US to spend $1.3 billion on Afghanistan bases

US to spend $1.3 billion on Afghanistan bases

By Bill Van Auken

WSWS, August 24, 2010

The Pentagon is embarking on a major base construction effort in Afghanistan even as Obama administration and military officials are making it clear that the US "surge" will last well past the July 11 deadline for beginning a drawdown of US troops.

The Washington Post reported Monday that the US Congress is preparing to pass legislation providing "$1.3 billion in additional fiscal 2011 funds for multiyear construction of military facilities in Afghanistan". These funds would cover, in part, $100 million expansions for each of three major US air bases in different parts of the country.

These projects, the Post stated, are indicative of plans "to support increased US military operations well into the future."

A notice seeking contractor bids placed on a US government web site last week maps out plans for the expansion of one of these US bases in Shindand, an airfield in western Afghanistan that had been used by the Soviet Army during its occupation of Afghanistan more than two decades ago.

The project is to include new runways, hangars, barracks, storage areas, a "weapons arming area" and other facilities. They are being built to accommodate the Special Operations troops used by Washington to carry out "targeted killings," i.e., assassinations, which have become a key component of the US war. They will also house a unit operating pilotless drone aircraft for purposes of "Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance" as well as missile attacks.

The request for bids states that the contract will not be issued until January of next year and that the job itself will not be completed until at least a full year after that, i.e., January 2012, six months after the deadline set by President Barack Obama for the beginning of the drawdown of US troops from Afghanistan.

The House of Representatives and the Senate Appropriations Committee have already approved the $1.3 billion base construction package, which is awaiting only a vote by the full Senate.

This money does not include another $5.3 billion in allocations for the construction of new facilities for the Afghan security forces, the Post reports, citing a Pentagon news release stating that most of these "enduring facilities [are] scheduled for construction over the next three to four years."

Also to be expanded with the $1.3 billion appropriation is Camp Dwyer, a Marine base and air field in Helmand province. A Pentagon document justifying the expenditure to Congress describes the facility as "a key hub" for special forces operations in southern Afghanistan, the scene of ongoing US offensives in both Helmand and Kandahar provinces. The base is to be expanded to accommodate more helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft for expanded attacks on Afghan villages.

The third facility set for a $100 million expansion is at Mazar-e Sharif, Afghanistan’s fourth-largest city and the capital of Balkh province in the north. The project, the Pentagon told Congress, was needed "in order to expand major logistical and combat support operations into the region."

Meanwhile, other major US military facilities continue to expand exponentially. Among them is the Kandahar air base just outside the city of Kandahar, which is being targeted for a major military offensive.

Last month, Time magazine published a profile of the Kandahar facility, describing it as "a small Western city in the Taliban heartland" housing some 25,000 troops and contractors. With an average of "5,000-plus military and commercial takeoffs and landings a week," Kandahar has become "the busiest military base in the world today," according to the report. The base’s 10-mile security perimeter requires substantial forces to patrol. Armed opposition groups have staged repeated attacks, wounding scores of military and civilian personnel over the past year.

While President Obama insisted when announcing his plans for an Afghanistan "surge" that the US had no intentions of permanently occupying the country, the base construction proposals suggest the opposite. Plans are being implemented based on the assumption that US military forces will be fighting there for years if not decades to come. This protracted war is being waged not to defeat "terrorism" or promote democracy in Afghanistan, but to secure US hegemony in the energy-rich and geo-strategically vital region of Central Asia.

Even as the latest polls indicate that at least 60 percent of the US population opposes the Afghanistan war and seven out of ten do not believe it can be won, top administration and military officials made a series of statements Monday all driving home the same message: do not expect any rapid withdrawal to begin with Obama’s supposed deadline in July 2011.

Speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Indianapolis Monday, Vice President Joseph Biden stressed that the US war in Afghanistan is "only beginning with the right general and the right force."

"We are not leaving in 2011," Biden insisted. "We are beginning the transition."

The top US commander in charge of training Afghan security forces spoke at a Pentagon briefing Monday, stressing that this "transition" is still a long way off. Lt. Gen. William Caldwell told reporters that it would take at least another year to recruit a sufficient number of Afghan soldiers and police.

The Associated Press commented: "Caldwell’s assessment is likely to help dim hopes among Democrats that the planned US withdrawal next year will be significant in size."

The American general spelled out the immense difficulties confronting the US occupation as it attempts to set up a viable puppet Afghan force. The military newspaper Stars and Stripes quoted him as saying that the illiteracy rate among Afghan recruits is over 85 percent and the attrition rate among some units is well over 50 percent.

"We really don’t know where they go to, to be completely honest. It’s difficult to track over here," said Caldwell. Many of these Afghan soldiers disappear shortly after completing 17 weeks of training.

Caldwell said that to bring the Afghan security forces up to a proposed head-count of 305,000, another 56,000 recruits were needed. But, because the desertion rate is so great, it would be necessary to put another 141,000 through training. He said that the target date for meeting this goal was October 2011.

Asked how this October 2011 goal squared with the July 2011 deadline set by Obama, Caldwell stressed that the Afghan forces would not be able to operate independently any time soon. "We have not even finished building the Afghan National Army or the police force or the air force, at this point," he said. He added that for Afghan troops to operate on their own, "key enablers," including logistics, maintenance, transportation, and intelligence units would have to be in place. "None of those organizations have been built and brought online," he said.

The top US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, gave an interview in Kabul to the BBC Monday stressing that the July 2011 deadline would not be a fundamental turning point. "That’s a date when a process begins—nothing more, nothing less," said Petraeus. "It is not the date when the American forces begin an exodus and look for the exit and the light to turn off on the way out of the room."

The general continued: "It’s a date when the process of transition of some tasks to some Afghanistan forces—in those areas where conditions allow it, and at a pace allowed by the conditions—that’s what begins then."

Petraeus’ comments were the latest in a series of media appearances in which he emphasized that any US troop drawdown would depend on military "conditions on the ground."

The general has coupled the clear warning that the Afghanistan "surge" will continue well after next July with claims of progress in the US war against the Afghan resistance. He told the BBC that "the momentum that the Taliban have established over the course of recent years has been reversed in many areas of the country."

In the face of continuing high casualties, he added, "It gets harder before it gets easier." Four US soldiers were killed in Afghanistan on Sunday and another four NATO troops, one of them reportedly American, were killed on Monday.

Petraeus’ feigned optimism notwithstanding, the crisis and contradictions confronting the US occupation appear to be deepening.

Over the weekend, Afghan President Hamid Karzai reiterated his order banning the operation of private security contractors inside the country, giving them four months to leave.

