7/15/2015

on omar sharif's place in film history


i wrote about the passing of 'omar sharif' earlier.

the hollywood reporter has a great article noting omar's achievement and his standing.


from the article:


"His loss begs the question, who is our Omar Sharif now — our internationally renowned Arab movie star? Where are the roles for the charming Arab actors and actresses today?" asks Jehane Noujaim, the Oscar-nominated director of The Square. She touts the likes of Khalid Abdalla (The Kite Runner) and Amr Waked (Lucy) as two "great actors," who have the ability, but not the suitable parts. "We have managed to find plenty of roles for the terrorist, but where are the roles for the enlightened charismatic Arab?"

Waked, who also starred in Salmon Fishing in the Yemen and Netflix’s Marco Polo series, has become an increasingly regular face in international cinema, although he has previously admitted to having rejected "many extremely disappointing offers" that arrived after he first broke through in his role with George Clooney in Syriana (playing a radical Muslim cleric).


let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'



Tuesday, July 14, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Sunni civilians in Falluja remain targeted, barrel bombs are dropped on Falluja, Antiwar.com ignores that but rushes to repeat the lies of a government ministry with a long history of lying -- way to go, Antiwar.com, another proud moment for you, Nouri al-Maliki appears to plot a coup, and much more.




Nouri al-Maliki did his part to destroy Iraq and then some.

The Iraqi Parliament wanted Ibrahim al-Jaafari to be prime minister following the December 2005 elections but the Bully Boy Bush administration opposed his being prime minister (for a second time) and instead installed Nouri al-Maliki in the spring of 2006.

The CIA profile on Nouri suggested he would be a good fit for the job due to his paranoia which the US government could use to sway and to control him.

It was his paranoia that marked his first time.

Otherwise, he had no accomplishments to speak of.

It was one failure after another for Nouri.

For example, he promised the Iraqi people that the Bremer walls/blast walls the US put up around Baghdad in the summer of 2006 would come down immediately.

That did not happen.

For example, in 2007, he agreed to the White House's benchmarks for measuring success/progress in Iraq and then failed to complete the list.

In the lead up to the 2010 elections, he had Shi'ite rivals kicked out of the election, he barred various Sunnis from running and he bribed and bribed again.

His State of Law still lost to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya.

And Ayad should have been the next Prime Minister of Iraq.

But Barack Obama played Supreme Court and turned Allawi into the new Al Gore as Barack installed the loser Nouri into a second term as prime minister.

And then things really grew rotten.

Despite repeatedly lying and insisting he would, Nouri wanted no power-sharing government and began demonizing all opponents.

He then went after the people insisting peaceful protesters staging sit-ins were "terrorists."

No one was safe in Nouri's second term and he unleashed his goons on the peaceful protesters (as well as on Members of Parliament) resulting in one violent incident after another.


In 2010, the Iraqi people saw their votes overturned by US President Barack Obama.

The Iraqi people saw their leaders attempt to create a representative government and fail. (Largely due to interference on the part of Barack Obama -- such as when the Parliament attempted to hold a vote of confidence on Nouri but the White House prevented it.)

The Iraqi people then took to the streets to protest.

For over a year, they protested -- with little attention from the world media.

And Nouri responded by burning down the areas they gathered in.

This is what gave rise to the Islamic State.

A people who had been stripped of their votes, whose leaders were unable to protect them and who had attempted protest were denied every avenue of redress in a democracy.

As the raving lunatic Nouri got more and more despotic,  even Barack had to step away.

Which is how, in the fall of 2014, Haider al-Abadi became the new prime minister of Iraq after Nouri was forced out.

But he wasn't forced too far.

He became one of Iraq's three vice presidents and, in a typical Nouri narcissistic move,  Nouri declared himself the premier vice president.

As usual, some idiots in the press corps went along with that lie.

As we've noted before, Nouri will never stop attempting to destroy Iraq until he's six feet under.

And he's used his time out of the post of prime minister (while remaining in the home of the prime minister, please note) to plot his return.


This month, Ali Mamouri (Al-Monitor) reports on the latest developments in Nouri's possible efforts to take back the post of prime minister:


During his rule, Maliki’s policy was characterized by its sectarian and divisive tone and was a key reason behind the recent military defeats in Mosul and Ramadi. Now Maliki is urging people to back away from the national reconciliation policy initiated by Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi when he took office. Proof of this is that during a tribal gathering June 13 in Karbala, Maliki said that the Anbar province’s tribes were protesting against him. He accused the rival political parties of supporting the objections against his rule when he was prime minister, which he called illegal. Finally, he described the fall of the Sunni areas at the hands of the Islamic State (IS) as “a Sunni sectarian revolution against the Shiites.”
In his speech, Maliki used three forms of extremist thought to incite to sectarian conflict. First, regional division, by generalizing and accusing the tribes of a particular area of being all against the Iraqi government; second, deepening the political dispute by accusing his rivals of standing with the terrorists; and third, describing the dispute in Iraq as religious and sectarian.
All three points contradict reality. There were tribes — such as the Sunni Albo tribe — in Anbar that were always against the protests and the ensuing developments, and the opposition parties to Maliki called for the peaceful resolution of the sit-ins and did not back those up. Finally, the Sunnis who were killed and displaced by IS exceed those from other communities; therefore, what happened cannot be described as a Sunni revolution against the Shiites.
In another speech, on the anniversary of the Popular Mobilization Units June 13, Maliki seemed to have a strong belief in the conspiracy theory that the fall of Mosul at the hands of IS was brought about by internal parties — such as the Kurds and the Mosul Provincial Council — to overthrow his government. He clearly said that the denial of the conspiracy is a conspiracy in itself.


 
This month has also seen Ibrahim Saleh (Niqash) report on what is seen as an effort to return Nouri al-Maliki to power:



Recently there have been calls for major changes to the Iraqi political system, moving it from a parliamentary system to a presidential one. This would mean that rather than elected MPs in Baghdad choosing the country's President, voters would choose the President, who could then work somewhat separately from the also-elected Parliament. For example, the US is a presidential system. Iraq currently has a parliamentary system.
However politicians in Iraq are concerned that if this comes any closer to happening that it will be a way for former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to slip back into power, but this time through a legal back door. They are also concerned that while it may not be something that can happen immediately, there is potential for some changes to occur during the next elections.
The call for these changes were started by one of the Shiite Muslim militias involved in the fight against the extremist group known as the Islamic State. The group, League of the Righteous, or Asaib Ahl al-Haq in Arabic, is known to be closely linked with al-Maliki. It is also known to be one of the more hard line and extremist of the Shiite militias.

Which is why many local politicians saw this as a call to bring al-Maliki, who is currently somewhat sidelined as one of Iraq's three Vice Presidents, back to power. Al-Maliki's divisive policies and attempts to centralise power have taken a fair share of the blame for the country's current security crisis and, although his party was successful in the last elections, al-Maliki lost the post of Prime Minister to colleague, Haider al-Abadi late last year.


While Haider remains in power, he uses his time to seek "revenge" (his term) on the Islamic State.  The problem with seeking "revenge" (as opposed to seeking peace)?  You leave a lot of collateral damage in your wake.


So it's no surprise that, yet again, the Sunni population of Falluja is the one to suffer.

Anadolu Agency reports:

At least 21 civilians were killed on Tuesday – and another 24 injured – when Iraqi government warplanes carried out several “barrel bomb” attacks on the Daesh-held city of Fallujah, according to local medical sources.
Casualties included a number of women and children, the sources said, while the injured were taken to the city’s main hospital.
Iraqi politicians and prominent local figures have recently accused Iraqi military forces of targeting civilian parts of the city with barrel bombs.

Barrel bombs are improvised explosive devices typically consisting of barrels filled with combustible material and shrapnel. They are usually dropped from army helicopters.


It was under Nouri, in January 2014, that the Sunni civilians in Falluja were first targeted by the Iraqi military who bombed and shelled their homes.  This has continued under Haider despite Haider's September 13, 2014 announcement that he was discontinuing those bombings immediately.

For over 18 months now, the Iraqi military has attacked the civilian population in Falluja in a manner which meets the legal definition of War Crime (see collective punishment).  And yet much of the world has chosen to join the White House in looking the other way.

