Friday, June 01, 2007
US Presence Hindering Iraqi Fight Against Al-Qaeda
According to Bush and the Neo-Cons, continuing the US occupation of Iraq is necessary to prevent it from turning into a new Al-Qaeda safe space. Besides the fact that Iraq already is an Al-Qaeda safe space due to the total chaos the country has been thrown into there is another problem with this; according to one Sunni mayor of a west Baghdad neighborhood who is engaging in running battles with Al-Qaeda forces, our military presence is preventing Sunni groups from uniting against the foreign fighters who have crept into Iraq. From today's Washington Post:
In other words, if we keep it up by sending in more troops, we will end up bringing together Iraqis to fight us, versus fighting Al-Qaeda extremists whose welcome -- if they ever had one -- is wearing thin.
Once the Japanese left China, the Communists and Nationalists went back to fighting each other. If we ever announce we're going to leave, Al-Qaeda will likely wonder how they are going to take on the Shites and the Sunni's they have alienated through their terror tactics; not sitting in Baghdad comfortably planning how to cross the Atlantic
The Baghdad battle is evidence of a deepening split between some Sunni insurgent groups and al-Qaeda in Iraq, which claims allegiance to Osama bin Laden. Although similar rebellions occurred in Diyala province earlier this year, the fighting this week appears to be the first time the conflict has reached the streets of Baghdad.
Abdul Khaliq said he hoped U.S. forces would stay out of the fight. "But if the Americans interfere, it will blow up, because they are the enemy of us both, and we will unite against them and stop fighting each other," he said.
In other words, if we keep it up by sending in more troops, we will end up bringing together Iraqis to fight us, versus fighting Al-Qaeda extremists whose welcome -- if they ever had one -- is wearing thin.
Once the Japanese left China, the Communists and Nationalists went back to fighting each other. If we ever announce we're going to leave, Al-Qaeda will likely wonder how they are going to take on the Shites and the Sunni's they have alienated through their terror tactics; not sitting in Baghdad comfortably planning how to cross the Atlantic
Friday, April 20, 2007
10,000 Celebrates Iraqi Communist Party's Birthday
Another scene from the crowd, with a banner reading, “We support a comprehensive national campaign to defeat terror and terrorists.” Photo courtesy Iraqi Communist Party. Nearly 10,000 people attended recent celebrations of the 73rd anniversary of the Iraqi Communist Party in Baghdad. Cold war hang-ups aside (the ICP is more Enrico Berlinguer than Che Guevara anyways as one can see from the violent denunciations of it by the ultra-left), the ICP is the leading political force in Iraq committed to a democratic, social, and secular Iraq. It is a leading force in the struggle to rebuild a strong and independent civil society -- it plays a leading role in many of the trade-unions and women's groups -- that US progressives should take a look at. Historically one of the most important political forces in 20th century Iraq that suffered tremendously under Saadam Hussein, the fact that the ICP can pull out 10,000 in the middle to Baghdad to a political rally shows it continuing importance. It is also inspirational to see Iraqis standing up against ethnic sectarianism, religious fundamentalism and murderous militias. As this account of the events shows, The ICP is one of the leading political force in the building of a democratic opposition to the forces of violence and authoritarianism.
"The response to the celebrations shows the “gradual rise of the democratic forces as a distinct political pole in the Iraqi political spectrum,” Ali said. Before the U.S. invasion, he said, Iraqi politics had three main trends, which he identified as democratic — left and liberal, Islamist, and nationalist Arab and Kurdish. Under Saddam Hussein, the Baathists dominated the nationalist camp, liquidating other pan-Arab nationalist groups. Both the democratic and nationalist trends were weakened by the U.S. occupation’s fanning of sectarian division. “Once the American presence is out or weakens, the old political map will come into play — these big political groups will gradually come back,” he said. “This is the real Iraqi political scene. All the nonsense of ‘Shia vs. Sunni’ doesn’t hold much ground.”
