Ex-Qwest CEO fined, sentenced to prison, retribution?

Ex-Qwest CEO fined, sentenced to prison:

"A federal judge on Friday ordered former Qwest Communications chief executive officer Joe Nacchio to pay $70 million and serve six years in prison as part of his punishment for insider trading in the spring of 2001.

Nacchio was convicted in April of improperly selling $52 million in Qwest stock in 2001 while he failed to tell investors of the financial risks facing the company. The court on Friday ordered Nacchio to surrender that $52 million and fined him an additional $19 million."

This is the same man who refused to participate in the administrations secret wiretapping of American citizens.

Were any of the other Bells CEOs transactions investigated so thoroughly? Was this retribution?

The French Connections - New York Times

The French Connections - New York Times: (TimeSelect Subscription Required)

"The numbers are startling. As recently as 2001, the percentage of the population with high-speed access in Japan and Germany was only half that in the United States. In France it was less than a quarter. By the end of 2006, however, all three countries had more broadband subscribers per 100 people than we did.

Even more striking is the fact that our “high speed” connections are painfully slow by other countries’ standards. According to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, French broadband connections are, on average, more than three times as fast as ours. Japanese connections are a dozen times faster. Oh, and access is much cheaper in both countries than it is here.

As a result, we’re lagging in new applications of the Internet that depend on high speed. France leads the world in the number of subscribers to Internet TV; the United States isn’t even in the top 10.

What happened to America’s Internet lead? Bad policy. Specifically, the United States made the same mistake in Internet policy that California made in energy policy: it forgot — or was persuaded by special interests to ignore — the reality that sometimes you can’t have effective market competition without effective regulation.

You see, the world may look flat once you’re in cyberspace — but to get there you need to go through a narrow passageway, down your phone line or down your TV cable. And if the companies controlling these passageways can behave like the robber barons of yore, levying whatever tolls they like on those who pass by, commerce suffers.

America’s Internet flourished in the dial-up era because federal regulators didn’t let that happen — they forced local phone companies to act as common carriers, allowing competing service providers to use their lines. Clinton administration officials, including Al Gore and Reed Hundt, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, tried to ensure that this open competition would continue — but the telecommunications giants sabotaged their efforts, while The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page ridiculed them as people with the minds of French bureaucrats.

And when the Bush administration put Michael Powell in charge of the F.C.C., the digital robber barons were basically set free to do whatever they liked. As a result, there’s little competition in U.S. broadband — if you’re lucky, you have a choice between the services offered by the local cable monopoly and the local phone monopoly. The price is high and the service is poor, but there’s nowhere else to go."

(Time Select Subscription Required) http://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/opinion/23krugman.html

The Foetus of Monarchy is Slouching Toward Bethlehem

Just What the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War - New York Times:

The Constitution cannot enforce itself. It is, as the constitutional scholar Edwin Corwin famously observed, an “invitation to struggle” among the branches, but the founders wisely bequeathed to Congress some powerful tools for engaging in the struggle. It is no surprise that the current debate over a deeply unpopular war is arising in the context of a Congressional spending bill. That is precisely what the founders intended.

"Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution’s framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called “the foetus of monarchy.”

The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europe’s history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings. John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, noted in Federalist No. 4 that “absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal.”

Many critics of the Iraq war are reluctant to suggest that President Bush went into it in anything but good faith. But James Madison, widely known as the father of the Constitution, might have been more skeptical. “In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed,” he warned. “It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle.”

When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress.

The Constitution does make the president “commander in chief,” a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be “nothing more” than “first general and admiral,” responsible for “command and direction” of military forces.

The founders would have been astonished by President Bush’s assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congress’s control over spending as “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

The framers expected Congress to keep the president on an especially short leash on military matters. The Constitution authorizes Congress to appropriate money for an army, but prohibits appropriations for longer than two years. Hamilton explained that the limitation prevented Congress from vesting “in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.”

As opinion turns more decisively against the war, the administration is becoming ever more dismissive of Congress’s role. Last week, Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman brusquely turned away Senator Hillary Clinton’s questions about how the Pentagon intended to plan for withdrawal from Iraq. "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq,” he wrote. Mr. Edelman’s response showed contempt not merely for Congress, but for the system of government the founders carefully created."

Since no center was built, nor plans made to hold, things have fallen apart. The gyre isn't widening, but converging into a death spiral. The dying, unfortunately, have no say. In any case, the executive, believing itself to be the state, isn't listening.

The foetus of monarchy is nearing term. It's the result of a raped constitution. The founders gave us tools to abort this monstrosity. It's time to use them

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/opinion/23mon4.html?th&emc=th#

Reuters: Attacks in Iraq Have Surged During 'Surge'

Reuters: Attacks in Iraq Have Surged During 'Surge'

Reuters reports today that attacks in Iraq last month "reached their highest daily average since May 2003, showing a surge in violence as President George W. Bush completed a buildup of U.S. troops, Pentagon statistics show."

The data, obtained by Reuters from the Defense Department, showed an upward trend in daily attacks over the past four months. Pentagon officials were not immediately available to comment on the statistics.

The June numbers showed 5,335 attacks against coalition troops, Iraqi security forces, civilians and infrastructure. "The Pentagon statistics, which come as pressure mounts in the U.S. Congress for a troop withdrawal from Iraq, depicted the most intensive month for daily attacks since Bush declared major combat operations at an end in May 2003," Reuters relates.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003615076&imw=Y

The Black Holes of Tech

“We've all experienced technical conundrums—bizarre behavior exhibited by our computers, or MP3 players, our phones, or some other piece of electronic wizardry. By all rights, technical stuff is rooted in logic, so strange things shouldn't happen, but they do. We're not talking about stuff that happens to everyone; a bad device driver, for instance, can ruin life for every user who owns the affected part. We mean stuff that only happens to the few, the ones who call tech support and baffle everyone to whom they speak from the lowly key puncher to the senior geek in charge.

