Foreign Companies Vie for Profit from Iraq's Oil

Aljazeera English reports on the deals the oil majors are doing in Iraq:



And, Tom Engelhardt reviews the troop escalation or "surge" in Iraq and offers some unconventional wisdom.

Iacocca: Where the Hell is our Outrage?

McClatchy says that lack of funds is hobbling the Republican attack machine. It could be that the country is in such a mess that even rich cranky white people are not sure they trust McSame not to give us another Bush term.

Amid rumors of Chrysler's impending bankruptcy, Lee Iacocca has shown back up to a hero's welcome. However badly his relationship had ended with the firm, it is still there in large part because of his leadership back in the 1980s, leadership you don't find every day anymore, as he points out:

Here is what he said in his recent book:

' "Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."

"Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

"& someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions.
Advertisement

That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

"I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have.

"I'm going to speak up because it's my patriotic duty & I'm hoping to strike a nerve in those young folks who say they don't vote because they don't trust politicians to represent their interests. Hey, America, wake up. These guys work for us.

"Why are we in this mess? How did we end up with this crowd in Washington? Well, we voted for them — or at least some of us did. But I'll tell you what we didn't do. We didn't agree to suspend the Constitution. We didn't agree to stop asking questions or demanding answers. Some of us are sick and tired of people who call free speech treason. Where I come from that's a dictatorship, not a democracy.

"And don't tell me it's all the fault of right-wing Republicans or liberal Democrats. That's an intellectually lazy argument, and it's part of the reason we're in this stew. We're not just a nation of factions. We're a people. We share common principles and ideals. And we rise and fall together.

"There was a time in this country when the voices of great leaders lifted us up and made us want to do better. Where have all the leaders gone?

"On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. & That was George Bush's moment of truth, and he was paralyzed. And what did he do when he'd regained his composure? He led us down the road to Iraq — a road his own father had considered disastrous when he was President. But Bush didn't listen to Daddy. He listened to a higher father. He prides himself on being faith-based, not reality based. If that doesn't scare the crap out of you, I don't know what will.

"So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country. We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves. The middle class is being squeezed every which way. These are times that cry out for leadership. '

So if Republicans like Iacocca are this upset with the direction of the country, you can understand what McClatchy says about the past funders of the noise machine (I'm not saying Mr. Iacocca was one) just not having their heart in it this time.

Arato: The Turkish Constitutional Crisis and the Road Beyond

Guest editorial

Andrew Arato


We should be deeply worried about Turkey’s unfolding constitutional crisis, that could end in many things: the continuation and even conclusion of the long democratic transition; military coup with entirely uncertain consequences; or, in between them an unproductive stalemate. Obviously only the first can enable Turkey to become a member of the European Union, and remain the much needed bridge it already is between the “West” and the “Islamic World” (if these categories have any meaning). Outsiders can help, but only by trying to understand the roots of the crisis, and the role played by each side in creating it, the Kemalist elite and the AKP, the party of government that has Islamic roots, neither of whom should be caricatured at least by foreign observers. That each played a role can be clearly seen through the terms and causes of the constitutional crisis, to the analysis of which I would like to restrict myself here.

Let me role the political film backwards. Readers will surely know that there is currently a judicial process at the Constitutional Court, initiated by the head prosecutor of the Supreme Court, seeking to close the AKP party and ban from politics over 70 of its politicians including PM Erdogan and President Gül. They may not know that, though under legal constitutional jurisdiction (Articles 68 and 69), the charges involve an incredible mélange of private statements, fully legal political acts including passing laws and constitutional amendments, and imputations of intentions that are entirely unsupported. Thus the attempt to close the AKP is not legally but politically inspired, and would reverse the results of the last two democratic elections in which the party received between 3/5 and 2/3 of parliamentary seats (though, as I would also stress, given a disastrously bad Turkish electoral rule on the bases, of 37, and 44 % of the votes). Readers will also know from Mr. Eissenstat’s article if not before, that on June 4 the same Constitutional Court has invalidated rather innocuous amendments to Articles 10 and 42 to Turkey’s Constitution, intending to permit legislation and/or administrative decisions allowing the wearing of headscarves in the universities, according to him a decision that almost certainly transgressed to sphere of authority of the Court. I think the decision, remarkably enough not yet published in full, was technically very questionable but certainly within the jurisdiction of the Court. The big question now is whether this decision foreshadows the closing of the AKP as the majority of Turks think or, as I maintained in a long interview in the liberal Milliyet on 12 June (Haziran) the Court has now established the option of switching to a more constitutional path of defending the constitution (and enforcing consensual change) than the nuclear and self-contradictory option of party closings. Historical experience against logic are in conflict, and I admit the weight of prior history that has involved 18 party closings, but never of a majority parliamentary party that has such broad international support in Europe and America, may win out. But let me try to justify the logic, or my logic anyway.

The makers of the Constitution of 1982 established a dual, semi authoritarian or semi democratic state, with important reserves of power outside the constitution. Starting with the elections of 1983, and then constitutional changes already in 1987 Turgut Özal managed to expand the democratic dimension, leading to a great reform process from 1995 to 2004, that in several rounds that involved the consensual participation of all parliamentary political parties, managed to significantly but by no means completely constitutionalize political powers in the system. Today people stress several military and indeed judicial interventions in this period, that we can see only managed to slow down the rate of change, exclude parties that would reappear in new forms and under new names, but nevertheless confirming the existence of important political centers that could continue to act outside all democratic accountability and constitutional restraints. From 2000-2001 especially, the Turkish parties and governments were under increasing European pressure to eliminate these authoritarian residues, and it was then that the idea of a gradual amendment of 1982 Constitution was replaced by that of a new “civil” or “civilian” Consitutiton. But though the point was not entirely clear either to the European critics or the Turkish participants, unless Turkey had a revolution against the Constitution of 1982, even an entirely new civilian constitution would have to be introduced as a large scale amendment of the still valid basic law.