On April 9, the anniversary of the fall of Baghdad to U.S. forces, the Shiite Islamic organization led by cleric Moqtada al-Sadr mobilized tens or hundreds of thousands for a march in the holy city of Najaf protesting the U.S. occupation and calling for Iraqi sovereignty.
The mass march tapped the nearly unanimous Iraqi opposition to foreign occupation. Many commentators saw it as primarily a move by Sadr, whose forces have displayed fractures recently, to show rival Islamic groups that he is still a force to reckon with. Sadr was not present at the march and his whereabouts are unknown.
Sadr’s militias are reviled by many Iraqis for brutal sectarian killings and ethnic cleansing, seen as contributing to destabilizing the country and helping perpetuate the occupation.
The ICP sees national reconciliation and unity as necessary to ending foreign occupation and regaining political and economic sovereignty. Sadr draws support from among the poorest and most marginalized people of the countryside and Baghdad’s Sadr City. In the Iraqi Communists’ view, this underscores the fact that security and sovereignty require immediate economic and social measures to meet the needs of the people including the most downtrodden."
Labels: Iraq, Iraqi Communist Party
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Iraqi Trade Union Leader Murdered by Insurgents
The coalition of ex-Baathists, Shite militias and foreign jihadists that make up the Iraqi insurgency has moved quickly to wipe out any trace of civil society that may oppose their sectarian and totalitarian vision for Iraq; kidnapping and murdering teachers, doctors and labor activists. Since the beginning of the insurgency over two hundred Iraqi trade unionists have been assassinated. The latest victim is Iraqi Trade Union leader Najim Abed Jassem. From the British Trade Union Congress:
"Najim Abed Jasem was kidnapped by militias on 27 March. His body was found on 30 March 2007. His body bears huge signs of torture. He was member of the underground Workers' Trade Union Movement (WDTUM) and fought against the regime of Saddam. He was dismissed from his job because of his trade union activities. He was reinstated after the fall of Saddam. He was one of the key founder of the new democratic IFTU, now the GFIW, and was elected the General Secretary of the Mechanics Workers' Union.'"
What Saddam was unable to do completly-the crushing of the democratic left-the Iraqi insurgents are completing under US watch.
Labels: Iraq, Trade-unions
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Tell Congress: Stand Up to President Bush: End the War
Got this nice letter from the Edwards Campaign in my in-box
------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, right now, you and I have the best chance in years to help end the war in Iraq but we must take immediate action. Here's the situation: Both houses of Congress have voted across party lines to bring our troops home with a plan to fully fund their redeployment and safe return. President Bush has vowed to veto this funding because it hampers his ability to wage endless war—he'd rather block funding for the troops than listen to the overwhelming majority of the American people who want the war to end.
Yesterday, Bush called a special press conference and made his strategy crystal clear: veto funding for the troops and then blame Congress for the results. He's betting that Congress will buckle under the pressure and just drop their plan to end the war. We cannot let that happen. So today, I'm launching an emergency petition to Congress, urging them to stand firm on Iraq. We have to show every senator and representative that their constituents will not be fooled by Bush's ploy—Congress must not abandon the plan to end the war.
We're aiming to gather at least 100,000 signatures before the showdown begins after Congress returns to Washington next week. Please add your name today:
President Bush's calculation is simple. He knows the people are against him and his occupation is a failure, but because he controls the bully pulpit he thinks he can control the debate. So he'll continue to use the full might of his legendary spin machine to tell the American people that Congress is de-funding the troops, even as he vetos that very funding with his own pen. As the President of the United States, Bush has a responsibility to the troops, and he has failed this responsibility over and over again.
Congress also has a responsibility: To decide how to spend the people's money—and to say when enough is enough.It's true that Cheney, Rove, and the rest of the president's team are master political calculators—and they do have a head start in shaping the headlines and controlling the spin.But this is not the time for political calculation. This is the time for political courage.If Bush vetoes the funding bill, Congress should send it back to him just as before—with a plan to bring the troops home. And if he vetoes it again, they should pass it again. And they should do this as many times as it takes for Bush to understand that the American people will not be bullied into writing another blank check for his war without end.