We're here to tell you that you're not alone. We've been baffled, too. Read on, to delve into times when the armies of ExtremeTech and Ziff-Davis itself—known the world over for technical proficiency—thought they woke up in the Bermuda Triangle.”

‘’

……

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2154190,00.asp

Gates Champions 'Creative Capitalism' to End Inequity

Gates Champions 'Creative Capitalism' to End Inequity:

"'If we can find approaches that meet the needs of the poor in ways that generate profits for business and votes for politicians, we will have found a sustainable way to reduce inequity in the world. This task is open-ended. It can never be finished. But a conscious effort to answer this challenge will change the world.' "

Gates, in a prepared address at Harvard's 356th Commencement, focused on the inequities of the world and challenged students to find new ways that would encourage business leaders and governments to apply the wealth of discoveries and technology at our disposal to the people and places it fails to reach.

"We can make market forces work better for the poor if we can develop a more creative capitalism—if we can stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or at least make a living, serving people who are suffering from the worst inequities," he said.

Gates also said we can press governments around the world to spend taxpayer money in ways that better reflect the values of the people who pay the taxes.

"If we can find approaches that meet the needs of the poor in ways that generate profits for business and votes for politicians, we will have found a sustainable way to reduce inequity in the world. This task is open-ended. It can never be finished. But a conscious effort to answer this challenge will change the world."

Gates also declared that the spread of the global information network to emerging markets and underserved regions of the world is an imperative to sustain humanity's demand for innovation and discovery.

"The magical thing about this network is…it also dramatically increases the number of brilliant minds we can have working together on the same problem…" he said. "But, for every person in the world who has access to this technology, five people don't. That means many creative minds are left out of this discussion—smart people with practical intelligence and relevant experience who don't have the technology to hone their talents or contribute their ideas to the world."

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2143272,00.asp?kc=EWKNLNAV06082007STR2

Archetypes Come in Stereo

Poynter Online - Writing Tools:

"'The Ugly Duckling' has become the dominant story form of American popular culture, especially so-called 'reality' television shows, perhaps because the narrative fits snugly into a celebrity culture in which every person dreams of being a star. "

• Consider the enormous popularity of "Extreme Makeover," and all the makeover shows that entertain us by transforming the ordinary and grotesque, people and houses, into the stellar and fabulous. Think of "The Biggest Loser," "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and even "Pimp My Ride," which takes junky cars and transforms them into customized chariots of funk.

• Think of the ways in which "American Idol" has dominated the entertainment industry. Consider how character story lines generate interest in the show. Yes, Simon, it is a singing competition. But it helps that Kelly Clarkson was a cocktail waitress in Texas, that Fantasia was a single mom, that Taylor Hicks sang in college bars and honky tonks.

• A more subtle example, but proof of the pervasive power of the form, can be found in the 11-year PBS series "Antiques Roadshow." Folks line up at regional antiques fairs to have their old stuff appraised. First, the owner tells a story about how the object was obtained: "It's been in our attic since Aunt Bessie died in 1959." Or, better still, "I bought it at a garage sale for $30." Then the expert tells the story of the provenance of the antique and opines: "Would it surprise you to learn that this ashtray would go conservatively at auction for $30,000? That $30 was a good investment." The piece of junk is now treasure, the duckling a swan.

  It turns out that, whatever their personal stories, American political figures need to establish their duckling credibility (call it "duck-cred" for short) in order to qualify for swan status in the eyes of gullible voters. In other words, Lincoln probably cursed American politics forever by being born in a log cabin.

For every build-me-up story, there is a tear-me-down narrative. It turns out that the antidote to "The Ugly Duckling" is another ancient story form, "The Emperor's New Clothes."

In the coming months, journalists will encounter competing stories about the presidential candidates. Are they swans, or are they naked? Is Rudy Giuliani America's mayor, a hero of Sept. 11, or someone, in the counter narrative, responsible for his city's vulnerability? Is John Edwards an advocate for the common person or an unscrupulous ambulance chaser?

That's the problem with ancient story forms. They have strict requirements that force us to select some details but reject others. Real life -- unlike reality television -- is not scripted and staged. In real life, the swan was pretty cute as a duckling, and the emperor may not be dressed in gold, but at least he's wearing a golf shirt and Bermuda shorts.

The main stream media will fall into both archetypes through sheer laziness.

Today's paradigm isn't stereo. It's 5-1 surround sound. This longest ever presidential campaign deserves nothing less. Somebody needs to say that we're not choosing between war and peace, but between war and chaos or peace and chaos. Pretending that there are easy answers got us into this mess. No matter what happens, someone will offer a solution that is simple straightforward and dead wrong. Boy will it be tempting.

My profound thanks to Roy Peter Clark

What Would Americans Tell President Bush to Do About Iraq?

What Would Americans Tell President Bush to Do About Iraq?:

"There are several conclusions from these data:

• The largest category of responses from the public -- offered by a majority of 54% -- would be to advise President Bush to focus on removing the troops from Iraq and exiting the country, leaving the situation in the control of the Iraqis. This includes 39% of Americans who would advise Bush to simply get U.S. troops out of Iraq now.

• A second group, representing one-fourth of Americans, would advise the president to essentially "stay the course" or to be even more aggressive in the country's military actions.

• A smaller category would advise the president to work with others in finding a solution, including an advisory board or the United Nations.

• Six percent would advise the president to admit his past mistakes and apologize.