That had two major implications. First, if it required the consensus of all parties to introduce partial amendment packages in 1995 and 2001, logically the introduction of a whole new constitution in a divided society through parliamentary amendment would imply the same requirement. Second, as against what Prof. Ergun Özbudun (the head of the AKP’s constitution drafting commission, whom I greatly respect) told me at a conference in New York in March 2008, the ordinary parliament, the Turkish Grand National Assembly is not even in Turkish positive law identical to a constituent assembly. It is not in terms of power, that we all know or should if we glanced at the country’s map of power. In my view at least, it is not in terms of legitimacy, unless it generates the kind of consensus characteristic of earlier amending efforts. Özbudun however was speaking merely of positive legality, and therefore the legal right of a parliamentary majority (under article 175) of 3/5 with both the president’s support and the majority in a referendum, or of 2/3 either with the president’s support or the majority in a referendum, to change the constitution as it will.

In my view such narrow legality, without sufficient power and legitimacy is exactly what would get a governing party in trouble in a divided society, but unfortunately, it does not accurately describe the legal givens in Turkey in the first place, as against a country of sovereign parliaments (there are arguably a few left in the democratic or ethnocratic world). The Constitution of 1982 has unchangeable provisions that the parliament cannot alter even with 100% of the vote having to do with the republican, secular and unitary character of the state. (Articles 1, 2,3 made unchangeable by Art. 4). Moreover the Constitutional Court is given jurisdiction to review amendments (art 148/149). Though this jurisdiction is defined as procedural, logically the Court would be correct to argue that any procedure (i.e. any majority, even 100%) that changes the unchangeable is ultra vires. Thus if Turkish Constitutional Court judged the amendments in question unconstitutional on the bases of the unchangeable articles it would have still not have gone as far stretching its jurisdiction as the great Indian Supreme Courts did, in defense of the unwritten “basic structure”of the Indian Constitution.

Admittedly, the Indian Constitution was democratically made, and there the Court could arguably defend the work of the democratic pouvoir constituant, against mere governmental organs, including the qualified parliamentary majority. In Turkey the Constitution was an authoritarian product, and it may seem paradoxical to defend its unchangeable provisions against democratically elected parliaments. To avoid the untenable originalism latent here let me propose a different, though partially similar criterion. In Central Europe, specifically in Hungary in 1989 the great question of when to erect a Constitutional Court with strong powers of constitutional review depended, in the eyes of democratic oppositions, on having a Constitution worth defending. The origins of Turkish Constitution in 1982 were highly questionable (they were typically Bonapartist!) but since the major consensual reforms Turkey does evidently have a Constitution worth defending. A lot of it is now the work of democratic instances. It is another matter that the Court itself preserves something of the worst heritage, specifically in its powers of party closings. But its powers of constitutional review belong to the other side of the ledger, within this still dualistic institution. It is in the interest of all that it abandon its authoritarian role, and assume the type of jurisdiction common to many constitutional democracies, that may very well as in Germany and India include review of amendments. Furthermore even if the Constitutional Court cannot gain much legitimacy in defending the unchangeable provisions of an originally authoritarian Constitution, the legality of its jurisdiction provides it with a vantage point to bring attention to the equally weak legitimacy of a power seeking to alter this constitution on the bases of mere majority will. Both legitimacies are questionable, but the legal position of the Court will remain stronger unless the amendment rule itself were amended by parliament, an act that the Court could again find unconstitutional…because implicitly challenging the unchangeable articles.

Moreover denial of the jurisdiction to review amendments and thus defend the unchangeable provisions of the Constitutions would only push the Court in the direction of passivity could have terrible if unintended consequences, and it may be fortunate that it did not rise to the formalist bait. If the constitutional review of amendments could not police the unchangeability of three articles, only party closing would remain as a marginally legal but in fact openly political weapon of their enforcement. And that would be the worst possible road to keep the Court on. It is one thing the deny the right of a party to make a constitutional amendment, even if the decision is technically unjustified, and quite another to close a party altogether for having made an amendment perfectly legally.

But what if the Court would from now on start using its expanded jurisdiction of constitutional review as a way to disempower all reform, would this be a still preferable option to open political acts like party closings, that have historically not been able to stop the reform trend? It is one thing to close minority parties, and quite another to close the party that has such majority (in parliament) or near majority (in the country). Thus closing now would be the worst option. But it is in my unrealistic to assume that the Court intends to replace or disempower the constitutional legislator. First, there is little creative capacity here; on the whole the Court is a negative legislator that can create only marginally, when expanding someone’s authority… here its own. Second, to consider the likelihood that the Court would take an obstructionist path, we should examine the AKP’s own responsibility in producing the crisis, that is in my view considerable. Until 2002 when the AKP came to form government, constitutional alteration has been consensual. This could be said to be strategically necessary since no party had the 3/5, not to say 2/3 majority in parliament, and avoiding referenda required the latter figure of support. After 2002 the AKP had nearly 2/3 and with small parties it could swing over that figure. Yet, it was still interested in consensual amendments with the one remaining opposition party, the staunchly Kemalist CHP. Conversely, most of the CHP supported even a constitutional amendment in 2002 with a single person beneficiary to allow Mr. T.R. Erdogan into parliament in the face of an earlier ban, also overriding the secularist Pres. Sezer’s veto in the process. Together the AKP and the CHP still passed an important amendment package in 2004. The story that no agreement between these two forces is possible, now told on both sides with increasing bitterness, is simply false. What changed everything, was the issue of the election of the president of the republic, where both sides acted in ways that destroyed their relationship with the other. The AKP nominated the otherwise excellent Abdullah Gül, whose victory would mean the attainment of important appointment and constitution amending (here the option of 3/5 of parliament comes into view) powers. The CHP responded with an ugly boycott that sought to disempower the country’s rather terrible rule of presidential election (2/3 in first two rounds, but majority in third round, implying an ultimately majoritarian process). The Constitutional Court supported the boycott (indicating only its support for consensus, even if a lose reading of quorum rules not explicitly applied to presidential elections by the Constitution), but though this is now easily forgotten supported the AKP 6-5 when the government offered a package of 4 amendments legislating direct election of the president, shorter parliamentary terms, clearer quorum requirements and lower voting age). The 5 votes however were and should have been seen as a signal: the Court did not like non-consensual amendments, as these 4 indeed were passed over the opposition of the CHP and Pres. Sezer.

