We can all use a refresher course on the link between folly and madness at the highest levels of government, and the all-but-unimaginable suffering it can unleash.

In the book's epilogue, Mr. Halberstam wrote that, among other things, President Johnson "and the men around him wanted to be defined as being strong and tough; but strength and toughness and courage were exterior qualities which would be demonstrated by going to a clean and hopefully antiseptic war with a small nation, rather than the interior and more lonely kind of strength and courage of telling the truth to America and perhaps incurring a good deal of domestic political risk."

That latter kind of toughness is what's needed now. Invading Iraq was a disastrous move by the Bush administration, and there is no satisfactory solution forthcoming. The White House should be working cooperatively with members of both parties in Congress to figure out the best way to bring the curtain down on U.S. involvement.

Before that can begin to happen, the administration will have to rid itself of the delusion that things are somehow going well in Iraq. The democracy that was supposed to flower in the Iraqi desert and then spread throughout the Middle East was as much a mirage as the weapons of mass destruction.

President Bush continues to assert that our goal in Iraq is "victory." Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently told Tim Russert that things were going "very, very well" in Iraq.

They are still crawling toward the mirage. It's time to give reality a chance.

© 2006 New York Times

Iraq Veteran Sees Nothing Positive About U.S. Troops Fighting There

Iraq Veteran Sees Nothing Positive About U.S. Troops Fighting There

Brian Clement of Gardiner, an Army veteran, said during a talk at the University of Southern Maine on Thursday that he started his yearlong duty in Iraq believing America hadn't gone to war for the right reasons, but "thought I could do some good."


Brian Clement of Gardiner, who served with the Army's 1st Cavalry Division in Iraq, is applauded after speaking Thursday evening at USM's Portland campus on the war's human cost. (Photo/Jill Brady)
However, Clement, who was with the 1st Cavalry Division, said that in his job driving a truck around Iraq, including such hot spots as Fallujah and Sadr City, "I didn't see anything positive about our being in Iraq."

Clement, who returned home last March and received an honorable discharge from the service in June, has since joined Iraq Veterans Against the War.

"I support the troops wholeheartedly," he said, "but I don't support the misuse of our armed forces as they are being used now."

Clement was part of a five-member group invited to USM's Portland campus to discuss the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Four members of the panel spoke out strongly against the war in Iraq.

The position of a fifth panel member, a military journalist who served in Afghanistan until two months ago, was not clear, but he urged Americans to educate themselves on the issues.

The discussion was held in recognition of the upcoming third anniversary of the start of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which began March 20, 2003.

John Baugher, an assistant professor of sociology at USM, who moderated the event and helped coordinate it, said that with an increasing number of U.S. soldiers killed and injured and with thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, people needed to talk about the conflicts.

"There's too much at stake here for us to keep our heads in the sand. We have to know what's going on," he said. He said the event was sponsored by several campus symposiums and student groups.

About 60 to 70 people attended the talk, many of them students. The audience applauded loudly several times in reaction to comments from the speakers.

The event was billed as a panel discussion with veterans of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, although only two panel members met that description: Clement and the military journalist, Rick Scavetta of Connecticut, who served in Afghanistan from February 2005 to January 2006 as the Army's chief of media relations.

Scavetta said, "It's the responsibility of Americans to dig deeper than what's on our television news."

The other panelists were USM student Michael Savage, a former Army paratrooper who served in Kosovo; Richard Clement of Gardiner, a Vietnam-era veteran and father of Brian Clement; and Dexter Kamilewicz, whose son, Sgt. Ben Kamilewicz of the Vermont Army National Guard, is currently stationed in Iraq.

Kamilewicz, a peace activist without a party affiliation, is collecting signatures to get on the ballot to run in November for the 1st District congressional seat held by Democrat Tom Allen.

Richard Clement, a member of Veterans for Peace and Military Families Speak Out, said the year his son Brian was in Iraq was "pretty much a year in hell" for him and his wife. Kamilewicz described his son Ben's experiences in Iraq, including being ambushed and having bullets whiz past his face. He said his son reported that troops were poorly trained and equipped. Kamilewicz said "accountability is missing" in Washington about the war.

