Iraq

Mark Kirk Appears On NBC 5's City Desk

Josh Kalven — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:13:37 -0700

In an episode that filmed last week and aired yesterday morning, GOP Rep. Mark Kirk and Democratic challenger Dan Seals appeared separately on NBC 5's City Desk. Host Carol Marin immediately asked Kirk why he refused to directly debate Seals on the program. Kirk first tried to deflect the question, then stated, "Actually it would have been fine with me." Watch it:

But while Kirk suggested it somehow wasn't his decision, the Seals campaign made clear yesterday that they were more than willing to debate the GOP incumbent on NBC 5's airwaves. From communications director Elisabeth Smith:

"Dan believes that it is important for voters in the 10th district to see where he and Mark Kirk differ on the issues, which is why he agreed to appear jointly with Kirk on City Desk. This is not the first time that a joint appearance has fallen through. Unfortunately, Mark Kirk continues to do everything in his power to run fast and hard from his record of voting nearly 90% of the time with Republicans and supporting President Bush's failed policies in Congress."

Kirk also told viewers that he "hopes everybody watches" his joint appearance with Seals before the Tribune editorial board last week. But as far as I can tell, the only coverage of that debate is this article, which focused on Kirk's comments about Sarah Palin. I've been unable to find any video of the joint appearance on the Tribune website or elsewhere. (If the video is out there somewhere, please leave the link in comments.)

Later in the interview, Marin asked Kirk about his initial support for the Iraq war. He responded by blaming the "faulty intelligence":

While plenty of bad intelligence did indeed surface in the run-up to the Iraq war, Kirk's answer omits a crucial part of the story: how the Bush administration suppressed the intelligence community's doubts about certain prewar claims and how they used highly questionable, alternative intelligence sources to make their case for war. For more on that story, read this Media Matters piece I penned in December 2005. Meanwhile, 10th District blogger Ellen Beth Gill offers her own rebuttal.

Vets For Freedom Pays Fratboys To Support Iraq War

Angela Caputo — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:37:07 -0700

Here's a ringing endorsement for the ongoing war in Iraq. Despite describing itself as the "largest Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organization in America," Vets For Freedom (VFF) had some trouble scaring up like-minded folks to rally at the vice presidential candidates debate in St. Louis tomorrow night. So they decided to offer some local frat boys money to pose as war supporters.

The Huffington Post reports:

In an email obtained by the Huffington Post, Vets for Freedom field staffer Laura Meyer offered a fraternity at St. Louis University a "sizable donation" -- plus free lunch -- if it could use their pledges to demonstrate outside the VP debate.

"I was emailing you today," wrote Meyer, "because I am trying to find people who would be willing to hold up signs for a few hours in the afternoon this Thursday outside the VP debate site. It's only for a few hours and you can gain a lot from it.... first off, lunch for any guys who agree to volunteer will be on me. Secondly, they will get lots of media attention! My organization did a similar thing in Mississippi last week and a ton of them were on TV. Meaning, the guys could wear their [REDACTED] gear while holding up our signs and get attention for their frat. Also, they will get to hang out with a bunch of really cool Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans.

"Lastly, and here's the kicker.... if you guys can get us at least 20 volunteers for those few hours, my organization will make a sizable donation to your fraternity. If you use pledges you could look at it as 'free money and free publicity'. If this sounds like something you may be willing to help us out with, please let me know ASAP!"

Ironically, VFF spent $600,000 on ads in September attacking Barack Obama for being out of step with America's troops. In one ad titled "Skipped," the group alleges that the Illinois senator opposed a 2007 troop funding measure. The smear isn't new. It's is a play lifted from the McCain campaign, which Factcheck.org has debunked. Still, VFF will drop $2.2 million more to spread the message this month as the ad begins airing in California today.

The Surgetastic Surge

Adam Doster — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:27:04 -0700

According to John McCain, the decision to increase troop levels in Iraq has been an unmitigated success, responsible for all that is wonderful about life there today. Even though President Bush didn't deploy additional forces until 2007, McCain's definition of the "surge" -- which now apparently encompasses our entire counterinsurgency strategy -- was already working by 2006, easing violence in Iraq's Anbar Province. How can anyone, including Barack Obama, claim this isn't an obvious testament to McCain's prescience and foreign policy superiority?