This is where the so-called headscarf amendments come in. With a new parliament of different composition, a failed boycott, and Pres. Gül elected still in the old way, the AKP was ready to begin a constitutional project mostly on its own. Instead of an all parliamentary committee, they, quite wrongly and reminiscent of earlier military governments appointed a commission of admittedly first rate, independent experts. When the project ran into strong criticism from all who were excluded, and not just the Kemalists but also civil society groups, the AKP joined an initiative of the right wing MHP (that could have been a trap!) to introduce the two amendments dealing with the head-scarf issue alone. The AKP said that they wanted to take the most contentious issue off the table not to interfere with the broader project. Instead, they put an enormous break in front of constitutional change as a whole, to the evident chagrin of Prof. Özbudun and even more many of their liberal supporters. To their opponents, they used the first opportunity they had, when they controlled both the legislative and executive branches to engage in an entirely majoritarian project of constitution making, and revealed the meaning of such a project by ramming through what would be the most controversial element possible without any trade-offs, quid pro quos or guarantees. While many of these opponents wish to bring the AKP down no matter what, and others do not wish constitutional change at all, there are also some who welcome the internal transformation of a formerly Islamic party, are happy about its apparent commitment to a European type civil constitution, and object only to the method of bringing the latter about thinking that in the process the goals themselves will be compromised.

It is hard to tell how the members of the Constitutional Court divide on this last question. Are they ultimately seeking to destroy the AKP and any party with Islamic roots, something impossible in a Turkish democracy, or are they only trying to keep it on a consensual political path? The possible difference between such different perspectives cannot come to view if the AKP stays on a majoritarian path. Much has been said about the old elite membership of the Court, little of it complementary, some of it probably libelous, some of it undoubtedly accurate. More importantly however, it takes 7 votes on the Constitutional Court out of 11 to invalidate amendments, or to close a party. The vote in 2007 was 6 to 5 in favor of the AKP’s four amendments, against the CHP as well as President Sezer who appointed most of the judges. The vote this June 4 was 9 to 2 against. There has now been a shift against the AKP. At the very least, three judges would again have to switch for the AKP to survive (I leave out the possibility of compromise solutions, possible since the amendments of 2001) and then 3 subsequently would have to vote yes on amendment packages. Renewed consensus in parliament, or the establishment of an extra-parliamentary consensual input by a semi formal convention (as recommended by the business association Tusiad) or a round table would certainly help in context of the latter votes. Strictly speaking, in case of parliamentary consensus noone would even have standing to turn to the Constitutional Court, because Art 148 gives the power only to the President or at least 1/5 of the MPs. So there is every reason to think that if the party is not closed, the road of the democratic transformation could be re-opened if, as is very likely, a chastened AKP decided to follow other than majoritarian methods.

And what if it will be closed, according to historical experience? I think my answer would be rather similar. The AKP would be replaced, as historically, and with or without Erdogan the successor party (like the AKP itself) should be able to learn from the mistakes of its predecessor some of which I tried to detail here. Otherwise, the other two options mentioned in the beginning will become more likely…hopeless stalemate or/and a downward spiral toward a military coup. But neither can be allowed to happen, and the search for consensual solutions must therefore continue.

The Constitutional Court will remain an important actor in any consensual process, and it makes no sense to vilify it whatever anyone may think or imagine about some of the members and their allegiances. Today that body is in the position to make the greatest contribution to the kind of legal and legitimate process of constitution making I have mind by dismissing the charges against the AKP and its leaders.

Andrew Arato

Frankfurt, June 29, 2008

Paul: Iran and Energy Crisis

Sunday afternoon viewing:

Ron Paul on Iran and the energy crisis. He argues that speculation about a US or Israeli strike on Iran is driving some of the increase in oil prices.

The OPEC president should know a thing or two about what drives oil prices and he agrees.

Salih Speaks of Horizon for US Troops; Chalabi in Tehran, Criticizes US; Sistani rejects Use of His Name in Campaign

Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih said that the al-Maliki government is beginning to think about the "time horizon" of the US troop presence in Iraq. That terminology is awfully close to a request for a timetable for troop withdrawal. PM al-Maliki has repeatedly said that Iraqi militias and army can handle the security problems themselves within 18 months.

Ahmad Chalabi, meeting in Tehran with Speaker of the Iranian Parliament Ali Larijani, commented on the Status of Forces Agreement being negotiated by the Bush administration with the Iraq government:

' The INC's Chalabi retorted that granting immunity to US military personnel from prosecution under Iraqi law is baldly unacceptable. “The vast majority of Iraqi people and authorities oppose the security treaty and regard it as contradictory to Iraq's sovereignty and security.” Chalabi stated the treaty is counterproductive for Iraq in the long term and what the US is seeking is a binding bilateral agreement for the ongoing presence of its forces in Iraq whose UN mandate expires on December 31.'

Then Chalabi sat there while Larijani warned the US against "adventurism."

