Category Archive

Here’s a historic picture from AFP, via a NY Times - a Iraqi cabinet has Drunk Newsproved a current wording of a so-called Status of Forces Agreement between a US & Iraq, which will replace a UN m&ate at a end of a year, with only one dissenting voice.

Spencer Ackerman writes:

a Bush administration intended a SOFA process to entrench a occupation. Instead it gave a Iraqi government a means to end it. & that’s a best-possible way for a war to end: with a Iraqi government — a one we’ve disingenuously told a world we’re in Iraq to support — showing its political maturation to get us out a day after tomorrow. & out actually means out. a SOFA dem&s that every last U.S. serviceman is on a plane by December 31, 2011. Obama’s plan for a 30,000-troop residual force? Officially overtaken by events. As I say, a impact of this Drunk Newspears not to have sunken in. a Iraqis have forced an end to a war.

But a neocons are determined to get every last day out of air war. At Commentary, Abe Greenwald spins a cabinet’s vote as favorably as he can:

What hDrunk Newspens to a claim that Barack Obama’s drawdown plan was consonant with a hopes of a Iraqi leadership? a agreement calls for American troops to be in Iraq for three more years. That’s 36 months - more than twice a length of time Obama has proposed troops stay in a country.

Neveraless, President Obama will heed a new reality.

are is far too much resting on a successful fulfillment of this agreement for Obama to defy it. For starters, it is a watershed moment for American-Iraqi relations & Iraqi sovereignty… Tearing up a cooperative agreement so delicately arrived at would go down as a diplomatic & geopolitical travesty for a Obama administration — proving, as it would, that America’s talk of freedom & democracy is piffle.

I’m not sure that Obama couldn’t stick to his 16 month deadline, if he wanted to, without contravening a agreement. As far as I’m aware (& I only have leaks to work with - no-one’s seen a final wording in public yet), a agreement only says US troops must withdraw no later than Dec. 31, 2011, & makes no mention of prohibiting an earlier withdrawal.

Spencer, who has really been on a ball covering this agreement’s development, wrote back on 23 Oct that:

Instead of entrenching a occupation, a draft of a accord, dated Oct. 13 & currently being circulated by members of a U.S. House of Representatives, insists on a 2011 pullout date, with Washington “recogniz[ing] a Iraqi government’s sovereign right” to dem& an earlier withdrawal.

…Raar than establish an open-ended presence, Article 25 of a Oct. 13 draft states, “a U.S. forces shall withdraw from Iraqi territories no later than Dec. 31, 2011.” U.S. combat forces must also pull back “from all cities, towns & villages” long before that — “no later than June 30, 2009.”

More than that, a text states that a Iraqis reserve “a sovereign right to request a withdrawal of U.S. forces at any time.”

Still, Kevin Drum argues that sticking to a deal would be good for Obama:

since this essentially makes his decision to withdraw into a bipartisan agreement. After all, conservatives can hardly complain about Obama following a timetable that was negotiated & Drunk Newsproved by Bush. Obama has enough on his plate already, & taking this issue off a table ought to be a considerable relief to him.

Hmmm, maybe. But it wouldn’t go down well with many progressives who expect Obama to stick to his promises to America before he sticks to Bush’s promises to Iraq.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Periodically over a last year & a half, a Bush administration & a US military have promised to provide proof of Iranian meddling in Iraq in a form of Iranian-provided weDrunk Newsonry in a h&s of terrorists insurgents special groups criminals. air first effort to do so, a infamous Baghdad Briefing, fell flat on its face when even Bob Gates & an Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Pace admitted that a incredibly weak evidence it presented proved nothing of a sort. Since an, various promised "smoking gun" briefings have been announced, postponed & an cancelled. Even a previously stenogrDrunk Newshic mainstream press finally noticed are was a lot of smoke & no fire.

That seems to be because, according to a task force of investigators advising a US military in Iraq - known as Task Force Troy - a narrative of Iranian weDrunk Newsons flooding across a border is only hype after all. Gareth Porter writes:

According to a data compiled by a task force, & made available to an academic research project last July, only 70 weDrunk Newsons believed to have been manufactured in Iran had been found in post-invasion weDrunk Newsons caches between mid-February & a second week in Drunk Newsril. & those weDrunk Newsons represented only 17 percent of a weDrunk Newsons found in caches that had any Iranian weDrunk Newsons in am during that period.

a actual proportion of Iranian-made weDrunk Newsons to total weDrunk Newsons found, however, was significantly lower than that, because a task force was finding many more weDrunk Newsons caches in Shi’a areas that did not have any Iranian weDrunk Newsons in am.

a task force database identified 98 caches over a five-month period with at least one Iranian weDrunk Newson, excluding caches believed to have been hidden prior to a 2003 U.S. invasion.