Steve Chapman gives a nice rebuttal to this nonsense in today's Tribune, explaining that McCain's argument only holds up if one defines "success" by a very narrow metric -- namely, a decrease to pre-surge levels of Iraqi and American deaths:

The troop escalation has not been the complete failure Obama suggested it would be, but it has fallen far short of the triumph claimed by Republicans. The level of violence, though down from the very worst months of the war, remains at levels comparable with 2005, which were considered awful at the time.

Iraqi civilians died at a higher rate in the first four months of this year than in the same period of 2005. The number of attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces is about the same. Here is McCain's definition of success: returning to a pace of bloodshed that was once regarded as intolerable.

What's more, such reductions in violence can't be attributed solely to the increase in troops. One has to also factor in the decision of Sunni militias to turn against Al Qaeda in Iraq, the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad and other mixed neighborhoods, and Muqtada al-Sadr's cease fire. All contributed to the current situation, and lumping them together under the "surge" label is disingenuous to say the least.

And what about political reconciliation, one of the primary goals of the troop increase? Former Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi says little has been accomplished.

Reminding Rohrabacher that the original objective of the surge was to create a safe environment for a process of national reconciliation, Allawi said, “Now, militarily, the surge has achieved some of its goals. Politically, I don’t think so.”

Allawi rattled off a laundry list of perils that still confront the Iraqi people: internal displacement of large numbers of people, millions of refugees outside Iraq, security forces he described as sectarian militias dressed in national uniforms and no regime for enforcement of the national constitution, which he described as a “divisive” document.

The former prime minister, who is now a member of the Iraqi parliament, also alleged that the process known as “deBaathification” is “being used to punish people.” Originally designed to purge Saddam Hussein’s loyalists from military and security forces, Allawi said the process has become politicized and can be used against virtually anybody, since Saddam Hussein’s “Baath party ruled for 35 years, and every individual had to join…”

“So, if you measure the surge from a military point of view, it has succeeded,” Allawi said. “But I don’t think this was the [prime] objective, because soon you will have reversals. Security has not prevailed, and the key element in security is reconciliation, and building national institutions for the country. If this does not happen, then the surge will go in vain.”

"Wrong"

Adam Doster — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:32:07 -0700

It's great that the Tribune's Swamp blog is publicizing John McCain's latest lie about Iraq, in which he falsely credits America's troop surge for the "awakening" of Sunnis in Anbar province. As MSNBC's Keith Olbermann noted last night, the Anbar Awakening in fact began long before the troop increase.

But rather than directly address McCain's revision of history, the Tribune's Mark Silva decided instead to report on MSNBC's segment about McCain's lie. Indeed, Silva refers to Olbermann's statement that McCain got "the basic timeline and history of the surge entirely wrong'' as an "assertion." And check out the headline:

Why the quotation marks? This isn't a he-said/she-said debate. McCain is wrong -- plain and simple -- and the Tribune should say so in its own words.

Below are a few links laying out why McCain's claim is flat false.

First of all, read over McCain's original exchange with CBS anchor Katie Couric:

Kate Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is as-- such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane [phonetic] was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar Awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

McCain says the surge "began the Anbar Awakening." Now for "what actually happened."

Via, Spencer Ackerman, we have an interview with now-Gen. Sean McFarland briefing the media on the Anbar awakening on Sept. 29, 2006, months before Bush announced the Surge. And via Ilan Goldenberg, we have the New York Times talking about the Anbar Awakening back in March 2007, in which they cite that the formation of the group shocked many Sunni Arabs in September, as well as this nugget from Colin Kahl in Foreign Affairs.

The Awakening began in Anbar Province more than a year before the surge and took off in the summer and fall of 2006 in Ramadi and elsewhere, long before extra U.S. forces started flowing into Iraq in February and March of 2007. Throughout the war, enemy-of-my-enemy logic has driven Sunni decision-making. The Sunnis have seen three "occupiers" as threats: the United States, the Shiites (and their presumed Iranian patrons), and the foreigners and extremists in AQI. Crucial to the Awakening was the reordering of these threats.

Even McCain himself knew the timeline at one point. Speaking to the American Enterprise Institute on January 5, 2007 alongside fellow Senator Joe Lieberman after their trip to Iraq, McCain cited the Awakening as reason for the Surge itself!

"Too often the light at the tunnel has turned out to be a train, but I really believe -- I really believe that there's a strong possibility that you may see a very substantial change in Anbar province due to this new changes in our relationships with the sheiks in the region. ... But it's important, as I said in my opening remarks, that this troop surge be significant and sustained. Otherwise, don't do it."

