Recently in Post-War Category

A former translator in Iraq, Dustin Langan, wrote me today to tip me off about an interesting read in Radar, about the lack of good translators in Iraq. He was recruited by MZM Inc., one of the companies connected with the "Duke" Cunningham corruption scandal, to work in Iraq from 2003 to 2004, and he has some good points to make.

One that is personally dear to me is the treatment of the Iraqi translators. As he says:

[Iraqi translators] have been treated terribly. They've been killed. They have not been protected. They have not received visas or anything. They're being killed at very high rates. The result is many people now in Iraq think if you work with the coalition you're an idiot, because you're working with someone who doesn't care about you, and then you're killed.

I've known a few 'terps, as they're called, and my friend George Packer has made this one of his major concerns. It should be one that makes every feeling American -- whether you supported the war or not -- ashamed at how we're treating these people.

Anyway, it's a good interview. Thanks for the tip, Dustin!

BEIRUT -- Thought you might like to see a portrait of the south I did for the Newark Star-Ledger. I have to say I was very pleased with the editing process and these guys gave great play for a story that I would have thought most American media were no longer following much.

HORRORS OF WAR LINGER IN LEBANON
MAROUAHINE, Lebanon -- For 34 days this summer, the Israeli and Hezbollah rockets and mortars whistled through the little villages like this one all across Southern Lebanon. More than 1,000 people, including many Lebanese women and children, were killed. Farther north, concrete cities were flattened. And then, the war ended on Aug. 14.

Or did it?

Nearly two months after a fragile cease-fire was announced and nine days after Israeli promised it had withdrawn the last of its troops from Lebanon, citizens in these southern villages are skeptical. And angry.

You will have to enter some demographic information to see the whole story, but it's not too odious a requirement.

Technorati Tags: Cluster Bombs, Current Affairs, Israel, Journalism, Lebanon, Middle East

An unexploded cluster bomb lies in a field near a private house in Majd es-Slim, southern Lebanon. It's about the size of a D-cell battery.
© 2006 Chris Allbritton, all rights reserved.

MAJD ES-SLIM, Southern Lebanon -- Ali Herz didn't think he had anything to worry about when he went to check on his neighbor's house in the southern town of Majd es-Slim. After all, the cease-fire between Hezbollah and Israel was two days old and it seemed to be holding.

But as he pushed open the heavy black iron gate to enter the garden that morning, something happened. A sharp explosion threw him backward as shrapnel peppered his legs, face and chest. Conscious but in pain, he started to cry out for help to anyone in the area.

"I thought that my legs might have been cut off and I felt something had been knocked out of my mouth," he said almost a month later as he sat in his parents' home. He suffered a wound to his head and he couldn't open his eyes, "because of the blood."

Herz, 26, a mechanic, had stumbled across what may be the biggest danger facing residents of southern Lebanon now that the war is over: unexploded cluster bombs. According to the United Nations Mine Action Coordination Centre Southern Lebanon (MACCSL), there are up to 1 million of the tiny but deadly unexploded munitions littering the south, many of them American made. Herz was one of the lucky ones. As of Sept. 21, in addition to Herz, 89 people have been wounded, and 14 killed, according to center spokeswoman Dalya Farran in Tyre, the headquarters for the center.

Cluster bombs work by launching a container of sub-munitions or "bomblets" against a target. When the container-which can be delivered either via airplane, artillery or rocket-bursts open in air, dozens or hundreds of smaller sub-munitions are scattered over a wide area. A ribbon attached to the arming pin deploys, both stabilizing the bomblet and arming it. When it strikes the ground, the trigger slams into the detonator like a firing pin on a pistol, causing the bomblet to explode. In some cases, a shaped charge in the bottom, like a miniature version of what is found in the IEDs in Iraq, increases the lethality of the bomblet.

Most of the cluster bomblets identified so far have been American made, Farran said. The munitions include American m42s, m77s, m85s and Chinese-made MZD-2s. Some of the m85 munitions are Israeli copies of American designs, she added, but she wasn't sure of the numbers.

A spokesman for the Israeli Defense Forces said, when asked to comment on Israeli use of cluster bombs, "All the weapons and munitions used by the IDF are legal under international law and their use conforms with international standards."

He declined to comment further.

Although there is no international ban on cluster weapons in general, the United States has strict rules about the use of its cluster munitions against civilian targets as laid out by the Arms Export Control Act. Additionally, the U.S. and Israel reportedly have secret agreements about their use, according to a report in the New York Times. The State Department has opened an investigation into whether the use of cluster bombs by the Israelis violates either the AECA or the secret agreements.

"What we're doing is seeking more information regarding alleged improper use of cluster munitions by the Israelis," said Nancy Beck, a department spokeswoman. "Based on the information that we gather we will take appropriate measures, if required by the Arms Export Control Act."

The IDF spokesman also declined to comment about the State Department investigation.

While the investigation is ongoing, a shipment of M-26 artillery rockets-cluster weapons-has been held up, according to the New York Times.

Since 1976, Israel has been the single biggest recipient of American foreign aid, according to the World Policy Institute in New York. From 2001-2005, Israel received $10.5 billion in Foreign Military Financing- congressionally appropriated grants given to foreign governments to finance the purchase of American-made weapons, services and training-and $6.3 billion worth of direct U.S. arms sales.

"Being able to purchase arms from the United States, at least under U.S. law, is not a right," said another State Department official who requested anonymity in order to discuss the investigation. "If we find that that these weapons are not used for the appropriate purposes, the U.S. may decide not to sell or provide weapons in the future."

In 1982, Congress cut off the sale of cluster bombs to Israel, following an inquiry that showed they had been improperly used against civilian targets in Israel's invasion of Lebanon that year. President Reagan lifted the ban six years later.

It was these mines and unexploded munitions left over from the Israeli invasions of 1978 and 1982, as well as those planted by various warring factions in Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war, that MACCSL was formed to deal with. "But after the war, we discovered we had a huge problem with cluster bombs," said the U.N.'s Farran.

Despite the IDF's official statement, there are signs that some within the Israeli military establishment have had second thoughts about the use of the weapons. In an article in Ha'aretz, Israel's leading left-leaning daily newspaper, an unnamed commander in the IDF's MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) unit expressed regret at the use of the cluster bombs.

"In Lebanon, we covered entire villages with cluster bombs," the commander is quoted as saying. "What we did there was crazy and monstrous."

