|
Tuesday,
October 13, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Barack gets creative on
Iraq in a debate, 'fact checkers' ignore that the White House continues
to negotiate to send more US troops back into Iraq, US Army data says
over 18,000 US Army personnel in Iraq (but you have to go to the Guardian for that story, not the US press), the political crisis continues in Iraq and more.
Fact
checking last night's debate between US President Barack Obama and
former Governor Mitt Romney, one outlet after another declared all US
troops were out of Iraq, all troops had left. So, as Joni Mitchell sings, "Help me, I think I'm falling . . ." And the confusion just continues as Simon Rogers (Guardian) posts
a chart from the US Army listing the US Army Deployments in 2012 --
this year. If all US troops left Iraq at the end of 2011, then surely
Iraq did not make the list of "Top 10 Countries" in 2012 for deployment,
right?
Wait, there it is! Number five on the
list of deployments with a little less than 20,000 US troops. How can
that be? How can we have thousands of US troops in Iraq? Didn't they
all just tell us last night and this morning that all US troops left
Iraq at the end of 2011? How many are present? Click on map, on Iraq
(yes, geography can be hard -- especially for the US press) and you get
the number 18,400 ("In 2012 there were 18,400 Army personnel deployed in
Iraq").
The
claim is true. The problem is that Obama wanted to keep 10,000 troops
on the ground in Iraq as well. He later cut that number to 5,000, and
wasn't able to keep even that contingent in place only because his
attempts to negotiate an agreement with the government of Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki ended in failure. Obama had insisted on a guarantee
that the remaining U.S. troops would be immune from criminal prosecution
in Iraq, a demand that Maliki refused.
So
for Obama to paint Romney as a die-hard combatant in Iraq was beyond
misleading. It was a stunt. And given the emotions that still surround
the troubled U.S. occupation, and the fact that Obama clearly knew he
was being dishonest, he wins the whopper.
Grace Wyler (Business Insider) also points out,
"Romney is actually correct on this point. The status of forces
agreement -- put into place in 2008, before Obama took office -- called
for a full U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011. When that
time came, the Obama administration tried to work out an extension of
the agreement with the Iraqi government that would have kept an
unspecified number of U.S. troops (likely between 3,000 and 5,000) in the country to train Iraqi security forces." John Glaser (Antiwar.com) offers that Barack was dishonest due to the fact that the truth "conflicted with his attempts to claime he ended the war in Iraq." Jeremy Hammond (Foreign Policy Journal) observes that, in the Iraq exchange, "Romney was being honest and Obama was, well, lying." From Hammond's analysis:
While Obama is fond of taking credit for ending the war in Iraq, in fact, the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) under which all U.S. combat troops were withdrawn at the end of 2011 was signed on November 17, 2008,
under the Bush administration. Obama was critical of the SOFA, his
publicly stated position being that the troops should be withdrawn
sooner. "In contrast," the New York Times noted
at the time, "President-elect Obama had campaigned under a promise to
withdraw all American combat brigades from Iraq by May 2010".
Obama
not only did not keep that promise, but his administration sought since
as early as September 2010 to obtain a new agreement with Iraq under
which 15,000 to 20,000 combat troops would remain beyond the deadline at
the end of 2011; but "Obama insisted that it could only happen if
Maliki requested it", wrote
investigative historian and journalist Gareth Porter, since the White
House "was worried about losing support from the Democratic Party's
anti-war base as Congressional mid-term elections approached". The Wall Street Journal similarly pointed out
that "Mr. Obama could face a political backlash at home if he doesn't
meet his campaign pledge to bring troops home from Iraq", and by April
2011, the U.S. had dropped the number of troops it sought to keep in
Iraq down to 10,000. The discussions over a new agreement "face
political obstacles in both countries," the Journal also noted,
"and have faltered in recent weeks because of Iraqi worries that a
continued U.S. military presence could fuel sectarian tension and lead
to protests similar to those sweeping other Arab countries".
None of the fact checkers bothered to acknowledge what Tim Arango (New York Times) reported September 26th:
Iraq
and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in
the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training
missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General
Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed
to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.
We
don't want another Iraq, we don't want another Afghanistan. That's not
the right course for us. The right course for us is to make sure that we
go after the - the people who are leaders of these various
anti-American groups and these - these jihadists, but also help the
Muslim world.