News of the use of the barrel bombs today was preceded yesterday by concerns over this very targeting of civilians in Falluja.  Rudaw reported Monday:

As Iraqi Shiite militia intensify their attacks on Fallujah, a prominent Sunni tribal chief said Monday that civilians fear indiscriminate shelling and the “actions” of the militia forces.


“The only fear of the people of Anbar and especially Fallujah is the Shiite militia because their actions are not less in scale than those of ISIS towards the people of Anbar,” Sheikh Yahya al-Sunbul told Rudaw.



“The proof is the continuous and indiscriminate bombardment of Fallujah, the looting and destruction that will take place after ISIS leaves as we saw in Tikrit,” Sunbul added.




Meanwhile, US Vice President Joe Biden (below) couldn't look the other way today when a heavily made up Barack Obama addressed the American people and the world looking like the Mary Kay in Chief as he announced a deal or 'deal' with the goverment of Iran..



baracksmantan


Barack barely had time to take some cold cream to his face before Andrew deGrandpre and Andrew Tilghman (Military Times) were reporting:


At least 500 U.S. military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan were directly linked to Iran and its support for anti-American militants, a newly disclosed statistic that offers grim context for the Obama administration's diplomatic deal with the Iranian regime aimed at curtailing the rogue nation's nuclear ambitions.
That figure underscores the controversy surrounding Washington's deal with Tehran, a long-sought goal for the president -- but one that is fiercely opposed by many Republicans in Congress and other critics.




One critic is Senator Johnny Isakson,  the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  His office issued the following today:


 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Contact: Amanda Maddox, 202-224-7777
Marie Gordon, 770-661-0999
 
Isakson Statement on Announcement of Nuclear Agreement with Iran
“I will not be part of any agreement that allows the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon that could harm the state of Israel, the country of the United States of America or any other peace-loving country in the world.”
 
 
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., today released the following statement on the announcement of a final agreement reached in nuclear negotiations with Iran:
 
“As a member of the United States Senate, and of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have a critical role in judgment over the deal that’s been made by the president of the United States and the Iranian government.
 
“Iranians have never proven to be a trustworthy negotiator, nor have they been trustworthy in their actions with the United States. Iran has said that we are their stated enemy.
 
“I will study the deal closely, I will do my responsibility, I will read the appendices and I’ll go to all the briefings, both the secure and unsecure. But I will promise you this: I will not be part of any agreement that allows the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon that could harm the state of Israel, the country of the United States of America or any other peace-loving country in the world.
 
“This vote may be the most important vote I ever cast as a member of the Senate or the Congress. This vote is about the future of our country, peace in the Middle East, the sanctity of our country, peace for our children and peace for our grandchildren. This is a vote which I will take seriously and I will make sure I do the right thing for the American people.”
 
###


Description: Description: cid:image001.gif@01CB9C61.36E8FA70
AMANDA MADDOX
Press Secretary
OFFICE OF UNITED STATES SENATOR JOHNNY ISAKSON
131 Russell Senate Office Building | Washington, DC 20510
phone: 202.224.3643 | fax: 202.228.0724
Visit Johnny’s website to learn more about his work in the Senate and to sign up for his newsletter.




Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 180 people killed across Iraq today.

She also stupidly -- and I mean stupidly -- repeats claims by Iraq's so called Human Rights commission as fact.

Oh, Maggie.

As Rod Stewart once sang, "The morning sun when it's in your face really shows your age."


It's cute how she rushes to run their propaganda while ignoring the Iraqi military's use of barrel bombs on Falluja.

Earlier this year, the Washington Post's Ishaan Tharoor expressed dismay over the use of barrel bombs . . . in Syria:

Human rights organizations, witness testimony and foreign governments all point to the Syrian government's frequent use of barrel bombs in densely packed urban areas, including a suspected attack last week in a devastated suburb of Damascus. The fact that it's a deliberately indiscriminate weapon of war makes the Assad regime liable for war crimes.

Like whether or not Ishaan will ever find a comb (and use it on that hair), whether or not he'll ever zoom in on the use of barrel bombs in Iraq remains a mystery.

In May of 2014, the Iraqi government was caught (but denied) using barrel bombs on Falluja.  AFP reported on it at the time and included the following analysis from Human Rights Watch's Erin Evers:

"In terms of what ISIL has taken responsibility for ... (they) have committed horrible crimes," said HRW's Iraq Researcher Erin Evers, pointing to the group's claims of having carried out suicide and car bomb attacks and summary executions.
"But to equate them with the crimes of a government that has rescinded responsibility for protecting its civilian population and ... rescinded responsibility for respecting its own laws and international law, there is no way the two can be equated."


Margaret Griffis misses all of this but does find time for the propaganda of a government ministry -- so much for "Antiwar.com," right?  Just one more outpost uncritically repeating the statements of a government -- one known to attack its own people.


Again, the morning sun, when it's in her face, really shows her age.









 


7/14/2015

it really is all about oil

leave it to c.i. to nail it.

in today's snapshot (in full in just a minute), she notes the stupid remarks by donald trump that the u.s. should bomb iraq's oil fields.

she then notes how this is becoming a major to-do.

while a major to-do is not being made over the bombing of civilians in falluja - bombings by the iraqi military.

she rightly notes that bully boy bush was obsessed with iraq's oil and that, apparently, so are many so-called lefties who stay silent about dead and wounded civilians in falluja while rushing to act outraged over donald trump's ridiculous remarks.


let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'



Monday, July 13, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, a new UN report notes that the violence against civilians in Iraq is being carried out by terrorists and by the Iraqi forces, Donald Trump offers a silly and idiotic proposal and that causes outrage -- that causes outrage,  Haider al-Abadi again tries to retake Anbar Province, and much more.



Let's start with some reality.

Donald Trump wants to be the Republican Party's presidential nominee.

Whether that will happen or not remains to be seen.

But all the bottom feeders are out attacking him.


(I know Donald.  I do not like Donald.)


David Letterman came out of his retirement to attack Trump.


Jon Stewart's made his final days on Comedy Central all about Trump.


One of the things Donald Trump is being ridiculed for is declaring that the US should bomb Iraq's oil fields.


Now I'm not for bombing anything.


But the gasping and the clutching of the pearls over the remark, the proposal?


If you think you look educated or humane, think again.


The Iraqi military has shelled Falluja General Hospital.

Not once or twice.

And we're not talking about the 2004 siege of Falluja.

We're talking about in the last twelve months.

It's taken place mulitple times.

All of you hypocrites  -- and, sadly, that is what you are -- who are hollering about how ridiculous Donald Trump is for calling for the bombing of Iraq's oil fields?

He's making a strange argument, but it's just words at this point.

If you really gave a damn about Iraq, you would have been screaming your head off when the Iraqi military was bombing Falluja General in the last 12 months.



In May of last year, Human Rights Watch noted:

Iraqi government forces battling armed groups in the western province of Anbar since January 2014 have repeatedly struck Fallujah General Hospital with mortar shells and other munitions, Human Rights Watch said today. The recurring strikes on the main hospital, including with direct fire weapons, strongly suggest that Iraqi forces have targeted it, which would constitute a serious violation of the laws of war.

Since early May, government forces have also dropped barrel bombs on residential neighborhoods of Fallujah and surrounding areas, part of an intensified campaign against armed opposition groups, including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (ISIS). These indiscriminate attacks have caused civilian casualties and forced thousands of residents to flee.

“The government has been firing wildly into Fallujah’s residential neighborhoods for more than four months, and ramped up its attacks in May,” said Fred Abrahams, special adviser at Human Rights Watch. “This reckless disregard for civilians is deadly for people caught between government forces and opposition groups.”



Hairy fur ball Jon Stewart didn't give a damn about that.

That's why he's not news, why he has never been news.

What he's become is a bully and a bore.

The bombing of Falluja General?

A War Crime.

It's not a theoretical being floated by Donald Trump.

The Iraqi military targeting civilians in Falluja?

Also a War Crime.