In an interview on ABC Television’s "This Week" program, Karzai charged that the contractors were destabilizing the country by "running a parallel security structure to the Afghan government." He accused the contractors of "looting and stealing from the Afghan people" and "causing a lot of harassment to our civilians."

The "surge" of private security contractors into the country has paralleled that of the US military. Contractors now outnumber US troops in Afghanistan.

Directed by US mercenaries, the security contractors employ as many 50,000 Afghans. They have been accused of killing Afghans with impunity as well as making payoffs to the Taliban and other armed anti-government groups to protect convoys bringing supplies to US forces from attack.

The Defense Department employs some 17,000 private security contractors in the country, a five-fold increase in their number since the beginning of 2009. The State Department employs thousands more.

Karzai said that he would exempt from his order those security contractors "providing protection to embassies and to aid organizations within their compounds and who escort diplomats or representatives of foreign governments in Afghanistan from place to place." He himself is guarded by private mercenaries.

Last June, the State Department signed a $120 million contract with the notorious Blackwater group, now rebranded as Xe Services, to provide protection for its regional offices in Afghanistan, while the CIA signed a $100 million deal with the company to provide security at its Kabul station.

The firm earned international infamy after its mercenaries massacred 17 Iraqi civilians in 2007 in Baghdad’s Nisour Square.

The State Department announced Monday that it had reached an administrative settlement with Blackwater under which the company will pay a $42 million penalty for violating hundreds of export rules over the past seven years, including making illegal arms shipments to Afghanistan. Two former Blackwater mercenaries still face federal murder charges for killing two Afghans civilians. Several former company executives have been indicted on criminal charges.

Iraq's Kurdish Army Chief Serves His American Masters

Iraq's Kurdish Army Chief Serves His American Masters

By Muhammad al-Ammary, Iraq News Agency

Iraq's Army Chief Babakir Zebari: August 23, 2010 Translated By Nicolas Dagher Iraq - Iraq News Agency - Original Article (Arabic- August 14, 2010) I neither care for nor follow the scum who lick the boots of the American invaders, nor do I waste my energy acquainting myself with those who sell their souls for bargain-basement prices, so I don't know exactly how and when Babakir Zebari obtained the rank of chief of staff of what is now referred to as the new Iraqi Army. Yes - I refer to that mighty force, the leadership of which sways to and fro due to its lack of patriotism and professionalism, despite the enormous sums that have been put at the disposal of its leadership. And then there are the majority of its senior officers who answer to political parties, caucuses, and ethnic, sectarian or tribal groups, that issue them non-negotiable orders that need never be explained, and which originate in regional countries that are openly hostile to Iraq and its people. The chief of staff of the new Iraqi Army, "Protector of Peace!!" told Agence France Presse a few days ago that his "courageous" forces won't be prepared to maintain security and stability in Iraq before 2020 [see video below]. During his "extremely valuable" speech about the alleged U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, the chief of staff of the "Iraqi military" spoke to Iraqi politicians - if they can be described as such - saying: "The U.S. military should remain until the Iraqi Army is ready in 2020." It's obvious that this man, if he possessed one iota of decency, honor and dignity before joining the military, would never have uttered such shameful comments, which stink of pleading to those who were and remain the main cause of every catastrophe and misery of today's Iraqis, not to mention the destruction of every institution of state - military, civic and social alike. Even ordinary citizens aren't safe from the sectarian-religious virus and racist evil that resulted in a nobody like this "Kurdish" Babakir Zebari becoming the chief of staff of the Iraqi Army, a force with a glorious history and whose remarkable exploits are well-documented. The defense minister of the Green Zone, Abdul-Qadir al-Obaidi, successful described the dire state and daily failures experienced by their super army. His "Dishonorable-Excellency" said that "what has been occurring in different parts of the country recently" - in the name of Allah, he could have said the same for the last seven years - "is due to negligence, a lack of follow-up, a failure to apply the lessons learned in battle and failure to be properly alert." What battle is this genius talking about - and where do these lessons and commands come from? Naturally this genius of a minister has no actual authority, prestige or influence, which is the norm among his colleagues in the collaborator-government of Nouri al-Maliki, which has lost any legitimacy. And why hasn't he told us of the punishments imposed on the people in the Defense Ministry and commanders of his "courageous" army, who failed to apply these "teachings of battle?" In stark contrast with what he himself and the Army chief of staff had to say, the Green Zone minister of defense commented: "The process of ramping up our readiness has begun" (What was he doing up to now, and what's taking his so long getting his men ready?), "and is proceeding with the integration of ground and tactical air support, and taking control of the security situation in cities from multi-national forces" (he means the invader U.S. forces, but is too ashamed to admit it) "leading to the completion of our plans to control overall national security." Great. But if your army is so prepared, then why does Babakir Zebari - excuse me, I mean Iraq's Army chief of staff - want to keep U.S. forces here until the year 2020? What's the motive of the Kurd, Babakir Zebari, of having his American masters squatting on the chests of Iraqis like a black nightmare? The attachment to their American masters and protectors of the chief of staff of the so-called Iraqi Army, Babakir Zebari, his great Zionist friend, [President of Iraqi Kurdistan] Massoud Barzani and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari (another Zibari), whose star has also fallen recently, is nothing strange or new. But it fits perfectly with their decades-long treachery and brand of politics, which is devoid of any ethical or moral commitment, and involves putting oneself at the disposal of any country hostile to Iraq and its people. Babakir Zebari's comments were not due to a concern for the interests of Iraq or its people, or any wish to build an Iraqi force capable of repelling external aggression, as the mouthpieces of the Kurdish media have tried to assert. On the contrary, those people, and by that I mean the collaborator Kurdish parties, don't recognize Iraq, its flag, its laws or its government, although they are an essential part of it. Everything they do, at all levels, stems from the fact that they are a sovereign and independent state, or so they think - and one filled with hatred, bitterness, plots and conspiracies. They sit and wait for opportunities to pursue their agenda - and in these treacherous times, there are many. They collaborate with the Satans and demons of the planet to harm Iraqis and their homeland. Thus the Americans, be they occupiers, invaders or employers, remain for every traitor, collaborator or mercenary, regardless of gender, color or ethnicity, as a leading supporter, mentor and guarantor. But however long they stay, it won’t be forever. This is something Babakir Zebari deliberately ignores.

US to spend $1.3 billion on Afghanistan bases

US to spend $1.3 billion on Afghanistan bases

By Bill Van Auken

WSWS, August 24, 2010

The Pentagon is embarking on a major base construction effort in Afghanistan even as Obama administration and military officials are making it clear that the US "surge" will last well past the July 11 deadline for beginning a drawdown of US troops.