In the closing days of the war, he said, his unit launched up to 1,800 cluster rockets into southern Lebanon containing up to 1.2 million bomblets. The U.N. also estimates that another 32,000 artillery shells with cluster munitions were fired, adding more unexploded bomblets to the area. An unknown number of cluster bombs were dropped from the air. Farran saiid more than 1 million unexploded bomblets could still be on the ground.

And that's one of the main problems. No one is really sure just how many strikes there were -- "Each day the new targets are adding up," said Farran.

As of Sept. 26, survey and emergency ordnance disposal teams had found 590 confirmed cluster bomb strikes, she said. A single strike could be one attack on a house or a village or area.

The official failure rate of the bomblets is 10 percent, said Farran, which means that 1 in 10 bomblets will fail to explode on impact but remain armed. However, she said the survey and emergency ordnance disposal teams had found that almost 40 percent of the recovered bomblets had failed. Taking the numbers from the IDF, that means there are still up to 480,000 unexploded bomblets from the IDF's rockets, she said. And that doesn't include cluster bombs dropped from airplanes or fired from artillery.

Those on the ground doing the dangerous job of clearing the bomblets agree.

"I've never seen so much like this," said Magnus Bengtsson, the supervisor on an EOD team clearing cluster bomblets from a neighborhood in the small town of Hanaouay, 5.5 miles southeast of Tyre and eight miles from the Israeli border. "It's more than I expected."

Bengtsson and his team are with the Swedish Rescue Services Agency, a group the UN contracted for mine clearing but which has been pressed into service to help with the immediate danger. As he walked through an empty field the size of a soccer pitch, Bengtsson pointed to a small, D cell-battery sized object on the ground. It's an American-made m77, he said, which is designed to take out both people and armored vehicles, including tanks. The shaped charge can penetrate up to 5 inches of armor, and the casing is scored so it sends out deadly shrapnel to a radius of about 20 feet.

Bengtsson and other groups tasked by the MACCSL with collecting and disposing of the unexploded munitions are concentrating on the roads and homes in the affected villages right now. After that, they will start a phase known as battle area clearance (BAC) that will attempt to clear all the bomblets from the agricultural fields throughout the entire south. It's a job the UN hopes will be completed by the end of 2007.

There is no blanket ban on cluster munitions, but the Geneva Conventions forbid their use against civilian targets. When asked if he had seen any evidence that Hezbollah had been firing Katyusha rockets from Hanaouay and drawing Israeli fire, Bengtsson, who served in the Swedish army in Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq as a demolitions expert, shook his head no.

Residents of the south are grateful to the UN and its EOD teams, but they worry that a delay in getting to all the bomblets will lead to the loss of tobacco and olive harvests, the mainstay crops of the south.

"We hope they can clear the fields because we rely on them," said Ali's mother, Mariam Herz. "We lost the season for the tobacco ... and we had a few cows that were killed."

Today, Ali Herz walks slowly with a limp, and when he shows his legs and chest, the shrapnel wounds are so numerous he looks like he suffers from chicken pox. He still has two pieces of shrapnel in his left thigh, he said, and he has to put cushions between his knees in order to sleep. He cannot work because he has to get under cars, something his injuries prevent him from doing.

Still, he worries about others and the remaining bombs. "After I hear an explosion," he said, "I want to go and see if anyone's been hurt because I don't want anyone to go through what I've been through."

NOTE: If you'd like to reprint this in your publication, please contact me for negotiation of fees. If you'd like to donate, please hit the link below or to the right.

Technorati Tags: Middle East, Military, Lebanon, Israel, Cluster Bombs, Current Affairs

BEIRUT -- Sorry for the radio silence. I've been hard at work on a story about Iranian influence in Lebanon and what it means for the region, and I've not had much time to blog.

But this new reconciliation plan from Maliki is interesting, to say the least. Possible amnesty for killers of U.S. troops? No firm time-table for withdrawal, but Casey says significant troop reductions by end of 2007. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out in American domestic politics. It seems, at first blush, to hand the Democrats much of what they're asking for (conditions-based plan for redeployment), but it also seems to take away the Republicans' and George Bush's "Dems are 'cut-and-runners'" card. I suspect the GOP will do an about face, say it's what they wanted all along and run with it.

At least, that would be the smart thing to do. What remains to be seen is whether the Sunni insurgents will buy into this. I have a feeling a good portion will, although how significant that portion will be is unclear. "To those who want to rebuild our country, we present an olive branch ... And to those who insist on killing and terrorism, we present a fist with the power of law to protect our country and people,'' Maliki told Parliament.

This deal has been in the works for a long time, since November 2004, actually. Michael Ware of TIME, now CNN, reported on the secret negotiations between the Ba'athists and the then-Allawi government and the U.S. military commanders. If Maliki is announcing this, there's a fair chance that most of the kinks have been ironed out. You don't drop this on a war-weary public if it doesn't have a fair chance of working.

This is a sketchy entry, I know, but more on this later... Discuss amongst yourselves if you wish.

BAGHDAD -- Well, it was bound to happen. Australian papers and news shows are publishing 60 new photos from Abu Ghraib. They snapshots were attained by the American Civil Liberties Union after a federal judge ordered their release. That was delayed however because the U.S. government appealed the ruling.

And yet the photos were leaked.

That the government sat on these photos for almost two years is stupid and pointless. Of course they would get out. Did they really think they wouldn't? They should have released all of them immediately and taken their blows. (A little fit of humility or even -- gasp -- an apology would have been nice, too.) Even better: NOT TORTURING OR ABUSING PEOPLE TO BEGIN WITH.

These photos are already being spun as "isolated incidents" that are no longer occurring, and that may be true. The Americans may be "scared straight" by the reaction around the Muslim world to the photos.

Alas, the same can't be said for their allies in the Iraqi government whose Shi'ite-dominated security forces are torturing Sunni men to death and dumping their bodies at sewage plants in southeast Baghdad. Yeah, at least the U.S. never did that.

God, how did the bar get set so low?

These photos come at a bad time, obviously. The Danish cartoon furor is still going on and the British have been caught on video beating the snot out of teenagers in Basra. This will do little to calm things down. And I don't even want to think how this may complicate things with Jill Carroll, the American journalist currently being held in Iraq. (I'm not sure what to make of this report, though, in which Iraqi officials say the United States actually delayed the release of several women prisoners -- the key demand of Carroll's kidnappers -- so as not to appear to be negotiating with terrorists. Disclaimer: Jill is a friend of mine and I know her pretty well.)