Today, the United Nations released "Report on the Protection of Civilians in the Armed Conflict in Iraq" which notes of the attacks by the Iraqi government on civilians and civilian targets such as hospitals:




According to applicable rules of international humanitarian law, civilian infrastructure and property is protected from attack unless and only for such time as it is used by a party to the conflict for military objectives . UNAMI/OHCHR has nonetheless continued to receive reports of Government-associated forces apparently deliberately destroying civilian infrastructure or failing to take adequate precautions in the planning and execution of their operations. Incident reports have increased in tandem with the reclaiming of territory from ISIL control




July 5th, Al Jazeera reported:


At least 73 people have been killed in the the western Iraqi cities of Ramadi and Fallujah, as the Iraqi government stepped up air strikes and artillery fire against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) armed group, sources told Al Jazeera. 
An air strike on a sports field in Ramadi shortly after midnight on Sunday killed at least 50 people and left more than 30 people injured. At least 23 people were killed and around 40 wounded after shelling north of Fallujah. 


And from Saturday's snapshot:

Meanwhile the Iraqi military continues its year and a half long bombing of civilians and civilian homes in Falluja.  Amre Sarhan (Iraqi News) reports a medical source told them that Saturday "Fallujah General Hospital received the bodies of 25 people, including three children and four women, and 23 wounded, including five women and six children, as victims after their homes were subjected to mortar fire in different areas of Fallujah."  In addition, Iraqi Spring MC reports that the Iraqi military bombed civilian areas of Ramadi today.



You may think Donald Trump's idea is crazy (I do).

But it's an idea.

It's not been implemented.

For 16 months, the civilians of Falluja have been under attack.  The attacks have been carried out by the Iraqi military.

This isn't an idea floated by Donald Trump, it's actual War Crimes.

And apparently it doesn't matter.

To those who want to whine about Donald Trump's proposal while ignoring War Crimes?

How are you any better than Bully Boy Bush and others who focused on the oil in Iraq while ignoring the people?

Answer: You're not.


Today, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi staged his latest attempt at taking (a part of) Anbar Province away from the Islamic State.  As Sinan Salaheddin (AP) observes:


This is not the first time the Iraqi government has announced an operation to retake Anbar — where several key towns, including the provincial capital Ramadi, remain under IS control. In May, authorities announced an operation to retake Ramadi, but there has not been any major progress on the ground since then.



Dominic Evans (Reuters) explains, "The sprawling Sunni Muslim province extends hundreds of kilometers west of Baghdad. Many of the towns and cities that line the banks of the Euphrates, snaking down from the Syrian border, are Islamic State strongholds.Islamic State's capture of Ramadi two months ago marked the biggest defeat for the Baghdad government since the militants swept through the north of the country last June and declared a caliphate in parts of Syria and Iraq straddling the border."

AP has also noted that the announcement was made on Iraqi TV by Yahya Rasool who is the spokesperson for the Joint Operations Command but that he failed to "clarify whether the U.S.-led international coalition is taking part, mentioning only government forces and allied Shiite and Sunni paramilitary troops."  Failed to clarify or failed to credit?


Al Jazeera's Imran Khan offered:

We are hearing the province will be surrounded on three sides going up to the border with Syria. They have announced operations like this one in the past particularly in Ramadi when it was taken by ISIL forces in mid-May. And that's a battle that's still ongoing. It is likely that this operation will concentrate on the second city in Anbar province, Fallujah, and move further west. While this is going on, we have also heard coalition airstrikes have hit an ISIL media and radio station in Anbar province.



What are they fighting for in Iraq?

Freedom?

Or the ability to carry out their own killings?

Mitchell Prothero (McClatchy Newspapers) reports:


Iraqi officials have been candid that the brunt of the fighting about to engulf the city will be borne by an umbrella group of Shiite militia groups formed under the supervision of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the elite of Shiite Iran. That’s raised dire concerns from American advisers that these sectarian groups – overtly hostile to both Americans and Sunni Muslims – will break the already deeply frayed relationship between the Shiite government in Baghdad and the Sunni tribes that dominate the large swaths of Iraq currently under the Islamic State’s control.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article27167848.html#storylink=cpy
The government claims that Sunni tribal fighters and local policemen from Anbar will join the militia-led assault. But many remain skeptical that Sunnis have joined in sufficient numbers to avoid the impression of a Shiite pogrom against Sunnis in Fallujah.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article27167848.html#storylink=cpy





At the US State Dept press briefing today, spokesperson John Kirby spun wildly.


QUESTION: Slightly Iran-related. In relation to Fallujah, wondering if the United States detects any evidence of Iranian involvement or direction of Shiite militia trying to take back Fallujah?


MR KIRBY: I would point you to the Iraqi Government – this is an Iraqi-led operation – to speak to the participation of these Popular Mobilization Forces and certainly Tehran for the degree that they are or are not facilitating. I do think it’s important to remember a couple of things. This is an Iraqi-led operation, as it should be. And so we’re going to let them speak to the progress of it. And then on the Popular Mobilization Forces, and I mentioned this a week or so ago but I think it bears repeating: About 80 percent of these Popular Mobilization Forces, or Shia militia as they are otherwise known, are not at all connected to Tehran or the Iranian regime. They’re Iraqi citizens proud of their country and wanting to chip in and fight. And what we’ve said from the very beginning is that all the forces arrayed on the ground against ISIL in Iraq need to be under the command and control of the Iraqi Government. And that’s what we’ve seen with the vast majority of these Shia militiamen.

So I think it’s just important to keep a little context in here. When we talk about Shia militia fighting here or fighting there, there’s this automatic sort of connection drawn to Tehran, and that’s just not the case mathematically.




The assault on Anbar comes as the United Nations News Centre reports:


The ongoing conflict in Iraq continues to exact a “terrible” and deadly toll on the country’s civilians, particularly in the areas still under control by the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), according to a new report released today by the United Nations.
The report – a joint effort compiled by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) – notes that the situation facing civilians in ISIL-controlled territory remains dire with many of those perceived to be opposed to the extremist group’s ideology being murdered, often in “grim public spectacles.”
Members of ethnic and religious communities, for instance, continue to be persecuted with as many as 3,500 members of the Yezidi community remaining under ISIL captivity enduring physical and sexual violence.
Others, meanwhile, are apparently being persecuted based on their perceived sexual orientation. On 8 March, the report says, ISIL beheaded two individuals accused of homosexuality and a third for blasphemy in the Bab al-Toob area of Mosul.
[. . .]
Although the report widely focuses on the crimes perpetrated by ISIL extremists, it also documents violations committed by the Iraqi Security Forces and affiliated forces, including indiscriminate airstrikes and shelling as well as actions of reprisal against civilians. 



Meanwhile Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 90 violent deaths across Iraq today.


Her count comes as the UN announced 15,000 deaths in the last 18 months.







  • CHPSRE: RT KenRoth: Iraq civilian toll in past 18 months: 15,000 dead, 30,000 injured--UN report. …

















  • 7/12/2015

    heroes reborn

    the series 'heroes' returns to nbc this fall as 'heroes reborn.'

    and there's a new trailer for it, 1 that is over 3 minutes long and premiered at comic-con.

    click here to stream it at 'variety.'

    they need to show the women more.

    it looks like it will be a more diverse cast - race, ethnicity and gender - than the original 1.

    it also looks like there is a great storyline in store.



    let's close with c.i.'s 'iraq snapshot:'




    Saturday, July 11, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Congress and Gen Dempsey discuss more US troops in Iraq,  Senator Tim Kaine ignores the topic of troops in Iraq, Haider al-Abadi talks 'success,' War Crimes continue against the civilians in Falluja, and much more.




    US Senator Tim Kaine led a delegation to Iraq last week and today he offers a column at the Richmond Times-Dispatch on the trip at which includes:


    The next two days were in Iraq, beginning in Irbil, the capital of the Kurdish Regional Government. President Masoud Barzani, whose Kurdish peshmerga fighters have battled valiantly against ISIL and achieved significant success, thanked us for strong American support, saying, “If your president had not started a bombing campaign against ISIL last August in our region, we might not be here today.”
    Local forces are the best “boots on the ground” we have against ISIL and the close coordination of our airstrikes with Kurdish ground activity has dramatically reversed ISIL’s gains.
    But the progress in Kurdistan is not seen everywhere in Iraq. Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is still struggling to build confidence among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds after former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s disastrous course that marginalized Sunnis and Kurds. The divisions were so sharp that when ISIL began gaining traction in 2014, Sunni areas in western Iraq would not join the government to battle the threat because of past mistreatment.