The Washington Post reported Monday that the US Congress is preparing to pass legislation providing "$1.3 billion in additional fiscal 2011 funds for multiyear construction of military facilities in Afghanistan". These funds would cover, in part, $100 million expansions for each of three major US air bases in different parts of the country.

These projects, the Post stated, are indicative of plans "to support increased US military operations well into the future."

A notice seeking contractor bids placed on a US government web site last week maps out plans for the expansion of one of these US bases in Shindand, an airfield in western Afghanistan that had been used by the Soviet Army during its occupation of Afghanistan more than two decades ago.

The project is to include new runways, hangars, barracks, storage areas, a "weapons arming area" and other facilities. They are being built to accommodate the Special Operations troops used by Washington to carry out "targeted killings," i.e., assassinations, which have become a key component of the US war. They will also house a unit operating pilotless drone aircraft for purposes of "Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance" as well as missile attacks.

The request for bids states that the contract will not be issued until January of next year and that the job itself will not be completed until at least a full year after that, i.e., January 2012, six months after the deadline set by President Barack Obama for the beginning of the drawdown of US troops from Afghanistan.

The House of Representatives and the Senate Appropriations Committee have already approved the $1.3 billion base construction package, which is awaiting only a vote by the full Senate.

This money does not include another $5.3 billion in allocations for the construction of new facilities for the Afghan security forces, the Post reports, citing a Pentagon news release stating that most of these "enduring facilities [are] scheduled for construction over the next three to four years."

Also to be expanded with the $1.3 billion appropriation is Camp Dwyer, a Marine base and air field in Helmand province. A Pentagon document justifying the expenditure to Congress describes the facility as "a key hub" for special forces operations in southern Afghanistan, the scene of ongoing US offensives in both Helmand and Kandahar provinces. The base is to be expanded to accommodate more helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft for expanded attacks on Afghan villages.

The third facility set for a $100 million expansion is at Mazar-e Sharif, Afghanistan’s fourth-largest city and the capital of Balkh province in the north. The project, the Pentagon told Congress, was needed "in order to expand major logistical and combat support operations into the region."

Meanwhile, other major US military facilities continue to expand exponentially. Among them is the Kandahar air base just outside the city of Kandahar, which is being targeted for a major military offensive.

Last month, Time magazine published a profile of the Kandahar facility, describing it as "a small Western city in the Taliban heartland" housing some 25,000 troops and contractors. With an average of "5,000-plus military and commercial takeoffs and landings a week," Kandahar has become "the busiest military base in the world today," according to the report. The base’s 10-mile security perimeter requires substantial forces to patrol. Armed opposition groups have staged repeated attacks, wounding scores of military and civilian personnel over the past year.

While President Obama insisted when announcing his plans for an Afghanistan "surge" that the US had no intentions of permanently occupying the country, the base construction proposals suggest the opposite. Plans are being implemented based on the assumption that US military forces will be fighting there for years if not decades to come. This protracted war is being waged not to defeat "terrorism" or promote democracy in Afghanistan, but to secure US hegemony in the energy-rich and geo-strategically vital region of Central Asia.

Even as the latest polls indicate that at least 60 percent of the US population opposes the Afghanistan war and seven out of ten do not believe it can be won, top administration and military officials made a series of statements Monday all driving home the same message: do not expect any rapid withdrawal to begin with Obama’s supposed deadline in July 2011.

Speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Indianapolis Monday, Vice President Joseph Biden stressed that the US war in Afghanistan is "only beginning with the right general and the right force."

"We are not leaving in 2011," Biden insisted. "We are beginning the transition."

The top US commander in charge of training Afghan security forces spoke at a Pentagon briefing Monday, stressing that this "transition" is still a long way off. Lt. Gen. William Caldwell told reporters that it would take at least another year to recruit a sufficient number of Afghan soldiers and police.

The Associated Press commented: "Caldwell’s assessment is likely to help dim hopes among Democrats that the planned US withdrawal next year will be significant in size."

The American general spelled out the immense difficulties confronting the US occupation as it attempts to set up a viable puppet Afghan force. The military newspaper Stars and Stripes quoted him as saying that the illiteracy rate among Afghan recruits is over 85 percent and the attrition rate among some units is well over 50 percent.

"We really don’t know where they go to, to be completely honest. It’s difficult to track over here," said Caldwell. Many of these Afghan soldiers disappear shortly after completing 17 weeks of training.

Caldwell said that to bring the Afghan security forces up to a proposed head-count of 305,000, another 56,000 recruits were needed. But, because the desertion rate is so great, it would be necessary to put another 141,000 through training. He said that the target date for meeting this goal was October 2011.

Asked how this October 2011 goal squared with the July 2011 deadline set by Obama, Caldwell stressed that the Afghan forces would not be able to operate independently any time soon. "We have not even finished building the Afghan National Army or the police force or the air force, at this point," he said. He added that for Afghan troops to operate on their own, "key enablers," including logistics, maintenance, transportation, and intelligence units would have to be in place. "None of those organizations have been built and brought online," he said.

The top US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, gave an interview in Kabul to the BBC Monday stressing that the July 2011 deadline would not be a fundamental turning point. "That’s a date when a process begins—nothing more, nothing less," said Petraeus. "It is not the date when the American forces begin an exodus and look for the exit and the light to turn off on the way out of the room."

The general continued: "It’s a date when the process of transition of some tasks to some Afghanistan forces—in those areas where conditions allow it, and at a pace allowed by the conditions—that’s what begins then."

Petraeus’ comments were the latest in a series of media appearances in which he emphasized that any US troop drawdown would depend on military "conditions on the ground."

The general has coupled the clear warning that the Afghanistan "surge" will continue well after next July with claims of progress in the US war against the Afghan resistance. He told the BBC that "the momentum that the Taliban have established over the course of recent years has been reversed in many areas of the country."

In the face of continuing high casualties, he added, "It gets harder before it gets easier." Four US soldiers were killed in Afghanistan on Sunday and another four NATO troops, one of them reportedly American, were killed on Monday.

Petraeus’ feigned optimism notwithstanding, the crisis and contradictions confronting the US occupation appear to be deepening.

Over the weekend, Afghan President Hamid Karzai reiterated his order banning the operation of private security contractors inside the country, giving them four months to leave.

In an interview on ABC Television’s "This Week" program, Karzai charged that the contractors were destabilizing the country by "running a parallel security structure to the Afghan government." He accused the contractors of "looting and stealing from the Afghan people" and "causing a lot of harassment to our civilians."

The "surge" of private security contractors into the country has paralleled that of the US military. Contractors now outnumber US troops in Afghanistan.