Partisan Differences

There are significant differences by partisan orientation in the responses to this question in the current data:

If you could talk with President Bush for fifteen minutes about the situation in Iraq, what would you, personally, advise him to do? [OPEN-ENDED]
	Total sample	Reps.	Inds.	Dems.
	%	%	%	%
Pull the troops out and come home/end it	39	21	37	57
Finish what was started/be more aggressive	11	17	11	4
Doing a good job/continue with your actions	11	24	8	2
Come up with and execute a well thought-out exit strategy	12	9	12	13
Get them trained and let them run their own country	5	5	7	3
Build up the military/send more troops	3	5	4	2
Keep the public informed/be honest/explain actions	1	2	2	1
Join in and work with the United Nations	3	1	3	4
Admit to past mistakes/apologize	6	2	8	8
Take care of our own problems	2	*	2	2
Work with and improve advisory board	4	5	4	3
Improve the homeland security	1	1	1	-
Other	7	9	7	5
Nothing/Don't know	5	6	6	4
* = Less than 0.5% There are also a couple conclusions from these data:

• More than half of Democrats would tell President Bush to pull the troops out and/or to execute a well thought-out exit strategy. Another 8% would tell the president to admit his past mistakes.

• Republicans, not surprisingly, are much more likely to say they would tell the president that he is doing a good job and to continue, and to be more aggressive in finishing what he has started. Still, 21% of Republicans would tell the president to pull the troops out, and another 9% would tell him to focus on an exit strategy.

Bottom Line

The majority of Americans, as measured in a number of Gallup Poll surveys this year, believe the initial decision for the United States to become involved in Iraq was a mistake. Research also shows a majority of Americans favor a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Americans -- if given the chance to talk with President Bush about Iraq -- would be most likely to tell him to figure out a way to withdraw U.S. troops from there.

The president maintains the loyalty of a smaller group of Americans -- one in four -- who are supportive of his current actions or would even want him to be more aggressive.

The administration argues that the war in Iraq is a necessary part of the war on terror, and that it is imperative to succeed. The president and members of his administration have said repeatedly that any type of discussion of withdrawal or the setting of a timetable is unacceptable at this time and would be tantamount to failure. These arguments notwithstanding, however, the majority of the American public would instruct their president to focus on withdrawal of troops and the development of an exit strategy. "

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/Default.aspx?ci=27724

Citizens Lose Access, Court Says Suck Cess

Oral Dissents Give Ginsburg a New Voice on Court - New York Times:

"Throughout her legal career, Justice Ginsburg has been deeply concerned about questions of access to the courts and the remedial powers of federal judges, themes she has explored in both majority and dissenting opinions."

in her 15 years on the court has she delivered two in one term. In her past dissents, both oral and written, she has been reluctant to breach the court’s collegial norms. “What she is saying is that this is not law, it’s politics,” Pamela S. Karlan, a Stanford law professor, said of Justice Ginsburg’s comment linking the outcome in the abortion case to the fact of the court’s changed membership. “She is accusing the other side of making political claims, not legal claims.”

The justice’s acquaintances have watched with great interest what some depict as a late-career transformation. “Her style has always been very ameliorative, very conscious of etiquette,” said Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, the sociologist and a longtime friend. “She has always been regarded as sort of a white-glove person, and she’s achieved a lot that way. Now she is seeing that basic issues she’s fought so hard for are in jeopardy, and she is less bound by what have been the conventions of the court.”

Some might say her dissents are an expression of sour grapes over being in the minority more often than not. But there may be strategic judgment, as well as frustration, behind Justice Ginsburg’s new style. She may have concluded that quiet collegiality has proved futile and that her new colleagues, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., are not open to persuasion on the issues that matter most to her.

Justice Alito, of course, took the place of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, with whom Justice Ginsburg formed a deep emotional bond, although they differed on a variety of issues. And Chief Justice Roberts succeeded Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, with whom Justice Ginsburg often disagreed but maintained a relationship that was at times surprisingly productive.

For example, in 1996, over Justice Scalia’s vigorous dissent, the chief justice gave Justice Ginsburg his vote in a decision holding that the Virginia Military Institute’s men-only admissions policy was unconstitutional. In 2003, they made common cause in a case that strengthened the Family and Medical Leave Act. When Justice Ginsburg criticized a Rehnquist opinion, she did so gently; today’s adversary could be tomorrow’s ally.

If there has been any such meeting of the minds between Justice Ginsburg and her new colleagues, it has not been evident. She may have concluded that her side’s interests are better served by appealing not to the court’s majority but to the public. “She’s sounding an alarm and wants people to take notice,” said Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, an advocacy group that focuses on the workplace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/washington/31scotus.html?ex=1338350400&en=9b1eaded904f76a8&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Never, Ever Poison the Well You Need to Drink From

Jihadist Groups Fill a Palestinian Power Vacuum - New York Times:

"Palestinian authority, both in the Palestinian areas and in refugee camps in Lebanon and beyond, used to lie in the hands of Fatah, the nationalist faction once led by Yasir Arafat. But after the entry of militant Hamas into politics, its 2006 electoral defeat of Fatah and the battles between them, jihadi freelancers with murky links are filling a vacuum in Gaza and in the camps in Lebanon.

Bush administration officials say they are increasingly concerned that Hamas and even more radical groups may be hijacking the Palestinian movement. The officials say they see no operational connection between what is happening in Palestinian camps in Lebanon and the deterioration in Gaza. But they say they do see an ideological link, with hopeless and marginalized young people turning to jihad because they believe that more secular or moderate options have failed them.

In the squalid streets of the Ain al Hilwe refugee camp outside the southern Lebanese city of Sidon, people like Abu Ahmed Taha are bracing for a fight they have long been dreading.

Militias in the camp of 47,000 roam the streets armed and ready; skirmishes break out sporadically and tensions have never been higher. For Mr. Taha, the real danger is that the fastest-growing militias are those of jihadis with wholly different aspirations from his.

“There is a central problem and that is Al Qaeda, and they are spreading,” Mr. Taha said, after an emergency meeting of religious and political leaders in the camp last week to calm tensions. “The Islamic awakening has been going on for 25 years now. But this, now, is going to become a huge problem for us.”

Mr. Taha’s fears are remarkable because of who he is: not a secular campaigner or a Fatah apparatchik, but a senior member of Hamas. In the violent underground of the militias, men like him have become unlikely moderates, calling for calm and seeking to build bonds with the other militias and the government.