I don't think Chalabi likes the US very much. What is he doing discussing a bilateral US-Iraqi agreement with Larijani in Tehran? And let's see, I'm trying to remember whose idea it was for the US public to give Chalabi tens of millions of dollars and to try to put him in power in Baghdad . . .

Oh, yeah, thanks to Amanda Terkel for reminding me . . . it was our very own Mr. Foreign Policy Experience (a.k.a 'one is born every minute' . . .):

' McCain welcomed Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), to Washington and pressured the administration to give him money. When General Anthony Zinni cast doubt upon the effectiveness of the Iraqi opposition, McCain rebuked him at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In 2003, McCain joined four other Republican senators and asked Bush to “personally clear the bureaucratic roadblocks within the State Department” that blocked increased funding for the Chalabi’s group. Also that year, McCain said of Chalabi, “He’s a patriot who has the best interests of his country at heart.” '

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that as the 18 October date for the provincial elections approaches and parties begin campaigning, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has rejected the use of his name or picture in campaign materials for any party.

The controversy stems from the decision of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq to run as a stand-alone list in the provincial elections and its announced intension to use Shiite religious symbols in its campaign. It has been criticized on this score by the Sadr Movement.

Al-Hayat says that tribally based party lists are now campaigning in Diyala Province and hope to do well.

It also reports skepticism in some quarters about whether the provincial elections will really be held before 2009, given that disputes about them still rage in Iraqi politics.



Meanwhile, the dispute between the al-Maliki government and the US military in Karbala province, over the US operation that killed a relative of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, has worsened, according to McClatchy. Hannah Allam writes:

' Kurdish legislator Mahmoud Othman called Friday's operation "unacceptable" and had strained relations between the countries. "This is a big embarrassment for Prime Minister Maliki because he was in that area two days before the incident, telling his people that we are the masters in our country and the decisions were ours to make," Othman said. "This is why we are afraid of agreements and immunity. ... If there are wanted people in any area, why not send an Iraqi force to do the job?" '

Ned Parker on how the troubling story of Awakening Council guerrilla Abu Abed indicates that little progress has been made toward Sunni-Shiite reconciliation in Iraq.

US Kills Maliki Relative; Fadhila Accuses Grand Ayatollah of conspiracy

Ooops. A US military operation in Karbala province at Janaja resulted in the arrest of one Iraqi and the killing of another. The dead Iraqi is said to be a relative of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The governor of Karbala province, Uqail al-Khazali, complained that the US military had acted unilaterally and had not coordinated with him. (He was probably deeply embarrassed that one of al-Maliki's kinsmen had been killed on his watch, and wants to make sure to fix the blame where it belongs). Al-Khazali is said to be from the Islamic Mission Party (Da'wa), to which al-Maliki also belongs.

The US had been negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement with al-Maliki, and arguing for the US military to retain the prerogative of launching operations at will and without coordinating with the Iraqi government. If that provision had not already been dead, I think it is now.

Sawt al-Iraq reports in Arabic on the sermon of Sheikh Ali Safi, a representative in Karbala of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. He urged people to cease and desist their wrangling about the terms of next fall's elections. He called for the elections to be upright and transparent, and warned that some elements were attempting to stop them from being held.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports in Arabic that the Islamic Virtue (Fadhila) Party is accusing clerical aides and agents of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Basra of acting as agents of its rival, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (led by cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim). They say that ISCI party events are taking place in the mosques and Husayniyas controlled by the ayatollah's representatives and that the latter or their sons are running for provincial office under the ISCI banner.

Provincial elections have been scheduled for this fall, and Basra is a huge prize. A major oil province and the site of Iraq's only major ports, it affords whoever controls it a potential stranglehold on Iraq. In Juanuary, 2005, of 41 provincial council seats, the Islamic Supreme Council took 20. The Islamic Virtue Party and its allies cobbled together a ruling coalition of 21 and so got to appoint the governor. The Islamic Virtue Party is clearly worried that ISCI will find unfair ways to enhance its position in the province and capture control of it in the fall elections. Deploying the mosque infrastructure and the great prestige of the office of the grand ayatollah would give ISCI a major advantage.

ISCI for its part desperately wants Basra because it is key to the party's plan to establish an 8-province Shiite superprovince that would be able to claim 100% of all new oil finds in the Iraqi south. It is likely that the attack on the slums of Basra by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's security forces in March and April was intended to help ISCI in the upcoming elections by weakening the Sadr Movement.

Addington: They'll be Watching Me

David Addington, Cheney's legal capo, can't say whether he authorized waterboarding because he is afraid that al-Qaeda might be watching C-Span.

Al-Qaeda is this crew's excuse for everything that they always wanted to do before there was any al-Qaeda.

Huge bombing in Mosul Targets Governor; Awakening meeting 50 Miles from Baghdad Hit

Big bombs in Mosul and in Karma, al-Anbar.

Questions are being raised about whether the Iraqi army can hold Mosul.

DPA reports that two major bombings in Sunni Arab areas of Iraq on Thursday killed over 40 persons and left over 70 wounded.

In al-Anbar province at Karma 50 km west of Baghdad, a meeting of the local Awakening Council was blown up by a suicide bomber, killing clan chieftains and wounding some US troops. The bombing caused the handover of security from the US to the Iraqi army in al-Anbar to be delayed.

In Mosul, a major city of 1.7 mn. some 225 miles north of Baghdad, guerrillas attempted to assassinate the governor of Ninevah province, Duraid Kashmula with a car bomb. They killed 17 persons, including bodyguards of the governor, and wounded 62. Kashmula escaped unscathed.

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement against the US and the Iraqi government has regrouped and reorganized, and is effectively lashing out again. Al-Hayat calls the guerrillas 'al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia,' but we don't in fact know who exactly carried out the massive bombings of Thursday and the days before that. In Mosul, it could be remnants of the Baath Party or Sunni Arab nationalists who are ex-Baathists.