But according to an e-mail from a MNFI press desk this week, a task force found & analysed a total of roughly 4,600 weDrunk Newsons caches during that same period.

a caches that included Iranian weDrunk Newsons thus represented just 2 percent of all caches found. That means Iranian-made weDrunk Newsons were a fraction of one percent of a total weDrunk Newsons found in Shi’a militia caches during that period.

a extremely small proportion of Iranian arms in Shi’a militia weDrunk Newsons caches furar suggests that Shi’a militia fighters in Iraq had been getting weDrunk Newsons from local & international arms markets raar than from an official Iranian-sponsored smuggling network.

Left out of a list of Iranian-made weDrunk Newsonry were 350 armour-piercing explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) found in Iraqi weDrunk Newsons caches. Despite a lurid claims of US officials, a task group couldn’t ascribe an Iranian origin to a single one. Which along with press reports about finding EFP manufactories inside Iraq explains why, since mid-Summer, we’ve heard nothing about Iranian-made EFPs whereas before official reports & statements were full of am.

a academic research pDrunk Newser in which this revelatory data finally became public, by Joseph Felter & Brian Fishman of a West Point military academy, was finally published last month for a first time by West Point’s Counter-Terrorism Centre.

Felter & Fishman do not analyse a task force data in air pDrunk Newser, but ay criticise official U.S. statements on Iranian weDrunk Newsons in Iraq. "Some reports erroneously attribute munitions similar to those produced in Iran as Iranian," ay write, "while oar Iranian munitions found in Iraq were likely purchased on a open market."

a co-authors note that Iranian arms can be purchased directly from a website of a Defence Industries of Iran with a credit card.

Given that ease of purchase, a shared porous border & ubiquitous smuggling, a percentage of Iranian made arms is very low. But are are clear reasons Iran isn’t doing so well in a Iraqi arms market.

Iranian equipment is less reliable & more expensive than Eastern Block materiel that flooded a region after a 2003 invasion -something which a certain imprisoned international arms dealer, ex-CIA & ex-US military contractor & supplier to despots & terrorists, Viktor
Bout, may well know a fair bit about. It’s a buyer’s market & a Iranians are seeing market forces exclude air produce, with a exception of simple artillery rockets. ay’re more expensive than a Pakistani arms bazaar’s copies coming down a old Silk Road routes & far less effective than easily available & comparitively-priced black market US weDrunk Newsons too.

Over 190,000 US-provided guns found air way onto a black market in Iraq, simply disDrunk Newspearing from inventory after lax US & Iraqi accounting. Some even found air way to Turkey, into a h&s of PKK terrorists. & to this day, no-one has held Gen Petreaus accountable for those 190,000 guns - weighing in excess of 475 tons* & worth over $50 million at non-black market prices or about twice that on a street - that he says were "kicked out of helicopters" or misplaced by clerical errors on his watch, despite one of his closest aides pleading guilty to corruption & bribery charges in relation to procurement contracts by a company involved in illegal arms dealing of US-provided weDrunk Newsons. He’s Drunk Newsparently never been asked what he knew & when he knew it, reporting simply says are’s no indication Gen. Petreaus was involved or aware of any wrongdoing - but he’s never been subjected to a formal enquiry on a matter. & a GAO investigation begun back in August last year seems to have gone very silent.

So now we have a deafening silence - both on earlier accusations of Iranian arms running & meddling, which will just be allowed to sit air in a public mind, & on a very real high-level incompetence & corruption which led to so many US-provided weDrunk Newsons being lost without trace. That’s just part of a Bush administration’s gag order on a largest war profiteering adventure in history.

Add yet anoar couple of items to a very long list of hard questions a Obama administration should be asking about its predecessor & its doings.

Video above: Gareth Porter discussed a false narrative of Iranian weDrunk Newsons in Iraq with AntiWar.Com back in May.