And how do we do that? A
group of Arab scholars came together, organized by the U.N., to look at
how we can help the - the world reject these - these terrorists. And the
answer they came up with was this:
One,
more economic development. We should key our foreign aid, our direct
foreign investment, and that of our friends, we should coordinate it to
make sure that we - we push back and give them more economic
development.
Number two, better education.
Number three, gender equality.
Number four, the rule of law. We have to help these nations create civil societies.
"I
was about to wake my children up to go to school when the blast took
place collapsing walls and shattering the glass in the windows. Thank
God the curtains prevented flying pieces of glass from injuring my
daughters. Thank God none of them were hurt. When we will stop being
killed like this?" Lamia Sami asks in a report by Lindsey Tugman (CBS News). Iraq was slammed with bombings today. Alsumaria quotes
a Baghdad Operations Command spokesperson declaring there were five
bombs (car bomb and sticky bombings) northwest of Baghdad alone today.
Alsumaria counts 6 dead and 14 injured in bombings northwest of Baghdad. All Iraq News notes a Baghdad mortar attack left three people injured.
CNN adds
a Baghdad car bombing has claimed 2 lives and left ten people injured
and they count 11 dead and thirty-two injured in the day's violence. BBC News explains, "The latest attacks come ahead of the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha, the Feast of the Sacrifice, which begins on Friday." Prensa Latina observes,
"Media in this capital linked Tuesday's incidents to those which
occurred last Saturday, also in areas that are predominantly Shiite
Muslim, the great majority in Iraq, from which were reported eight dead
and two dozen wounded, if data from official spokespersons are to be
believed."
Iraq
must build a new hydrocarbons regime to attract the necessary financing
if it expects to solve its infrastructure problems and become the
world's No. 2 exporter, an official of the country's government and the
International Energy Agency's chief economist both said.
"We
have an ambitious plan to double production by the end of this decade,"
Jabir Habeb, Iraq's ambassador to the US, said at an Oct. 22 seminar at
the Center for Strategic and International Studies on IEA's Iraq Energy Outlook,
which was released earlier in October. "It may be more ambitious than
the IEA's projections, but it's apparent there's no alternative."
That
report's central scenario projected Iraq's oil production more than
doubling to 6.1 million b/d by 2020 and reaching 8.3 million b/d in
2035. This growth in production of more than 5 million b/d by 2035 would
make Iraq the largest contributor to more global supplies during that
period, it indicated.
But the country will
need to develop a hydrocarbons regime with the necessary transparency to
attract foreign investments to repair badly neglected oil and gas
production, pipelines, and terminals, IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol
observed.
Early this morning, Laura Rozen (The Back Channel) reported,
"Oil giant Exxon Mobil is expected to soon announce that it is pulling
out of non-Kurdish Iraq, an energy expert source told Al-Monitor
Wednesday on condition of anonymity. The decision would not apply to
Exxon's contracts in Kurdish Iraq, which has been a source of on-going
tension with Baghdad authorities for the company, the source said." Ahmed Rasheed and Patricky Markey (Reuters) state
the corporation didn't inform "Iraq of its interest in quitting the
country's West Qurna oilfield project" according to unnamed sources.
Sometimes unnamed sources lie. This may be one of those times. This is
very embarrassing for Nouri and his government and feigning surprise
may be their effort to play it off. 'How could we have stopped it? We
didn't even know it was coming!' That would explain why the 'big
surprise' that isn't is being played like it is. Derek Brower (Petroleum Economist) has been covering this story
for over 48 hours (including a source that stated ExxonMobil had
informed the Iraqi government) and he notes that ExxonMobil will be
focusing all their "efforts on upstream projects in Kurdistan instead."
In addition to the claim in Rasheed and Markey's piece about Iraq
having had no meeting on this, Brower notes that a meeting took place
today at the Ministry of Oil. It would appear Nouri's spinning like
crazy in an effort to save his faltering image. (Nouri can certainly
spend billions -- as he proved last week on his mad shopping spree for
weapons, he just doesn't seem able to maintain releations with those who
help Iraq generate large revenues.)
Al Rafidayn reports
today that the Kurdistan Regional Government is now exporting oil on
the international markets in spite of Baghdad's objections with many
observers expecting this to lead to more tenstions between Nouri's
Baghdad-based government and the KRG.