The bombing in Karma was carried out by a man dressed in a police uniform, and it killed more than 20 persons. Among them were the head of the Karma tribal council. Three policemen were killed. About 20 persons were wounded.

More on the goings-on in Iraq on Thursday:

Antiwar.com says that over 70 were killed and over 117 were wounded.

At Informed Comment: Global Affairs, see Howard Eissenstat's essay on the building crisis between secularists and political Islam lite in Turkey.

McCain Adviser Plans Casino on the Tigris

Update: This appears to be a hoax. See comments below.

Hat tip to Raed Jarrar and to Rick B at Ten Percent.

A 'foreign policy adviser' to the McCain campaign was interviewed last February on television in Baghdad about plans for a Las Vegas-style five star hotel and casino smack dab in the middle of the Green Zone in Baghdad. He promises a trickle down effect of wealthy gamblers' losses helping Iraq's poor. He promises Iraqi women jobs as maids in the hotel rooms. He promises Thai and Russian masseuses. He reduces Iraqis to being like Native Americans on reservations.

Actually, casinos are always socially regressive, hurting the poor disproportionately. The Green Zone is like a stone's throw away from Sadrist-dominated Sadr City. Why does he think the religious Shiites will put up with all this? The Iraqi maids will be viewed as violating norms of gender segregation. The other activities would attract . . . sanctions under the sharia. In fact, that wonderful Iraqi constitution that the US Republican Party was so enthusiastic about forbids parliament to pass any law contrary to Islamic canon law. Since gambling is forbidden in the Qur'an, it is unlikely that the Iraqi parliament can legalize it.

The 'foreign policy adviser's' comments are particularly tasteless in light of the actual conditions under which most Iraqis live.

But, well, if McCain does plan to turn Iraq into sort of a big Las Vegas, at least that would explain his odd desire to be there for a hundred years.

"Family Wiped out By US; Mosul: Rapid Downward Security Spiral

Headlines you never want to see: "Family wiped out by US." A US air strike on suspected insurgents at Tikrit went terribly wrong Wednesday, when an American missile instead killed a family of 6, including four children aged 4 to 11. Iraqis allege that the man had come out of his house and fired a gun in the air because he was afraid that thieves were in the area. The US military apparently thought he was firing at them and called in a strike on his house.

This sort of thing is why the Iraq public wants any Status of Forces Agreement between the Iraqi government and the US to ensure that US forces can only deploy force with the agreement of the Iraqi government.

Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that the security situation has taken a dramatic turn for the worse in Mosul. Yesterday a bombing killed 2 and wounded 90 persons, and a municipal leader was assassinated; in addition, a roadside bombing killed 3 US troops and their interpreter. An informed source told the Baghdad daily that the security campaign in the northern city of 1.7 mn. led by PM Nuri al-Maliki was deeply flawed. He said that there had been no coordination between the government forces sent into Mosul with the police in their 80 local HQs, nor with the 48 offices of parties that maintain powerful militias.

Peshmerga troops of the Kurdistan Alliance in Mosul began being replaced on Wednesday by units of the Iraqi Army after severe pressure was exerted by the people of the city, tribal elders, and notables. (Mosul is about 80 percent Arab, but there is a Kurdish minority; residents fear that Kurdistan is trying to annex the city). An Iraqi Army source said that in the Waterfall District in the east of the city, a Peshmerga unit had already been switched out with an Iraqi Army one.

Al-Zaman also alleges that the Badr Corps paramilitary of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq refused to surrender their HQs in Maysan Province to the government, and that the Interior Ministry apologized for them!

Some 22 Iraqis died and over a hundred were wounded in political violence on Wednesday.

McClatchy reports political violence in Iraq on Wednesday:

' Baghdad

Three civilians were killed and ten others wounded in parked car bomb near Saj al Reef restaurant in Karrada neighborhood in downtown Baghdad around 1:00 p.m.

Police found five unidentified bodies in Baghdad . . .

Diyala

An Iraqi soldier was killed and three others were wounded in a booby-trapped house in al Naqeeb village 15 miles south of Baquba city around 6:00 a.m.

A member of Sahwa council was killed in clashes between Sahwa members and insurgents in Khan Bani Saad town 15 miles southwest of Baquba city around 7:00 a.m.

Nineveh

Gunmen killed Mosul municipality director Khalid Mahmoud and his driver in al Baladiyat area in downtown Mosul city on Wednesday morning.

Thi Qar

Seven people were wounded in a tribal fight between two sub-tribes south of Nasiriyah city on Wednesday morning. Iraqi army got involved supported by US helicopters to control. The security forces arrested 16 people including seven wounded.

Karbala

two people were killed and 15 others were wounded when a bomb exploded inside a car near Imam Abbas holy shrine in downtown Karbala city south of Baghdad around 7:00 p.m.'

Reuters has more.

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are donating $1 mn. for Iraqi refugee children. Now if only the US Congress would step up.

Nick Turse on the Pentagon's stealth corporations.

At Napoleon's Egypt blog, an anecdote about Bonaparte facing down an officers' mutiny in Egypt.

Kelly Kennedy, George Carlin, and the Reason for Traumatized Iraq Veterans

The late George Carlin did not like the phrase "post-traumatic stress disorder." He famously said,

' I don't like words that hide the truth. I don't like words that conceal reality. I don't like euphemisms, or euphemistic language. And American English is loaded with euphemisms. Cause Americans have a lot of trouble dealing with reality. Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent the kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it, and it gets worse with every generation. For some reason, it just keeps getting worse. I'll give you an example of that.