    Abadi has gotten high marks in his first year, but his good intent remains to be translated into real unification of the country, which is ultimately critical to military success against ISIL. Thus in Iraq, the progress against ISIL is mixed — with notable successes in the northern Kurdish areas and eastern communities such as Diyala and Tikrit, but much less success in Sunni regions. This includes on the governance front, where greater reconciliation with Sunnis is necessary.


    In his column, he argues for Congress authorizing Barack's latest stage of war on Iraq and authorizing the payment for it.

    He doesn't say much more though, does he?

    He doesn't talk about US forces on the ground in Iraq.

    In fact, he doesn't even note them in his column even though the delegation met with US forces.  How very sad and sick of Tim Kaine.

    But he doesn't want you to think about them or think about step two that would follow the authorization he wants: Even more boots on the ground.


    Kaine serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee.  Tuesday's the Committee held a hearing on Iraq.  The Committee Chair is Senator John McCain and the Ranking Member is Senator Jack Reed.  Appearing before the Committee were Gen Martin Dempsey (Chair of the Joint Chiefs) and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter.

    We've noted Senators Joe Donnelly, Kelly Ayotte and Joe Manchin in Wednesday's snapshot.   In Friday's snapshot, we noted questioning from Senator Martin Heinrich and Joni Ernst.

    We're going to note a key exchange today.




    Senator Mike Rounds: You know, General, we pride ourselves and we point out fthe fact  that we truly do have the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen and yet right now we find ourselves -- as the President stated sometime ago, he called ISIS the jv [junior varsity] team.  Clearly, I do not think that's the position the administration would take today.  We've identified that they are clearly a threat.  We've identified a nine point plan, Mr. Secretary, in which you've identified all the things that have to happen including the defense of our country from these individuals.




    There have been a number of plans regarding the Islamic State.  I'm unaware of what 9 point plan Rounds is speaking of but in his Monday speech, US President Barack Obama was emphasizing what the White House has dubbed "the four pillars" for the fight against the Islamic State.



      The Four Pillars of the U.S Strategy Against ISIL

    1. A systematic campaign of airstrikes against ISIL
    Working with the Iraqi government, the U.S. is expanding our efforts beyond protecting Americans and humanitarian missions, so that we're hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on the offense. We are pursuing terrorists wherever they are, which means the President will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria as well as Iraq. As he has said, "If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven." As of today, we've launched more than 5,000 airstrikes against ISIL. 
    2. Increased support to forces fighting ISIL on the ground
    The U.S. has sent a small contingent of service members to support Iraqi forces, including Kurdish fighters, with training, intelligence, and equipment. These American forces do not have a combat mission, but are providing the support needed for Iraqi forces to go on the offense. In Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria's crisis once and for all. 
    3. Drawing on our substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent ISIL attacks
    Working with our partners, we are redoubling our efforts to cut off ISIL's funding, improve our intelligence, strengthen our defenses, counter ISIL's warped ideology, and stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of the Middle East. 
    4. Providing humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians displaced by ISIL

    We cannot allow innocent communities to be driven from their homelands. The U.S. continues to provide much-needed assistance to Sunni and Shia Muslims who are at grave risk, as well as tens of thousands of Christians and other religious minorities.



    Back to the hearing.


    Senator Mike Rounds: At what point during this three year time frame or what is the possibility during this three year time frame that the patience that you've shown, General, and that the Secretary has alluded to here to build this up, what is the probability that this -- that this time frame gets away from us?  What -- Are we in a position to make this thing last for three years without literally upping on our own point to defend ourselves?  At what point does it look like we're going to have to amp this thing up  using our own resources to a greater degree than we have today?



    Gen Martin Dempsey:  I said three years for Iraq.  ISIL -- and I've also described ISIL in general as a "generational problem." because of it's allure in notably the Sunni sect of Islam.  Look, we just have to have a Sunni partner in order to address this challenge of ISIL.  And so, although I've said three years for Iraq, it's more like a generation which I suppose is loosely defined as 20 years to address the violent extremist allure of ISIL in the Sunni world. And that allure will only be stripped away when someone takes care of them and governs them. But to your question.  Are there points at which we would and should consider the introduction of US military combat capabilities?  The answer is yes   I think you've seen us do that in the -- in the raid that we conducted into Syria to capture and kill the group associated with Abu Sayyaf -- the financial network of ISIL.  And I think we're always on the alert or on the lookout for those opportunities and can use our capabilities as necessary to deal with those.

    Senator Mike Rounds: You feel that you're in a politically appropriate position that you would have the backing to step in when needed to take care of the problem when the time is right?  

    Gen Martin Dempsey:  I -- If you're asking -- I can't answer what answer I would receive.  I have the confidence that my recommendation would be accepted and uh-uh debated in the context of everything else we're doing.

    Secretary Ash Carter (stepping over Rounds): Senator, let me step in here and help out if I may.  Senator, I-I think that part of our strategy is to look for opportunities to do more in the sense of creating capable ground forces that we can --


    And we'll stop there.  Before Carter jumped in -- and spoke over Rounds -- Dempsey and Rounds were talking about US forces and their being sent into fighting in Iraq.


    That is what was taking place.

    It may have been a little too vague for some to follow.

    Clearly, the press appeared to miss it.

    But that's what Rounds was calling for, what Dempsey was more or less agreeing to and what Ash Carter rushed in to divert attention from.


    If you doubt that, Rounds made it very clear after Carter's long and distracting response.


    Senator Mike Rounds:   Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, but I would make one comment and that is that it appears to me that if our strategy is waiting on other people to get their stuff in order, it doesn't seem to be as practical as taking advantage of and literally going out and proactively taking care of the problem if need be.  And we've got the greatest fighting force in the world and the last thing in the world I want to see is to have them engage boots on the ground but if it means boots on the ground or additional folks there fighting there as opposed to having a successful attack on this homeland then I think we all agree on what we ought to be doing. And I just hope that this strategy includes that as a possibility.



    Again, that is what was being discussed.

    On the boots on the ground issue (which we oppose), Senator John McCain feels that forward air controllers on the ground are needed.

    We're opposed to boots on the ground.  That doesn't mean we don't note Senate or House discussions on the topic.  I was asked if I was going to note McCain's exchange with Carter?

    No.  That sentence above is about it.

    Not because I disagree with him but because it was too technical.  He and Carter were both hiding behind jargon.


    But I will note McCain's opening statement in full.