Iraq Vets Fall Through The Cracks

Adam Doster — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:06:43 -0700

Over the weekend, Chicago Public Radio's Chip Mitchell caught up with Jason, a 33-year-old former Marine from Wisconsin who served in Iraq. During the past four years, the veteran has lived on the streets in and around Chicago's Greektown, a life he thought unimaginable when he signed up to fight. After his discharge, he wasn’t mentally prepared to work and because his parents were gone and his marriage had fallen apart, he had no safety net:

JASON: I’m on food stamps, man. I have to live out of soup kitchens. I have to panhandle. I have to ask people for leftovers to eat.

Homelessness among veterans is not a new phenomenon. According to Mitchell's report, the VA estimates that on any given night 154,000 U.S. veterans lack shelter, most of whom served in Vietnam. And while a New York Times article from November 2007 found that just over 400 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have turned up homeless, that number will undoubtedly grow as more soldiers return from the battlefield:

Experts who work with veterans say it often takes several years after leaving military service for veterans’ accumulating problems to push them into the streets. But some aid workers say the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans appear to be turning up sooner than the Vietnam veterans did.

“We’re beginning to see, across the country, the first trickle of this generation of warriors in homeless shelters,” said Phil Landis, chairman of Veterans Village of San Diego, a residence and counseling center. “But we anticipate that it’s going to be a tsunami.”

So how is possible that someone who risked their live to serve their country could simply fall through the cracks? Untreated mental illness is one major problem. A Rand Corporation study from April found that while nearly 20 percent of military service members who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan — 300,000 in all — report symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder or major depression, only slightly more than half have sought treatment.

A shortage of affordable housing contributes as well. Horace Jones, who works with vets for a local agency called Inner Voice, tells WBEZ that "if you’re making minimum wage [or] $7.50 an hour, it’s kind of hard to support yourself and pay $650-$700 a month in rent."

Will veterans see support for their efforts grow with the election of a new president? Despite his deep commitment to military service, John McCain's record on veterans issues doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny. In May, The Nation's Brian Beutler dissected the Arizona Republican's tendency to work against veterans' interests in favor of privatization. On the other hand, a Barack Obama victory in November could help stave off the coming veteran crisis. Here's veteran John Hurley, writing about Obama's support for veterans rights at The Huffington Post in February:

Senator Obama, when he arrived in Washington, volunteered for the all important, but not very glamorous, Senate Committee on Veteran's Affairs. In the wake of the housing and medical evaluation scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Obama introduced a sweeping bill, called the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act, calling for comprehensive reforms in how our combat veterans and their families are treated.

Vets support Obama because he will fully fund the VA healthcare budget, will bring Priority 8 vets back into the VA healthcare system, will expand the GI Bill to allow spouses and children to be eligible to use veteran benefits and will treat Guardsmen and Reservists equally, and he will comprehensively address the pain and devastation brought onto vets by PTSD and traumatic brain injuries (TBI).

And of critical importance, Barack Obama has pledged a "zero tolerance" policy to end veteran homelessness. The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans noted in Congressional testimony that "We extend our deep gratitude to Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) for catapulting homeless veteran issues onto the Senate agenda ...."

For more on homelessness among young veterans, be sure to check out the powerful documentary "When I Came Home" (pdf), which tells the story of Herold Noel, an Iraqi veteran who struggles to survive upon returning to his native Brooklyn.

Image used under a Creative Commons license by Flickr user an0nym0usmuse.

Skokie Immigration Lawyer Works To Resettle Iraqi Refugees

Adam Doster — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:09:52 -0700

After his grandfather and uncle were arrested and detained by officials from Saddam Hussein's Baath Party in the early 1970s, Robert DeKelaita and his family decided it was time to flee Iraq. Now as an immigration lawyer who focuses on securing political asylum for displaced Iraqis, Chicago Public Radio's Eight Forty Eight reports on how the Skokie-based Assyrian is helping other refugees find the stability that his family provided him.

DeKelaita speaks at length of the struggle Christian minority communities face in Iraq, a sad reality I wrote about in an In These Times feature on the Iraqi refugee crisis:

While people of all ethnic sects have been affected, Chaldean Catholics — like the Rabbans — have borne a disproportionate burden. Though Chaldeans make up only 3 percent of Iraq’s population, conservative estimates suggest that 25 percent have fled to Syria or relocated to northern Iraq. Sunnis and Shiites have bombed Chaldean-owned businesses and Christian churches in Baghdad, Kirkuk and Mosul. And in one of the war’s most high-profile kidnappings, Chaldean archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho was abducted on Feb. 29 and his body found two weeks later, half buried in a shallow grave in Mosul.