For years, Bush has abused the rhetoric of patriotism to frighten his opponents and divide our country—we can't let Bush get away with it anymore. When Congress funds the troops with a plan to bring them home, they are supporting the troops. When Bush vetoes that funding, he is responsible for blocking the money the troops depend on—nobody else.But where will our representatives in Washington find that political courage, in the face of such powerful opposition? They will find it where courage has always been strongest in our nation's most critical moments. They will find it in the voice of the people—they will find it in you.Will you add your name—your voice—to our call for courage? We're aiming to gather a hundred thousand signatures before Congress returns to Washington, and we can't do it without you.
Please sign today. Thank you for standing up,
John Edwards
P.S. - Gathering 100,000 voices in the time we have will require all of us taking that extra step. Will you forward this email to friends and family members who also want to end this war, and ask them to join you by signing this petition?P.P.S. - You can find links to detailed summaries of both the House and Senate funding packages and troop drawdown plan here.
Labels: Campaign 2008, Iraq, John Edwards
Friday, March 30, 2007
Hillary Clinton's Plan for "Peace with Honor
John Judis has a good follow up to Michael Crowly's piece at the The New Republic on Hillary Clinton's real foreign policy. Judis makes the good point that Hillary has a very good reason she has not apologized for voting for the Iraq war: She still supports it.
Clinton did vote for August 2008 withdrawal date in the Senate, but according to Judis her conception of the level of involvement we will still have in Iraq after that date is much more extensive that what most of her fellow Democrats probably think.
If Clinton cinches the Democratic nomination, she would in all likelihood run a Nixonian like "Peace with Honor" campaign, portraying the Republicans as a party in crisis who have failed to pacify Iraq. I can see the commercials now. The 1968 comparisons would be even more apt if McCain-who looks as happy about watching his political career crumble defending someone else's foreign policy disaster as Humphrey did-gets the GOP nomination.
Unlike some, I think she would win pretty handily, even against a Giuliani or Tho
mpson. The American public sees Iraq as the GOP's war, just like Americans in 1968 saw Vietnam as the Democrats war. In 1968 the public did not trust the same party that got us into the conflict to get us out and I think it will be the same in 2008. But if we get stuck with four years of what Judis admits is a "Bush-lite" foreign policy, the terrible damage inflicted by the Bush administration in the realm of foreign policy will only be compounded and would likely have a disastrous effect on the Democratic Party.
"In spite of her support this month for a Senate resolution mandating withdrawal, Clinton is still a hawk on Iraq--and, in my opinion, is still flying blind. "
Clinton did vote for August 2008 withdrawal date in the Senate, but according to Judis her conception of the level of involvement we will still have in Iraq after that date is much more extensive that what most of her fellow Democrats probably think.
"Clinton's idea of a residual occupying force goes well beyond that of the recent Senate resolution. The resolution provides for a "limited number" of troops after the pullout date, which would be devoted to training and to "targeted counterterrorism operations." By contrast, Clinton's force would have larger geopolitical responsibilities, including the restraint of Iranian power. Clinton says she doesn't know how many U.S. troops her plan would require, or how many military bases would be required to house them. But Michael Gordon and Patrick Healy, who conducted the interview, noted that former Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim, who has developed a strikingly similar plan, estimates that 75,000 American troops would be needed to carry his plan out. That's about half of the current force stationed in Iraq."Clinton would pull troops out the areas where the sectarian conflict is hottest, which is most of the major cities but on the whole the US would continue to occupy Iraq and play a major military role in the region for the indefinite future.