    Washington, D.C. ­– U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, delivered the following opening statement today at a hearing on U.S. strategy to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL):
    “The Senate Armed Services Committee meets today to receive testimony on U.S. strategy to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL. I am grateful to our distinguished witnesses for appearing before us today.
    “The risk posed by ISIL must be seen in the context of what many of America’s most accomplished leaders and foreign policy experts have described as the most complex and uncertain international environment since the end of World War II. All across the globe, America’s interests in security and stability are at risk. 
    “As part of a broader strategy to dominate eastern Europe, Vladimir Putin’s Russia continues its onslaught in Ukraine, with Russian troops and equipment leading an asymmetric campaign to undermine Ukraine’s government and independence as the United States has refused weapons for its defense.
    “China’s destabilizing behavior also poses a growing challenge to U.S. national interests—its reclamation and militarization of vast land features in the South China Sea, its continued military build-up, and of course, its blatant and undeterred cyber-attacks against the United States.
    “Iran is expanding its malign activities and hegemonic ambitions across the Middle East—as we see clearly in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, and elsewhere—and yet some in the Administration seem to be operating under the delusion that a nuclear agreement could lead to a new modus vivendi with the Islamic Republic.
    “And in Syria, Bashar Assad’s slaughter of his own people, which has been the single greatest contributor to the rise and continued success of ISIL, goes on, and on, and on—aided by Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah. For four years, the President has said Assad must go as part of a political transition in Syria, but conditions on the ground have never allowed it. Tragically, that remains true today.
    “What each of these growing threats has in common is a failure of deterrence, brought on by a dangerous perception of American weakness and lack of resolve, which our adversaries have taken as a provocative invitation for hostility.
    “When it comes to ISIL, President Obama’s comments yesterday at the Pentagon reveal the disturbing degree of self-delusion that characterizes the Administration’s thinking. It is right but ultimately irrelevant to point out, as the President did, that we have conducted thousands of air strikes, taken out many ISIL fighters and much equipment, and pushed it out of some territory. None of the so-called progress that the President cited suggests that we are on a path to success.
    “Since U.S. and coalition airstrikes began last year, ISIL has continued to enjoy battlefield successes, including taking Ramadi and other key terrain in Iraq, holding over half the territory in Syria, and controlling every border post between Iraq and Syria.  Moreover, the longer ISIL remains undefeated in Iraq and Syria, the more potent its message is to those around the world who may be radicalized and inspired to join the group and spread violence and mayhem on its behalf. 
    “It is not that we are doing nothing; it is that there is no compelling reason to believe that anything we are currently doing will be sufficient to achieve the President’s stated goal of degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL—either in the short-term or the long-term. Our means and our current level of effort are not aligned with our ends. That suggests we are not winning, and when you are not winning in war, you are losing.
    “The reality today is that ISIL continues to gain territory in Iraq and Syria, while expanding its influence and presence across the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia. There is no responsible ground force in either Iraq or Syria that is both willing and able to take territory away from ISIL and hold it, and none of our current training efforts of moderate Syrians, Sunni tribes, or Iraqi Security Forces are as yet capable of producing such a ground force. It is unclear why the latest gradual escalation of effort, the deployment of a few hundred additional advisers to Anbar, will make the difference that our previous efforts failed to achieve.
    “While our coalition may own the skies, as the President said yesterday, our air campaign against ISIL continues to be limited significantly by overly restrictive rules of engagement and a lack of ground intelligence, which only gets worse as ISIL moves into urban areas to avoid coalition bombing. Pilots will tell you that they are only as good as the targets they receive, and when three-quarters of our air missions against ISIL still return to base without dropping weapons, that is indicative of a fundamental problem with our air campaign.
    “What’s worse, none of our efforts against ISIL in Iraq can succeed while the conflict in Syria continues, and with it the conditions for ISIL’s continued growth, recruitment, and radicalization of Muslims across the world. As published media reports indicate, our Syrian train and equip program is anemic and struggling because our stated goal does not include going after Assad and his regime forces, and we still do not provide the forces we are training with the enabling capabilities to succeed in any engagement they may face inside Syria.
    “Given the poor numbers of recruited and trained Syrian fighters thus far, I am doubtful we can achieve our goal of training a few thousand this year.  But even if the program achieves its goal, it is doubtful that it will make a strategic difference on the battlefield. Yes, we need a political solution in Syria. But no such solution is possible with Bashar Assad still in power. Unless and until the United States leads a coalition effort to put far greater battlefield pressure on Assad, a political solution will never be within reach, the conflict will grind on, and ISIL will thrive.
    “The lack of a coherent strategy has resulted in the spread of ISIL around the world—to Libya, Egypt, Nigeria, and even to Afghanistan, where I visited last weekend. Afghanistan is certainly not Iraq, but the parallels are eerily familiar. As in Iraq, the United States is contemplating a drastic reduction in force presence that places at risk the hard-won gains of the last decade. While Afghanistan’s security forces are improving in quality, they are still missing the same set of key capabilities the Iraqis were missing when the U.S. withdrew in 2011, including intelligence, aviation, special operations, and logistics capabilities.  At the current pace, our military commanders know these capabilities will remain critically underdeveloped at the end of 2016, when President Obama has announced that U.S. and coalition forces will dramatically downsize to a presence solely in Kabul.
    “We have seen this movie before. And if we make the same mistakes, we should expect similarly tragic results. I do not want to attend another hearing like this with your successors trying to figure out a strategy to clean up after avoidable mistakes.  What that means is that the President must provide our commanders on the ground with necessary forces, capabilities, and the authorities to help our Afghan partners in continuing to secure their country and defeat our terrorist enemies together.
    “ISIL is not ten feet tall. It can be, and must be, defeated. But that will never happen if we continue to delude ourselves about our current campaign. The President is fond of the truism that there is no military solution to ISIL or any other problem. What he has so often failed to realize is that there is sometimes a major military dimension to achieving a political solution. This was the critical lesson that the United States learned in the Iraq surge, and we must learn again: security on the ground is a precondition to political reconciliation, not the other way around.
    “The unfortunate irony is that a president elected in opposition to the war in Iraq is repeating some of its worst strategic mistakes. And what’s worse, despite obvious indications that the current strategy against ISIL is failing, he has yet to find the courage of his predecessor to admit mistakes and choose a new direction. This needs to happen sooner rather than later, or the disaster the next president will inherit—in the Middle East, but also far beyond it—will be overwhelming.
    “It is clear we are living in a time of unprecedented turmoil.  We see it on our television screens everyday:  ISIL’s spread across the Middle East, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and China’s maritime expansion in Asia. 
    “Once again I thank our witnesses and look forward to your testimony.”
    ###






    What's the White House's main goal today?


    Secretary Ash Cater:  What we need from the Iraqi government is the enrollment of Sunnis in the Iraq security forces and the commitment of the Iraqi government to pay them, to, uh, equip them with our help, which we provide, and then, to get back to the Chairman's question about direct support to them, when we have effective ground forces under the control of the Iraqi government, we are prepared to do more to support them but we need to have those effective ground forces because local forces on the ground, we know from experience, is the only way to create a lasting defeat of ISIL and that's what the strategy is all about. 



    And the biggest understatement of the hearing probably came from Gen Martin Dempsey, "As the Secretary mentioned, the good intentions of Prime Minister Abadi have not always been met with activity in the echelons or bureaucracy beneath him."


    And let's note the numbers.  During a tense exchange with Senator Jeff Sessions, Gen Dempsey declared, "We've got 1600 pilots flying over Iraq and Syria today.  We've got 3500 boots on the ground doing train and assist."




    Moving over to the US State Dept, we'll note this from Friday's briefing moderated by Mark Toner:


    QUESTION: One more on – there is a Stabilization Working Group – I believe Brett McGurk is part of that – to return the stability of the regions being liberated from ISIS in Iraq like Tikrit and Diyala. There are report talking about that only 20 percent of those people could – able to return to the area. Some of the problem is security issues; the others is because of the international coalition and the working – the Stabilization Working Group has not been able to provide the assistance they promised to do. Is there any update on that, on Tikrit --



    MR TONER: Specifically what you’re – yeah, I’m sorry.


    QUESTION: Yeah. Especially on Tikrit and Diyala, that there is still problem that the people fled from Tikrit and from Diyala, they have not been able to go back to their cities. Some of them is because of the militias threatening them and the others is because of lack of service that this Stabilization Working Group, which Brett McGurk is part of that --


    MR TONER: Right.


    QUESTION: -- was meant to solve this problem.


    MR TONER: I don’t have any updates on people returning to those cities today. I mean, I know that – I can just speak broadly about the efforts of the group and within – working in Iraq and Syria, but I don’t have any specifically thing to add to it.


    QUESTION: But that’s still going on, these efforts, around the --


    MR TONER: These (inaudible) efforts --


    QUESTION: Yeah.

    MR TONER: But specifically, what are you talking about? In terms of returning --


    QUESTION: Returning the residents and also providing the security for them and handing over is what was part of the kind of the bible for the group.


    MR TONER: Yeah, right, right.


    QUESTION: That – returning that order.

    MR TONER: Yeah, no, those efforts continue, absolutely. Yeah.



    On the topic of refugees in Iraq, MWC reports:


    Aid groups say dozens of families are stranded on the Anbar side of the Bzebiz bridge after Iraqi officials closed it.
    Iraqi authorities have shut down a bridge between Anbar and Baghdad used by people displaced because of fighting between security forces and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group.
    Aid agencies said the Bzebiz bridge between the town of Amariyat al-Fallujah and the capital was shut down on Wednesday, leaving dozens of families stranded on the Anbar side and prompting demands from provincial officials to reopen the crossing.



    As Kat noted earlier today:

    Where does the voice of international community come in condemning this?
    Haider al-Abadi is dooming thousands of Iraqis by closing this bridge.
    Where's the outcry?


    Meanwhile the Iraqi military continues its year and a half long bombing of civilians and civilian homes in Falluja.  Amre Sarhan (Iraqi News) reports a medical source told them that Saturday "Fallujah General Hospital received the bodies of 25 people, including three children and four women, and 23 wounded, including five women and six children, as victims after their homes were subjected to mortar fire in different areas of Fallujah."  In addition, Iraqi Spring MC reports that the Iraqi military bombed civilian areas of Ramadi today.