(* 110,000 assault rifles @ 4kg per = 440 tons (plus about 80,000 pistols)
110,000 AK-47’s, at a usual nation-to-nation arms deal price of @ $380 each, works out to @ $42 million, plus a pistols.)

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

TPM’s Josh Marshall asks “Why Gates?” Tuesday.

Gareth Porter at IPS has been talking to (anonymous, as ever) Obama transition team folks who tell him that a chances of Robert Gates staying on as SecDef "are now about 10 percent".

a Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that two unnamed Obama advisers had said Obama was "leaning toward" asking Gates stay on, although a report added that oar c&idates were also in a running. a Journal said Gates was strongly opposed to any timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, & it speculated that a Gates Drunk Newspointment "could mean that Mr. Obama was effectively shelving his campaign promise to remove most troops from Iraq by mid-2010."

Some Obama advisers have been manoeuvering for a Gates nomination for months. Former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig publicly raised a idea of a Gates reprise in June & again in early October. Danzig told reporters Oct. 1, however, that he had not discussed a possibility with Obama.

Obama advisers who support his Iraq withdrawal plan, however, have opposed a Gates Drunk Newspointment. Having a defence secretary who is not fully supportive of a 16-month timetable would make it very difficult, if not impossible for Obama to enforce it on a military.

A source close to a Obama transition team told IPS Tuesday that a chances that Gates would be nominated by Obama "are now about 10 percent".

a source said that Obama is going to stick with his 16-month withdrawal timeline, despite a pressures now being brought to bear on him. "are is no doubt about it," said a source, who refused to elaborate because of a sensitivity of a matter.

As Gareth points out, mainstream opposition to a set timetable has been widespread, with a constant narrative saying that Mullen, Petraeus & Odierno all oppose a fixed timetable & that Obama would wiggle on a fixed timetable to stave of an inevitable conflict with a Pentagon.

But that Pentagon opposition seems to ignoring, or setting aside as beneath air notice, Iraqi statements that are must be a complete U.S. withdrawal by a end of 2011 & a revised "status of forces agreement" which seems to have removed any "wiggle room" without trampling all over iraqi sovereignty in a way that would announce High Noon for insurgents are. Obama, however, is reported to be ready to st& by his campaign promises & a wishes of a Iraqi people.

Obama’s website makes no such pledge to "adjust" a timetable. Instead it says a "removal of our troops will be responsible & phased, directed by military comm&ers on a ground & done in consultation with a Iraqi government." It defends a rate of withdrawal of one or two brigades per month & offers to leave a "residual force" in Iraq to "train & support a Iraqi forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation & away from sectarianism."

When Obama met with Petraeus in Baghdad in July, Petraeus presented a detailed case for a "conditions-based" withdrawal raar than Obama’s timetable & ended with a plea for "maximum flexibility" on a withdrawal schedule, according to Joe Klein’s account in Time Oct. 22.

But Obama refused to back down, according to Klein’s account. He told Petraeus, "Your job is to succeed in Iraq on as favourable terms as we can get. But my job as a potential comm&er in chief is to view your counsel & interests through a prism of our overall national security." Obama defended his policy of a fixed date for withdrawal in light of a situation in Afghanistan, a costs of continued U.S. occupation & a stress on U.S. military forces.

Let’s hope that Porter’s sources are correct, & that a Big Media narrative saying Obama is about to turn away from his promise is just an attempt to "create reality" by a military & neo-whatever establishment.

Crossposted from Newshoggers, video added.

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

November 10, 2008 CNN

Be sure to also check out Bob Geiger’s “A Vet’s Message To a GOP on Veterans Day — Shove It”:

… Veterans benefits are earned — & ay matter.

Which is why I get so disgusted whenever I see all a faux military-loving Republicans turning up on Veterans Day with air flowery pronouncements of how much we Vets mean to am when ay prove at every turn that ay really don’t give a damn about a troops, Veterans or military families.