If Clinton cinches the Democratic nomination, she would in all likelihood run a Nixonian like "Peace with Honor" campaign, portraying the Republicans as a party in crisis who have failed to pacify Iraq. I can see the commercials now. The 1968 comparisons would be even more apt if McCain-who looks as happy about watching his political career crumble defending someone else's foreign policy disaster as Humphrey did-gets the GOP nomination.
Unlike some, I think she would win pretty handily, even against a Giuliani or Tho
mpson. The American public sees Iraq as the GOP's war, just like Americans in 1968 saw Vietnam as the Democrats war. In 1968 the public did not trust the same party that got us into the conflict to get us out and I think it will be the same in 2008. But if we get stuck with four years of what Judis admits is a "Bush-lite" foreign policy, the terrible damage inflicted by the Bush administration in the realm of foreign policy will only be compounded and would likely have a disastrous effect on the Democratic Party. Unlike Nixon-who secretly knew we could not achieve a victory in Vietnam-Crowly makes a convincing case that Hillary really does believe in a milder version of neo-conservatism that still believes in the value of the regular and offensive use of military force to enforce US will around the world. Crowly quotes here before the Council of Foreign Relations as saying
"There is a refrain ... that we should intervene with force only when we face splendid little wars that we surely can win, preferably by overwhelming force in a relatively short period of time. To those who believe we should become involved only if it is easy to do, I think we have to say that America has never and should not ever shy away from the hard task if it is the right one."
I don't know if blindness and arrogance is any better for the country than cynicism however.
Labels: Hillary Clinton, Iraq
Hard Hats Shout Down Iraq War Apologists
Hard-Hats Then (1970)
Only four days after the shootings at Kent State in the Spring of 197o, a group of nearly two thousand construction workers-many working on the World Trade Center- descended on Wall Street and violently assaulted the some 1,000 anti-war protesters gathered there. The workers then went on to storm city hall and ran the US flag-which was being flown at half mast in remembrance of the deaths at Kent State-back to full mast. Less than a month latter nearly 100,000 construction workers marched through the streets of Manhattan in support of President Nixon. Nixon was so impressed by the so called "hard-hat riots" that he picked the president of the powerful New York City Building and Construction Trades Council Peter Brennan as his Secretary of Labor.
But that was then. Its unlikely you will be seeing any construction workers today marching through the streets for Bush. According to yesterday's Boston Globe:
But that was then. Its unlikely you will be seeing any construction workers today marching through the streets for Bush. According to yesterday's Boston Globe:
"Democratic presidential candidates pledged their support for labor rights before a builders union yesterday, but the war in Iraq cast a shadow over the session, with union members shouting down a Republican lawmaker who backed the war and cheering Democrats who promised to get the United States out of Iraq.
"This war is a mess. We should bring the troops home now!" shouted Representative Dennis Kucinich , Democrat of Ohio, bringing the blue-collar crowd to its feet in raucous applause. Kucinich, a second-tier candidate who draws minimal support in public-opinion polls, rarely gets such an enthusiastic response at multi candidate forums.
In contrast to the stony silence that greeted Sen. John McCain when he tried defending Bush's troop surge before the AFL-CIO, the contemporary hard-hats were more direct in expressing theirdisapproval of the Iraq war
"By contrast, House minority leader John Boehner of Ohio, one of two Republicans who addressed the conference, was booed loudly when he spoke in favor of the war. "If we don't fight them [in Iraq], we will be fighting them here in America," Boehner said, before the audience shouted him down."
Hard Hats Now (2007)
Labels: Building Trades, Campaign 2008, Iraq
Thursday, March 29, 2007
US and Iraqi Forces Raid Iraqi Union Office
US and Iraqi government forces have once again raided the office of Iraq's largest trade union federation. Truly stuck between a rock and a hard place, Iraq's union movement is struggling for democracy and social justice while dealing with harassment from hostile US occupation force and the anti-labor Iraqi government and violence from various sectarian militias. Many of their leader have died at the hands of the latter. Please show your support and solidarity below.