But this is just par for the course for this administration. When faced with choosing between secrecy and openness, stubbornness and a willingness to get things done, the Bush people will always choose the secret, stubborn path -- even if the easy thing to do is also the right thing to do. If they can't turn back the clock and undo the torture at Abu Ghraib, then by all means come clean and get it out of the way. When faced with the kidnapping of an American civilian, they could get her out by either speeding up prisoner releases or at least not impeding it. They were going to happen anyway! In both cases, doing the right thing is, well, the right thing to do and it's good politics.

But that's too complicated for these guys.

BAGHDAD -- Lately, I've been getting a lot of email from aspiring foreign correspondents who want to cut their teeth in Baghdad. I understand the sentiment, I really do. But at this time, I think it's an unwise course of action and I'd like to take a little space to outline why.

First off, about my situation for the newcomers here: I started this blog in August 2002 after a dash into Iraqi Kurdistan the previous summer. I had a hunch that war was coming and I wanted to get some time in, at least where I wouldn't be hanged if caught in Iraq illegally. It was a thrilling time, running around Erbil and Suleimaniya, always worried if those shifty guys in the lobby of the Suleimaniya Palace were Iraqi mukhabarat or Kurdish pesh merga or both, warily eyeing each other over cheap coffee tables and fake flowers. I journeyed to Halabja and found myself enormously moved by the plight of the victims of the 1988 chemical attacks there. I met senior members of the Barzani and Talabani clans, all major players on the Iraqi political scene now, and by my questions annoyed the hell out of the current president's wife, Hiro Talabani. (No hard feelings, ma'am!)

Next, I did the whole blog-raising thing, changing the paradigm for DIY reporting in a war zone in the process. Who knew? Back-to-Iraq became a phenomenon and donations eventually topped more than $11,000 that all went to cover the war in April 2003. It was thrilling and dangerous -- and surprisingly easy reporting. I really just wandered around, following explosions and writing about my day. In the process, I captured a bit of the heart of Iraqi Kurdistan in its struggle against Saddam's regime. I was there when Kirkuk was taken back by the Kurds. I was in Tikrit when the last holdouts melted into the landscape, leaving the field to the Marines and Arab fighters more interested in defending their homes from Kurdish looters than shooting wandering journalists. (Some of the greatest hospitality I've been shown in Iraq was at the hands of the Tikritis as they stood around two dead pesh merga and offered me protection against the Marines, knowing full well I was an American journalist. All they cared about was that I wasn't Kurdish.)

Ah, those were the days. Even Baghdad immediately after its fall felt open and watchful instead of boarded up and scared as it does today. The Marines and the 3rd ID walked the streets without helmets or body armor. They stood in queues waiting to buy food, amusing Iraqis to no end, for whom queues are a bit of an alien social arrangement. They're more partial to crowds.

When I returned for the third time in May 2004, however, things were different. I had raised money again, this time as seed money for a more traditional freelancing career. I figured the donations and my savings would see me through a couple of months. However, TIME Magazine snapped me up immediately and I've been working with them ever since. So much for the two months I thought it would take to find a steady gig. And it's a good thing, too, as by May 2004, the situation had become very bad, with an insurgency we all thought would not get worse but most assuredly did (and still is.) But even in those days, I remember just hiring a couple of guys to drive and translate and run around the city at all hours of the day and night. One of my best memories was a drunken evening at Dragon Bay, the Chinese restaurant outside the Green Zone that had a karaoke machine. My colleagues and I warbled away until 1 a.m. or so and then made my poor driver -- who didn't much like Chinese food -- take us home. Along the way, we saw John Simpson, of the BBC, doing a standup report in the darkness of the city. Drunken with cheap red wine and the thrill of the forbidden, one of my friends yelled out "John Simpson sucks!" Sorry, John. Professionalism did not rule the night. Hope the standup went OK.

Such stunts are unimaginable now. I don't know any Western colleagues who go outside our compound at night. Our social life has been reduced to dinner parties and pool parties. But the work is what's even worse. Every day we venture out with eyes peeled for kidnappers (who like soft targets such as journalists), IEDs, American patrols and trigger-happy Iraqi troops. The ambient threat has risen far past Condition Red. the Committee to Protect Journalist has listed Iraq, for the second year in a row, as the most dangerous place in the world to work as a journalist. "Sixty-sevennine journalists have been killed":http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/28/iraq.journalists.reut/ here since March 2003, according to Reporters without Borders. That's more than the 20 years of the Vietnam War (1955-1975). Some have been killed by American negligence and error. Others were murdered by terrorist thugs. Five of my friends have been kidnapped, but thankfully all were released. One kidnapped journalist, Italy's Enzo Baldoni, was killed. I didn't know him.

My point is that this is no longer a freelancer's war. I'm lucky. I have the entire security apparatus of TIME Magazine to back me up. I am protected by guards, have access to cars, the entire secure compound, you name it. I have an editor who would miss me if I didn't show up. (All of the kidnapped journalists have been freelancers who didn't check in regularly and people often didn't know there were missing at first.)

All of these protections cost money, something most freelancers are short of. It is simply no longer advisable to hire a driver and translator and go running around the city like I did last summer. I've been getting a number of emails from young journalists asking to do just this, and I tell them not to come and do this unless they have the backing of a major media organization's security infrastructure. Steve Vincent ended up dead because he cowboyed around Basra -- and that's one of the safe cities, we're told.

One option, however, is to embed with the U.S., British or other Coalition forces. You will be safe, relatively, and you'll get to see parts of the country other than Baghdad -- which is thick with journalists anyway. It's an interesting experience, and I've found, in my experiences, the accusations of censorship -- with one exception -- to be grossly exaggerated. If you get a cool commander, he probably won't give you any grief.

(Of course, there are some common-sense and reasonable restrictions: don't give away troop positions, don't show the faces of dead soldiers before their family has been notified or 48 hours, whichever comes first. Things like that.)

Oh, and forget about embedding with the Iraqi forces. The Ministries of Interior and Defense don't allow this and they don't operate independently of Coalition troops anyway. Also, they're often so poorly trained and possibly infiltrated you would be in even more danger from the Iraqi troops than from random, street-level violence in Baghdad -- which is why the Coalition and Iraqi ministries don't allow embedding solely with Iraqis. A journalist killed or betrayed by the troops he's supposed to be embedded with is very bad PR.

This is all very frustrating I'm sure. I can still remember the hustle that got me out here, and it pains me to discourage new people, but I've already seen one friend die because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and I'm in constant fear that it will happen again. All the freelancers I know, including me, now have long-term relationships that provide us the infrastructure to "work." And many organizations seem to be cutting back on their coverage and, thus, their hiring.

