Monday, August 20, 2007

The War as We Ought to See It - New York Times

The War as We Saw It - New York Times:
Washington’s insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made — de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government — places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.

"…it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.

The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.

Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington’s insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made — de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government — places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.

At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. “Lucky” Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal. "

Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?ex=1345176000&en=0b5068a2c944e5b8&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Thursday, August 09, 2007

U.S. Attack Kills 32 in Sadr City - New York Times

U.S. Attack Kills 32 in Sadr City - New York Times:
Residents describe some or all of the victims as innocent, while American military statements typically describe those killed by American weapons as militants.

"The American attack coincided with an expanded curfew across Baghdad for a Shiite religious festival welcoming tens of thousands to the capital, and with a trip to Iran by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for discussions about security.
Hospital officials in the Sadr City district of Baghdad said that the American airstrike had killed or wounded several civilians, including a child, though the military disputed that account.

Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, an American military spokesman here, said the airstrike was called in against suspected gunmen who were surrounding a vehicle and who were moving toward American troops who had been taking fire. He said 30 people around the vehicle were killed, and 2 more died during the raid, all of them combatants.

“They called in an airstrike on a tactical formation of individuals, on people who were operating as a tactical unit,” Colonel Garver said. “Those are the ones who were hit.”

American military raids causing Iraqi deaths, particularly in Sadr City, frequently lead to conflicting stories. Residents describe some or all of the victims as innocent, while American military statements typically describe those killed by American weapons as militants. In most cases, neither side can provide definitive proof. "

“Early Release for 2 Marines

The Iraqi civilian was pulled from his Hamdaniya home and shot in April 2006. An AK-47 and shovel were placed nearby to make him look like an insurgent planting a bomb. After a mere 17 months in military prison both marines were released four months early “ensure fair treatment,” the Marines said. Not bad for premeditated murder, plead down to aggravated assault and conspiracy to obstruct justice.

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif., Aug. 8 (AP) — Two marines who pleaded guilty in the case of a slain Iraqi civilian have been released from military prison four months early.

The two, Tyler A. Jackson and Jerry E. Shumate Jr., had been demoted from corporal to private and sentenced to 21 months in prison as part of plea deals in which they admitted to aggravated assault and conspiracy to obstruct justice. Both were released Monday to “ensure fair treatment,” the Marines said in a statement.

Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, who is overseeing the case, weighed their “military experience, relative rank and position of authority and their specific involvement in the death of the Iraqi man,” the statement said.

The Iraqi civilian was pulled from his Hamdaniya home and shot in April 2006. An AK-47 and shovel were placed nearby to make him look like an insurgent planting a bomb, according to the prosecution. ”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/world/middleeast/09iraq.html?ex=1344398400&en=09e0ce907f689f3f&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

FCC Commissioner: US playing "Russian roulette with broadband and Internet"

FCC Commissioner: US playing "Russian roulette with broadband and Internet":
By Nate Anderson Published: August 03, 2007 - 09:20AM CT
"a small number of corporate gatekeepers" now control the public's access to information, an arrangement that threatens to "invert the democratic genius of the Internet."

"FCC Commissioner Michael Copps is on a tear. He grudgingly accepted the agency's 700MHz auction rules earlier this week after initially lobbying for more open access. The next day, he lashed out at the News Corp. deal to acquire the Wall Street Journal, saying: 'It's interesting to hear the 'experts' claim the transaction faces no regulatory hurdles... I hope nobody views this as a slam-dunk.' And yesterday in Chicago, he issued one of his bluntest assessments yet of current FCC policy. America, he said, is playing 'Russian roulette with broadband and Internet and more traditional media.'

…at the YearlyKos convention, Copps spoke like a man with a fire in his guts. He's proud of America but "worried" by the path that it has gone down with respect to broadband Internet and media consolidation, which he sees as ideas joined at the hip.

In both cases, "a small number of corporate gatekeepers" now control the public's access to information, an arrangement that threatens to "invert the democratic genius of the Internet." When the Internet first exploded onto the scene, people hailed it as a revolutionary communications tool that would allow for the creation of a truly democratic media in which anyone with a message could get the word out to others. Now, Copps notes that most connections to the Internet are controlled by massive corporations who seem eager to prevent any neutrality safeguards from being placed on the networks they manage.

That assumes that people can actually get such connections. While the FCC has for years sung hallelujahs to the idea of a "light regulatory touch," Copps has no truck with the mantra, "Deregulate everything, the market will cure all evil." But he's not in love with FCC regulation for the sake of regulation. He made clear in his speech that he would actually welcome a truly competitive market in which the government could step aside. The reality, though, is that this competitive market is largely a myth when it comes to broadband access. More than 90 percent of all Americans get their broadband from a powerful cable/DSL duopoly.

The issue of broadband access is an important one—in fact, it's the "great infrastructure challenge of our time." Every other industrialized country in the world has a national broadband policy, except for the US, and a majority of FCC Commissioners aren't interested in formulating one. In fact, some of them think everything is hunky-dory.

Commissioner Robert McDowell published a WSJ op-ed called "Broadband Baloney" last week in which he argued that "alarmists have ignored cold, hard facts in pursuit of bad policy." He spent much of the piece criticizing a recent OECD report that ranks the US at 15th in the world when it comes to broadband penetration, a rank that has dropped significantly over the last five years. The Phoenix Center has argued that this is due to flawed methodology, but Free Press debunks those claims, saying they have no effect on the US ranking.

In his speech, Copps didn't mention McDowell by name, but he did claim that broadband in the US is "so poor that every citizen in the country ought to be outraged." Back when then OECD said that we were number four in the world, he said, no one objected to its methodology. Copps also had fighting words for those who blame the US broadband problems on our less-dense population; Canada, Norway, and Sweden are ranked above us, but all are less dense than the US. Besides, this argument implies that broadband is absolutely super within American urban areas. Copps noted, though, that his own broadband connection in Washington, DC was "nothing compared to Seoul." "

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070803-fcc-commissioner-us-playing-russian-roulette-with-broadband-and-internet.html

Thursday, August 02, 2007

Was Tillman Murdered? AP Gets New Documents

Was Tillman Murdered? AP Gets New Documents

! Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors - whose names were blacked out - said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.


The medical examiners' suspicions were outlined in 2,300 pages of testimony released to the AP this week by the Defense Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

Among other information contained in the documents:

-- In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop "sniveling."

-- Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.

-- The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman's death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn't recall details of his actions

-- No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene - no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.

The Pentagon and the Bush administration have been criticized in recent months for lying about the circumstances of Tillman's death. The military initially told the public and the Tillman family that he had been killed by enemy fire. Only weeks later did the Pentagon acknowledge he was gunned down by fellow Rangers.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003617692&imw=Y

con·cept: August 2007