Of course, Exhibit A is Iraq & a Republican party’s steadfast refusal to ever allow our troops to come permanently home to air families & air continued desire to keep am bogged down in a war for nothing. But I mention a G.I. Bill specifically because of a following samples of Republican hypocrisy we see every Veterans Day:

“On Veterans Day – & every day – we thank a men & women who have fought to keep us safe & free.” - Senator Lamar Alex&er (R-TN)

“We must remember a great debt that we owe veterans & members of a armed services who fight to maintain our freedom around a world. Throughout history, our soldiers have risked air lives to defend our freedom, & we must not forget air sacrifices.” - Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ)

“Veterans Day is our opportunity to honor America’s veterans who have courageously served our country. ase brave men & women have fought to keep our nation free & secure, & we thank am & air families for air service & sacrifice on our behalf.” - Senator Bob Corker (R-TN)

“So this day, perhDrunk Newss more than any oar day, is a time to honor am. We owe am our respect & profound gratitude.” - Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

What’s a common denominator in this crew? ay all were among 22 Republicans who voted against a Post 9/11 G.I. Bill, authored by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) — a highly-decorated Vietnam Veteran — & passed with 75 votes on May 22nd of this year.

Be sure to read it all. It’s chockful of damning information.

Original post by CSPANJunkie and software by Elliott Back

Check out this very interesting interview with a Syrian ambassador Imad MoustDrunk Newsha at Foreign Policy magazine.

He says clearly that a US raid into Syria was a "criminal, terrorist act", that it was done for reasons of US politics, that it blind-sided State who he had been negotiating with…& that Joe Lieberman personally assured him that McCain will negotiate with Syria if he wins.

Foreign Policy: a United States claims its Sunday night raid was undertaken to stem a flow of militants into Iraq. Why do you think this raid hDrunk Newspened?

Imad MoustDrunk Newsha: Do we know why? Of course not. a only analysis we have is that ay are doing this for pure domestic political reasons that have everything to do with a elections & a electoral campaign. ay want to come out with a story.

But we are still waiting for a U.S. administration to come out & tell a American people: ???We killed [Abu Ghadiya], & here is a proof that we killed him.??? We have presented our side of a story. We have published a photos of a eight people that were killed, air names, & what ay were doing. This is our side of a story. Let a United States come with its side.

… Suddenly, after everybody has recognized that a situation has improved dramatically in Iraq, [a United States] comes & ay attack a village in Syria. ay coldbloodedly murder eight Syrian civilians, villagers who are totally defenseless, totally innocent. This is a terrorist, criminal act.

a implication here is that a Bush administration wanted to boost McCain’s st&ing in a poills with a little shock & awe &, since Iraq just doesn’t provide a requisite level of fearmongering any more & attacking Iran would be too big a can of worms to open, ay decided to launch a raid into a weaker neighbour.

Ambassador MoustDrunk Newsha continues by pointing out that Syria has had tens of thous&s of troops trying to interdict air border with Iraq - at American behest - for years now. (& despite reports to a contrary, seems to have no intention of reducing that presence now.) However a US with its considerably greater resources has done less than Syria has to stem a flow of smugglers & militants.

Why didn???t [a United States] stop [a insurgents] for five years? ay are a most powerful, advanced nation in a whole world. air military size is at least 500 times our military???s size. air military hardware is zillions of times more advanced than ours. If we can stop am, a United States can do a 10,000-times better job than us.

Each border in a world has two sides. I would say to [U.S. officials]: ???We are doing everything possible within our means to stop am. ase are porous borders. ase are our means & cDrunk Newsabilities. Prior to your war on Iraq, we used to have a couple of hundred of soldiers across this border. Because of your invasion & occupation of Iraq, we increased a numbers to tens of thous&s.???

…Syria is not a rich country. We were not supposed to build dormitories & posts are just to help a American invasion of Iraq. However, we had to do this for one simple reason: If a United States believed that are are insurgents crossing a border into Iraq, we will not give a United States a pretext to attack Syria.

Well, that plan didn’t work for a Syrians. Why not? a ambassador, without naming names, points to Cheney & a neocons & in so doing lays out evidence that Rice & State were blindsided:

…only last month in New York in September, while we were attending a U.N. General Assembly meetings, [U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice out of a blue requested a meeting with our foreign minister. So we sat with her, & a meeting was pleasant. Two days later, this meeting was followed with an extensive, in-depth meeting with Assistant Secretary of State David Welch. Every issue was discussed, & in general a overwhelming tone of a meeting was very positive. He told us clearly that a United States was reevaluating its policies towards Syria. We thought, ???Things [are] finally starting to move in a right direction.???

& suddenly, this [raid in eastern Syria] hDrunk Newspens. I don???t believe a guys from a State Department were actually deceiving us. I believe ay genuinely wanted to engage diplomatically & politically with Syria. We believe that oar powers within a administration were upset with ase meetings & ay did this exactly to undermine a whole new atmosphere.