US Postwar Iraq Strategy a Mess, Blair Was Told

US Postwar Iraq Strategy a Mess, Blair Was Told

That's an understatement;

Senior British diplomatic and military staff gave Tony Blair explicit warnings three years ago that the US was disastrously mishandling the occupation of Iraq, according to leaked memos.


[The US administration in Baghdad has] no leadership, no strategy, no coordination, no structure and is inaccessible to ordinary Iraqis.

John Sawers, Tony Blair's envoy in Baghdad, in a memo entitled 'What's Going Wrong', 2003

John Sawers, Mr Blair's envoy in Baghdad in the aftermath of the invasion, sent a series of confidential memos to Downing Street in May and June 2003 cataloguing US failures. With unusual frankness, he described the US postwar administration, led by the retired general Jay Garner, as "an unbelievable mess" and said "Garner and his top team of 60-year-old retired generals" were "well-meaning but out of their depth".

That assessment is reinforced by Major General Albert Whitley, the most senior British officer with the US land forces. Gen Whitley, in another memo later that summer, expressed alarm that the US-British coalition was in danger of losing the peace. "We may have been seduced into something we might be inclined to regret. Is strategic failure a possibility? The answer has to be 'yes'," he concluded.

The memos were obtained by Michael Gordon, author, along with General Bernard Trainor, of Cobra II: the Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, published to coincide with the third anniversary of the invasion.

The British memos identified a series of US failures that contained the seeds of the present insurgency and anarchy.

The mistakes include:

  • A lack of interest by the US commander, General Tommy Franks, in the post-invasion phase.

  • The presence in the capital of the US Third Infantry Division, which took a heavyhanded approach to security.

  • Squandering the initial sympathy of Iraqis.

  • Bechtel, the main US civilian contractor, moving too slowly to reconnect basic services, such as electricity and water.

  • Failure to deal with health hazards, such as 40% of Baghdad's sewage pouring into the Tigris and rubbish piling up in the streets.

  • Sacking of many of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party, even though many of them held relatively junior posts.

Mr Sawers, in a memo titled Iraq: What's Going Wrong, written on May 11, four days after he had arrived in Baghdad, is uncompromising about the US administration in Baghdad. He wrote: "No leadership, no strategy, no coordination, no structure and inaccessible to ordinary Iraqis."

He said the US needed to take action in Baghdad urgently. "The clock is ticking." Both Mr Sawers, who is now political director at the Foreign Office, and Gen Whitley see as one of the biggest errors a decision by Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, and General Tommy Franks, the overall US commander, to cut troops after the invasion.

Mr Sawers advocated sending a British battalion, the 16th Air Assault Brigade, to Baghdad to help fill the gap. Although the US supported the plan, Downing Street rejected it weeks later.

The British diplomat is particularly scathing about the US Third Infantry Division, which he describes as "a big part of the problem" in Baghdad. He accused its troops of being reluctant to leave their heavily armoured vehicles to carry out policing and cites an incident in which British Paras saw them fire three tank rounds into a building in response to harmless rifle fire.

Mr Sawers, who had been British ambassador to Egypt before being sent to Iraq and is at present on a shortlist to be the next ambassador to Washington, sent the memo to Mr Blair's key advisers, including Jonathan Powell, the No 10 chief of staff, and Alastair Campbell, head of the Downing Street press operation at the time.

Mr Sawers, in later memos, welcomed the replacement of Gen Garner with Paul Bremer, a US diplomat. But in a memo written in June 25, Mr Sawyer concluded that, despite Mr Bremer's arrival, the situation was getting worse.

In that memo, Mr Sawers expressed opposition to further troop reductions. "Bremer's main concern is that we must keep in-country sufficient military capability to ensure a security blanket across the country. He has twice said to President Bush that he is concerned that the drawdown of US/UK troops had gone too far, and we cannot afford further reductions," Mr Sawers said.

Throughout his time in Iraq, however, Mr Sawers remained optimistic Mr Bremer would make a difference.

His views in the memo are echoed in a note by Gen Whitley, who says that while Gen Franks took credit for the fall of Baghdad, he showed little interest in the postwar period. "I am quite sure Franks did not want to take ownership of Phase IV," Gen Whitley wrote.

He added that Phase IV "did not work well" because the concentration was on the invasion. "There was a blind faith that Phase IV would work. There was a failure to anticipate the extent of the backlash or mood of Iraqi society."

Photobucket