    Lastly, we'll note this from the office of Iraq's Prime Minister.





    استقبل السيد رئيس مجلس الوزراء الدكتور حيدر العبادي في مكتبه اليوم الخميس السيد بريت مكورك مساعد وزير الخارجية الامريكية.
    وجرى خلال اللقاء الاشادة بالانتصارات المتحققة على عصابات داعش الارهابية وتدريب وتسليح القوات المسلحة العراقية واعادة النازحين والتحديات الاقتصادية التي تواجه البلد ومستجدات الاوضاع السياسية والامنية في العراق والمنطقة.
    وثمن مكورك جهود الحكومة العراقية لاعادة النازحين في محافظة صلاح الدين وبقية المدن واعادة اعمار المناطق المحررة واستمرار الدعم الدولي للحكومة العراقية والقوات الامنية في مواجهة عصابات داعش الارهابية.






    Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi met with Brett McGurk of the US State Dept on the 7th to
    discuss Iraq's 'victories' in the battle against the Islamic State.  It must have been a very
    brief meeting.






    7/11/2015

    omar sharif


    omar sharif has passed away.

    he was a very talented actor but, more than that, he was very sexy which is how he became a leading man.

    he took your breath away when he appeared onscreen.

    like when barbra streisand sees him in 'funny girl' for the 1st time.

    'hello, gorgeous ...'

    he made many movies.

    at least 3 are classics.

    that's not a bad number, either.

    most films are forgettable.

    omar's 3 classic films were:

    'doctor zhivago'
    'funny girl'
    and 'lawrence of arabia.'

    david lean directed the 1st and last 1.

    the 1st was highly romantic and co-starred julie christie.

    and lean was 1 of the all time great directors.

    'funny girl' was directed by william wyler who was one of the masters as well.  his other films include bette davis in 'the letter,' 'the little foxes' and 'jezebel' (classics), 'roman holiday' (audrey hepburn), 'the children's hour' (audrey hepburn and shilrey maclaine), 'wuthering heights' (merle oberon and laurence olivier), 'come and get it' (frances farmer) and 'the heiress' (olivia de havilland and montgomery clift).

    working with 2 master directors, he made 3 classics.

    and there is real chemistry between him and julie christie and between him and barbra streisand.

    he made many other films and i also enjoyed 'bloodlines' (audrey hepburn and michelle phillips), 'the tamerind seed' (with julie andrews) and even 'che!' -- this despite jack palance laughably miscast as fidel castro.

    omar was a good actor but more than that he was a movie star.

    there are a lot of people who aspire to be a movie star and wish to be a movie star but the most they get famous.


    let's close with c.i.'s ''Iraq snapshot:'


    Friday, July 10, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Bully Boy Bush steps in it again, the US government is directly aiding the Kurds, the Defense Dept knows it and the Secretary has testified to this, the State Dept is in the dark, and much more.



    Bully Boy Bush has done a fairly good job of hiding under his rock since leaving the Oval Office in January 2009.  But now he's surfaced in a big way over raking in $100,000 for a speech in 2012.  It's a frightening number for a poor speaker as Wally's "ON THIS ONE, WE BLAME THE VETERANS!" and Cedric's "On this one, we blame the veterans" humor posts noted yesterday.  It's even worse that this a speech to an organization that's supposed to be a charity for veterans, Helping a Hero.  In addition to the $100,000, he also got to travel via a private jet which left the charity with a $20,000 bill for that.  Lucy Stiegerwald (Antiwar.com) explained:


    Even among folks who think that ex-politicians raking in millions of dollars from speeches is acceptable, W. charging such a hefty fee to speak in front of people he sent to war rankles. This is good. Even a small dose of shame is good for Bush, and for any other ex-politician who happily earns a tidy profit based on their blood-soaked reputation.
    Soldiers aren’t overjoyed either. ABC quoted Eddie Wright, a wounded veteran who briefly worked with Helping a Hero, as saying “For [Bush] to be paid to raise money for veterans that were wounded in combat under his orders, I don’t think that’s right.” A former spokesperson for the charity countered that Bush had given them a discount on his usual fee, but Politico’s research suggests that that’s not true. Helping a Hero also excused the high prices by saying that W. and Laura Bush had participated in fundraising efforts for them before. So this is what? A way of paying them back? Breaking even? It still doesn’t seem very charitable.

    This is the life of an ex-politician. No matter how much of a cute old cowboy W. appears to be; No matter that he spends more time painting pictures of the Dalai Lama than he does interfering in world affairs these days, he also happens to have earned some $15 million from speaking engagements just between 2009 and 2011. This pales in comparison to heavy hitters like Bill and Hillary Clinton who have earned upwards of $100 million from speeches. Bush’s numbers are still unnervingly high for someone who deserves a prison cell. (Though Clinton has enough Iraqi blood on his hands to stew next door.) 



    Again, the speech was from 2012.  Details of it have only recently emerged.

    The outrage is understandable.

    Senator Patty Murray -- in office as she currently is or years from now when she retires -- would probably be a popular speaker a veterans group might want to book but you really can't imagine her stiffing them with a private jet bill or demanding some six figure salary.

    That's because she's worked hard for veterans.

    I've avoided mocking Bully Boy Bush for some of his events with veterans since leaving the White House and taking the attitude of 'if one veteran enjoyed biking with him, maybe his participation in that event was worthwhile.'  But there have been plenty of chances to criticize his efforts and we've passed.

    Taking $100,000 from a group which is supposed to be raising money to assist and aid veterans is outrageous.  In fairness to Bully Boy Bush, it is equally outrageous for an organization insisting it is raising money for veterans to waste $100,000 on a speaker -- any speaker.

    Again, you can't see Senator Patty Murray doing something tawdry like that but that's because she has a long history of helping veterans.  Yesterday, her office issued the following:




     FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                    CONTACT: Murray Press Office
    Thursday, July 9, 2015                                                               (202) 224-2834
     
    Sen. Murray Fights to Protect Services for Homeless Veterans

    Bill prevents changes to VA policy that would cut off thousands of veterans from accessing housing services
     
    MURRAY: We have a duty to care for veterans, not to create more barriers to care
    (Washington, D.C.) – Today, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, introduced The Homeless Veterans Services Protection Act with cosponsor Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI), which would prevent thousands of homeless veterans from losing access to housing services. VA’s proposed changes to the decades-old policy for homeless services would bar access for veterans who served less that than two years continuously, or who had an other than honorable discharge. This bill would ensure that those changes can never take place. Last week, Sen. Murray toured the Randall Apartments in Tacoma, a 35-unit complex that serves homeless veterans. She also met with representatives from the Washington State Department of Veterans Affairs, local housing authorities, and community groups to discuss her new legislation.
    “Our veterans made great sacrifices while serving our country and our commitment to them is especially important,” said Senator Murray. “This bill makes it clear that our country takes care of those who’ve served, and we don’t allow bureaucracy to dictate who gets a roof over their head and who doesn’t.… If we ever hope to end veteran homelessness, we must do everything we can to reach this goal, and I want to make sure that the VA’s policies are moving us in that direction.”
     
    “As we work towards ending veterans homelessness, it is imperative that we use federal resources to help our servicemembers and their families in need,” said Senator Mazie K. Hirono, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee. "Many of our vulnerable veterans saw combat and are fighting PTSD and traumatic brain injury. Instead of leaving these veterans out in the cold, we must ensure access to stable housing and other necessary services. This bill would codify VA practices that have proven to be effective in getting veterans off the street and into housing. I commend Senator Murray on her leadership and am proud to work with her on this important issue.”
     