Directed by US mercenaries, the security contractors employ as many 50,000 Afghans. They have been accused of killing Afghans with impunity as well as making payoffs to the Taliban and other armed anti-government groups to protect convoys bringing supplies to US forces from attack.

The Defense Department employs some 17,000 private security contractors in the country, a five-fold increase in their number since the beginning of 2009. The State Department employs thousands more.

Karzai said that he would exempt from his order those security contractors "providing protection to embassies and to aid organizations within their compounds and who escort diplomats or representatives of foreign governments in Afghanistan from place to place." He himself is guarded by private mercenaries.

Last June, the State Department signed a $120 million contract with the notorious Blackwater group, now rebranded as Xe Services, to provide protection for its regional offices in Afghanistan, while the CIA signed a $100 million deal with the company to provide security at its Kabul station.

The firm earned international infamy after its mercenaries massacred 17 Iraqi civilians in 2007 in Baghdad’s Nisour Square.

The State Department announced Monday that it had reached an administrative settlement with Blackwater under which the company will pay a $42 million penalty for violating hundreds of export rules over the past seven years, including making illegal arms shipments to Afghanistan. Two former Blackwater mercenaries still face federal murder charges for killing two Afghans civilians. Several former company executives have been indicted on criminal charges.

Iraq slammed with bombings

Iraq slammed with bombings, at least 60 dead, 265 injured

The Common Ills

August 25, 2010 At least 60 dead at least 265 injured today as Iraq is slammed with bombings -- mocking Joe Biden and the speech he gave to the VFW on Monday. That always happens. Attempt to serve up a wave of Operation Happy Talk and expect Iraq to correct your spin with a bracing splash of reality. As Jackson Browne once sang, "With all the times that I've been burned, by now you'd think I'd have learned" ("Rosie"). Anthony Shadid and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) note the assaults appear "to be part of a coordinated wave of attacks" and they quote Mohammed Abbas who lost a cousin in one of today's bombings: "There may be a state, there may be a government. But what can that state do? What can they do with all the terrorists? Are they supposed to set up a checkpoint in every house?" Kadhim Ajrash and Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) explain, "Car bombs were used in the attacks in Baghdad, Basra, Karbala, Baquba, Kirkuk and Wasit, the officials said in statements." In addition, they note, "Vice President Joseph Biden and White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said at separate events yesterday that the administration is confident Iraqi forces are capable of taking on the primary security role." BBC News reminds, "Iraq's top army officer recently questioned the timing of the pull-out, saying the country's military might not be ready to take control for another decade." On the attacks, Reuters notes a Baghdad suicide car bombing claimed 15 lives (plus driver for sixteen) with fifty-six injured, a Kut suicide car bombing which claimed 30 lives (plus driver) and left eighty-seven injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured five people, a Dujail car bombing which injured twenty people, a Basra minbus bombing which injured twelve people, a Kirkuk car bombing which killed 1 person (nine more injured), six Balad Ruz roadside bombings which injured thirteen people, a Falluja suicide car bombing which claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left ten people injured, a Baghdad, a Muqdadiya car bombing which claimed 3 lives and left eighteen injured, a Ramadi car bombing which claimed 3 lives and left thirteen wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured three people, a Baghdad car bombing which claimed 3 lives and left fourteen people wounded, two Samarra roadside bombings which wounded Col Mustafa Hameed and three of his bodyguards, a Tikrit roadside bombing which injured two police officers, a Tikrit roadside bombing which injured two college students and five Iraqi soldiers, and a Baghdad attack on a police checkpoint which claimed the life of 1 police officer and left another injured. The totals are at least 60 dead, at least 265 injured. BBC offers a slide show of the aftermath of some of the bombings. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports "Day of violence hits every corner of Iraq." Mike Hanna (Al Jazeera) states, "It does appear the primary targets are police stations, check points [and other] symbols of the attempt to create a system of law and order within Iraq." Tang Danlu (Xinhua) notes the continuing political stalemate as the violence continues. March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board notes, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's now 5 months and 18 days. Phil Sands (National Newspaper) notes that if the stalemate continues through September 8th, it will then be a half a year since Iraqis voted. Lebanon's Daily Star covers the rumors that Moqtada al-Sadr may move "to Beirut to escape Iranian pressures to endorse a second-term for incumbent Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki" and that "On Tuesday, Ziyad al-Darb, a lawmaker from Iraqiya said Sadrist lawmakers were throwing their weight behind Allawi for prime minister." Meanwhile Robert Naiman (Huffington Post) explains how the New York Times under-reports the Iraqi deaths and then uses that miscount to go after Venezuela -- in other words, they manipulate the numbers to lie twice. Please note, NYC will decide about what goes up in their city and what doesn't. That's not national news. It's a distraction. But the people of New York will decide and we're not covering that topic. It's not news. It's screaming and it's charges and assertions, but there's not a lot of facts going in it. It's junk news, actually, despite people attempting to dress it up in Constitutional garb. We don't cover that story and we don't note any highlight -- even on Iraq -- that includes that nonsense. It's amazing the crap people will use to defocus and, wanting their shot at the water cooler, the way they will couch a minor argument on Big Issues in order to justify the time wasted on a non-issue. Instead, we'll note that Margaret Warner (NewsHour) features portraits of Iraqis. Check those out, they actually have something to say, something that matters. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

Iraq snapshot - August 23, 2010

Iraq snapshot - August 23, 2010

The Common Ills

Tuesday, August 24, 2010.  Chaos and violence continue, the Christian Science Monitor repeats a known falsehood in their attempt to go for a blood libel smear against the peace movement, Moqtada al-Sadr may be backing Allawi, Moqtada al-Sadr may be moving to Lebanon, the political stalemate continues, and more.

 

Today Tom Ashbrook used the hour of On Point (NPR) to explore the situation in Iraq and was joined, by phone from Baghdad, the Los Angeles Times' Liz Sly and the New York Times' Anthony Shadid.

 

Tom Ashbrook: Liz, you remind us in your recent reporting that -- what, about a year ago? -- when US troops withdrew from the cities in Iraq, Iraqis danced in the street, there was celebration.  What about this last week? Americans have heard a lot about the withdrawal of combat troops, what's -- Has there been a public response? Has there been dancing in the street from Iraqis, Liz?