Security officials and analysts say groups inspired by Al Qaeda have had a presence in the Palestinian camps in Lebanon for a decade, where they have thrived, taking advantage of the lawlessness and poor living conditions. In Lebanon, Palestinians are not allowed to own property and are limited in the kind of work they can do. They generally enjoy few rights.

Ain al Hilwe, too, became a jihadi hotbed about five years ago. More than 25 men from there alone have gone to Iraq to fight, Hamas and Fatah officials say, never to be seen again. And jihadis there say more are ready to go.

Mr. Taha notes that the new groups make it easy to join. Whereas it may take years of inculcation for a young man to become a full-fledged member of Hamas, he can become a member of the jihadi militias just by declaring fealty, Mr. Taha said. And rather than focusing on a political education, the militia members focus on a global fight coupled with religious sloganeering.

Whether these jihadist groups are part of Al Qaeda or simply local bands of religious fanatics, Westerners and their institutions are now more clearly under attack throughout the region, including in Gaza, as seen in the bombing of the schools and in the kidnappings of two Fox News correspondents and of Alan Johnston, the BBC’s Gaza correspondent. A shadowy group called the Army of Islam claims that it kidnapped Mr. Johnston in March.

In Gaza, where residents tend to be more religiously observant than those in the West Bank, Palestinians say Al Qaeda has had less of an impact than a growing band of religious fanatics. The groups are striking out at what they consider to be moral and religious corruption, using popular religious justifications for common acts of criminal kidnapping and extortion. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/world/middleeast/31palestinians.html?ex=1338350400&en=b3af1d2bf7f47804&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Big Disparities in Judging of Asylum Cases - New York Times

Big Disparities in Judging of Asylum Cases - New York Times:

"Asylum seekers in the United States face broad disparities in the nation’s 54 immigration courts, with the outcome of cases influenced by things like the location of the court and the sex and professional background of judges, a new study has found.

The study, by three law professors, analyzes 140,000 decisions by immigration judges, including those cases from the 15 countries that have produced the most asylum seekers in recent years, among them China, Haiti, Colombia, Albania and Russia. The professors compared for the first time the results of immigration court cases over more than four years, finding vast differences in the handling of claims with generally comparable factual circumstances.

In one of the starker examples cited, Colombians had an 88 percent chance of winning asylum from one judge in the Miami immigration court and a 5 percent chance from another judge in the same court.…

The study is based on data on judges’ decisions from January 2000 through August 2004. It will be posted today on the Web site of the Social Science Research Network, www.ssrn.com, and published in November in the Stanford Law Review.

In addition to Professor Schrag, the authors are Andrew I. Schoenholtz, also a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and Jaya Ramji-Nogales, a professor at Beasley School of Law at Temple University.

According to the study, great differences also prevail among judges sitting on the same court and hearing similar asylum cases. In the Miami immigration court, one judge granted 3 percent of the asylum cases, while another granted 75 percent.

One of the most significant factors determining whether a judge would be likely to approve asylum petitions was sex, the study found. Female immigration judges grant asylum at a 44 percent higher rate than their male colleagues.

The study by the three professors did not examine the judges’ political affiliation or the administration that appointed them.

The study suggests that the different willingness to grant asylum between male and female judges may in part have to do with their backgrounds. Of 78 female judges in the study, 27 percent had previously worked for organizations that defended the rights of immigrants or the poor, while only 8 percent of 169 male judges had similar experience.…

The variations between courts and among judges were particularly troubling, the authors of the study argued, because of the impact of procedural changes introduced by the Bush administration in 2002 at the Board of Immigration Appeals, the appellate body that reviews decisions by the immigration court judges.

Those changes led to a “sudden and lasting decline” in appeals that were favorable to asylum seekers, the study found, raising doubts as to whether the board was providing fair appeals.

In 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft made streamlined the work of the appeals board, reducing the number of board members to 11 from 23 and encouraging more decisions by single members and without explanation.

The study looked at 76,000 decisions by the appeals board from 1998 through 2005. Asylum applicants who were represented by lawyers received favorable appeals decisions from the board in 43 percent of cases in 2001, the year before the changes took effect. By 2005, asylum seekers with lawyers won their appeals in 13 percent of cases.

“The judges handle a very large caseload, they’re human, they are not going to catch every detail,” said Mary Meg McCarthy, director of the National Immigrant Justice Center, a legal assistance group in Chicago. “But once they streamlined the Board of Immigration Appeals,” Ms. McCarthy said, “there was a failure of the board to review those cases, to check on what the immigration judge had found. When that failed, we had a real crisis in the system.”

As a result of the trends at the appeals board, there has been a new surge of asylum appeals to the federal circuit courts, in practice the last resort for immigration cases. Over all, the number of people winning asylum in the United States has declined, dropping by about 12 percent from 28,684 in 2003 to 25,257 in 2005, the last year when complete figures are available."

16 , Just 16 more

Senators needed to overide veto

Civilian Deaths Undermine War on Taliban - New York Times

Civilian Deaths Undermine War on Taliban - New York Times:

Since the beginning of March at least 132 civilians have been killed in at least six bombings or shootings, according to officials. The actual number of civilians killed is probably higher, since the areas of heaviest fighting, like the southern province of Helmand, are too unsafe for travel and many deaths go unreported and cannot be verified.

"The United States military says it came under heavy fire from insurgents as it searched for a local tribal commander and weapons caches and called in airstrikes, killing 136 Taliban fighters.

But the villagers denied that any Taliban were in the area. Instead, they said, they rose up and fought the Americans themselves, after the soldiers raided several houses, arrested two men and shot dead two old men on a village road.

After burying the dead, the tribe’s elders met with their chief, Hajji Arbab Daulat Khan, and resolved to fight American forces if they returned. “If they come again, we will stand against them, and we will raise the whole area against them,” he warned. Or in the words of one foreign official in Afghanistan, the Americans went after one guerrilla commander and created a hundred more.