Iraq
is now in the middle of nowhere vis-à-vis lack of governance. The
public tease the bare-knuckle efforts of the Iraqi politicians to rule.
Iraq's premier Nuri Kamal Al-Maliki works day in and day out to
strengthen his stronghold by whatever means he has.
Everyday via the
media and press we are exposed to nonsense from politicians. The public
is disgruntled and blighted by the barking laughs of their leaders
appearing on TV saying: "everything will be ok" while the country is on
the brink of obliteration with nothing on the right track.
There
are many requests at this point for Nouri al-Maliki, prime minister and
chief thug, to appear before Parliament. Last week, the latest request
was made and this was for Nouri to explain himself with regards to the
Central Bank. Nouri's resisting as he has with all other requests. Per
the Constitution, if Parliament summons a prime minister, he or she
must appear before them. But Nouri's never obeyed the Constitution. Dar Addustour reports
rumors of how Nouri may get his way yet again: He has files on members
of another party, apparently dating back to 2007, which would, if
revealed, 'implicate' them in terrorism. The most obvious blackmail
targets are the Kurds and Iraqiya. But if you think back to 2007 and
the Diyala attack (by US forces and Nouri's Baghdad forces) that
lasted through 2007, what may stand out the most is who they were
kicking out: the Mahdi militia. In other words, whether there's any
proof of anything there or not, the most obvious target of his whisper
campaign would be Moqtada al-Sadr. State of Law (Nouri's
political slate) is all over the Iraqi press insisting they're not the
reason that the Fedral Court Act hasn't passed. It's probably going to
have the same legs that yesterday's story about the back and forth
between Ammar al-Hakim (ISCI leader) and a Saudi newspaper did (no
traction). More interesting is State of Law echoing talking points of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (such as in this All Iraq News article). Or All Iraq News quoting State of Law MP Mansour al-Tamimi expressing support for Jalal. This comes, no surprise, as All Iraq News features Iraqiya MPs quoting Jalal's committment to the process of resolving the political crisis. Alsumaria notes
that Jalal met with the Sadr bloc. The bloc. Moqtada, like many in
Iraqiya, feels stabbed in the back by Jalal's actions last May. Meanwhile, it's apparently not enough that two villages in Basra are being terrorized by packs of wild dogs, Al Rafidayn reports
that large numbers of large rats are damaging store goods, farm produce
and biting children throughout Basra. Abu Mohammed is quoted stating
that the plague of rodents has lasted for over a year now and that the
residents see it as terrorism . Abu Ali notes that rats have attacked
their children resulting in nose and finger wounds and they have damaged
their home. It's as though the rats are coming out of the sand, says
another and the bait and poison that once worked now does not.
National
Guard and reserve members who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan are
having a harder time than other veterans getting disability compensation
claims approved by the Veterans Affairs Department.
New
data obtained by Veterans for Common Sense under the Freedom of
Information Act shows the denial rate for claims filed by reserve
component combat veterans is four times higher than for post-9/11 combat
veterans who were active-duty members.
Harvard's Linda J. Blimes (Sentinel Source) notes
the veterans vote and states it's assumed Republican presidential
candidate Mitt Romney has a slight lead. The column's much longer that
that but completely useless and, for the record, when you write "Romney
does have some negatives, however" -- you probably need to have noted
some negatives Barack has as well as some positives Romney would have.
It's a very one-sided column that will confirm many suspicions about
Blimes from the last years and used those suspicions to dismiss her
accurate financial models. Unlike Blimes, NBC's Bill Briggs talks
to actual veterans and four share what they made of the debates and
what they think the most pressing issues for veterans are. In addition,
Disabled Veterans of America notes:
Held
annually, National Disability Employment Awareness Month is led by the
U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Disability Employment Policy, but
its true spirit lies in the many observances held at the grassroots
level across the nation every year. For specific ideas about how DAV
members can support National Disability Employment Awareness Month,
visit www.dol.gov/odep/.
Suggestions range from simple, such as putting up a poster, to
comprehensive, such as implementing a disability education program.
Regardless, all play an important part in fostering a more inclusive
workforce, one where every person is recognized for his or her
abilities -- every day of every month.
For more information please visit the Office of Disability Employment Policy Workplace Flexibility Toolkit.
That's
this month. Hopefully, you already knew that. I didn't and wouldn't
if it hadn't been e-mailed to us, so thank you for that e-mail.
| 