 

Liz Sly: Well there has no.  The reaction has been in noted contrast to last year.  And that's because two things are different between this year and last year.  Last year, the American troops withdrew from the cities under the terms of the security agreement signed with Iraq and so the Iraqi government trumpeted that as a triumph for Iraq, as a sign of its sovereignty.  This year -- This year, the unilateral withdrawal of the 50,000 is an American move in response to President Obama's election pledge to bring the troops home.  It hasn't really received much attention from the Iraqis.  And the other thing that's different between now and last year is that last year Iraq was looking pretty stable.  It kind of was better off than Iraq had been in a long time, violence had subsided a lot, the government was relatively strong, relatively popular, relatively in control.  This year, the situation really does feel really unstable again. We had elections in March, they failed to produce a winner, there's been no success in negotiations for a new government and a lot of Iraqis now are feeling very worried about what lies ahead and especially wihtout so many troops -- without so many American troops in the country -- to kind of keep order, if you like?

had finally

 

Tom Ashbrook: Uh, Liz, Anthony, here was US commander in Iraq Ray Odierno just this last Sunday on CBS [Face The Nation].  He was asked about whether the US had won in Iraq?

 

Gen Ray Odierno: I would say that we've made lot of progress here. I would say to determine whether we've won the war or not, we can see that in three to five years as we see how Iraq works out.  A strong, democratic Iraq should bring stability to the Middle East and, if we see an Iraq moving from that two, three, five years, I think we can call our operation a success.

 

Tom Ashbrook: Two, three, five years from now? It's a long goodbye already.  US troops -- formally -- to be out at the end of next year, we'll see what happens with that.  But Anthony Shadid, when you look over that kind of horizon, the right now that Liz is talking about, the spikes in attacks, then there's the two, three, five year horizon out there. Where do see Iraq?  What do you see coming, Anthony?

 

Anthony Shadid: I think Liz is exactly right, this is a very precarious moment right here and what struck me in the past few weeks is the degree of the divorce between the population right now and the ruling elite.  And it is an utter divide that's going on right there.  The ruling elite is discredited, there's not a lot of trust in them, there's an incredible amount of frustration as Liz pointed out in their inabililty to form a government.  Where does that -- that disenchantment, that disillusionment lead to?  And I think that's one of the most pressing questions and it's not a question that US officials and the military is reallyd ealing with right now.  This is a government or an elite that has lost the trust of the people. It's not a good sign of the durability or even the longterm implications for creating a stable political system.  I think it's in fact one of the most danger -- one of the biggest dangers they're facing right now.

 

Tom Ashbrook: Anthony, who is the ruling elite of Iraq today?

 

Anthony Shadid: Well interestingly it's many of the same ruling elite that we saw back in 2003 and I think this is going to be one of the American legacies of the invasion/occupation and what's followed here.  There are people that the Americans helped empower and they're still, in a lot of ways, calling the shots. I mean, we've heard a lot of the names already.  Ayad Allawi, Ahmed Chalabi, Ibrahim Jaafari and, you know, Prime Minister Maliki is one of the different ones but he's from the Dawa party which is one of the parties that were brought back after 2003. So we're dealing with a lot of the same faces and we're dealing with a lot of the same penchant toward deadlock, toward stalemate that's characterized their dealing, you know, back from 2004 and on.

 

Tom Ashbrook: Liz Sly, the group that Anthony's pointing at there, from 2003, that the US brought in were largely exiles.  What has that meant about the way they've approached politics?  The Iraq that they now, you know, more or less, for better or worse, rule?

 

Liz Sly: Well you've got something of a really fundamental divide going on in Iraqi society and politics at the moment and it's the same divide that we saw back in 2003, back in 2004 as the insurgency started.  And it's opened up again, if you like, by this latest election.  And that really is a huge divide between religious parties which were empowered very much by the US invasion.  The Shi'ite religious parties which had been in exile since they'd been persecuted by Saddam.  They came back, they formed the government and now they're in power. What you have now is a bit of a situation where there's a little bit of a pushback against that religious style of government that came in in those years by people who want to see a more secular and less overtly religious form of government and, quite frankly, there is a sectarian overture to that as well because there are Sunnis who don't want Shia religious parties to be in control. And so you've got this fundamental divide that we've never really solved in any of the earlier years when the emphasis was mainly on bringing the violence down and not on solving the fundamental political problems.  And you've got that divide opening up again just as the troops are going home.

 

Tom Ashbrook: Anthony Shadid, what's the problem in getting a new government established?  The election is five months and counting behind us now. What are the obstacles to some kind of a compromise to get something settled here?  What's the problem?

 

Anthony Shadid: Well I think on one level it's ambition.  It's the ambition of the people who did best in the election.  But I think more fundamentally, it's a question of power and who has that power and how is that power -- to what degree does everyone enjoy that power? There is a question right now going on of whether the prime minister will have the powers he's had in the past, whether it will be moved to the Cabinet.  There are ideas out there of creating a National Strategies Council, a National Security Council that would take some of the powers away from the prime minister but I think we're still in the preliminary stages there.  The Ambassador, Christopher Hill, before he left, optimistically forecast it was weeks away but I think pessimism was probably the better sentiment to have and those negotiations seem to have fallen apart. I think when you talk to politicians right now, we're not all of that -- I mean, maybe I'm overstating it a little bit -- but I don't think we're all that further ahead than we were in March. And I think this could last weeks, even months.  And the interim is dangerous. That interim encourages rumors of crisis and confrontation and even coups -- coup d'etats -- and you do wonder where -- where this is all going to lead to?

 

That's an excerpt.  Again, Ashbrook devoted the hour to the very important topic.  Shadid and Sly were allowed to speak on various aspects of Iraq that never get noted in the rush for 'the week's headlines' that Iraq is often lumped into.  I can't think of a time when Iraq got the full hour on any radio show this year.  (The Takeaway still deserves praise for their week long look at Iraq.) Check out the show for that and for more on the elections.

 

March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board notes, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's now 5 months and 17 days. Phil Sands (National Newspaper) notes that if the stalemate continues through September 8th, it will then be a half a year since Iraqis voted.

Today Alsumaria TV reports that State Of Law submitted a "political reform paper" to Iraqiya and Iraqiya has refused the paper. UPI notes that Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh issued a statement denying that Iran was attempting to influence the process. Phil Sands (National Newspaper) adds that Syria is working on the political stalemate and attempting to encourage negotiations. Rahmat al-Salaam (Asharq Alawsat Newspaper) reports:

For his part, Al-Iraqiya member Muhammad Allawi said that "Al-Maliki has two options; he can either assumes the second post after the prime minister or accepts to stay as a member of parliament." On the possibility of starting dialogues with the SLC anew in spite of Al-Maliki's insistence to remain a candidate for the post of prime minister in the next government, Allawi said that "Al-Iraqiya had set a condition not to mention the name of Al-Maliki as a candidate to head the next government during the dialogues or the negotiations with it, and in case this happens, the meeting with the SLC would stop." He stressed that Al-Iraqiya is adopting this stand since it is the bloc that has the electoral right which authorizes it to form and head the government."
Muhammad Allawi added that the Al-Iraqiya list "is going ahead in its negotiations with the Iraqi National Alliance (led by Ammar al-Hakim) in determined steps, and the same is the case of the Kurdistan Alliance, while keeping the door open for the SLC to take what it deserves of main posts, specifically the second highest post after the prime minister."