On Tuesday, barely 24 hours after American officials apologized publicly to President Karzai for a previous incident in which 19 civilians were shot by marines in eastern Afghanistan, reports surfaced of at least 21 civilians killed in an airstrike in Helmand Province, though residents reached by phone said the toll could be as high as 80.

While NATO is now in overall command of the military operations in the country, many of the most serious episodes of civilian deaths have involved United States counterterrorism and Special Operations forces that operate separately from the NATO command.

NATO, which now has 35,000 soldiers in the country, has emphasized its concern about keeping civilian casualties to a minimum. Yet NATO, too, has been responsible for civilian casualties over the past year, as it has relied on air power to compensate for a shortage of troops, an American military official who has served in Afghanistan said in a recent interview.

The subject of civilian casualties was the source of intense discussion on Wednesday in Brussels when the NATO secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, met with the North Atlantic Council, the top representatives of the coalition. But the conversation was less about how to reduce casualties, according to participants, than about how to explain them to European governments, who say their troops are there for reconstruction, not hunting the Taliban or terrorists.

“The Europeans are worried about a lack of clarity about who is responsible for the counterterror mission,” said one participant in the debate. “They are worried that if NATO appears responsible for these casualties, it will result in a loss of support” for keeping forces in Afghanistan.

But it is not only the Americans whose practices are being questioned. NATO soldiers have frequently fired on civilians on the roads, often because the Afghans drive too close to military convoys or checkpoints.

In interviews, villagers, who had cooperated with NATO before, blamed local rivals for planting false information with the Americans, to encourage the Americans to attack Zerkoh.

After the Special Forces units started raiding homes, the villagers were so angered, they said, they fought the Americans themselves. They insisted that no Taliban were here, an area that has been mostly calm.

“NATO was coming regularly, and the Afghan Army and police, and we were cooperating with them,” said Muhammad Alef, 35, a farmer who was tending to his wounded cousin in the provincial hospital in the city of Herat.

“But when the Americans came without permission, and they came more than once and disturbed the people,” he said. “They searched the houses, and the second time they arrested people, and the third time the people got angry and fought them.”

The public mood hardened against foreign forces in the southern city of Kandahar after British troops fired on civilians while driving through the streets after a suicide bombing last year, and Canadian soldiers have repeatedly killed and wounded civilians while on patrol in civilian areas. "

Only our enemy seems to have a clear idea of what constitutes victory. Why is that so?

Study: Many U.S. Soldiers in Iraq Admit Abusing Civilians, Backing Torture

Study: Many U.S. Soldiers in Iraq Admit Abusing Civilians, Backing Torture: "WASHINGTON In a survey of U.S. troops in combat in Iraq, less than half of Marines soldiers said they feel they should treat noncombatants with respect. Only about a half said they would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian.

More than 40 percent support the idea of torture in some cases, and 10 percent reported personally abusing Iraqi civilians, the Pentagon said Friday in what it called its first ethics study of troops at the war front. Units exposed to the most combat were chosen for the study, officials said."

The military has seen a number of high-profile incidents of alleged abuse in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the killings of 24 civilians by Marines in Haditha, the rape and killing of a 14-year-old girl and the slaying of her family in Iraq and the sexual humiliation of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison.

The study team also found that long and repeated deployments were increasing troop mental health problems.

But Maj. Gen. Gale Pollock, the Army’s acting surgeon general, said the team’s “most critical” findings were on ethics.

“They looked under every rock, and what they found was not always easy to look at,” said Ward Casscells, assistant secretary of defense for health.

Findings included:

• Sixty-two percent of soldiers and 66 percent of Marines said that they knew someone seriously injured or killed, or that a member of their team had become a casualty.

• The 2006 adjusted rate of suicides per 100,000 soldiers was 17.3 soldiers, lower than the 19.9 rate reported in 2005.

• Only 47 percent of the soldiers and 38 percent of Marines said noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect.

• About a third of troops said they had insulted or cursed at civilians in their presence.

• About 10 percent of soldiers and Marines reported mistreating civilians or damaging property when it was not necessary. Mistreatment includes hitting or kicking a civilian.

• Forty-four percent of Marines and 41 percent of soldiers said torture should be allowed to save the life of a soldier or Marine.

• Thirty-nine percent of Marines and 36 percent of soldiers said torture should be allowed to gather important information from insurgents.

Lt. Col. Scott Fazekas, a Marine Corps spokesman, said officials were looking closely at the ethics results, taken from a questionnaire survey of 1,320 soldiers and 447 Marines.

The military services blame lengthy deployments and short intervals between deployment for these results. So how is it that we had better behavior and attitudes in WWII, when soldiers served for the duration? For one thing, a lot of time was spent letting soldiers know why we were fighting, and we told them how we expected them to behave toward civilians. Misbehavior was punished swiftly, harshly. Some of our soldiers were even executed.

In the Korean war and in Viet Nam, things were very different. Huge numbers of atrocities were ignored, whenit couldn't be ignored penalties were light and those fell most heavily on the guy at the bottom. As they do now.

Proud father of a fallen soldier

“He asked permission to take some of his men out at night with their night-vision glasses -- because as he said `we own the night’ -- and watch for the people who are setting roadside bombs and `take them out.’ He said, `I want them to be the ones that are scared.’ He was denied permission. Why?”

Here is the complete text of Richard Landeck's letter to President Bush:
“Feb 4, 2007

Dear Mr. Bush:

This will be the only time I will refer to you with any type of respect.

My son was killed in Iraq on February 2, 2007. His name is Captain Kevin Landeck.

He served with the Tenth Mountain Division. He was killed while riding in a Humvee by a roadside bomb just south of Baghdad. He has a loving mother, a loving father and loving sister.

You took him away from us. He celebrated his 26th birthday January 30th and was married for 17 months. He graduated from Purdue University and went through the ROTC program. That is where he met his future wife. He was proud to be a part of the military and took exceptional pride in becoming a leader of men. He accepted his role as a platoon leader with exceptional enthusiasm and was proud to serve his country.