--
From LabourStart
--
From LabourStart
IRAQI UNION OFFICES RAIDED
Six days ago, US and Iraqi forces raided the head offices of the General Federation of Iraqi Workers (GFIW), the country's national trade union center. They arrested one of the union's security staff (later released unharmed), destroyed furniture, and confiscated a computer and fax machine. And then they did it again two days later, causing further damage to the union headquarters.
The union is condemning the attacks as unprovoked. It is calling on the occupation forces to issue a written apology, to return all the seized property, and to pay compensation for damages caused.
They are asking unions around the world to send messages of protest by clicking here:
To protest click here.
They are asking unions around the world to send messages of protest by clicking here:
To protest click here.
Labels: Iraq, Trade-unions
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Congress's Secret Iraqi Oil Privitization Benchmark
Among the many benchmarks that Congress stuck on the Iraq war spending measure last week was a little known provision that many liberals missed. As Ryan Grimm reports in today’s Politico.
“The current bill going through Congress would ratchet up pressure on the Iraqi Parliament to enact “a broadly accepted hydrocarbon law that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis.”Sounds good but to many Iraqis and analysts of the Iraqi oil industry the wording is exactly similar to an Iraqi bill that would open up Iraq's enormous oil wealth to foreign investors. Language about sharing oil wealth is all well and good but as Antonaa Juhasz from Oil Change International recently put it:
"the benefits of this excellent proposal are radically undercut by the law’s many other provisions — these allow much (if not most) of Iraq’s oil revenues to flow out of the country and into the pockets of international oil companies.The law would transform Iraq’s oil industry from a nationalized model closed to American oil companies except for limited (although highly lucrative) marketing contracts, into a commercial industry, all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil companies."
That’s right. The House of Representatives is now on record as pressuring the Iraqi government to essentially privatize its petro-resources. Stuck in there among less objectionable goals for the Iraqi government, the oil benchmark may use somewhat vague language and many Democrats chose to ignore it, but for the Bush administration it's one benchmark that has been at their top of the list since the war started.
The administration has been putting pressure on the Iraqi government since the invasion to privatize pretty much everything in the state heavy Iraqi economy. As Naomi Klein reported back in 2004, many in the administration had fantasies of turning Iraq into a kind of “Year Zero” for neo-liberal economics, eliminating nearly every possible state barrier to foreign investment. Of course that was when they still had hopes that newly stable and pro-US Iraq would become a free-market model before the growing insurgency and sectarian strife essentially halted the process of creating a Milton Friedman styled utopia
While it’s unlikely that any foreign energy company would drop any money in Iraq at this point, the pressure for privatization from the administration continues. According to Grimm:
In February the Maliki government introduced new legislation in the Iraqi parliament that would in practice privatize the country’s oil resources and he is hoping to get it turned into law soon.
Oil in Iraq-like elsewhere in the Middle East-is an explosive political issue. Some Iraqi’s can still remember the days during British colonial occupation when the oil field when were owned by British and American corporations. The nationalization of Iraq’s oil fields was one of the first acts of a newly independent Iraq and the oil profits that formerly went to London or Houston helped fuel (pun intended) one of the highest living standards in the Arab world.
Most vocal in their opposition to the privatization of Iraq’s oil are the forces on the ground most committed to a democratic, secular and pluralistic Iraq; the Iraqi trade-unions. Sparing no words they condemned the bill for:
The administration has been putting pressure on the Iraqi government since the invasion to privatize pretty much everything in the state heavy Iraqi economy. As Naomi Klein reported back in 2004, many in the administration had fantasies of turning Iraq into a kind of “Year Zero” for neo-liberal economics, eliminating nearly every possible state barrier to foreign investment. Of course that was when they still had hopes that newly stable and pro-US Iraq would become a free-market model before the growing insurgency and sectarian strife essentially halted the process of creating a Milton Friedman styled utopia
While it’s unlikely that any foreign energy company would drop any money in Iraq at this point, the pressure for privatization from the administration continues. According to Grimm:
”The Associated Press reported earlier this month that (Prime Minister Nouri-Al Maliki fears the U.S. would withdraw support for him if he doesn’t succeed in passing the current version of the bill.”