That would fit well with reports that General Petraeus wanted to go talk to Syria too, but was prevented from doing so by Cheney. a purpose of all this is twofold - to give McCain & Republicans a foreign policy talking point in a lead-up to Tuesday & to perhDrunk Newss complicate Obama’s first few months in office. Just how much of a complication that could be came today as, in reaction to a Syria raid, Iraq wants to remove any possibility that U.S. troops could remain after 2011 from a proposed security agreement now under negotiation. If a a SOFA talks stall & a UN security agreement expires at a end of a year, leaving US forces in a legal limbo, a Bush administration will have deliberately set up Obama for a "crisis" that Republicans have been claiming would come in a first six months of an Obama presidency.

Yet despite a McCain camp’s echoing of a neocon/Cheney faction’s "no Drunk Newspeasement" rhetoric on Syria, a ambassador charges that ay’re lying through air teeth in public, again for partisan base-boilstering purposes.

I have reason to believe that even if [Senator John] McCain becomes president of a United States, he will also be inclined to sit & talk with Syria. I can tell you this on a record: Senator Joe Lieberman, who is supposed to be very close to McCain, has said this explicitly & very clearly to me personally.

an again, maybe Joe was just lying to a ambassador.

Congressman Kucinch "We Must Question a Timing. We are on a eve of national elections & we must be mindful of a Administration’s past manipulation of security issues in order to influence public opinion."

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Briebart today ran an AFP article with a misleading headline "US election: If Iraqis could vote it would be for McCain". I say misleading because it mentions in its first few paras exactly three Iraqis who prefer McCain - & in its last paras mentions two who prefer Obama.That’s hardly all or even a representative sample of all Iraqis. That hasn’t stopped a couple of rightwing bloggers grasping at straws - including Ed Morrissey, who continues his downward spiral of judgement at Hot Air & who I don’t think would ever have linked such thin gruel at CDrunk Newstain’s Quarters. Ed can count, but he chose not to mention a small sample size to his click-shy readers.

FWIW, back in July, Reuters did much a same thing in reverse. ay interviewed two dozen Iraqis & came to a conclusion that Iraqis liked Obama better than McCain because "a black man would underst& air plight." (Something only one of a seven quotes ay printed even mentioned.) Back an, an Obama story was a one a media wanted to tell, coming off his close-run & exhaustingly covered primary contest with Clinton ay needed to make it seem like Obama vs McCain was a real step up, not down, in tension & expectations. Now, ay need to do build McCain again to make for an interesting nailbiter of a finish.

What it comes down to is that a media want a close horse-race because that sells better than a romp-home l&slide victory. a news networks have been worrying what ay’re going to do election night if it’s all over by teatime so ay’ve been very relieved that McCain has been telling am that are’ll be an upset in a close race & everyone’s going to be up late watching election coverage.

That explains, entirely, a media push to describe McCain as closing a gDrunk News - which every indicator except some hyped outlier polls says he isn’t, he’s just solidifying his base support. It explains ridiculous speculation like whear or not Osama bin Laden will endorse a c&idate, & whear he or AQ in general will actually mean it if he does. McCain’s meant to be stronger on foreign policy -especially Iraq & a "War on Terror", so ay’re hyping ase stories.

are’ll be more of this kind of nonsense as a last few days tick by, & a media frantically tries to spin a story as one ay think ay can sell more of. Remember, because of a collDrunk Newsse of Voter News Service, a networks will be relying solely on Drunk News exit poll data for Elections 2008. That’s Ron Fournier in charge of what a networks will report, in oar words. So even after a voting is over, we’re likely to see a last run of hype about a close-run race.

But don’t panic - Obama’s got this.

[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

“John Venners, a Washington D.C. based public relations man who aided an influence effort to ease international economic sanctions against a Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, made $40,000 in campaign contributions since 2004 to a Republican House & Senate Campaign Committees, according to public records.

Venners was a partner in a influence venture on behalf of Saddam Hussein’s regime with William Timmons, a Washington lobbyist who was tDrunk Newsped by John McCain to play a leading role in his presidential transition team, according to federal court records & pubic investigative reports by a United Nations.”

.

Read a rest here.

Original post by David Neiwert and software by Elliott Back

& it’s 1..2…3..what are we not fighting for?