UPI reports that supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr have made a decision whom to back: "Ziyad al-Darb, a lawmaker from Iraqiya, told the Voices of Iraq news agency that Sadrist lawmakers were throwing their weight behind Allawi for prime minster." Saturday Alsumaria TV noted Al Hayat Newspaper was reporting that al-Sadr would be supporting Allawi. Xiong Tong (Xinhua) reported Sunday that al-Sadr and Allawi would meet-up in Syria shortly. Ma'ad Fayad (Asharaq Alawsat Newspaper) reports that rumors are swirling that Moqtada al-Sadr is planning to move to Lebanaon "in order to escape from Iranian pressure, which is pushing for his approval of the nomination of Nuri al-Maliki, leader of the State of Law Coalition and outgoing Prime Minister, for a second term in office."  Al Bawaba also notes the rumors and quote an unnamed source stating, "Al-Sadr rejected all the pressures and proposals made by Iranian officials for the approval of al-Maliki and today is planning seriously to go to Lebanon and stay in Beirut." Consider all of the reports today to be etched in soft clay and able to wash away at any time as has repeatedly happened during the nearly six months since the elections.

 

Today many reporters had a sick day on the job while other 'reporters' continued posing and they all tried to tease a report out of a press release.  It was pimping and worse.  It was not news.  It was whoring.  Thanks Christian Science Monitor, Mary Baker Eddy never planned for you to be such a whore, let alone a cheap whore.  CSM's editorial board (the same crap that palled around with LIAR Daniel Schorr -- forever remembered as the 'brave guy' who tried to falsely blame Lesley Stahl to save his own ass) wants to tease out the press release and insult our intelligence -- the latter by repeating the tired, disproven trope that US service members were spat on during Vietnam.  Who gives the editorial board it's history lessons?  Barack Obama.  (He was only 8 years old!)  Here's reality, you damn dirty whores of the Christian Science Monitor editorial board, from Jerry Lembcke (Vietnam Veterans Against the War):

 

 

Many of the current stories are accompanied by stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans. The recent story of spitting in Asheville, for example, was traced to a local businessman who says he is a veteran who was also spat upon and called a "baby killer" when he returned from Vietnam. An Associated Press story of April 9 reported stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans surfacing in several cities including Spicer, Minnesota whose mayor said he was spat upon in the San Francisco airport while coming home from Vietnam in 1971. 

Similar stories became quite popular during the Gulf War of 1991 which raised my curiosity about where they came from and why they were believed. There is nothing in the historical record -- news or police reports, for example -- suggesting they really happened. In fact, the Veterans Administration commissioned a Harris Poll in 1971 that found 94% of Vietnam veterans reporting friendly homecomings from their age-group peers who had not served in the military. Moreover, the historical record is rich with the details of solidarity and mutuality between the anti-war movement and Vietnam veterans. The real truth, in other words, is that anti-war activists reached out to Vietnam veterans and veterans joined the movement in large numbers.       

Stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans are bogus. Born out of accusations made by the Nixon administration, they were enlivened in popular culture (recall Rambo saying he was spat on by those maggots at the airport) and enhanced in the imaginations of Vietnam-generation men -- some veterans, some not. The stories besmirch the reputation of the anti-war movement and help construct an alibi for why we lost the war: had it not been for the betrayal by liberals in Washington and radicals in the street, we could have defeated the Vietnamese. The stories also erase from public memory the image, discomforting to some Americans, of Vietnam veterans who helped end the carnage they had been part of.

The facsimiles of spat-upon veteran stories that are surfacing now confuse the public dialogue surrounding the war. Debate about the war itself and the politics that got us into it is being displaced by the phony issue of who supports the troops. Everyone supports the troops and wishes them a safe and speedy homecoming. It's the mission they have been sent on that is dividing the nation and it is the mission that we have a right and obligation to question.

 

And you can read more of Jerry's book The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam online via Google books.  (Or actually buy the book.  It's a great book and Jerry's a great guy.) You can also refer to Tim King's 2008 article for Salem-News. But what you can't do is WHORE out whatever was left of your reputation and expect anyone to take you seriously.  What the Christian Science Monitor has done is repeat a blood libel that they decided to bring up on their own.  All on their own.  They're liars, they're whores, they're uneducated and they're uniformed -- and that's your editorial board.  Beginning to see why -- even with considerable tax breaks -- the Christian Science Monitor could no longer hack it as a print newspaper?  Mmmhmm.  Watch the little liars try to weasel out of issuing the correction that damn well know they need to.  Well remember, they supported the Iraq War.  A fact they'd like you to forget.  They supported it, they whored it, they did the advance work for it -- that includes the 'brave' and thankfully dead Danny Schorr.

 

Now a lot of outlets tried to tease the press release into 'news' and no one did a worse job than the Christian Science Monitor.  Who actually managed to deliver news?  NPR did.  They treated it like news meaning they did something more than rewrite the press release, they added the details that were being (intentionally) left out.  From their hourly news break this morning.

Craig Windham: The number of US troops in Iraq is now below 50,000 for the first time since the American-led invasion of that country seven years ago NPR's Mike Schusther in Bagdad says the drawdown of combat forces has been completed a week before the date set by President Obama.

 

Mike Shuster: The US military says that largely brings to a close the US combat role in Iraq. Now the main mission of those troops remaining will be to train and assist Iraqi security forces. But American troops will still be armed and will accompany Iraqi patrols. There are still almost daily insurgent attacks in Iraq. The US may be ending its primary combat role in Iraq but the violence has not ended. In addition, some of the remaining US troops are Special Forces and they will continue to stage secret operations against al Qaeada in Iraq and other insurgent groups. Mike Shuster, NPR News, Baghdad.

 

That's from the hourly news and I'm not aware of any way to link to that, sorry, so we'll just note NPR. Note that Shuster's able to do what others can't or won't. How very telling.  Nor did he have to resort to lying about the peace activists during Vietnam. "Yet since the Vietnam War, when returning soldiers were shunned and even spat on, Americans have learned to distinguish between the service of a soldier and the politics of war" lied the Christian Science Monitor -- which doesn't seem to go with either Mary Baker Eddy's beliefs or those of Christ's -- disgracing itself.  ("Shunned"?  By the government. But you know that a cowardly editorial board would rather attack the people than hold accountable the government.)  This morning, I was surprised to find out that we called out Joe Biden (whom I know and love) in yesterday's snapshot and everyone else wanted to pretend like Joe was making sense yesterday.  Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) is the exception: "On the subject of Iraq, Biden mocked those who suggested that violence would rise ahead of the drawdown, insisting it 'didn't happen.' Last month saw the highest death toll of Iraqi civilians in over two years."  Good for Jason Ditz.  But I was merely surprised by the silence elsewhere.  On the smear and attack on the peace movement?  I'm furious and outraged. For those who are still suffering from Joe Biden's spin from yesterday, here's Charlie Kimber (Great Britain's Socialist Worker):

 

The truth is that the US has achieved only the sordid destruction of an entire society. Over a million Iraqis are dead because of the war, as are thousands of US, British and other troops.       