There are plenty of places that need energetic, young journalists. Darfur, southern Thailand, Indonesia, even Syria (if you can swing the security apparatus.) For those without experience in extremely dangerous work conditions, this is no place for on-the-job training.

Technorati Tags: Baghdad, Iraq, Journalism

Finally! I've dropped numerous hints over the last few months of Iranian involvement in Iraq, but I never went into detail. Now, thankfully, this is the story that has informed my Iranian comments. I didn't want to spill too much of the beans because it's not cool to scoop your own magazine on a blog, but this is an important story. I wish I could say I contributed to it, but Mick is a hell of a reporter and this is his baby.

A while back, I mentioned that I would post the full al-Sharq interview with General Muhammad Abdullah Shahwani, Iraq's intelligence chief, from Jan. 4. I got snowed under by election deadlines—sorry about that—but here it is finally. More information on what the official line is on the insurgency. Shahwani's generally been a good source, and I'm inclined to believe a lot of what he says—mainly because it matches a lot of what I've gotten from other folks.

What is your opinion about the number of the armed fighters in Iraq?
Officially call them terrorists because they are doing terrorism against the people and they are outlaws. Their number is between 20,000, 30,000, in the whole of Iraq, distributed in the Sunni area. The people who live in this area emotionally support them, and they are about 200,000 without offering them money or logistic support. For example, they don't give any information about their activities if they have this information.

That means those 200,000 do not fight with the fighters?
It's impossible that the fighters' numbers reach 200,000. These are those who live in those areas where the fighters are active—for example the right side of Mosul is completely out of control—and in this area, the terrorist are very active without any information about them from the local people, and very often they offer them shelter (hospitality).

Are those fighters from one group or many different groups?
They are from the remnants of the Ba'ath Party, from Islamic extremists and others.

The Iraqis and Americans have claimed the Jordanian extremist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is behind this terrorism, but recently they've started pointing to the Ba'ath party and its leaders. Is there any changes or some new facts?
There are no changes, but the Ba'ath Party has been organized for a long time. What happened is they reorganized themselves and they are getting money and support from their leaders in Syria. Their operations are well-developed because or their large number, their experience and their financing ability.

How many Ba'athists are involved in the armed operations now?
I can't tell the exact number but we expect the Ba'athists before numbered two million and if we expect 20% of them are involved now that mean the number is very huge and all of them are well-organized and armed and some start working with them after they found themselves jobless. Most of them are from the former Iraqi army.

Who leads these organizations now?
As we know the Ba'ath Party divided into many parts, and now there are three wings, the most powerful wing, which belongs to the former regime, got a large quantity of money.

Who are those leaders?
There is Izzat al Douri, Mohammed Unis al Ahmed, who is moving between Syria and Iraq and Sabawi al Hassan and other Ba'ath leaders who live in Syria.

Do you think that there is foreigner or Arab support?
They don't need financial support. The Ba'ath Party, as you know, was the richest party in the world, and was gaining 5% from the oil benefits since 1970 for the party budget.

Has the Iraqi government asked the Syrian government to hand them over?
There have been such attempts, but there are no results so far.

But hasn't the Syrian government denied their existence in their territories?
No. We are sure that they are in Syria and they are moving easily between Syria and Iraq border,

Are there any other Ba'ath leaders?
There is a group that split itself from the former regime under the leadership of the Taih Abdul Karim and Naim Hadad and both working inside Iraq.

Did the American military operations in Fallujah lead to a decrease in terrorist operations?
It became less only in Fallujah.

And in the rest of Iraq?
In gangs war which acted by the terrorism groups we can't get the results as we get in the organized army war, or the traditional war. The goal from Fallujah operation was to destroy the terrorism gangs or to capture their members but the results in Fallujah we could not capture the terrorists or kill their leaders, we did not see or hear about capturing or killing any big leader of terrorism, all the leaders of the terrorism have left Fallujah before the operations started already.

And they went working in other sites or hiding outside Fallujah in each fight there is a goal and the goal of Fallujah operation was to destroy the terrorist and their leadership but the goal was not done actually in spite of the full controlling of Fallujah.

What are the sources of the armed group?
The Ba'ath Party, extremist Islamist organization like Ansar al-Sunna, Tawhid w'al-Jihad, Ansar al-Islam, the 1920 Revolution and other from these names and its reached about 12 groups.

All these groups you mentioned are Sunnis. Are there any Shi'ite groups?
The group of Moqtada al-Sadr was fighting just like the others before, but now there is no Shi'ite group carrying weapons against the government.

The statement of the Iraqi officials pointed to Iran and Syria consider them the two sources of supporting these operations, is there any changes in this subject?
I am personally did not notice any changes in their attitudes and the problems still coming from those two countries because the borders are open and the support is still coming in.

What are the effects of the armed operations on the elections process?
For sure there is a negative effects on the elections. Some of the Iraqi people will not be able to reach voting centers, and this will affect the election process.

What is the need for the intelligence system in a democratic regime?
There is no country in the whole world that has no intelligence system to protect the country and the people and monitoring the gangs like drug gangs and all other cases to stop them including all the cases that is related to the security of the country. Usually we observe and collect information to be delivered to the security forces so security forces can do its duties to protect the country.

Do you think that the armed operation will increase or decrease?
It depends on the election. We have to wait for the result and then we will see. As a security system we expect this kind of operations will decrease within one year.

What are the most unsecured areas in Iraq now?
Mistakenly, they call it the Sunni triangle, but there are other unsecured areas like Diyala, which has 50% of its population Shi'ite and also the north of Babylon, which is extended to reach Sowera and Salman Pak. All these areas are very difficult to reach, for example the area between Hadhar and Mosul its out of control and those armed group in the streets searching the people and also the area which extend from Sharqat down to Baiji and Samara. All these areas are unsecured in addition to Ramadi, Fallujah and its surrounding areas, while inside Baghdad there is Haifa street and Adhamiya and Dora and Ghazaliya and Airport road and all these areas are unsecured and dangerous and may God give those terrorists their punishment.

A year ago today, we saw the opening salvos of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

War erupted Wednesday night as the United States launched dozens of Tomahawk cruse missiles and aimed 2,000-pound bombs at Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and other "leadership targets" in Baghdad. The strike was aimed as "decapitating" Saddam's regime and specifically targeted him, his two sons and other senior leaders of the Baath party and Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council, according to a senior Bush official. President Bush, addressing the nation from the Oval Office about 45 minutes after the first attacks said, "On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war."