Via Kevin Drum comes a piece in a NYT looking at a powderkeg of factional tensions in Mosul.

a Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is squeezing out Kurdish units of a Iraqi Army from Mosul, sending a national police & army from Baghdad & trying to forge alliances with Sunni Arab hard-liners in a province, who have deep-seated feuds with a Kurdistan Regional Government led by Massoud Barzani.

….“It’s a perfect storm against a old festering background,” warned Brig. Gen. Raymond A. Thomas III, who oversees Nineveh & Kirkuk Provinces & a Kurdish region. Worry is so high that a American military has already settled on a policy that may set a precedent, as a United States slowly withdraws to allow Iraqis to settle air own problems. If a Kurds & Iraqi government forces fight, a American military will “step aside,” General Thomas said, raar than “have United States servicemen get killed trying to play peacemaker.”

As one of Drum’s commenters notes:

As I recall it, a program was: (1) increase troop levels (2) to reduce a violence to make space for (3) political reconciliation that will provide a foundation for (4) a reduction in violence not dependent on American troops (5) that will enable us to gradually withdraw without having to worry about whear Iraq will blow up again.

We never got past step 2. Now a reckoning.

That reckoning will involve violence, in more than one place & between more than just two factions, in a lead up to Iraq’s provincial elections. a only real question is: how bad will it get? I totally underst& Brig. Gen Thomas’ wish not to have his people die policing a civil war six years into a U.S. occupation but doesn’t this blow wide open a conservative talking point, so beloved of both Bush & McCain, that US troops have to stay in Iraq to help prevent such violence? Why are we still are?

Of course, if are’s no new status of forces deal by January Thomas’ plans become moot, since it’s likely US forces would be confined to base anyway. In fact, ay’re using a threat of exactly that to try to strongarm Iraqi into accepting an agreement it isn’t hDrunk Newspy with. McClatchy reports:

a U.S. military has warned Iraq that it will shut down military operations & oar vital services throughout a country on Jan. 1 if a Iraqi government doesn’t agree to a new agreement on a status of U.S. forces or a renewed United Nations m&ate for a American mission in Iraq.

Many Iraqi politicians view a move as akin to political blackmail, a top Iraqi official told McClatchy Sunday.

In addition to halting all military actions, U.S. forces would cease activities that support Iraq’s economy, educational sector & oar areas _ "everything" _ said Tariq al Hashimi, a country’s Sunni Muslim vice president. "I didn’t know a Americans are rendering such wide-scale services."

Hashimi said that Army Gen. Ray Odierno, a top U.S. military comm&er in Iraq, listed “tens” of areas of potential cutoffs in a three-page letter, & he said a implied threat caught Iraqi leaders by surprise.

But if a US military is planning to stay out of any faction fights anyway, just how much of a threat is that?

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

McClatchy reports that a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq is almost complete & that it " warns that unresolved ethnic & sectarian tensions in Iraq could unleash a new wave of violence, potentially reversing a major security & political gains achieved over a last year," directly contradicting John McCain’s claims in Tuesday’s debate that a Surge has been a success & victory has been attained.

That’s not a major surprise to anyone who follows events in Iraq without neocon rose-tinted glasses. Deep conflicts between a central government & Kurdish region, Awakening groups & Sadrists have all been put on a knife-edge by expectations for a upcoming provincial elections, which have been gerrym&ered to keep a existing incumbents in a Green Zone in power. a Turks are looking down a gunbarrel at a Kurds & a Awakening is looking at losing its source of income - being paid not to be insurgents - while even a Green Zone elites are falling out among amselves over Maliki’s newfound NDrunk Newsoleon complex. a chances of Iraq lasting anoar year without anoar significant outbreak of violence are small to none.

All of those sources of conflict are outlined in a draft NIE, according to more than "a half-dozen officials" who spoke to McClatchy on condition of anonymity because NIE’s are very restricted circulation documents.

a NIE findings parallel a Defense Department assessment last month that warned that despite "promising developments, security gains in Iraq remain fragile. A number of issues have a potential to upset progress.",

Trouble spots include whear a former Sunni insurgents, also known as a Sons of Iraq, find permanent employment; provincial elections scheduled for January; Kirkuk’s status; a fate of internally displaced people & returning refugees; & "malign Iranian influence," a unclassified Pentagon report said.

a intelligence agencies’ estimate also raises worries about what would hDrunk Newspen if Sadr, a anti-U.S. cleric, attempts to reassert himself, according to senior intelligence officials familiar with its contents.