“Communities that are not protected by larger groups that have militias, like Christian communities, have been especially hit hard,” says Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, whose work examines U.S. national security policy in the Middle East.

DeKelaita also speaks about his desire to leave the "gray of Chicago" and return to his homeland. Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen any time in the near future. A Government Accountability Office report released today says that despite security gains in the region, "the American plan for a stable Iraq lacks a strategic framework that meshes with the administration’s goals, is falling out of touch with the realities on the ground and contains serious flaws in its operational guidelines."

Missing The Forest For The Trees

Adam Doster — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:45:33 -0700

Much like columnist Dennis Byrne, the Tribune editorial board is displeased that the recent security gains in Iraq are not being covered by the national press:

There are tremendously encouraging signs, though, that Iraq has come through the worst. The breathtaking violence that rocked the country after the U.S.-led invasion is ebbing. A government once derided as incapable of securing Iraq has an increasingly effective military. It enjoys more cooperation from the different ethnic and religious groups. Hotbeds of Sunni and Al Qaeda resistance have been defanged—and now rely on Iraqi forces to keep a relative peace. This nation's decisions about its commitment in Iraq need to acknowledge these specific realities:

Although the Tribune treated yesterday's massive bombing in Baghdad as a blip on the radar, the security gains it cites are indisputable and valuable. But while violence is down, the root causes of the war are still unresolved. As the AP notes in an article published Monday, the power struggle between Sunnis and Shiites remains fierce, political progress has lagged, and U.S. troops have suppressed violence in Baghdad in large part because rival communities are separated by a series of large blast walls. "Fear and distrust" of fellow countrymen and American forces still lurks in every quarter.

Moreover, the relative calm could break at any moment. While the Iraqi military has allowed the government to gain confidence, that support will be undermined if it doesn't deliver essential services and jobs to its citizenry and rebuild its broken infrastructure -- areas in which many of the militias have been far more effective. This will be tough to do as corruption and bureaucratic chaos have swallowed up most of the nation's windfall oil profits.

The Tribune editorial highlights a major problem with debate over the war -- what The Nation editors recently described as "this surreal, Groundhog Day-like eternal recurrence: things are better but not better enough, stabilizing but not yet stable, so we must stay." Indeed, war supporters continue to push back the goalposts of success, prolonging this failed imperial project and subverting the will of both the American and Iraqi people, who overwhelmingly want the American occupation to end.

By all means, let's talk about the war this election season. But let's evaluate it frankly and in context.

Dennis Byrne's Fifth Annual "Iraq Is Getting Better" Column

Progress Illinois — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:35:27 -0700

Today's Tribune column from Dennis Byrne features another doozy of a thesis: the Iraq war will soon end in an American "victory":

[Barack Obama], his fans and much of the media haven't noticed in the heat of the presidential campaign, but the war is winding down, if not nearing its end. Fewer military and civilians killed or wounded; fewer insurgent attacks; more order and security, especially in such troubled areas as Basra and Sadr City; more reconciliation; improved quality of life, and—not the least—greater liberties.

Byrne is correct to say that violence in Iraq is down at the moment among both American troops and Iraqi civilians, an undeniably positive development. But as General David Petraeus himself said just a few short months ago, "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," (the stated goal of the surge) or in the provision of basic public services. And many believe Iraq's relative peace could fracture at any moment:

“Compare the situation now to six months or a year ago, and it is much better now,” said Nabil Younis, a political scientist at Baghdad University. “But most people feel the progress is not real progress. They expect something to happen any day, any hour, any minute … and everything will collapse.”

The thrust of Byrne's latest piece is far from surprising. A review of his Tribune columns over the last five years reveals that he has consistently pointed to temporary developments -- from marginal gains in security to various elections -- as evidence that the United States is making tangible progress in Iraq. Meanwhile, during the same time period, an increasing number of soldiers and civilians have died and the country has slipped further into chaos.

Below are a few choice excerpts from Byrne on Iraq.

April 9, 2007, "And now, good news from Iraq":

Iraqi coalition forces have shut down a major network of car bombers that was responsible for the deaths of at least 650 civilians.

Its eradication, along with the elimination of another terrorist network and three car-bomb factories, is the latest positive news coming out of Iraq.

Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces there, also reported the recent capture of "more than the usual numbers" of weapons caches. One consisted of more than 120 improvised explosive devices, some of which were the "particularly lethal" anti-armor munitions being used against U.S. troops.

Perhaps you're wondering what a straight news story is doing here, in a commentary section. It's because there doesn't seem to be enough room in the media's straight news sections to report positive developments in the Iraq war.

April 17, 2006, "Fighting over power: When conflicting civilizations collide":

Speaking of Iraq, some readers, in response to my April 3 column, explained that good news from Iraq isn't reported because there's no good news to report. None. Period. So, in response to their challenge to come up with some, I give you the liberal Brookings Institution and its "Iraq Index." [...]

I won't try to characterize the report one way or another, except to say that those blind to any good news will be surprised.

November 28, 2005, "To all you naysayers; Iraq is on its way to becoming a democracy":

The point? The heroic Iraqi citizens have traveled a more dangerous road toward democracy more rapidly then anyone ever expected, making that another part of the "failed war plan," I assume. Can we agree that it's great for Iraq, the Middle East and for us? Or perhaps you can't share this enthusiasm because you hate the Bushies so much that a part of you hopes the elections fail.

September 27, 2004, "Can we undo the damage of doves?":

We couldn't win the war in Iraq either. Remember how the supply lines were too long? Or how we were sure to fail if Turkey didn't allow U.S. combat troops to cross its soil to get to Iraq? Again, wrong.

As Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi reminded critics in his visit to the United States last week: The doves said a new Iraqi constitution could never be approved this year. Wrong.

They said the "hand-over" of authority to an interim Iraqi government could never be accomplished by the end of June. Wrong.

They said the cacophony of ethnic groups and fractious Muslims never could create a National Council. Wrong.

Now they say that elections cannot possibly be held next January. Almost as if they hope it will be so.

An interesting sidenote: in a March 31, 2003, column defending the recent Iraq invasion, Byrne lamented that President Bush is "given no credit for winning" the war in Afghanistan. But a sweep of his Tribune writings in the five years since found no acknowledgment from Byrne of that country's downward spiral. Indeed, security reports now show that Afghanistan -- the site of Bush's purported "victory" -- is now a country in crisis.

Maybe if the situation in Iraq worsens yet again, Byrne can just stop writing about it.

Seals On The Responsible Plan: "It Makes A Lot Of Sense"

Josh Kalven — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:53:35 -0700

During a Q&A with OpenLeft readers yesterday, 10th District congressional candidate Dan Seals was asked by Matt Stoller if he would sign on to The Responsible Plan To End The War In Iraq: "a comprehensive legal framework to end the war and prevent the reoccurence of the mistakes in our national security decision-making that led to the war in the first place."

Here's Seals' answer:

I don't like to sign onto a plan until I know all the details of it (as my staff well knows!), but from what I do understand of the plan -- its emphasis on responsibly ending the war in Iraq, offering non-military solutions to the war, rebuilding our military, and having a new approach to energy policy -- it makes a lot of sense.

As we noted yesterday, while over 50 candidates nationwide have endorsed the Responsible Plan, 16th District Democrat Bob Abboud is the only congressional challenger in Illinois to do so. Hopefully, once he reads through the details, Seals will become the second.

Here's a video featuring many of the plan's endorsees:

Clinton Doomed By 2002 Vote

Adam Doster — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 08:27:14 -0700

Now that Barack Obama has "officially" secured the Democratic presidential nomination, numerous media outlets are taking their turns asking the obvious question: How did Hillary Clinton -- once seen as the inevitable nominee -- lose her party's primary?

In a front page think piece today, The Wall Street Journal asserts "the mistakes boil down to mismanagement, message, mobilization failures and the marital factor." The Financial Times simplifies it even further, placing the blame almost entirely on her husband. The Washington Post focuses on Obama's "insurgent strategy" that ceded some important battlegrounds while blitzing states where "Democratic candidates rarely ventured." All solid analyses of a complex campaign that lasted 18 months and hinged on countless decisions, strategies, and votes.

But how can you diagnose Clinton's downfall without mentioning her vote on the war? As Atrios writes in his characteristically succinct style, "No Iraq, no way to challenge Clinton." And it's frustrating to see so little discussion of this factor in the post-mortems. The Journal mentions the vote only in the context of motivating anti-war Iowans to turn out in the crucial contest while the other two pieces make literally no mention of the war at all.

Simply put, Clinton made her critical error in 2002. Five years later, with the country mired in this immoral and disastrous war, Democrats were ready to turn the page.