Tuesday, December 18, 2007
UH-OH. . . . .
Looks like Turkey has invaded Kurdish-held Iraq. Its been overnight but they're still there, about 1.5 miles into territory near the Iranian border. This follows aerial bombing of Kurdish PKK bases in Iraq yesterday.
And in other news, Condi Rice made a 'surprise' visit to the disputed Kurdish city of Kirkuk, center of northern Iraq's oil industry. Call me a cynic, but methinks there just might be a connection between that visit and the incursion. No doubt Rice is there as TeamBush's 'Man on the Ground' trying to desperately keep Kurdish Peshmergas (our seemingly best Iraqi allies) from joining the battle against the neighboring Turks (also strong US allies) who have invaded their country, albeit seeking to destroy PKK elements and not take over territory, one hopes.
Even so, it remains very unclear how long Iraqi Kurds will stomach attacks on their territory that are killing their ethnic brethren, and no doubt eventually some Iraqi Kurdish civilians. I'm sure Condi is begging for their restraint and offering many financial and military carrots while in Kirkuk. It might just work if the Turks are efficient and highly restrained. Or it could turn into another Israeli-Lebanon incursion of last summer.
The moderate Siniora government, once praised by TeamBush as the salvation of democracy in the Mideast (correctly so), was forced to sit idle as Israel destroyed what infrastructure Lebanon had managed to build up following years of civil war, and killed scads of Lebanese civilians as well. At the UN, TeamBush strawman John Bolton resisted cease-fire attempts for two weeks, giving Israel the time to 'wipe out' its Shiite Hezbollah targets. But hardly anything went according to plan. The more Israeli troops bombed bridges, airports, refineries, and residential neighborhoods, the more the elected Lebanese government lost respect among its people, as it became clear that being TeamBush's 'Man in Beirut' didn't earn Siniora enough clout to have the US intervene to stop the slaughter. And Hezbollah hung tough, fighting the IDF hard on the ground and launching rocket attacks against civilians deep into Israel.
Final score: Hezbollah became darlings of the Arab world for bloodying the Zionists nose for the first time in decades; Israel and its vaunted IDF looked ineffective and lost some serious face; and the political scene in Lebanon, once a beacon of potential arab democracy, devolved into factional murder choas and is once again teetering on the brink of civil war.
Regardless of Condi's promises don't think the Iraqi Kurds have forgotten these events, even if most Americans have. Keep a close eye on this one, it could get real ugly, real fast.
Looks like Turkey has invaded Kurdish-held Iraq. Its been overnight but they're still there, about 1.5 miles into territory near the Iranian border. This follows aerial bombing of Kurdish PKK bases in Iraq yesterday.
And in other news, Condi Rice made a 'surprise' visit to the disputed Kurdish city of Kirkuk, center of northern Iraq's oil industry. Call me a cynic, but methinks there just might be a connection between that visit and the incursion. No doubt Rice is there as TeamBush's 'Man on the Ground' trying to desperately keep Kurdish Peshmergas (our seemingly best Iraqi allies) from joining the battle against the neighboring Turks (also strong US allies) who have invaded their country, albeit seeking to destroy PKK elements and not take over territory, one hopes.
Even so, it remains very unclear how long Iraqi Kurds will stomach attacks on their territory that are killing their ethnic brethren, and no doubt eventually some Iraqi Kurdish civilians. I'm sure Condi is begging for their restraint and offering many financial and military carrots while in Kirkuk. It might just work if the Turks are efficient and highly restrained. Or it could turn into another Israeli-Lebanon incursion of last summer.
The moderate Siniora government, once praised by TeamBush as the salvation of democracy in the Mideast (correctly so), was forced to sit idle as Israel destroyed what infrastructure Lebanon had managed to build up following years of civil war, and killed scads of Lebanese civilians as well. At the UN, TeamBush strawman John Bolton resisted cease-fire attempts for two weeks, giving Israel the time to 'wipe out' its Shiite Hezbollah targets. But hardly anything went according to plan. The more Israeli troops bombed bridges, airports, refineries, and residential neighborhoods, the more the elected Lebanese government lost respect among its people, as it became clear that being TeamBush's 'Man in Beirut' didn't earn Siniora enough clout to have the US intervene to stop the slaughter. And Hezbollah hung tough, fighting the IDF hard on the ground and launching rocket attacks against civilians deep into Israel.
Final score: Hezbollah became darlings of the Arab world for bloodying the Zionists nose for the first time in decades; Israel and its vaunted IDF looked ineffective and lost some serious face; and the political scene in Lebanon, once a beacon of potential arab democracy, devolved into factional murder choas and is once again teetering on the brink of civil war.