There's a condition in combat. Most people know about it. It's when a fighting person's nervous system has been stressed to it's absolute peak and maximum. Can't take anymore input. The nervous system has either (click) snapped or is about to snap.

In the first world war, that condition was called shell shock. Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables, shell shock. Almost sounds like the guns themselves.

That was seventy years ago. Then a whole generation went by and the second world war came along and very same combat condition was called battle fatigue. Four syllables now. Takes a little longer to say. Doesn't seem to hurt as much. Fatigue is a nicer word than shock. Shell shock! Battle fatigue.

Then we had the war in Korea, 1950. Madison avenue was riding high by that time, and the very same combat condition was called operational exhaustion. Hey, we're up to eight syllables now! And the humanity has been squeezed completely out of the phrase. It's totally sterile now. Operational exhaustion. Sounds like something that might happen to your car.

Then of course, came the war in Viet Nam, which has only been over for about sixteen or seventeen years, and thanks to the lies and deceits surrounding that war, I guess it's no surprise that the very same condition was called post-traumatic stress disorder. Still eight syllables, but we've added a hyphen! And the pain is completely buried under jargon. Post-traumatic stress disorder.

I'll bet you if we'd of still been calling it shell shock, some of those Viet Nam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time. I'll betcha. I'll betcha.'

I have concluded that Carlin was right about that issue. Being traumatized by war is not a disorder. In fact, if you are not traumatized by the sight of body parts flying all around you as you are splattered with the blood of people you know, then you would have a disorder. Why not just say "war-traumatized"? Or better yet, "war-scarred"? The PTSD phrase has the unfortunate effect of making it seem abnormal for people to be negatively affected by wartime violence.

It is like the phrase "Vietnam syndrome," in which the understandable reluctance of the Baby Boom generation to launch big, long-lasting land wars in Asia was medicalized, as though there was something wrong with them that they were not warmongers. Why not say that they had 'learned the lessons of Vietnam,' or were 'Vietnam-scarred'? Why suggest that there is something wrong with them for it?

So below is a report from CBS on how the US networks have sanitized the Iraq War for viewers, and how we cannot understand the long-term trauma suffered by US troops who served in Iraq unless we understand what they've been through. Warning: her description of what she and others saw in Iraq is explicit and disturbing. Carlin would be proud of her:

"Army Times reporter Kelly Kennedy saw first hand the horrors of the war in Iraq. She spoke to CBS News about her experiences and about how post traumatic stress disorder is affecting the troops."

5 US Troops Killed; 90 Iraqis Wounded in Mosul; District Election for Sadr City Bombed:

Guerrillas deployed a roadside bomb to kill 3 American soldiers and an interpreter in northern Iraq on Tuesday.

McClatchy reports two major bombings in Iraq on Tuesday.

In Mosul, guerrillas set off a massive bomb outside a coffee shop, wounding at least 90 persons. McClatchy is reporting 2 deaths, but said the total would rise.

In Baghdad, a meeting of a local district council was bombed, killing 11 persons and wounding 11. An election was just about to be held for the chairman of the local admisory council in Sadr City. Among the dead were two US soldiers and two USG employees, one of them a PRT officer for Sadr City, Steven L. Farley. Two Defense Department civilians, one an American, were also killed. A US soldier and 10 Iraqis were wounded.

The SF Chronicle has more on Mr. Farley.

Sawt al-Iraq reports in Arabic on the statement about US troop withdrawals of Humam Hamoudi. Hamoudi, a Shiite cleric and member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, heads the Foreign Relations Committee in the Iraqi parliament. He met with a number of American officials on Monday, and expressed his conviction that a studied withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq is the foundation of any security agreement with the USA. He told David Satterfield and Gen. Mark Kimmit of the "necessity to safeguard the sovereignty of Iraq and to arrive at an agreement that would gain the assent of the Iraqi people and the support of the parliamentary blocks. The studied withdrawal of foreign forces would be foundational to such an agreement."

Hamoudi's party, ISCI, has been among the main US allies in Iraq and is the cornerstone of what little power Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has. If he is talking about the need to build a plan for a deliberate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq into any security agreement, imagine how the groups that distrust the US feel.

Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that families in the destitute al-Ansar quarter of Najaf are complaining about the raw sewage that comes into their district, and saying they believe it is implicated in the recent deaths of 25 persons of cancer in the one square kilometer neighborhood.

On how you won't see most of this on t.v.:



Reuters reports other political violence in Iraq on Tuesday:

' TIKRIT - U.S. forces detained the head of a local journalists' union in Tikrit, 150 km (95 miles) north of Baghdad, police and the Iraqi media watchdog the Journalistic Freedoms Observatory said.

MOSUL - Gunmen kidnapped four university students from their halls of residence in western Mosul, north of Baghdad, police said. They later released two of them.

MOSUL - U.S. forces said they killed a senior al Qaeda leader in Mosul, although they gave no details on what his role had been in the city.

BALAD - Two members of a U.S.-backed Iraqi neighbourhood patrol were killed and four others were wounded when a roadside bomb hit their vehicle on the outskirts of Balad town, 80 km (50 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

YATHRIB - Iraqi security forces backed by U.S. troops caught a wanted Iraqi al Qaeda militant along with his Saudi Arabian aide in Yathrib village, north of Baghdad, security forces said.

BAGHDAD - U.S. forces killed one gunman and captured 12 others on Monday in various operations in different parts of northern Iraq, the U.S. military said.

KERBALA - Iraqi police arrested three wanted Shi'ite militiamen accused of killing and kidnapping people in central Kerbala, 80 km (50 miles) southwest of Baghdad, police said. '

Hansen: Try CEOs of Big Oil for Fraud

NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen called for the CEOs of the oil majors to be put on trial for obstructing efforts to stop global warming and for misinforming the public about the issue.