I had many conversations with Kevin before he left to serve as well as during his deployment. The message he continued to send to me was that of incompetence. Incompetence by you, (Vice President Richard) Cheney and (former Secretary of Defense Donald) Rumsfeld. Incompetence by some of his commanders as well as the overall strategy of your decisions.

When I asked him about what he thought about your decision to “surge” more troops to Baghdad, he told me, “until the Iraqis pick up the ball, we are going to get cut to shreds. It doesn’t matter how many troops Bush sends, nothing has been addressed to solve the problem he started.”

Answer me this: How in the world can you justify invading Iraq when the problem began and continues to lie in Afghanistan? I don’t want your idiotic standard answer about keeping America safe. What did Sadaam Hussein have to do with 9/11? We all know it had to do with the first Iraq war where your father failed to take Sadaam down.

Well George, you have succeeded in taking down over 3,100 of our best young men, my son being one of them. Kevin told me many times we are not fighting terrorism in Iraq and they could not do their jobs as soldiers. He said they are trained to be on the offensive and to fight but all they are doing is acting like policemen.

Well George, you or some “genius” like you who have never fought in a war but enjoy all the perks your positions afford you are making life and death decisions. In the case of my son, you made a death decision.

Let me explain a few other points he and I discussed. He said when he and his men were riding down the road in their Humvees, roadside bombs would explode and they would hear bullets bouncing off their vehicle. He said they were scared. He thought “why should we be the ones who are scared?” He asked permission to take some of his men out at night with their night vision glasses because as he said “we own the night” and watch for the people who are setting roadside bombs and “take them out.” He said, “I want them to be the ones that are scared.” He was denied permission. Why? It made perfect sense to me and other people who I told about this.

When he was at a checkpoint he was told that if a vehicle was coming at them even at a high rate of speed he could not arbitrarily use his weapon. He had to wave his arms and, if the vehicle did not stop, he could fire a warning shot over the vehicle. If the vehicle did not stop then, he could shoot at the tires. If the vehicle did not yet stop he could take a shot at the driver. Who in their right mind made that kind of decision?

How would you like to be at a check point with a vehicle coming at you that won’t stop and go through all those motions? You will never know!

You or Cheney or Rumsfeld will never know the anguish, the worry, the sleepless nights, the waiting for the loved one who may never return. If the soldiers were able to do their jobs and the ego’s of politicians like you, your “cronies” and some commanders had their heads on straight, we would be out of this mess which we should not be involved with in the first place.

My family and I deserve and explanation directly from you……not some assistant who will likely read this and toss it. This war is wrong.

I want you to look me and my wife and daughter directly in the eye and tell me why my son died. We should not be there, but because of your ineptness and lack of correct information I have lost my son, my pride and joy, my hero!

Again, you, Cheney and Rumsfeld will never understand what the families of soldiers are going through and don’t try to tell me you do. My wife, my daughter and I cannot believe we have lost our only son and brother to a ridiculous political war that you seem to want to maintain. I hope you and Cheney and Rumsfeld and all the other people on your band wagon sleep well at night….we certainly don’t.

Richard Landeck

Proud father of a fallen soldier”

……

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/03/landeck.html

I Read The (S)Nooze Today Oh Boy

Jill Carroll Criticizes Foreign Cutbacks in Harvard Report

“NEW YORK Jill Carroll, the Christian Science Monitor reporter who spent more than 80 days in captivity in Iraq last year before being freed following an international call for her release, is criticizing cutbacks in foreign news coverage in a new report she authored for the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University.

Researched and written during her fellowship at the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy last fall, Carroll's 23-page report claims that media companies cutting back on foreign bureaus and correspondents in the face of financial pressure "are making a financial miscalculation and missing an opportunity to capitalize on an asset that they appear to undervalue.

Carroll, who was kidnapped just over a year ago in Baghdad during an incident in which her driver was killed, followed her release last spring by writing an extensive series on her 82-day ordeal, which also included online video interviews and became the Monitor's most popular syndicated series and web-based report. She took a leave of absence from the paper during the fall semester at Harvard, where she was one of four such fellows.

Her critical report includes statistics that note the number of foreign correspondents at U.S. newspapers had dropped from 282 in 2000 to 249 in 2006. She also points out that the number of foreign bureaus at the three major networks had "dropped significantly since 9/11. ABC, NBC and CBS all had six foreign bureaus by the summer of 2003, according to American Journalism Review, after ABC and NBC cut seven and CBS cut four bureaus since the 1980's."

…Her critical report includes statistics that note the number of foreign correspondents at U.S. newspapers had dropped from 282 in 2000 to 249 in 2006. She also points out that the number of foreign bureaus at the three major networks had "dropped significantly since 9/11. ABC, NBC and CBS all had six foreign bureaus by the summer of 2003, according to American Journalism Review, after ABC and NBC cut seven and CBS cut four bureaus since the 1980's.”

‘the fad solution to the industry's struggle to maintain 20% profit margins is to focus more on local news ’

…The daily (s)nooze blinds us, leaves us unable to see both the problems and the solutions that only an informed society can deal with, if it has any hope to remain a democracy. The (s)noozes media would have us believe that the crises confronting us came at us out of nowhere, presents our enemies as irrational monsters with objectives impossible for us to understand. The politics of fear has or representatives passing laws in total ignorance of their context or contents. Fearmongers gnaw away the foundations of our liberties, accomplishing what the terrorists never, ever could.

You can't apply common sense when there is only common ignorance instead of common knowledge. (S)nooze media would have us believe that Shia militias are responsible for our failure in Iraq, when our failure, to provide safety, jobs, rebuilding, even electricity are responsible for the militias. Willful ignorance created our failures, which, in turn, created the need for the militias. Need has made them a political force in Iraq just as need made Hesbollah a political force in Lebanon and thwarting Fatah made Hamas an acceptable force in Palestinian politics.