Some four million Iraqis have been driven from their homes, and the vast majority are too terrified to return. Basic services are in short supply and the reality for the majority of the Iraqi population is poverty and fear.                   

July saw the highest number of violent deaths in Iraq for two years: August will be worse.

Sectarianism has been created and entrenched. Al Qaida did not exist in Iraq before the war -- but it does now. The lie that the US has made Iraq a better place is on a scale of the lies about weapons of mass destruction.       

And of course the US is not withdrawing from Iraq. "Combat troops" are meant to be out, but 50,000 "trainers and advisers" will remain until the end of 2011, and 10,000 even longer. The US is in the process of recruiting 7,000 security contractors (mercenaries) to back up their power.

 

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

 

Bombings?

 

Anthony Shadid (New York Times) reports 1 car bombing which took the life of a Sahwa leader. Mohammed Tawfeeq and CNN identify the dead is Mithaq Salman Falih and note a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded two people, a Mosul grenade attack which injured three Iraqi soldiers.  Reuters drops back to "late on Monday" to note a Baghdad mortar attack which injured one person.

 

Shootings?

 

Anthony Shadid (New York Times) reports 1 "municipal official . . . shot dead" in Baghdad. Mohammed Tawfeeq and CNN identify the dead as Ahmed Hassan.  Reuters drops back to "late on Monday" to note two police officers were injured in a Baghdad assault (one bystander was also injured).

 

 

Moving to the US, the editorial board of the Delaware County Daily Times observes, "It is easy to sympathize and treat visible wounds, but the illness veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are reporting is difficult to diagnose, often discounted as an excuse by some, and tough to treat. Of the more than 2 million troops who have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, it is estimated that one in five return with post-traumatic stress disorder. Yet, only 78,000 of the 150,000 troops diagnosed with PTSD have been awarded disability claims." The board notes the deaths of Matthew Magdzas, April Olse-Magdzas, their child Lila Magdzas and the family's three dogs -- all apparently dead at the hands of Matthew who was a 23-year-old Iraq War veteran. Mike Simonson (Wisconsin Public Radio) quotes City Council member and Iraq War and Afghanistan War veteran Greg Mertzig stating, "I know by being deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan, it's a huge, hard adjustment. When I got back from my deployment . . . I had some difficulties finding a job. I found myself a little disgruntled and upset with how things were going." Hawaii also saw multiple murders and a suicide, apparently carried out by an Iraq War veteran.  The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports that Iraq War veteran Clayborne Conley is suspected of murdering Kristine Cass and her teenage daughter (Saundra) and then taking his own life.  Conley is rumored to have suffered from PTSD.

In other violence news, there's an update to the 2007 murder of Lance Cpl Maria Lauterbach who was murdered while she was eight months pregnant. Amy Thorpe (News 14 -- link has text and video) reports Cesar Laurean was convicted of first degree murder yesterday: "Jurors sided with the state that the defendant wanted to salvage his military career after Lauterbach accused him of rape. Prosecutors said the defendant had a plan to make it seem she went AWOL by sending her to Mexico. An SBI pathologist testified and said Lauterbach's blood was in the Laurean's garage and on a crowbar the prosecution said killed her." His family is quoted worrying about him and expressing no remorse for his actions. For those who've forgotten, he murdered her, dug a hole/pit in his backyard and attempted to destroy her body that way. Maria's body was only discovered when his wife called the authorities to say he'd confessed to her that he'd killed Maria. Chris Brown and Andrew Doud (WNCT -- link has text and video) report that the verdict was returned in "less than 3 hours." In the video, Mary Lauterbach is shown explaining:

This case has begin a tragedy from beginning to end. It started with Maria's chain of command and the NCIS agents who would not listen to me. They cast Maria as a deserter without making any connection with her sexual assault allegation.

For those who've forgotten, Cesar eventually ended up in Mexico. How did that happen? The military refused to take anything seriously. He was the prime suspect. The police were moving in and the military -- despite the rape charge and the fact that Maria was missing -- didn't even bother to keep an eye on him. Emily Friedman (ABC News -- link has text and video) reports: "Sources familiar with the probe told ABC News at the time that Laurean boarded a bus in Raleigh-Durham, N.C., and then rode to Houston. In Houston, he allegedly boarded another bus and then traveled to San Luis Potosi, a state in central Mexico. The massive three-month international manhunt eventually culminated in Lauren's capture in Mexico in April 2008. Mexican police on an anti-kidnapping operation reportedly spotted Laurean wandering the street and became suspicious when they realized he didn't speak Spanish very well."

 

 

As noted in yesterday's snapshot, there have been some truth tellers despite the media spin on the drawdown.  We'll continue to highlight them this week.  Today, we'll note Cindy Sheehan, "Deja Vu All Over Again" (Peace of the Action):

 

My son, Casey and at least 4000 more troops have been killed in Iraq since George Bush's famous Captain Codpiece moment when he flew onto the deck of the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier near San Diego and declared an "end to major combat" in Iraq. At that point, my son's division, the First Cavalry's, imminent deployment to Iraq was canceled (but later rescheduled). I remember the day that happened on May 1st, 2003 Casey called me from Ft. Hood and we I discussed the fact that the war was over. Now, in a stultifying display of deja vu, the Obama administration is declaring another end to combat in Iraq seven years, three months, and 18 days after BushCo's declaration. Not only is this an astounding display of re-framework, many people are going to believe it. I just saw a commentator on MSNBC(GE) telling everyone that President Barack Obama ended the war in Iraq ahead of schedule. Dozens of Iraqis were killed this past week and I think that they didn't get the memo about the war being over, either. People are still going to die -- soldiers will still be killed because the Iraqis have always seen them as oppressors and occupiers, not saviors.