Video of his testimony:



Could we also try the Board and Staff of the American Enterprise Institute, which is the "think tank" weasel that Exxon Mobil used to muddy the waters on the science of climate change.

Note too a very suspicious set of coincidences. Lee Raymond, CEO of Exxon Mobil until 2006, is the vice chairman of the AEI board.

The AEI was the major cheerleader for the war in Iraq.

So it looks like the Oil Majors are multitasking. Their "think tank" is giving out money to bribe scientists to deny global warming. And it gave out a lot of advice about how to go to war in Iraq.

My own suggestion would not be so much trial as exile. I think the American Enterprise Institute should be removed to Fallujah, where their expertise is so needed. And where they can get a taste in the summer of what real heat is.

John McCain, too, is speaking out of both sides of his mouth, saying he wants to go green but actually urging drilling off the US coast so as to put more carbon dioxide into the air.

And then McCain wants to offer a $300,000 mn. prize for breakthroughs in battery technology. He seems to live in an ancient era when lone geniuses could invent things in their guest rooms. The kind of thing he is looking for could only be accomplished by big government or big business, and he is offering chump change in corporate terms.

The problem needs hundreds of billions of dollars, not millions.

Oh, that's right, I forgot. We don't have them. Because the Republican Party spent them in Iraq.

So as to get more oil out of the ground.

Which will cause more global warming.

War, oil, it is all the same.

Only if we get big breakthroughs in solar can we avoid our asses being cooked.

No, I mean really. Cooked.

McCain Aide Wishes on a Star

You always suspected that they thought it. But who would be so stupid as to say it. On McCain's "political maestro" Mr. Charlie Black and how he thinks thousands of Americans being incinerated would be a "big advantage" to the Republican Party.

"the longtime political pro got a bit too honest. Asked about the political impact of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Black replied: 'Certainly it would be a big advantage to him'."

You worry that people who think like Black would not be above a little wagging the dog, say, a provocation against Iran in October.

I wonder if Cindy McCain still feels safe, on knowing how her husband's associates really think.

We don't need any more of this politics of fear that Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Bush gave to us. That McCain has such people around him is yet another indication that he is too close to Bush and Bushism to be allowed anywhere near the White House.

Councilman Kills 2 GIs; Mortar Fire Kills 10 on Awakening C.

A city council member in Mada'in (Salman Pak) abruptly opened fire on Americans who had been in a meeting with him. He killed 2 US troops and wounded 4 other Americans. He had been in India recently because Sunni-Shiite tensions made it too difficult for him in Mada'in. He had only been back one week as councilman. Although there is speculation that he was unstable, my own suspicion is that the continued US military occupation was just too hard for him to take. India has an anti-colonial atmosphere, after all. Here is some of what McClatchy reporters overhead the people of Mada'in say in the aftermath:

' Anti-U.S. sentiment remains widespread, with many locals viewing the American presence as an intrusion. As news of Ajil's killings spread, some residents hailed him as a hero. Several uttered his name and added, "God rest his soul," and a taxi driver at the scene pointed to the bloodstains and said, "the pigs deserved this." '

Guerrillas in Udaim, about an hour north of Baquba, guerrillas bombarded an Awakening Council unit with mortar fire, killing 10 and wounding 24 of them.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, in Amara, pledged to send his army in to restore order in Diyala Province next. Since Diyala is 60% Sunni Arab, and al-Maliki's troops are disproportionately drawn from Shiite militias, it is not so clear that they will have an easy time of it.

Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that yet another party has withdrawn from the United Iraqi Alliance. The Islamic Mission (Da'wa) Party - Iraqi Organization of Abdul Karim Anizi has announced the suspension of its participation in the UIA.

I heard US Secretary of State Condi Rice on Sunday on Fareed Zakaria's show call the al-Maliki government a 'national unity' government. Not so much. Not only has he not managed to bring the Sunnis back in, he is losing the Shiites.

An interesting idea: It is getting to the point where al-Maliki's enemies in parliament could organize a vote of no confidence and make the government fall. If it was no longer the biggest party, some other coalition could hope to nominate the prime minister.

McClatchy reports political violence on Monday:

' Baghdad

A roadside bomb targeted a National Police patrol in Waziriyah, near the cotton wool plant intersection at 11.30 a.m. Monday, injuring three policemen.

A roadside bomb targeted a US military convoy in Qahira, near the water reservoir at noon. No casualties were reported.

A roadside bomb targeted a US military convoy in Salahuddin Square, Kathimiyah neighbourhood at around noon. No casualties were reported.

A roadside bomb targeted a US military convoy in Adil neighbourhood at around 1 p.m. No casualties were reported.

Two unidentified bodies were found in Baghdad today; 1 in Hurriyah and one in al-Amin.

Diyala

Mortar rounds fell on a Sahwa headquarters in al-Atheim district, 50 km to the north of Baquba at 8.30 p.m. Sunday, killing 10 members, injuring 24 others.

Nineveh

Gunmen opened fire on a checkpoint manned by Iraqi Police in New Mosul, south Mosul killing one policeman and one civilian female, severely injuring two civilians.'

The USG Open Source Center translates part of a statement form Ayatollah Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah of Lebanon condemning the Status of Forces Agreement being negotiated between the US and Iraq. Fadlallah at least used to be the spiritual guide of the Islamic Mission Party (Da'wa) that Nuri al-Maliki belongs to:

"Source: Lebanese National News Agency website, Beirut, in Arabic 0737 gmt 22 Jun 08

we call on the Arab and Islamic states not to comply with the security and military demands that the US Administration aims to accomplish through its keenness to influence Arab armies, impose its tutelage, and interfere in their [military] doctrine and special security features, because we know that the United States that has failed through its direct armies is attempting to accomplish its goals by using the Arab and Islamic forces. This not only constitutes betrayal, but also leads to the destruction of all security, and toppling the positions that everyone depends on to protect what can be protected, after the Americans used their chaos to tamper with the reality of our countries, peoples, sects, and denominations from within.