    The problem arose last year when a legal review concluded that veterans who served fewer than two years or had an other than honorable discharge may not be eligible for benefits such as housing services. As a result, when the VA instituted the policy last year, homeless shelters and providers who receive funding through the VA’s Grant and Per Diem (GPD) program were told to turn away new homeless veterans who didn’t meet the length of service or discharge requirements. Had this policy been fully carried out, this could have resulted in 15 percent of the homeless veterans population being turned away, and in certain urban areas could have been up to 30 percent. Sen. Murray introduced emergency legislation to reverse it, causing the VA to temporarily rescind the policy change.
    The Homeless Veterans Services Protection Act being introduced today will ensure that in the future, veterans cannot be turned away from organizations because they don’t meet certain length of service or discharge requirements and that our country is fulfilling our promise to care for servicemembers and veterans.
    Excerpts from Senator Murray’s remarks for the record are below:

    “The Administration set the difficult but commendable goal of eliminating veteran homelessness.  Through tremendous efforts at every level of government, and with the help of community groups, non-profits and the private sector, we have made major progress toward achieving that goal.”
     
    “But last year, after a legal review of its policies, VA was forced to prepare for a change that would have cut off services to veterans who did not meet certain length of service or discharge requirements, changing policies that homeless service providers had followed for decades. That would be a heartless, bureaucratic move that could have put thousands of veterans on the streets—practically overnight.”
     
    “As a senior member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee and the daughter of a World War II veteran, I’m proud that the bill I have introduced today would permanently protect homeless veterans’ access to housing and services. This bill makes it clear that our country takes care of those who’ve served, and we don’t allow bureaucracy to dictate who gets a roof over their head and who doesn’t.”
     
    “If we ever hope to end veteran homelessness we must do everything we can to reach this goal, and I want to make sure that VA’s policies are moving us in that direction. I don’t just believe that the United States can do better; I believe we must do better for those who’ve sacrificed so much for our country.”

    Senator Murray’s remarks for the record are below:

    “Mr. President, today I am introducing the Homeless Veterans Services Protection Act of 2015. This legislation would ensure continued access to homeless services for some of our country’s most vulnerable veterans who are currently at risk of losing these critical services.
     
    “The Administration set the difficult but commendable goal of eliminating veteran homelessness.  Through tremendous efforts at every level of government, and with the help of community groups, non-profits and the private sector, we have made major progress toward achieving that goal. But we know we have a lot of work to do. Veterans are at greater risk of becoming homeless than non-veterans and on any given night as many as 50,000 veterans are homeless across the United States.
     
    “This is unacceptable. Our veterans made great sacrifices while serving our country and our commitment to them is especially important. This commitment includes providing benefits, medical care, support, and assistance to prevent homelessness.
     
    “Two of our greatest tools are the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Grant and Per Diem program and the Supportive Services for Veteran Families program through partnerships with homeless service providers around the country. These important and successful programs assist very low-income veterans and their families who either live in permanent housing or are transitioning from homelessness. The programs help our veterans with rent, utilities, moving costs, outreach, case management, and obtaining benefits.
     
    “But last year, after a legal review of its policies, VA was forced to prepare for a change that would have cut off services to veterans who did not meet certain length of service or discharge requirements, changing policies that homeless service providers had followed for decades.
     
    “That would be a heartless, bureaucratic move that could have put thousands of veterans on the streets—practically overnight.  According to some of our leading veterans and homeless groups – including The American Legion, the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, and the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans – had the policy been enacted, VA would have had to stop serving about 15 percent of the homeless veteran population, and in certain urban areas up to 30 percent of homeless veterans would have been turned away.
     
    “The veterans community alerted me to this possible change-- and while I’m proud that we prevented these changes in the short-term—it’s very concerning that a legal opinion could be issued at any time to undo all of that. There is good reason to reverse this policy for good. A report from VA’s Inspector General, issued just last week, shows how VA’s unclear or outdated guidance hurts veterans, and how VA’s proposed policy changes work against efforts to help homeless veterans.
     
    “As a senior member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee and the daughter of a World War II veteran, I’m proud that the bill I have introduced today would permanently protect homeless veterans’ access to housing and services. This bill makes it clear that our country takes care of those who’ve served, and we don’t allow bureaucracy to dictate who gets a roof over their head and who doesn’t.
     
    “Many veterans struggle with mental illness, substance abuse, or simply finding a steady job-all factors that can lead to homelessness. And veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are increasingly becoming homeless – numbers that will continue to increase in the coming years unless help is available for them.
     
    “The idea that any of these veterans returning from service could become homeless because of these policies is unacceptable. If we ever hope to end veteran homelessness we must do everything we can to reach this goal, and I want to make sure that VA’s policies are moving us in that direction. I don’t just believe that the United States can do better; I believe we must do better for those who’ve sacrificed so much for our country.
     
    “Finally, I’d like to thank Senator Hirono for cosponsoring this bill and being a champion of the men and women who have served our country. Thank you.”

    ###
    Leah Kennebeck
    Deputy Press Secretary
    Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
    202-224-2834
     
     


    pm-sigbockyou-tube rssi-icon
    On the topic of politicians, let's drop back to  Tuesday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.  The Committee Chair is Senator John McCain and the Ranking Member is Senator Jack Reed.  Appearing before the Committee were Gen Martin Dempsey (Chair of the Joint Chiefs) and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter.

    We've noted Senators Joe Donnelly, Kelly Ayotte and Joe Manchin in Wednesday's snapshot.  We're going to note the line of questioning from two other senators today.  Senator Martin Henirich had some important and basic questions.


    Senator Martin Heinrich: Let me start by saying that, 'surge' or no 'surge,' I think it's pretty clear, at least to my constituents, that the Iraq War remains one of the greatest US foreign policy mistakes of the last century and one that I've hoped we've learned a few lessons from.  I want to follow up, Mr. Secretary, on what Senator Hirono raised.  One lesson I feel that we should have learned by now is that eliminating one terrible Middle Eastern dictator can too often lead to even more brutal influences filling the leadership vacuum.  We've seen that play out too many times.  We've seen that to some extent in both Iraq and Libya.  Should we be concerned that in Syria, a post-Assad reality could create a vacuum that ISIL is far better positioned to fill than any of the other regional forces?  I'm not sure we should be --  I think we should be almost as concerned with forces like al Nusra Front [a splinter of al Qaeda which is operating in Syria].  And if Assad does fall, shouldn't we have more than discussions on the table?  Shouldn't we have a plan to make sure that some amount of governance remains, particularly in Damascus?

    Secretary Ash Carter:  Uh, well, yes, we should and we do.  That is our strategy with respect to the political transition.  Now, uh, I've -- for reasons that are easy to understand, our influence with Bashar al Assad, our -- that is US -- influence is not great and so we are trying to influence those who influence him to remove himself, uh, from the government of, uh, Damascus while keeping intact the structures of governance for the very reasons that you adduce which is we know what happens in these Middle Eastern countries when the structures of government disintegrate and we would like to not see that happen in Syria even though we know that the persistence of Assad at the helm in Damascus  is in fact a fuel for ISIS and others who are fighting him so he needs to go to remove that fuel but we don't want to see the structures of governance go at the same time.  And that is the challenge but that is what we're trying to achieve.


    Senator Martin Heinrich:  Well I think that's certainly the right goal, I just want to make sure we're prepared for that because we've sort of missed that goal in the past and Syria is an enormous country and if we saw it lose its governance capability, the implications for the region and the entire world would be enormous.  Secretary Carter, as you mentioned as well, to be successful on the ground against ISIL, the fight needs to be led by local, capable ground forces.  I don't think we should give in to impatience.  These should not be western forces.  These should not be American forces.  We've certainly heard that from our partners in places like Jordan.  This means we need to place a great deal of importance on training motivated and reliable partners.  And you've gone a little bit over the small number of Iraqi security forces recruited, what those challenges are, the bottle neck related to the vetting process but are there other factors you would attribute for the lack of trainees?  And I guess one of the questions I have related to that is what steps, in addition to the steps that you're taking, what steps is the Iraqi government taking to address this shortfall in order to meet those training targets.we'd like to see?

    Secretary Ash Carter:  Uh, uh, thank you, Senator.  I think in Iraq, the principle limiting factor on Sunni trainees -- which is one of our focus -- our focuses -- has been their belief that the government in Baghdad was not fully supportive of them.  That is the challenge before Prime Minister Abadi.  He says he wants to do that and, uh, that's critical because only Sunnis can take back Anbar [Province], only Sunnis can govern Anbar when it's all over.  So if we are going to wrest Anbar from the likes of ISIL which we must do, we must have Sunnis on our side. And so Abadi is saying all the right things, as the Chairman noted.  We're trying to support him in doing all the right things. And --

    Senator Martin Henirich: Mr. Secretary, I agree with you wholeheartedly in your analysis.  I guess my concern is is Abadi doing enough to begin to generate confidence in the Sunni population in that region?