Regardless of Condi's promises don't think the Iraqi Kurds have forgotten these events, even if most Americans have. Keep a close eye on this one, it could get real ugly, real fast.
Labels: Iraq, Kurds, TeamBush, Turkey
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
To the Moon, NASA, to the Moon!
Well it seems that space isn't the only thing that NASA dabbles in. They also have a strong interest in aviation as it turns out. Which is why I guess they were charged with overseeing an extensive years-long study of pilots to gauge air safety back in the halcyon Clinton days of 1997.
Well it seems that space isn't the only thing that NASA dabbles in. They also have a strong interest in aviation as it turns out. Which is why I guess they were charged with overseeing an extensive years-long study of pilots to gauge air safety back in the halcyon Clinton days of 1997.
The study was cut short by funding issues during the less-halcyon Bush regime, but its story is instructional of life in the TeamBush era. The study found that the numbers of near disasters in the air over our fair nation is far, far greater than estimated by the FAA. But as the AP reports this information was buried because "(r)elease of the requested data, which are sensitive and safety-related, could materially affect the public confidence in, and the commercial welfare of, the air carriers and general-aviation companies whose pilots participated in the survey" (emphasis mine).
So lets be clear: An agency of our government (the one that works for us and should serve first and foremost the interest of citizens) buried a report because it could undermine the financial bottom line of our nation's air carriers. Utterly outrageous!!
But wait, there's more. . . when NASA got wind that information about this report had been leaked to the media by a whistleblower, they immediately ordered the company who compiled the pilot survey to destroy any and all traces of the data or reports taken from it. Only the intervention of Democratic members of the House Science and Technology Committee prevented it all from being deleted.
Weighing in themselves, the FAA said that they were concerned the study showed a much higher incidence of aviation problems than their own statistics. But nuggets buried in this article revealed why that may be the case. FAA compiles voluntary data from pilots that is, one assumes, not anonymous. Given the precarious state of job security for these folks, is it any wonder that pilots didn't voluntarily choose too often to complain and in doing so just perhaps add their own name to the list for next round of layoffs?
In contrast, the surveys were anonymous and very detailed, asking pilots a range of standard questions about their recent experiences. The response rate of over 80% (pretty unheard of in the survey world) shows that a large number of pilots were indeed interested in documenting these issues.
Late Word: The head of NASA apologized for the statement of his subordinate. "I regret the impression that NASA was in any way trying to put commercial interests ahead of public safety. That was not and will never be the case."
Seems reasonable enough. . . but then why did NASA try to have all information related to this project deleted and destroyed?
Let the hearings begin!
Labels: airlines, mismanagement, TeamBush
Friday, October 19, 2007
Another Grim Anniversary
As this Op-Ed from the 17 OCT Washington Post by 12 disgruntled former Army officers who served in Iraq reminds us, the fifth anniversary of the Congressional resolution allowing TeamBush free reign to start the Iraq War is once again upon us. Current opponents who voted for the now-infamous bill frequently maintain that the vote was just giving Bush leverage at the UN; the handful of congressional supporters who still have their jobs paint it as a clear congressional mandate tantamount to a declaration of war. A few, mostly presidential aspirants, try to split the difference.
Regardless, it has not been a good few years for the US of A. It has been so well detailed, both here and in so many other places, that I'll not digress.
But what's to do? Here's one option: Help the people who tried to help us and are now quite helpless.
Thousands of Iraqis welcomed the liberation of Iraq from the hands of Saddam Hussein, and many with needed skills came forward to help the American and British forces at the start of the occupation. Four years on, with conditions in Iraq being perilous for them and their families, they need out of the war zone. Having witnessed the tragedy first-hand, former USAID in Iraq employee Kirk Johnson started The List Project. The list is comprised of refugees who helped the US and are now facing hardship or death in today's fractured, violent Iraq.
According to NPR's Day to Day, despite administration promises to allow 5,000 Iraqi refugees into the US this year, only 1,600 have been processed. Johnson has seen former Iraqi colleagues killed and just wants some action. Maybe we can all help him out in whatever way we can. I'd like to think this issue transcends party affiliation or 'hawk and dove' camps.
As this Op-Ed from the 17 OCT Washington Post by 12 disgruntled former Army officers who served in Iraq reminds us, the fifth anniversary of the Congressional resolution allowing TeamBush free reign to start the Iraq War is once again upon us. Current opponents who voted for the now-infamous bill frequently maintain that the vote was just giving Bush leverage at the UN; the handful of congressional supporters who still have their jobs paint it as a clear congressional mandate tantamount to a declaration of war. A few, mostly presidential aspirants, try to split the difference.
Regardless, it has not been a good few years for the US of A. It has been so well detailed, both here and in so many other places, that I'll not digress.