Even opponents of our policy in Iraq are buying into blaming the Shia majority for our failure to accomplish wishful thinking disguised as rational goals. …

Will we stop (s)noozing? A close look at New Orleans, Baghdad, or Gaza suggests that we won't. At least not anytime soon.

Floor Statement on President's Decision to Increase Troops in Iraq | U.S. Senator Barack Obama

Floor Statement on President's Decision to Increase Troops in Iraq U.S. Senator Barack Obama:

"The fact is that we have tried this road before. In the end, no amount of American forces can solve the political differences that lie at the heart of somebody else's civil war. As the President's own military commanders have said, escalation only prevents the Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own future. It is even eroding our efforts in the wider war on terror as some of the extra soldiers will come directly from Afghanistan, where the Taliban has become resurgent.

The President has offered no evidence that more U.S. troops will be able to pressure Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds toward the necessary political settlement, and he has attached no consequences to his plan should the Iraqis fail to make progress. In fact, just last week, when I repeatedly asked Secretary Rice what would happen if the Iraqi Government failed to meet the benchmarks the President has called for and says are an integral part of their rationale for escalation, she couldn't give me an answer. When I asked her if there were any circumstances whatsoever in which we would tell the Iraqis that their failure to make progress means the end of our military commitment, she could not give me an answer. This is simply not good enough. When you ask how many more months and how many more dollars and how many more lives it will take to end the policy that everyone now knows has not succeeded, ``I don't know'' isn't good enough.

Over the past 4 years, we have given this administration every chance to get this right, and they have disappointed us many times. But ultimately it is our brave men and women in uniform and their families who bear the greatest burden for these mistakes. They have performed in an exemplary fashion. At no stage have they faltered in the mission that has been presented to them.

Unfortunately, the strategy, the tactics, and the mission itself have been flawed. That is why Congress now has the duty to prevent even more mistakes and bring this war to a responsible end. That is why I plan to introduce legislation which I believe will stop the escalation of this war by placing a cap on the number of soldiers in Iraq. I wish to emphasize that I am not unique in taking this approach. I know Senator Dodd has crafted similar legislation. Senator Clinton, I believe, yesterday indicated she shared similar views. The cap would not affect the money spent on the war or on our troops, but it would write into law that the number of U.S. forces in Iraq should not exceed the number that were there on January 10, 2007, the day the President announced his escalation policy.

This measure would stop the escalation of the war in Iraq, but it is my belief that simply opposing the surge is not good enough. If we truly believe the only solution in Iraq is a political one--and I fervently believe that--if we believe a phased redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq is the best--perhaps only--leverage we have to force a settlement between the country's warring factions, then we should act on that. That is why the second part of my legislation is a plan for phased redeployment that I called for in a speech in Chicago 2 months ago. It is a responsible plan that protects American troops without causing Iraq to suddenly descend into chaos. The President must announce to the Iraqi people that within 2 to 4 months, under this plan, U.S. policy will include a gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces. The President should then work with our military commanders to map out the best plan for such a redeployment and determine precise levels and dates."

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070119-floor_statement_on_presidents_decision_to_increase_troops_in_iraq/index.html

When Iraqi's Don't Count

Sunni and Shiite Insurgents Remain Mystery to U.S., Iraq Report Charges

on one day in July, American officials in Iraq reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence, but the study group's review found that 1,100 violent acts actually occurred that day. "The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases," the report said.

For example, the report said that a killing of an Iraqi might not be counted by American officials as an attack, and that sectarian violence was not included in American databases if the source of the attack could not be determined. In addition, it said, "a roadside bomb or a rocket

By JAMES RISEN

Published: December 11, 2006

The U.S. still does not understand the enemy that American troops are fighting, according to the Iraq Study Group's report.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 — Nearly four years after the invasion of Iraq, the United States still does not understand the enemy that American troops are fighting, according to last week's report by the Iraq Study Group.

The commission's final report harshly criticized United States intelligence officials for failing to answer basic questions about the nature of the Sunni insurgency or the increasingly powerful Shiite militias, both of which pose grave threats to American forces.

The intelligence community has had some success hunting Al Qaeda in Iraq, the report found, but that terrorist organization is small and is not the main enemy confronting American troops. The far bigger Sunni insurgency and Shiite militias are still largely mysteries to American intelligence, according to the report.

"While the United States has been able to acquire good and sometimes superb tactical intelligence on Al Qaeda in Iraq, our government still does not understand very well either the insurgency in Iraq or the role of the militias," the report said. It said that American intelligence agencies were "not doing enough to map the insurgency, dissect it, and understand it on a national and provincial level" and that intelligence analysts' "knowledge of the organization, leadership, financing, and operations of militias, as well as their relationship to government security forces, also falls far short of what policy makers need to know."

The study group's findings echo complaints quietly voiced in recent months by a number of current and former American officials, who have warned of the failure by American intelligence officers in Iraq to adequately penetrate the Sunni insurgency. These officials say the level of violence in Baghdad makes it extremely difficult for American intelligence officers to move around the country to gather information, and as a result they rely far too heavily on Iraqis who come to them in the Green Zone or to other major American bases, and on information from the intelligence service of the new Iraqi government.

That leaves the Central Intelligence Agency and American military intelligence vulnerable to manipulation by Iraqis who feed the Americans disinformation because they have an ax to grind or simply as a way to make money by selling information to the United States.

The report quoted an unidentified United States intelligence analyst who told the Iraq Study Group that "we rely too much on others to bring information to us" and "do not understand the context of what we are told."

Bureaucratic obstacles in the American government and a failure by the Bush administration to make the issue a top priority have left the United States with gaping holes in its understanding of the insurgency, the report found.

For example, the report found that the Defense Intelligence Agency rotates its analysts from one posting to another so frequently that few develop any real depth of understanding of the insurgency. "We were told that there are fewer than 10 analysts on the job at the Defense Intelligence Agency who have more than two years' experience in analyzing the insurgency," the report said. "Capable analysts are rotated to new assignments, and on-the-job training begins anew. Agencies must have a better personnel system to keep analytic expertise focused on the insurgency."

