Al-Maliki: Blackwater Guards Murderers
Obama Slams Private Security Firms
PKK Kills 13 Turkish Troops
According to the NYT, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's office on Sunday accused the Blackwater security company of deliberately murdering civilians. Spokesman Ali Dabbagh said that the private guards should be tried for the crime.
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has taken the lead in criticizing Blackwater and other private security firms in Iraq. He points out that their fighters are extremely expensive and that their tendency to play cowboy ends up harming US troops, since Iraqis do not make a distinction between them and regular US troops.
Turkish troops killed a PKK [Kurdish Workers Party] guerrilla in eastern Anatolia early on Sunday, then ran into an ambush in which PKK fighters killed 13 Turkish troops. The PKK is being given safe harbor in Iraqi Kurdistan by authorities there, much to Ankara's frustration. This major firefight, the most serious in years between PKK and the Turkish military in years, will put pressure on the Turkish government to engage in hot pursuit of the Kurdish guerrillas into Iraq where they are hiding out. The PKK is considered a terrorist organization by the United States, but the US military has done nothing to stop it from attacking a NATO ally (Turkey). The US also coddles the Mojahedin-e Khalq [MEK] terrorist group in Diyala province, which Saddam used against Iran, and which is probably the source for some of the wilder charges the US military makes against Iran.
It is one of the great ironies that in the wake of September 11 and the illegal war on Iraq, the Bush administration has ended up de facto giving safe harbor to two major terrorist groups in the Middle East.
The ranks of the Coalition of the Unwilling is growing, with the Czech Republic announcing that it will withdraw its small contingent of 100 troops from Basra at some point in the not too distant future. You have to wonder whether Bush won't be alone in keeping troops there by summer of 2008.
Reuters reports several bombings in Baghdad on Sunday.
Leila Fadel of McClatchy took a drive through al-Anbar province and found a palpable difference in the level of security for the better. The US military estimated that attacks in the province have fallen from 400 a week to 100 a week.
At the Global Affairs blog, a link to Daniel Levy's important comments on Gaza and on Mearsheimer and Walt.
At the Napoleon's Egypt blog, contemporary letters from the French commenting on their difficult situation after the British defeated the French fleet off Alexandria. One letter shows that Bonaparte was already positioning a man in Ottoman Palestine, which he later attacked.
Labels: Iraq

|
11 Comments:
So let me see if I have this correct. Thirteen Iraqi people were killed by Blackwater and this makes it more dangerous for our troops? Um what about the thirteen dead civilians? Oh that’s right, they can’t vote in our next presidential election anyway. I am truly touched by Obama’s deep and abiding concern for the people of Iraq. It is always about us, nobody else.
There is a pay disparity between private contractors and US troops, but what does Obama think is the cost per day to keep one COMBAT troop in Iraq? [It's probably something like $450 million divided by 45,000, or maybe $10,000/day per COMBAT troop].
Al Sabaah reports Iraqi oil exports are nearing 2.6 million bpd peak and the electricity ministry said peak electricity production has reached 6,000 MW peak which is compared to 5,000 MW peak previously. Needed was about 10,000 MW. That seems excellent progress in spite of the gloomy daily reports from Juan Cole.
The US military announced 800-1000 new local police have been authorized by the Iraqi government for the Mansour neighborhood in Baghdad - to be recruited and attend training through spring, 2008. Also the Iraqi government has authorized 1,200 US-funded "concerned citizens" for the Sha'ab neighborhood. Finally Al-Maliki apparently met recently with some members of Congress and mentioned US troops leaving faster than planned.
Off topic slightly... but w/ regard to the much-reported sale of Chinese light arms to the Iraqi police, isn't it possible that this is a quid pro quo from the US for China's help with North Korea? I heard several US Army spokesmen (yes, all men) say insouciantly that this was an example of the Iraqi government's exercise of sovereignty. Sound likely to you?
It is one of the great ironies that in the wake of September 11 and the illegal war on Iraq, the Bush administration has ended up de facto giving safe harbor to two major terrorist groups in the Middle East.
Perhaps the most shameful example of the hypocrasy of the Bush administration which barely even bothers with the pretense of credibility in it's sabre rattling against Iran.
I have a question though. Just what does constitute a "legal" war? Does it have to be just or only in self defense or is this a constiutional issue?.
Wash Post article about reconcilliation is interesting. It gives a look at the viewpoints of various Iraqi politicians on the subject.
Interestingly the US is never mentioned as an participant in the reconcilliation process by those quoted in the article - like the US is not a player. Does this mean that the Iraqi politicians feel its their sole responsibility to resurrect the nation? If so, that's good. Wouldn't it be nice if they then asked us to leave.
Leila Fade's comments on Falujah paint a pretty grim way of life for the residents. But that's the price the have to pay for Bush's "all's quiet on the western front".
"You have to wonder whether Bush won't be alone in keeping troops there by summer of 2008."
It isn't just Bush who's keeping the troops there; it's also Pelosi et al in congress who refuse to do their sworn jobs. It's now quite clear that Bush and the Democrats are just different sides of the same dagger.
I have a question though. Just what does constitute a "legal" war? Does it have to be just or only in self defense or is this a constiutional issue?.
It is included in the UN chart the US has signed. The only legal wars are the one waged in self defense or the ones authorised by the UNSC, when the UNSC (the UN Security Council) judges that the peace is in danger and ask for an intervention. Self defense is when you are attacked, some interpretation have extended it to when an attack is very imminent and threats you directly, aka when the ennemy's troops are already stationned behind your border in arms (which wasn't the case of Iraq). The war on Afghanistan was a legal war in the sense that it was authorized by the UNSC. Whether a war is just or not is a moral question which everyone can answer for himself. Personnally, I don't think that the Afghanistan war was a just war neither : you don't go after terrorists with an army : the US just bombed innocent civilians, while Ben Laden is still on the run.
Here is a link to the UN charter
Chapter 7 deals with wars between parties to the charter; especially art. 51 allows defensive wars, stating that :
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
It is included in the UN chart the US has signed. The only legal wars are the one waged in self defense or the ones authorised by the UNSC, when the UNSC (the UN Security Council) judges that the peace is in danger and ask for an intervention.
I don't have count, but that would make only handful of "legal" wars since the establishment of the UN. It appears the charter is being honored more in the breach. Does it apply to non governmental entities as well? The UNSC has proved itself singularly incapable of dealing effectively with conflict around the world. I'm not anti UN, but they do tend to fiddle while Rome is burning.
The UNSC has proved itself singularly incapable of dealing effectively with conflict around the world.
And which countries are the members of UNSC detaining the power of veto and therefore are responsible of the no-decisions and the decision of the UNSC and their consequences?
I give you some clues of those Incapable as you said Pax (U.A,Great B, F....E,C...A,R....A)
University of St. Thomas Bans Desmond Tutu [A déjà vu of THE POWER OF THE ISRAEL LOBBY IN THE U.S.]
http://rtsf.wordpress.com/
Post a Comment
<< Home