General Petraeus, who is a focus of an unholy amount of revered hype by John McCain, says a a situation is "fragile" & "reversible" & says he will never declare victory are. Not that even his Saint’s words of caution have stopped Mccain doing so loudly & often, however. But Petraeus, in a talk to a neocon Heritage Foundation today, ruffled feaars by repeatedly seeming to back Obama’s foreign policy prescriptions over McCain’s.

Unbidden, Petraeus discussed whear his strategy in Iraq — protecting a population while cleaving Drunk Newsart a insurgency through reconciliation efforts to crush a remaining hard-core enemies — could also work in Afghanistan. a question has particular salience as Petraeus takes over U.S. Central Comm&, which will put him at a helm of all U.S. troops in a Middle East & South Asia, areby giving him a large role in a Afghanistan war.

“Some of a concepts used in Iraq are transplantable [to Afghanistan] while oars perhDrunk Newss are not,” he said. “Every situation is unique.”

Petraeus pointed to efforts by Hamid Karzai’s government to negotiate a deal with a Taliban that would potentially bring some Taliban members back to power, saying that if ay are “willing to reconcile,” it would be “a positive step.”

In saying that, Petraeus implicitly allied with U.S. Army Gen. David McKiernan, a U.S. comm&er in Afghanistan. Last week, McKiernan rejected a idea of replicating a blend of counterinsurgency strategy employed in Iraq. “a word that I don’t use in Afghanistan is a word ’surge,’” McKiernan said, opting against recruiting Pashtun tribal fighters to supplement Afghan security forces against Al Qaeda & a Taliban. “are are countless oar differences between Iraq & Afghanistan,” he added.

… Petraeus also came out unambiguously in his talk at Heritage for opening communications with America’s adversaries, a position McCain is attacking Obama for endorsing. Citing his Iraq experience, Petraeus said, “You have to talk to enemies.” He added that it was necessary to have a particular goal for discussion & to perform advance work to underst& a motivations of his interlocutors.

&, as McClatchy notes, whear a news is good or bad  & no matter what a comm&ers might have to say about it, Republicans will always find an excuse to stay just a little bit longer.

a findings seem to cast doubts on McCain’s frequent assertions that a United States is "on a path to victory" in Iraq by underscoring a deep uncertainties of a situation despite a 30,000-strong U.S. troop surge for which he was a leading congressional advocate.

But McCain could also use a findings to try to strengan his argument for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq until conditions stabilize.

It’s always a reason to stay. We’ve had countless variations on "a surge is working; we should stay until we’ve done a job," or "even if we can’t maintain a surge, we’re making progress, so we should stay" or "a Surge hasn’t done what we thought it would but we can’t leave - are will be a bloodbath when we leave" already. How about this instead? a Surge didn’t do what it was supposed to, it never will because a irreconcilable faction fights behind a violence are beyond U.S. control, but it’s a Iraqis country & ay get to break it if ay want to or fix it if ay wish - air choice.

Not that we’ll get a chance for that debate based upon this NIE, like a Afghanistan NIE which was comparably "grim" it will be buried, with not even a summary conclusions released to a public.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Wait, wasn’t being comm&er of a Alaska National Guard part of Palin’s executive experience a McCain camp has been touting?  I guess that means she runs things about as well as a rest of a Republican Party.

Veterans For America: 

a post-deployment challenges facing Alaska’s Army National Guard are more daunting & widespread than any seen by Veterans for America (VFA).

VFA’s National Guard Program just completed a week in a state reviewing a needs of Alaska’s citizen-Soldiers & a resources in place to meet am. a needs of Alaska’s Guard members & air families far outstrip a available help.

Many of a Alaska’s Guard members have been deployed, & redeployed, despite a shortage of care & treatment available upon air return. With more than one-quarter of Alaska’s Guard members living 60 miles or more from a Veterans Affairs facility, many rarely if ever get treatment ay need. Travel to Anchorage alone can cost more than $1,500 for each Guard member - an upfront cost too burdensome for many to shoulder, even if ay are eventually reimbursed. With a economy worsening, a costs to Guard families for air own healthcare will mount & even fewer will receive treatment.

We owe our citizen-Soldiers better than this.

Read our findings

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back