-- Knight-Ridder Newspapers

(You can read Bush's Oval Office address from last year here. What we know now...) Moments before the camera began broadcasting to the nation, Knight-Ridder reports that Bush pumped his fist and said, "Feels good." "B2I was busy.":http://back-to-iraq.com/archives/2003_03_19.php A year later, however, things don't feel so good.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq, his administration predicted, would come at little financial cost and would materially improve the lives of Iraqis. Americans would be greeted as liberators, Bush officials predicted, and the toppling of Saddam Hussein would spread peace and democracy throughout the Middle East. Things have not worked out that way, for the most part. There is evidence that the economic lives of Iraqis are improving, thanks to an infusion of U.S. and foreign capital. But the administration badly underestimated the financial cost of the occupation and seriously overstated the ease of pacifying Iraq and the warmth of the reception Iraqis would give the U.S. invaders. And while peace and democracy may yet spread through the region, some early signs are that the U.S. action has had the opposite effect.

On the major plus side, Saddam Hussein and his piggish sons are captured and dead, respectively. The people of Iraq have a future, but of what kind remains to be seen. But the rationales for going to war have been proven -- every one -- to be transparently wrong and/or fraudulent. There were no terror ties. There were no WMDs, nor the ability to produce them. There was no threat to the region because Saddam was effectively caged. Meanwhile, the real problem, Pakistan, has been shown to be promiscuous with its nuclear technology. Its chief nuclear scientist, A.Q. Khan, was pardoned with nary a peep from the Bush Administration. In fact, Pakistan had its ally status upgraded, opening the door to new weapons sales! Hey, guys: The Pakistani ISI is _not_ your friend. They like Osama. And speaking of Osama bin Laden. Al Qaeda's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri seems to have slipped the net the Pakistanis were attempting to draw around him for the last two days.

The frenzied speculation was triggered by the sighting of a foreigner being whisked away at high speed in a bullet-proof vehicle Tuesday when paramilitary units were searching for tribesmen wanted for sheltering Al Qaeda fugitives. The vehicle burst out of a tribal compound, two others emerged to protect it, and scores of fighters appeared from several directions, hurling grenades and firing at the Pakistani troops. The entire unit of 50 troops was "virtually wiped out," the official said. Fifteen were killed, 22 were injured and another 13 are still missing.

Back in Washington, Bush addressed the nation today and, in typical form, 1) made no distinction between the war against al Qaeda and Iraq; 2) refused to acknowledge that the job in Afghanistan is incomplete and that the Taliban control a third of the country, again; 3) implied that Spain, South Korea and others who are reconsidering their participation in the Iraqi adventure are appeasing bin Laden and 4) while admitting that his policies have split traditional alliances and alienated friends, papered over the depths to which the U.S. has fallen in the eyes of many. "There have been disagreements in this matter, among old and valued friends," he said. "Those differences belong to the past. All of us can now agree that the fall of the Iraqi dictator has removed a source of violence, aggression, and instability in the Middle East." Can we? Actually, the biggest source of instability is the Israeli-Palestinian problem, which some in the White House said the Iraq war would solve. It's worse than ever with Bush having done little to push it forward. His "roadmap" is in tatters because of Bush's unwillingness to stand up to Ariel Sharon and his settlement plans. "Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?" Bush asked. "Who would wish that more mass graves were still being filled? Who would begrudge the Iraqi people their long-awaited liberation?" Well, no one is. What's being begrudged is the way Bush screwed up the march to war in the United Nations, the lack of post-war planning and the sheer arrogance the White House has shown to anyone who disagrees with them. When John Kerry said more/foreign leaders supported his candidacy, it was a gaffe not because it isn't true, but because it is. So good on ya, Mr. President, that Saddam is gone. And I sincerely mean that. I was in Iraq in July 2002 and saw the front between the Kurds and the Iraqi troops. I talked with survivors of the Halabja massacre. I met with "families who had fled Kirkuk":http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000118.php when Saddam "Arabized" them out of their homes. I was there during the war, and saw "how happy":http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000351.php#000351 many Iraqis -- Kurds and Arabs alike -- were that Saddam was gone. But things are not going well now, and that's mostly your fault, Mr. President. I didn't oppose the war in Iraq because I'm a pacifist -- I wholeheartedly supported Afghanistan. And I didn't oppose it because I'm a supporter of tyrants. I opposed it because it was poorly planned from the get-go, cynically sold to the American people, alienating to American allies and a distraction from the real enemy -- al Qaeda and its constellation of terror groups. You have yet to convince me that toppling Saddam was worth the deaths of 676 coalition troops and thousands of Iraqi conscripts and civilians despite the immediate benefits of the war. A year later, I'm not alone in still wrestling with this conundrum, and your simple black and white, "no neutral ground" statements don't make the issue any clearer. "Feels good"? It didn't then, and it doesn't now.

This is not good. Insurgents shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) staged a daylight raid on a security compound and Iraqi police station today, killing at least 20 and freeing upwards of 70 prisoners. This was the second attack on the station in two days, with Army Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command and Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., 82nd Airborne Division commander, escaping injury in the previous attack. The Iraqi police were apparently no match against today's attackers.

The brazen, bloody battle on the heels of the Abizaid attack raised questions about the preparedness of some Iraqi police and defense units to take on security duties as the U.S. administration wants. After the Thursday attack, Abizaid said of the Iraqi civil defense unit in Fallujah: ''Obviously they are not fully trained. They're not ready.''