In February the Maliki government introduced new legislation in the Iraqi parliament that would in practice privatize the country’s oil resources and he is hoping to get it turned into law soon.
Oil in Iraq-like elsewhere in the Middle East-is an explosive political issue. Some Iraqi’s can still remember the days during British colonial occupation when the oil field when were owned by British and American corporations. The nationalization of Iraq’s oil fields was one of the first acts of a newly independent Iraq and the oil profits that formerly went to London or Houston helped fuel (pun intended) one of the highest living standards in the Arab world.
Most vocal in their opposition to the privatization of Iraq’s oil are the forces on the ground most committed to a democratic, secular and pluralistic Iraq; the Iraqi trade-unions. Sparing no words they condemned the bill for:
“handing of authority and control over the oil to foreign companies that aim to make big profits at the expense of the people and to rob Iraq’s national wealth.”Luckily, Sen. Joe Biden (D-De) was able to get language in the Senate’s version of the bill that goes on record as opposing any US control over Iraq’s oil resources but it unlikely that the Administration-which has so far refused to listen to Congress on anything else-will let up the pressure on the Iraqi government. Maliki needs to know though that there are voices in US Congress who are opposed to privatization and that he spend more time heeding the voices of the Iraqi people; in particular the labor movement who want to use Iraq’s natural resources in order to rebuild their nation, not line the pockets of multi-national corporations.
Labels: Iraq
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Yeah, Tom DeLay Still Here
Disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has been making the rounds lately promoting his new book and was on Meet the Press this Sunday representing the "pro-war" side in a debate with former Rep. Tom Andrews (D-ME), the director of the anti-war coalition "Win Without War". You know your side has trouble when the best representative you can get is a disgraced former Congressman that no G.O.P candidate would be photographed in the same football stadium with. DeLay studied the G.O.P index cards hard for this showdown; "Fight them over there so we don't fight them here", "911 and Iraq", "We can't surrender", "Cut and run", "Frontline on the war on terror". He was particularly outraged by the Democrat's demand for an exit strategy and deadline for withdrawal, questioning their patriotism. Interestingly enough DeLay used to have some good sense in how to deal with a situation when American troops are in harms way.
Of course that was when we had a Democrat as a commander-in-chief and Serbia luckily avoided being labeled the front line of an endless battle with no clear ending by D.C based think tanks.
"The President now needs to show leadership, consistently and with great
clarity, from devising an exit strategy to developing favorable rules of
engagement, from defining the criteria of success to detailing the timetables of
operations. We have learned the hard way in this country that muddled military
missions lacking clear leadership hurt our national credibility while putting
our troops in harm's way."
Of course that was when we had a Democrat as a commander-in-chief and Serbia luckily avoided being labeled the front line of an endless battle with no clear ending by D.C based think tanks.
Labels: anti-war, Iraq, Tom Delay
Monday, March 05, 2007
Tough Talk for Hillary over Iraq
Former U.N Iraqi weapons inspector Scott Ritter has some tough talk for Sen. Hillary Clinton and her refusal to apologize for her 2002 vote for the Iraqi war resolution.
"This issue won't be resolved even if Hillary Clinton apologizes for her Iraq vote, as other politicians have done, blaming their decision on faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities. This is because, like many other Washington politicians at the time, including those now running for president, she had been witness to lies about Iraq's weapons programs to justify attacks on that country by her husband President Bill Clinton and his administration."
Ritter ends his piece with:
"Run, Hillary, run. But your race towards the White House will never outpace the hypocrisy and duplicity inherent in your decision to vote for war in Iraq. "
Ouch.
Labels: Hillary Clinton, Iraq, Scott Ritter