But what's to do? Here's one option: Help the people who tried to help us and are now quite helpless.
Thousands of Iraqis welcomed the liberation of Iraq from the hands of Saddam Hussein, and many with needed skills came forward to help the American and British forces at the start of the occupation. Four years on, with conditions in Iraq being perilous for them and their families, they need out of the war zone. Having witnessed the tragedy first-hand, former USAID in Iraq employee Kirk Johnson started The List Project. The list is comprised of refugees who helped the US and are now facing hardship or death in today's fractured, violent Iraq.
According to NPR's Day to Day, despite administration promises to allow 5,000 Iraqi refugees into the US this year, only 1,600 have been processed. Johnson has seen former Iraqi colleagues killed and just wants some action. Maybe we can all help him out in whatever way we can. I'd like to think this issue transcends party affiliation or 'hawk and dove' camps.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
The Challenge that wasn't and the Veto that was meaningless
TV news broadcasts and newspapers are really playing up the big confrontation between the 'Democrat party' in Congress and TeamBush. Everyone likes a nice sound-bite friendly horse race, and this is predictably the prism through which this bit o' politicking is being viewed. But that's really not the case.
Before detailing why, the general positive take-away: It would look like the Congress 'won' the battle despite being unable to override the veto at this time, as they've gotten many House and Senate GOPers talking about specific benchmarks that they plan on holding the (Iraqi) govt to as a contingency for further funding. This next special emergency war funding bill may only authorize funding through this September, when both D and R Congressman will require Gen Petraeus, an independent counsel, etc to report on the success of 'The Surge.'
So that's the official story; here's the real one: The whole thing is a crock.
I've seen several good examples detailing this but I'll link to Jeremy Scahill's piece for Tomdispatch, since he puts the lie to rest so eloquently. {An aside: do read the Scahill article for its' main emphasis, the 126,000 plus private mercenary Army that operates out of the purview of Congress or the DoD}
"According to H.R. 1591, the Secretary of Defense is allowed to keep U.S. forces in Iraq for the following purposes:
1. "Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the United States Armed Forces": This doesn't sound like much, but don't be fooled. As a start, of course, there would have to be forces guarding the new American embassy in Baghdad (known to Iraqis as "George W's Palace"). When completed, it will be the largest embassy in the known universe with untold thousands of employees; then there would need to be forces to protect the heavily fortified citadel of the Green Zone (aka "the International Zone") which protects the embassy and other key U.S. facilities. Add to these troops to guard the network of gigantic, multibillion dollar U.S. bases in Iraq like Balad Air Base (with air traffic volume that rivals Chicago's O'Hare) and whatever smaller outposts might be maintained. We're talking about a sizable force here.
2. "Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces": By later this year, U.S. advisors and trainers for the Iraqi military, part of a program the Pentagon is now ramping up, should reach the 10,000-20,000 range (many of whom -- see above -- would undoubtedly need "guarding").
3. "Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach": This is a loophole of loopholes that could add up to almost anything as, in a pinch, all sorts of Sunni oppositional forces could be labeled "al-Qaeda."
An Institute for Policy Studies analysis suggests that the "protection forces" and advisors alone could add up to 40,000-60,000 troops. None of this, of course, includes U.S. Navy or Air Force units stationed outside Iraq but engaged in actions in, or support for actions in, that country.
Another way of thinking about the Democratic withdrawal proposals (to be vetoed this week by the President) is that they represent a program to remove only U.S. "combat brigades," adding up to perhaps half of all U.S. forces, with a giant al-Qaeda loophole for their return. None of this would deal with the heavily armed and fortified U.S. permanent bases in Iraq or the air war that would almost certainly escalate if only part of the American expeditionary forces were withdrawn (and the rest potentially left more vulnerable). "
So much for the effort to 'bring our boys home' anytime soon. But just as bad and unrealistic are the chirpings from what's left of Bush's supporters (Kay Bailey Hutchison and the blabosphere of right-wing talk radio). If you're like me and find your radio during baseball season frequently tuned to a warbly AM station that plays the boys of summer at 7:05, and right wing crap the rest of the time, then in the last month you've found yourself listening more than once to Rush, Sean, and the rest of the rabble. I try to turn it off, but I'm drawn in like a deer in headlights, a moth to a flame, a 13-year old boy to a stripper. . . but I digress. Ahem.