We reject the US tutelage, just as we reject other tutelages. We do not find any legitimacy to any authority that attempts to bestow legitimacy to this or that tutelage."

Saudis Driven into Poverty by High Oil Prices

Aljazeera International explains how high oil prices are hurting ordinary Saudis, driving up the cost of their food and imports. The petroleum is owned by the government and profits go to it. It is hard for the government to inject the money into the economy without risking high inflation (too much money chasing too few goods), which would create an effect like a dog chasing its tail. High inflation would eat up the value of the extra money. The extra money is therefore invested abroad. Good for us, bad for most Saudis.

So, yes, high oil prices are making ordinary Saudis poorer, just as with the rest of us.

Clark: McCain's Threats of Force Disrespect Presidency

Gen. Wesley Clark on John McCain's lack of policy-making and foreign policy leadership experience.

Clark says McCain has always been for the use of force, and more force, when a president should view force as a last resort. He complains that when McCain talks about throwing Russia out of the G8 or makes up ditties about bombing Iran, he "betrays a disrespect for the office of the presidency."



Hat tip: J. Miller Rampanti.

Shenkman: Why the American People Were So Easily Bamboozled by the Bush Administration

Rick Shenkman, is the author of the just-published Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter (Basic Books, 2008). He blogs at Howstupidblog and is editor of George Mason University's History News Network

Shenkman writes:


I do not wish to engage in a debate about the Iraq War. But the thought of planting a largely Christian army in the middle of the Muslim Middle East over the opposition of most countries in the region, when put as I have just put it, sounds daft. Why did it not ring bells of alarm to Americans in 2003 and after, especially as it became clear that our troops would be staying a long time and that no quick victory was possible? It did not because the administration saw to it that the issue was framed differently. We weren’t planting an army. We were spreading God’s miraculous gift of freedom to a benighted people very much in need of America’s missionary help. It was the triumph of myth over logic.


Why were Americans so susceptible to myth? Foreign policy specialists don't usually spend a lot of time reflecting on this question. They should. It's the key to what often goes wrong when foreign policy issues become the subject of public debate.

The answer is, I'm afraid, simple. Myths count more than facts in these debates because Americans don't know many facts and don't care to take the time to learn them. Unlike subjects with which they have first-hand experience--think gas prices--matters related to foreign countries are both exotic and incomprehensible to most Americans. This leaves them sitting ducks for wily pols who want to take advantage of their ignorance by playing on fear and patriotism.

The extent of Americans' ignorance is underestimated. Only two in five know we have three branches of government and can name them. Only one in five know there are 100 US senators. And five years into the war in Iraq only one in seven can find Iraq on a map. Someone once said--the author is in dispute--that war is God's way of teaching Americans geography. It's a great line, but rather optimistic. A majority of Americans still haven't bothered to take a look at the map of the country where we have been bombing and killing people since 1991.

Not all is grim. On the positive side, Americans did not make wholly irrational demands of their leaders after 9/11. American Muslims were not rounded up and sent to concentration camps after 9/11 (as Japanese-Americans were after Pearl Harbor). Mosques were not closed down. Nuclear weapons were not employed against our perceived enemies. And nobody was lynched. Given what has happened in American history any one of these responses or all of them might have been anticipated. That none occurred and that nothing like them occurred is worth noting.

But polls indicate that a significant segment of the American public was susceptible to wild conspiracy theories. A Scripps-Howard poll in 2006 found that 36 percent believe that it is “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that U.S. officials either allowed the attack to take place or were involved it.

Americans do not have a monopoly on conspiracy thinking. Nineteen percent of Germans said in a 2004 poll that 9/11 was the work of the CIA and Israel’s Mossad. The French turned Thierry Meyssan’s book The Appalling Fraud into a best-seller, despite the absence of evidence for its chief and crazy claim: that the Pentagon attacked itself on 9/11 with a cruise missile. Millions of Muslims around the world persist in believing that Jews were given advance warning of the attack on the World Trade Center.

But instead of the thoughtful debate we should by rights have had in this country, we settled for slogans:

We must fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here
The Global War on Terror (GWOT)
Mission Accomplished
You are either with us or with the terrorists
The axis of evil

To be sure the public eventually turned against Mr. Bush's war in Iraq. The one thing the public usually gets is success and failure. And Mr. Bush's war has been a spectacular failure when judged against all of the many measures by which he has asked us to judge it.

As we head into the Fall campaign and listen to the debates about the war we should keep in mind the limits of public opinion. If we don't begin to address the problem of gross public ignorance there will be more Iraqs.

One poll finding we should all keep in mind is this. Even after the 9/11 Commission reported that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 attack 50 percent of the country persisted in believing there was. The implications of this are mind boggling.

Rick Shenkman
George Mason University

16 Killed, 40 Wounded in Baquba Bombing; Women MPs Protest Speaker; Awakening Councils fear Stab in Back

Readers who don't read blogs on weekends should nevertheless look at my Sunday column on 'The Real State of Iraq'.

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that the Awakening Councils are afraid they will be discarded by their American sponsors. Abi Abd, formerly a guerilla in the "Islamic Army," formed the "Knights of Amiriya" in the Sunni Arab district of Baghdad near Sadr City, which kicked off the Awakening Council movement wherein former guerrillas took salaries from the US to fight Salafi Jihadis. Abi Abd said Sunday that he was afraid of being purged now as the need for the Awakening Councils declined. He has had to go into exile abroad after being accused of organizing murders and kidnappings. He denied the charges and said they were trumped up to force him