    Secretary Ash Carter: Uh, I think he is doing everything he personally can.  Uh, I think he is challenged in Baghdad by others who would have it the old way, the sectarian way.  And so he's not able to make everything happen when and as he says.  And we've had some delays and some frustrations as a result of that.  I think things are getting better.  We are getting more trainees.  It was noted earlier that there is some confidence among Sunni tribes that we will help them train, equip them, support them and get them back in the fight -- that there's a future for them  -- not even withstanding the difficulties of multi-sectarianism governance in Iraq.  That's the path we're on and, in the meantime, just to get back to something that Senator [Mike] Rounds said, I-I-I think and I-I said this before, I just want to restate it.  We need to take action to defend ourselves against ISIL, not just in Iraq and Syria, but elsewhere particularly foreign fighters even as we defeat them from the place from which they arose.  They have metastasized now, they aspire to be a global network and we have to fight them where they are.  We can't wait for that.  We need to do that -- and by the way, we do it every day.

    Senator Martin Heinrich:  Secretary --

    Secretary Ash Carter:  We did that just this past weekend.

    Senator Martin Heinrich (Con't):  -- I want to leave you with one last question.  It's a very general one.  You may have seen the POLITICO article from a couple of days ago that examined what it called the "Da-aesh effect" -- and it's sort of a modern example of the ancient proverb that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."  Whether it's Hammas or al Nusra or Iran, there are a number of entities that may be enemies to the US, certainly are enemies of our allies but currently share the same opposition to ISIL or Da'aesh.  What are your thoughts on that observation generally and wouldn't you agree that it's that reality that is part of the reason why this is such  a complicated nut to crack.


    Secretary Ash Carter:  That is the reason why it's so complicated and, again, sectarianism is what brought us to this point so we are willing to -- and we are -- and have  supported elements of the Iraqi security forces that have a very large Shis composition to them but if and only if they're under the direction and control of the government of Iraq.  And there are Shia forces in Iraq that are not under the direction and control and we will not support them because that's sectarianism, that sectarian civil war.  We know what leads down that road and we're trying to stop Iraq from going down that road.



    The hearing was Tuesday.  Wednesday this exchange took place at the State Dept press briefing moderated by Mark Toner:


    MR TONER: Sure thing, Said. Go ahead.


    QUESTION: The fight against ISIS?


    MR TONER: The fight against ISIS.


    QUESTION: (Inaudible.)


    MR TONER: Sure.


    QUESTION: I mean, now that we’ve had time --


    MR TONER: Wouldn’t be a briefing without some discussion on --


    QUESTION: (Inaudible.)


    MR TONER: No, go ahead. I’m sorry.


    QUESTION: No, I just wanted to follow up on some of the things that John said yesterday --


    MR TONER: Yep.


    QUESTION: -- but I (inaudible). He cited that when there is a – basically, implicitly, when there is a will to fight, such as the Peshmerga and the north fighting ISIS and the Kurdish fighters also in the north of Syria fighting ISIS, then we can see the outcome on the ground, that ISIS can be pushed back. Is the implicit suggestion there that the Iraqi army is not fighting or will not fight?


    MR TONER: Not at all. We’ve long said that some of these local fighters have been absolutely integral to combating ISIL. But everything we do is through the Iraqi military and the Iraqi Government, and all the equipping and supplying that we do is conducted through them and with their concurrence. So there’s a recognition, I think, that this needs to be locally owned, if you will; that we need to really build the capacity of local forces, and that includes the Iraqi military itself, to be able to push back and combat ISIL.


    QUESTION: Would that implicitly suggest that you – maybe you ought to give direct aid to the Peshmerga directly – heavy equipment, I mean. Not --


    MR TONER: Yeah.


    QUESTION: -- just rifles and guns and so on, but things like tanks and other battlefield equipment, heavy duty that they can use.



    MR TONER: Well, again, we have been providing some assistance to the Peshmerga, again, through the Iraqi Government. We feel like that’s getting into their hands expeditiously. We don’t feel like there’s a delay mechanism or anything. We feel like that the system currently is working pretty well in terms of getting them what they need. In terms of additional support, obviously, we’re always looking at that, but nothing to announce.



    In his exchange with Senator Kelly Ayotte on Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter made clear the US was directly arming the Kurds (as were the Germans and others, Carter also made clear).

    Why does the State Dept not know this?

    How stupid and uniformed is the administration that one group doesn't talk to the other and that a spokesperson does not know what's in public testimony?

    This was what Senator Joni Ernst started with in her line of questioning, was the US government arming the Kurds as Ayotte had asked and as Carter had replied.  His only clarification was that they were providing these arms with the consent of the Iraqi government out of Baghdad.

    But with that clarification, he again insisted that they were doing this.

    Ernst had co-sponsored a bill with Senator Barbara Boxer earlier this year to make this direct aid -- with the consent of the Baghdad based government -- possible because Secretary of State John Kerry had insisted in a letter to Congress that they could not legally do this -- this what they are now doing without any new law.

    Ernst pointed that out and pointed out that US President Barack Obama noted in his speech earlier this week that not only would this be happening but they would be expediting the process.

    Let's move on to another issue of she raised.



    Senator Joni Ernst: [. . . ] Sir, considering the fall of the most western part of Iraq to ISIS, that didn't trigger a decision point on the part of the Iraqi government in its commitment to Iraq or  -- I'm just not sure  what else the Iraqi government needs to fail at before the administration changes its strategy and how we support our willing partners in Iraq -- the Kurdish Peshmerga, they are willing partners, they are.  And I think we need to do more for them.  We cannot defeat ISIS in Iraq by continuing to beg, hope and pray that the sectarian Iraqi government -- which is still overshadowed, we've heard it a number of times, by previous prime minister [Nouri al-] Maliki and Iran.  We don't think that they would vigorously defend the Iraqi people equally.  I don't believe they will. But we've talked also about being more inclusive.  That word was mentioned again.  "More inclusive.'  I hear this time and time again.  But what -- I would like a definition of what does "more inclusive" look like and how do we measure "more inclusive"? Gentlemen, if you would address that please.

    Secretary Ash Carter: I-I, uhm, would-would begin by noting the words of Prime Minister Abadi when he was here.  I think he used the word decentralized Iraq.  And that is one in which, uh, there is a central government in Baghdad an integral state of Iraq but there is substantial opportunity for self-determination around the country among Sunnis, among Shias, and among Kurds. It seems to me that's a wise way of approaching what multi-sectarianism means.  I think a, uh, government in Baghdad that allows the different parties there a degree of self-determination to maintain security within their own territory and to govern themselves, share in things like the oil wealth of the country and so forth, that is what he says he is for. And that's the way he described it when he was here in Washington to all of that.  And that is, in my judgment, certainly better than the alternative which is sectarian disintegration -- which could still occur in Iraq.  But I think we all -- looking into that abyss -- know what resides there -- further violence for the citizens of Iraq and further opportunities for groups like ISIL that don't -- aren't preoccupied with the long time welfare of the territories they occupy, they want to use them for further violence. So that is Prime Minister Abadi's definition and I think we're trying to support him in his aspiration to make good on that definition.

    Senator Joni Ernst: Thank you.  General, anything to add there?

    Gen Martin Dempsey:  Just that in the military, what we'll be watching for in terms of the intentions of the government of Iraq and its control over groups that are not directly responsive to the Ministry of Defense is whether there's retribution, whether they allow -- It was Tikrit I was speaking about, I think, Senator.  As these families come back to Tikrit after it was recaputered, we are watching -- and it's worth watching -- on whether they are able to return to their homes or not?  I think the same will be true once Ramadi is recaptured.  And we'll probably be watching how the campaign in Falluja unfolds to ensure that the popular mobilizations forces [Shi'ite militias] propagate a campaign that's not characterized by retribution.and-and dramatic collateral damage.  Those are all things to watch carefully.

    Senator Joni Ernst: And I think we have willing partners there and I think we need to assist those willing partners.



    Lastly, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 168 violent deaths across Iraq on Thursday.