The biggest word you hear on such shows these days in 'surrender.' They talk of surrender dates, 'Surrender' Harry Reid (who got lambasted for actually accidently telling the truth--that the war was lost, at least as a further military venture). Well folks, the sad fact is US troops aren't leaving Iraq anytime soon. Victory (another RW-radio favorite, as in "The Democrats are snatching victory from defeat") will not come in terms that they want it, and they can't bear to realize that. Well, guess what, Reid was right. General Petreaus' plan (aka 'The Surge') is good counter insurgency 101 policy, but its pretty much bound to fail, mainly because its a tactic and not a strategy. There is no strategy. I bow to an expert, Thomas Ricks, who spoke yesterday on the Anniversary of the Mission Accomplished speech on PRIs outstanding radio show The World.
TV news broadcasts and newspapers are really playing up the big confrontation between the 'Democrat party' in Congress and TeamBush. Everyone likes a nice sound-bite friendly horse race, and this is predictably the prism through which this bit o' politicking is being viewed. But that's really not the case.
Before detailing why, the general positive take-away: It would look like the Congress 'won' the battle despite being unable to override the veto at this time, as they've gotten many House and Senate GOPers talking about specific benchmarks that they plan on holding the (Iraqi) govt to as a contingency for further funding. This next special emergency war funding bill may only authorize funding through this September, when both D and R Congressman will require Gen Petraeus, an independent counsel, etc to report on the success of 'The Surge.'
So that's the official story; here's the real one: The whole thing is a crock.
I've seen several good examples detailing this but I'll link to Jeremy Scahill's piece for Tomdispatch, since he puts the lie to rest so eloquently. {An aside: do read the Scahill article for its' main emphasis, the 126,000 plus private mercenary Army that operates out of the purview of Congress or the DoD}
"According to H.R. 1591, the Secretary of Defense is allowed to keep U.S. forces in Iraq for the following purposes:
1. "Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the United States Armed Forces": This doesn't sound like much, but don't be fooled. As a start, of course, there would have to be forces guarding the new American embassy in Baghdad (known to Iraqis as "George W's Palace"). When completed, it will be the largest embassy in the known universe with untold thousands of employees; then there would need to be forces to protect the heavily fortified citadel of the Green Zone (aka "the International Zone") which protects the embassy and other key U.S. facilities. Add to these troops to guard the network of gigantic, multibillion dollar U.S. bases in Iraq like Balad Air Base (with air traffic volume that rivals Chicago's O'Hare) and whatever smaller outposts might be maintained. We're talking about a sizable force here.
2. "Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces": By later this year, U.S. advisors and trainers for the Iraqi military, part of a program the Pentagon is now ramping up, should reach the 10,000-20,000 range (many of whom -- see above -- would undoubtedly need "guarding").
3. "Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach": This is a loophole of loopholes that could add up to almost anything as, in a pinch, all sorts of Sunni oppositional forces could be labeled "al-Qaeda."
An Institute for Policy Studies analysis suggests that the "protection forces" and advisors alone could add up to 40,000-60,000 troops. None of this, of course, includes U.S. Navy or Air Force units stationed outside Iraq but engaged in actions in, or support for actions in, that country.
Another way of thinking about the Democratic withdrawal proposals (to be vetoed this week by the President) is that they represent a program to remove only U.S. "combat brigades," adding up to perhaps half of all U.S. forces, with a giant al-Qaeda loophole for their return. None of this would deal with the heavily armed and fortified U.S. permanent bases in Iraq or the air war that would almost certainly escalate if only part of the American expeditionary forces were withdrawn (and the rest potentially left more vulnerable). "
So much for the effort to 'bring our boys home' anytime soon. But just as bad and unrealistic are the chirpings from what's left of Bush's supporters (Kay Bailey Hutchison and the blabosphere of right-wing talk radio). If you're like me and find your radio during baseball season frequently tuned to a warbly AM station that plays the boys of summer at 7:05, and right wing crap the rest of the time, then in the last month you've found yourself listening more than once to Rush, Sean, and the rest of the rabble. I try to turn it off, but I'm drawn in like a deer in headlights, a moth to a flame, a 13-year old boy to a stripper. . . but I digress. Ahem.
The biggest word you hear on such shows these days in 'surrender.' They talk of surrender dates, 'Surrender' Harry Reid (who got lambasted for actually accidently telling the truth--that the war was lost, at least as a further military venture). Well folks, the sad fact is US troops aren't leaving Iraq anytime soon. Victory (another RW-radio favorite, as in "The Democrats are snatching victory from defeat") will not come in terms that they want it, and they can't bear to realize that. Well, guess what, Reid was right. General Petreaus' plan (aka 'The Surge') is good counter insurgency 101 policy, but its pretty much bound to fail, mainly because its a tactic and not a strategy. There is no strategy. I bow to an expert, Thomas Ricks, who spoke yesterday on the Anniversary of the Mission Accomplished speech on PRIs outstanding radio show The World.