One Iraqi policeman not injured in the attack said he may leave the force if things don't get better. "We joined the police to provide security, but no one wants security, they (insurgents and criminals) want to chaos to continue.'' Police Lt. Col. Jalal Sabri complained that the Iraqi security forces still don't have adequate weapons or training. "We don't have any kind of heavy weapons, no effective weapons,'' just automatic rifles, he said. Today's attackers wore masks, carried hand grenades and used heavy machine guns, mortars and RPGs, according to NPR and the Associated Press. In general, it's been a bad week in Iraq. Six U.S. troops have died since Feb. 9, and eight were wounded in attacks, roadside bomb explosions and accidents. The USAID, the American aid agency, said in a confidential report that violence in general is on the upswing and that the country faces a real danger of "Balkanization." "High-intensity attacks involving mortars, hand-grenades and small-arms more than doubled from 316 in December to 642 in January; non-life threatening attacks including drive-by shootings and rock-throwing rose from 182 in December to 522 in January. The report also recorded a total of 11 attacks on coalition aircraft." The report said some of the civilian violence was ethnic, and noted that that several corpses, probably of ex-Ba'athists, were found in the south "with hands bound and bullet wounds to the head." On the one hand, the attack against Abizaid could be seen as a failure. They didn't kill him. But as Stratfor points out, the chance of success in such an attack was low anyway. Abizaid is well-protected by highly armed, well trained troops. But Stratfor also points out that the attack itself was a gutsy move. The attackers got off three RPGs and the Americans got lucky. And today's prison break, in broad daylight, should be seen for what it is: a major success for the insurgents. This is a real problem. Since September 2003, the Americans have stepped up the offensive against the insurgency by sending intelligence teams into the "Sunni Triangle" armed with cash to buy information. They captured Saddam Hussein in December. The guerillas were thought to have been scattered into smaller groups that weren't able to coordinate. From the USAID report, it seems the guerillas have intensified their efforts and reestablished their communication and coordination networks. In short, it now appears that the U.S. is at best holding steady against the insurgents and could very well be losing ground again 11 months after the start of the war. In a guerilla war, if you're not gaining ground, you're losing. Adding to the volatility, the United Nations said elections were unlikely before the planned June 30 transfer of sovereignty.

"It's not a question of delaying (the handover). It's finding a new timetable," Ahmad Fawzi told BBC radio. "Elections will take place when the country is ready and that will be after the handover of power." Fawzi, a spokesperson for UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, was speaking a day after Brahimi held talks with top Iraqi Shi'a cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has spearheaded calls for elections before the June 30 handover.

Brahimi and Sistani are in a delicate dance, with everyone looking at the Americans to see if they have a handle on the situation. If attacks are increasing both in number, intensity and boldness then it's pretty obvious that the plans for the sovereignty transfer is in serious jeopardy. Looming over all the violence and uncertainty is the spectre of civil war, which was made all the more real by the horrific twin car bombings earlier this week which killed more than 100 Iraqis. And, as noted, the frustrations and tensions are spreading. In Kurdish Suleimaniya, thousands demonstrated for an independent Kurdistan that includes the three autonomous provinces and the disputed Kirkuk province. In an NPR story this morning (sorry, no link yet), one expert warned of a civil war that was "a combination of Lebanon and the Congo," which should send a chill down anyone's back. A massive civil war in the Middle East would mean Turkey, Iran, Syria and possibly Jordan and Saudi Arabia would be forced to intervene. The region is home to 64 percent of the world's proven crude oil reserves. A massive disruption of that supply would send the world economy into crisis that could spark other regional conflicts as countries scramble for reliable crude supplies. It would be better to delay the transfer and prepare for the earliest possible elections that are transparent and fair than rush a transition that could lead to a spiral of violence that could lead to a catastrophe.

There's a fair amount of skepticism among well-known bloggers about the Presidential Commission to investigate the intelligence failures in the lead-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. I don't have a lot to add myself, but I'd like to point out some good posts. First of all, there's the executive order itself establishing the commission. Its mission, in an excerpt from the order:

Sec. 2. Mission. (a) The Commission is established for the purpose of advising the President in the discharge of his constitutional authority under Article II of the Constitution to conduct foreign relations, protect national security, and command the Armed Forces of the United States, in order to ensure the most effective counter-proliferation capabilities of the United States and response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the ongoing threat of terrorist activity. The Commission shall assess whether the Intelligence Community is sufficiently authorized, organized, equipped, trained, and resourced to identify and warn in a timely manner of, and to support United States Government efforts to respond to, the development and transfer of knowledge, expertise, technologies, materials, and resources associated with the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, related means of delivery, and other related threats of the 21st Century and their employment by foreign powers (including terrorists, terrorist organizations, and private networks, or other entities or individuals). In doing so, the Commission shall examine the capabilities and challenges of the Intelligence Community to collect, process, analyze, produce, and disseminate information concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of such foreign powers relating to the design, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, proliferation, transfer, testing, potential or threatened use, or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, related means of delivery, and other related threats of the 21st Century. (b) With respect to that portion of its examination under paragraph 2(a) of this order that relates to Iraq, the Commission shall specifically examine the Intelligence Community's intelligence prior to the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom and compare it with the findings of the Iraq Survey Group and other relevant agencies or organizations concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of Iraq relating to the design, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, proliferation, transfer, testing, potential or threatened use, or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction and related means of delivery.

Well! Looks like the questions *I* want to see answered won't be. The primary question is not "What went wrong with our intelligence analysis?" but instead should be, "Was this intelligence misused?" As Billmon says, the fix is in. Josh Marshall says so, too. Hesiod over at Counterspin Central points out that Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, a member of the commission, seems to have already made up his mind. And Atrios points out the Democractic response to the appointment of former federal appellate judge Laurence Silberman, as co-chairman of the commission. Lots of good reading.

Reports from earlier today said Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the supreme spiritual leader of Iraq's Shi'ites, narrowly escaped an assassination attempt. Initial reports were that gunmen opened fire on his entourage as he was traveling from his office to his home in Najaf. But this may be a lot less bad than early reports sound. I was forwarded an e-mail from Sistani's representatives that read in both English and Arabic: We have received many calls regarding the welfare of his Grand Eminence Ayatullah Sayyid Ali Seestani, (may he live long). Many different stories have been broadcast about the incident that occurred in the past few hours. An unusually armed person, approaching his Eminence's home, was stopped by a few concerned individuals. The suspect is now being held by officials and is being interrogated as to the certainty of the assassination plan. We would like to thank all believers for their devotedness and their close attention, and more importantly we have assurance from his Grand Eminence home in Najaf that he is well and not injured.