An agency spokesman disputed the numbers used by the report and said that the agency had "hundreds of analysts focused on the Iraq situation," adding that a "considerable number of experienced analysts are forward deployed and are directly working the counterterrorism-insurgency issues."

Meanwhile, the Bush administration has not sought to significantly improve on-the-ground intelligence about the enemy, the report said. "The Defense Department and the intelligence community have not invested sufficient people and resources to understand the political and military threat to American men and women in the armed forces," the report said. "Congress has appropriated almost $2 billion this year for countermeasures to protect our troops in Iraq against improvised explosive devices, but the administration has not put forward a request to invest comparable resources in trying to understand the people who fabricate, plant and explode those devices."

The study group recommended that the director of national intelligence and the defense secretary "devote significantly greater analytic resources to the task of understanding the threats and sources of violence in Iraq."

At the same time, the study group found that United States officials had underreported the level of violence in Iraq, providing misleading information to American leaders and the public about the scale of the problem facing American troops.

The study group determined that on one day in July, American officials in Iraq reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence, but the study group's review found that 1,100 violent acts actually occurred that day. "The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases," the report said.

For example, the report said that a killing of an Iraqi might not be counted by American officials as an attack, and that sectarian violence was not included in American databases if the source of the attack could not be determined. In addition, it said, "a roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count."

"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals," the report stated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/world/middleeast/11intel.html?ex=157680000&en=ac0e4fb38796c6e8&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod

The Wrong Questions

Quizzing Robert Gates - New York Times:

“Robert M. Gates, President Bush’s nominee to succeed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, will appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee tomorrow for his confirmation hearing. We asked six defense and foreign-policy experts to tell us what questions the senators should ask.”

In Ursula K. LeGuin's novel ‘The Left Hand of Darkness’ a religious group, the Handara had a sying that has stuck with me over the decades, “There is nothing as perfectly useless as the right answer to the wrong question.” As far as I'm concerned, the entire Iraq debacle is the result of asking the wrong questions and often failing to accept the answers to them. Especially, if they conflict with an unquestioned ideology.

Here are their categories:
The Next Attack
Rights vs. Realism
Life With the Chiefs
You and Tehran
An Anti-Rumsfeld

Here are mine:
War on a tactic
Facts and fictions
How to take the hill, or which hill to take
Affected Parties
At what point do you resign

We aren't even asking the right categories of questions.

Lives, American, Iraqi, Coalition are at stake.

We could benefit from looking in a mirror

“ What I thought was the greatest expression of the American character in my lifetime occurred in the immediate aftermath of those catastrophic attacks. The country came together in the kind of resolute unity that I imagined was similar to the feeling most Americans felt after Pearl Harbor. We soon knew who the enemy was, and there was remarkable agreement on what needed to be done. Americans were united and the world was with us.

For a brief moment.

The invasion of Iraq marked the beginning of the change in the American character. During the Cuban missile crisis, when the hawks were hot for bombing — or an invasion — Robert Kennedy counseled against a U.S. first strike. That’s not something the U.S. would do, he said.

Fast-forward 40 years or so and not only does the U.S. launch an unprovoked invasion and occupation of a small nation — Iraq — but it does so in response to an attack inside the U.S. that the small nation had nothing to do with.

Who are we?

Another example: There was a time, I thought, when there was general agreement among Americans that torture was beyond the pale. But when people are frightened enough, nothing is beyond the pale. And we’re in an era in which the highest leaders in the land stoke — rather than attempt to allay — the fears of ordinary citizens. Islamic terrorists are equated with Nazi Germany. We’re told that we’re in a clash of civilizations.If, as President Bush says, we’re engaged in “the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century,” why isn’t the entire nation mobilizing to meet this dire threat?

Where are we?

The president put us on this path away from the better angels of our nature, and he has shown no inclination to turn back. Lately he has touted legislation to try terror suspects in a way that would make a mockery of the American ideals of justice and fairness. To get a sense of just how far out the administration’s approach has been, consider the comments of Brig. Gen. James Walker, the top uniformed lawyer for the Marines. Speaking at a Congressional hearing last week, he said no civilized country denies defendants the right to see the evidence against them. The United States, he said, “should not be the first.”

And Senator Lindsey Graham, a conservative South Carolina Republican who is a former military judge, said, “It would be unacceptable, legally, in my opinion, to give someone the death penalty in a trial where they never heard the evidence against them.”

How weird is it that this possibility could even be considered?

What have we done?

The character of the U.S. has changed. We’re in danger of being completely ruled by fear. Most Americans have not shared the burden of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Very few Americans are aware, as the Center for Constitutional Rights tells us, that of the hundreds of men held by the U.S. in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, many “have never been charged and will never be charged because there is no evidence justifying their detention.”

Even fewer care.

We could benefit from looking in a mirror, and absorbing the shock of not recognizing what we’ve become.

Knowing how we appear might, just might, allow us to see others as people too. For example, lately the media has been playing up the idea that the real problem in Iraq is the actions of Shiite militias. It's time to point out that the Shia have been murdered in wholesale lots but didn't start retaliating until last year. The Sunnis seem to have no problem killing men, women or children, but the Shia retaliation seems to be limited to grown men. That's somehow made them monsters responsible for all of Iraq's instability. Their actions are deplorable, but they don't exist in a vacuum, other than the absence of any sense that the coalition cared about their security, or their lives.

…We made the militias possible, and strengthened them.

Worse, we made them necessary.

For all our talk about democracy, when the majority won we insisted on a place for the losers who had refused to participate in the election. The losers who at that time and still are the primary threat to our men and women who serve.

Unfortunately, even then we were blaming Shiite Iran for the IEDs built from the ammo dumps and sites under UN seal that, unlike the Oil Ministry, we refused to guard after Saddam was toppled.

We broke Iraq, but we seem determined to make the regions Shia pay the price.…