Whether this was a serious assassination plot or just a lone gunman "unusually armed" who screwed up is frightening. (Aside: What does "unusually armed" mean? Suicide belt? I don't know, but I'd like to.) Following on the heels of the bombing in Arbil on Sunday, which killed some of the Kurdish leadership, any attacks on Sistani have to be treated seriously. With one successful attack and possibly one unsuccessful attack on the leadership of the two groups opposed to Saddam's regime, the insurgency is hoping to stir up nuclear meltdown-scale trouble in the months before the sovereignty transfer on June 30.
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-SistaniThe possible groups who would want Sistani dead include Ba'athists and Sunnis, foreign fighters or a rival Shi'ite faction. Sistani is, frankly, target number one if disrupting the transfer of power to Iraqis is the goal. Why? Because he's a unifying force for Iraqi Shi'ites, who make up 60 percent of the country's 25 million citizens. Following his lead, most of the various Shi'ite groups in Iraq speak with one voice, making Iraq's Sunni community very nervous about their role in the new Iraq. Especially if the United States and Sistani can make a deal regarding elections and the transfer of power. Foreign fighters and jihadists would also like to remove Sistani. As I mentioned earlier, Al Qaeda and groups affiliated with it, such as Ansar al-Islam, are hoping to bog down the United States in Iraq. If Sistani were killed, that would throw any deals the U.S. might be close to making with the Shi'ite leadership, leading to confusion, delay and possibly escalating violence as Shi'ites begin revenge killings against Sunnis, followed by inevitable Sunni retaliation. The third possibility, that a rival in the Shi'ite community might have been behind the attempt -- assuming there was an attempt -- should also be considered. With Sistani dead, there would be a power vacuum that leaders like Moqtada al-Sadr, the young firebrand preacher who has set up shop in Sadr City in Baghdad and who has called for resistance to the occupation, would like to fill. A similar situation arose after the assassination of Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, the former head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). There are a number of possible successors, including Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Said al-Hakim, the new head of SCIRI. But no one has the authority or commands the respect of Shi'ites like Sistani does, so it's more likely that the Shi'ite community would collapse into various factions, each vying for leadership. The United States would lose a partner in the transition. Sunnis and jihadists would be emboldened. At any rate, my suspicion -- and it's just a hunch -- is that this was the work of Ba'athists. But they screwed up. To cover for the screw up, Ba'athist agents began whispering that the attempt was a lot more successful than it really was, in the hopes of stirring Shi'ite anger. (Apparently, reporters just heard about all this after the fact, so they might be getting spun by one side or both. An Associated Press reporter said that there was no unusual security activity or heightened alert in Najaf during a midday visit.) While full-on sectarian violence is highly unlikely to result from an unsuccessful plot, a few revenge killings and other tit-for-tat exchanges between Shi'ites and Sunnis could escalate as the weather gets hotter and the electricity for air conditioning remains unreliable. Iraq is on a knife's edge. Any push -- or an accumulation of small nudges -- could knock it into chaos.

The violence in Iraq continues, and while the frequency of attacks may decrease, yesterday's spree of bombings, which killed 6 troops and an unknown number of Iraqis, prove that the guerillas' effectiveness may be increasing. It is this environment that the United Nations will enter to mediate between the United States, the Governing Council and Iraq's Shi'ites, led by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. This was certainly not in the United States' plans when it decided to invade Iraq last year.
Mass turnouts in Basra and Baghdad send a clear message to the CPAHowever, as Stratfor notes, it must be sweet indeed for U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who opposed the invasion and felt the United States has ignored the U.N., the Security Council and himself personally. But there is another man for whom the entry of the United Nations as an trusted broker is a welcome sight: Sistani. He has proven himself a canny politician in demonstrating his power. On Jan. 15, on the word of the Ayatollah, tens of thousands of Shi'ites marched in Basra to support open elections to the national assembly. Last week, 100,000 Iraqis marched in Baghdad. And then, on Friday, Sistani turned off the spigot, telling his supporters not to march and giving the United Nations time to think. His point had been made: If George Bush doesn't want the entirety of southern Iraq to burst into an intifada, he would do well to heed the Shi'ites' desires. Enter United Nations, stage left. And its entry is significant because it means the United States has been reduced from an all-powerful occupying power to a party in a dispute -- and one that has already signaled its intentions to relinquish power. The only questions now are when and how. According to Stratfor, the United Nations' entry addresses three issues:

1. Symbolism is important, and it's got to stick in the craw of the White House to be coming to the UN to patch things up almost a year after it snubbed them. Have no doubt, this is a loss for Washington, and it undermines the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war.
2. Political cover. Sistani will get what he wanted all along, which is a Shi'ite dominated Iraq. But now he will get it not by negotiating with the United States, but with the United Nations. His hand -- and Shi'ites in Iraq in general -- will be strengthened by this.
3. Finally, we come to the issue of the U.S. troops. One of the primary reasons the United States invaded was to have a strategic base to project force throughout the region and pressure Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. The future of the troops in Iraq is now in question.

Stratfor says that if the guerilla war were going better and the U.S. had not been forced to turn to the Shi'ites, the question of the troops would be moot. But until now the troops have been the big elephant in the room that no one wanted to talk about. Sistani has not explicitly called for the removal of the troops, and he probably won't as long as the insurgents are around. But Sistani will ask the United Nations to negotiate a mechanism for allowing a sovereign Iraqi state to determine rules for how the troops operate, where they're based and when they leave. Look for Annan to be receptive to whatever ideas Sistani throws on the table. This will throw a serious wrench into the plans that Washington had for Iraq. President George W. Bush and his advisors need a free hand militarily in Iraq if they're going to move forward with their strategic rationale for the invasion. The negotiations between all the parties will likely result in a compromise, but they will be a long, hard slog. Sistani has yet to lose much in his dealings with the Americans.

Hm. Interesting... Sorry to obsess over a silly list, but I just know the one "I deconstructed yesterday":http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000656.php is going to get floated around at some point. It's important to know what's true and what's not. It turns out that the list discussed yesterday is a greatly, ahem, "enhanced" roster of accomplishments that was based on CPA Administrator Paul Bremer's "Oct. 9, 2003 press conference":http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20031009_Oct-09Bremerpresscon.htm in Baghdad. There are a number of changes, and they prove that the list from "Karl Nielsen" is a hoax. What's kind of funny about this is that looking over these items, it's pretty obvious the forger was spoofing Bremer's list -- and the FreeRepublic and NewsMax thought it bucked them up. In hindsight, it would have been more efficient to just dismiss the Nielsen list as bogus right off the bat, but it was more fun to call, say, McDonald's and Bloomingdale's and get a comment from them. Well, at least I fact-checked the list, which is more than what some reporters in Washington seem to do these days. Here are the two lists for comparison:

Bremer's List	"Karl Nielsen's" list
The first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active duty.	The first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active duty
over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens.	~60,000 Iraqis providing security to citizens. They will receive weapons by June 2004.
nearly all of Iraqís 400 courts are functioning.	Nearly all of Iraq’s 400 courts are functioning and 24 judges have passed the American bar.
the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.	The Coalition approved Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.
on Monday, October 6 power generation hit 4,518 megawatts -- exceeding the pre-war average.	Power generation hit 4,518 megawatts for one day in October exceeding prewar output.
all 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.	All 22 Universities & 43 technical institutes/colleges are open and most of them have teachers. Nearly all primary and secondary schools are open for at least ninety minutes a day.
Coalition forces had rehabbed over 1,500 schools -- 500 more than their target.	Coalition has “rehabbed” 1,500+ schools (500 ahead of schedule) and many of them have roofs and electricity.
teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.	Teachers earn from 12-25 times their former salaries.
all 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.	All 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open and 10% have running water.
	Hoosiers has opened its first restaurant in Bagdad (sic).
doctors' salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam.	Doctors salaries are at least 8 times what they were under Saddam.
pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.	Pharmaceutical distribution has gone from almost zero to 12,000 tons and Prozac has been made available for free.
the Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccination doses to Iraqís children.
	Five Wallmarts (sic) are set to go up in the main cities of Iraq.
a Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq's 27,000 kilometers of weed-choked canals. They now irrigate tens of thousands of farms. This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and women.	Coalition has cleared 14,000+km of Iraq’s 27,000km of weed-choked canals which now irrigate tens of thousands of farms. This project has created 100,000+ jobs for Iraqi men & women.
	Three golf courses have been built.[I still kind of believe this one. -- Ed.]
we have restored over three-quarters of pre-war telephone services and over two-thirds of the potable water production.	Coalition has restored over 3/4 of prewar telephone services and 2/3+ of potable water production.
there are 4,900 full-service connections. We expect 50,000 by January first. [In Bremer's speech, he's actually referring to Internet connections here and not phone connections. -- Ed.]	4,900+ full-service telephone connections (~50,000 by year-end).
the wheels of commerce are turning. From bicycles to satellite dishes to cars and trucks, businesses are coming to life in all major cities and towns.	Commerce is expanding rapidly (bicycles, satellite dishes, cars, RV vehicles, etc) in all major cities and towns.
95 percent of all pre-war bank customers have service and first-time customers are opening accounts daily.	95% of all prewar bank customers have service and first-time customers are opening accounts daily and receiving a free toaster.
Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses.	Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses.
the central bank is fully independent.
Iraq has one of the world's most growth-oriented investment and banking laws.	Iraq has one of the world’s most growth-oriented investment and banking laws. The Bagdad Stock Exchange opened stimulating a blossoming business in speculation.
Iraq (has) a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.	Iraq has a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years. Despite many demands from monetory authorities Vice-President Dick Cheney turned down requests to allow his picture to be used on the currency.
satellite dishes are legal.	Satellite TV dishes are legal.
foreign journalists aren't on 10-day visas paying mandatory and extortionate fees to the Ministry of Information for "minders" and other government spies.	Foreign journalists are not on “10-day visas” paying mandatory fees to the Ministry of Information for minders. There is no such Ministry.
there is no Ministry of Information.
there are more than 170 newspapers.	There are 170+ newspapers. The first issue of _Playboy_ was published.
	Plans have been approved to open 45 McDonalds restaurants.
you can buy satellite dishes on what seems like every street corner.
foreign journalists and everyone else are free to come and go.
a nation that had not one single element -- legislative, judicial or executive -- of a representative government, does.
in Baghdad alone residents have selected 88 advisory councils. Baghdad's first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city council elected its new chairman.
today in Iraq chambers of commerce, business, school and professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the country.	Iraqi Chambers of commerce, businesses, schools and professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the country.
	Over 170,000 credit cards have been issued to qualified individuals.
25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraqís history, run the day-to-day business of government.
the Iraqi government regularly participates in international events. Since July the Iraqi government has been represented in over two dozen international meetings, including those of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and, today, the Islamic Conference Summit. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs today announced that it is reopening over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.
Shia religious festivals that were all but banned, aren't.
for the first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.[My Shi'ite friends still say this is wrong. It's the 3rd Imam. -- Ed.]	For the first time in 35 years, in Karbala, thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.
	Bloomingdales has been signed as the anchor store in the new Metro Bagdad Mall.
the Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects, large and small, as part of (a) strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.	The Coalition has completed 13,000+ reconstruction projects, large and small, as part of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.
	American businesses are making tremendous profits from the reconstruction to offset the expense and loss the United States suffered in the war.
Uday and Queasy are dead -- and no longer feeding innocent Iraqis to his zoo lions, raping the young daughters of local leaders to force cooperation, torturing Iraq's soccer players for losing games, murdering critics.	Uday and Queasy are dead, and no longer feeding Iraqis to the zoo lions, raping the young daughters of local leaders to force cooperation, torturing Iraq’s soccer players for losing games, or murdering critics.
children aren't imprisoned or murdered when their parents disagree with the government.	Children aren’t imprisoned or murdered when their parents disagree with the government.
	Sesame Street and Barney, previously forbidden in Iraq, is now aired daily.
political opponents aren't imprisoned, tortured, executed, maimed, or are forced to watch their families die for disagreeing with Saddam.	Political opponents aren’t imprisoned, tortured, executed, maimed, or forced to watch their families die for disagreeing with Saddam.
millions of long-suffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.	Millions of long-suffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.
Saudi swill hold municipal elections.*	As a side effect, in neighboring countries, (1) Saudis will hold municipal elections,
Qatar is reforming education to give more choices to parents.*	(2) Qatar will allow citizens to use credit cards which were formerly forbidden under Islamic law,
Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms.*	(3) Jordan has begun broadcasting American television programming; Friends, Sienfield, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,
the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for the first time to an Iranian -- a Muslim woman who speaks out with courage for human rights, for democracy and for peace.*	(4) through Coalition influence the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded (first time) to an Iranian (Muslim woman) who speaks out for human rights/democracy and peace.
[President Bush] has not faltered or failed.
Saddam is gone.	Saddam is gone.
Iraq is free.	Iraq is free.
	Little or none of this information has been published by the Press Corps that prides itself on bringing you all the news that’s important. Iraq, under US lead control, has come further in six months than Germany did in seven years or Japan did in nine years following WWII. Military deaths from fanatic Nazi’s and Japanese numbered in the thousands and continued for over three years after WWII victory was declared. It took the US over four months to clear away the twin tower debris, let alone attempt to build something else in its place. Now, take into account that many people in our government and media continue to claim on a daily basis on national TV that this conflict has been a failure. Taking everything into consideration, even the unfortunate loss of our sons and daughters in this conflict, do you think any other country in the world could have accomplished as much as the United States and its coalition partners have in so short a period of time?