America's Gulf: Updating the Greatest Ever Environmental Crime

America's Gulf: Updating the Greatest Ever Environmental Crime

by Stephen Lendman

August 25, 2010 For months, US media reports distorted and lied about its severity, running cover for BP and the Obama administration, now practically avoiding the crisis altogether as it worsens. An August 20 Inter Press Service report is revealing, quoting Biloxi, MS fisherman Danny Ross saying hypoxia (depleted oxygen) is driving horseshoe crabs, stingrays, flounder, dolphins, and other sea life "out of the water" to escape. Another area fisherman, David Wallis said he's "seen crabs crawling out of the water in the middle of the day." Other reports cite strange marine life behavior, sighted near the surface when they normally stay well submerged. Alabama fisherman Stan Fournier said in 40 years of work, he's never seen anything like it. "It looks like all the sea life is trying to get out of the water," unable to breathe in their normal habitat, what US media reports won't touch, instead hyping success, saying BP's well capped and most oil dissolved when, in fact, it won't degrade for decades, remaining a lethal cocktail combined with dispersants, killing wildlife and poisoning anyone eating it, assuring a coming epidemic of cancers and other diseases. On August 19, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior scientist Bill Lehr, in testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, retracted his earlier claim about most oil dispersed and dissolved. He now says "I would say most of that is still in the environment," as much as 90%, only 6% burned and 4% skimmed, the rest contaminating a large part of the Gulf, spreading, and devastating wildlife. In addition, on August 19, the journal Science published a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) study, confirming a giant oil plume floating about 1,200 meters below the surface - 35 km-long (22 miles), two km wide, and 200 meters thick. Persisting "for months without substantial biodegradation," it poses a serious threat to sea life, one of the article's writers, Dr. Chris Reddy, saying, "At this point, we know the plume exists, and we know more about its potential biological activity in the future" and harm it can cause. It'll be years before the full extent of damage is known. However, it's already extensive and extremely dangerous, containing 50 micrograms per liter of "a group of particularly toxic petroleum compounds," 6 - 7% of it a deadly benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene cocktail - released from BP's Macondo well, the evidence clearly showing it according to research team head Richard Camilli. He expects the plume to spread and biodegrade very slowly in cold waters. In addition, other independent researchers discovered other even larger plumes. University of Georgia Marine Sciences Professor Samantha (Mandy) B. Joye said the WHOI plume "doesn't hold a candle" to one her team found in May. Nonetheless, BP and Obama officials signaled an all-clear, denying their existence and the catastrophic disaster, out of sight and mind instead of dealing with it responsibly. It's why on August 23, the Union of Concerned Scientists alerted members and supporters to "Help end America's dangerous addiction to oil," saying for decades it's warned about the US's "misguided energy and transportation policies (instead of) promoting innovative solutions to reduce our dependence on oil. (The Gulf disaster) is a painful reminder of the work" left to be done and urgency of doing it. On August 20, Kieran Suckling, Center for Biological Diversity Executive Director headlined his press release, "Gulf of Mexico Still in Crisis Four Months After BP Explosion: Center for Biological Diversity Tour Finds Oiled Beaches, Water and Wildlife....Drilling Policy Reforms Still Too Weak, Too Late," saying: The Center's team saw "firsthand how oil is still killing wildlife and fouling beaches and marshes. This crisis is far from over." Grand Isle, LA beaches were contaminated with oil, liquid surface pools and more mixed with sand in hardened mats along the water's edge. "Some beaches appear fine from a distance but are actually sitting atop massive amounts of oil, which bubbled to the surface when the team walked across the sand. Digging into (it) with rubber gloves," oil was found six inches below the surface. Crabs and birds are covered with it as they cross beaches or marsh land. "Fish and sea turtles are forced to swim through oil on the surface and below," looking for food. "In short, (the Gulf) is still an oily mess despite rosy assertions" by BP and Obama officials, claiming most oil is gone. They know damn well it's there to stay, poisoning everything it touches. The Center's survey supports independent scientists saying most remains, fouling beaches, waters, marshes and wildlife. Working for reform and serious remediation, Center officials filed seven lawsuits against BP and government regulators, including "the largest Clean Water Act suit in history," seeking $19 billion in fines from BP. More on their likely resolution below. Firsthand Reports from the Gulf Reporting from the area, investigative journalist Dahr Jamail calls Grand Isle, LA's condition "post-apocalytic," spotting "tar balls that bob lazily underwater, amidst sand ripples in the shallows....Oil-soaked marsh abounds....the island smell(ing) like a gas station. Noxious fumes infiltrate my nose, causing me to cough. Piles of oiled oysters rest on the tide line." Tar balls are everywhere. "In some places, there are literally huge mats of fresh tar....The scene is apocalyptic....It is one of the more disgusting, vile scenes I've even seen....All we can do is take photos. The stench is overpowering. I gag. My eyes water from the burning chemicals....I feel dizzy." The entire Gulf Coast has been raped and destroyed. Official coverup is criminal. Only time will assess the full damage on humans and wildlife. However, the toll already is devastating, the Obama administration complicit with BP, culpable for a crime they want suppressed, ignored and forgotten, what will affect the lives of millions perhaps forever. According to Florida State University ocean scientist Ian MacDonald: "The (disaster's) imprint will be there in the Gulf of Mexico for the rest of my life. It is not gone," and won't ever "go away quickly," warning of a potential tipping point beyond which wildlife and the ecosystem won't recover, the crossed Rubicon after which return no longer is possible, a shocking assessment perhaps already true. JAMA Reports Direct Threats to Human Health In its August 16 edition, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) writers Drs. Gina M. Solomon and Sarah Janssen headlined, "Health Effects of the Gulf Oil Spill," saying "it (and dispersants pose) direct threats to human health from inhalation or dermal contact," besides harming seafood and mental health. Solomon and Janssen explained that crude oil's main components are "aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons." Containing volatile organic compounds (including benezene, toluene and xylene), they "can cause respiratory irritation and central nervous system (CNS) depression." Benzene also causes leukemia, and toluene "is a recognized teratogen (causing embryo malformation) at high doses." Naphthalene and other higher molecular weight chemicals are "reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans...." Released hydrogen sulfide gas, nonvolatile polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals from oil "can contaminate the food chain. Hydrogen sulfide gas is neurotoxic and has been linked to both acute and chronic CNS (central nervous system) effects. PAHs include mutagens and probable carcinogens. Burning oil generates particulate matter, which is associated with cardiac and respiratory symptoms and premature mortality." Massive dispersants use greatly exacerbates the problem. They contain toxic detergents, surfactants and petroleum distillates, including known respiratory irritants like 2-butoxyethanol, propylene glycol, and sulfonic acid salts. As a result, area residents and cleanup workers experienced headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, coughs, respiratory distress, chest pain, and other symptoms - warning signs of potentially greater future health problems. "Skin contact with oil and dispersants causes defatting, resulting in dermatitis and secondary skin infections. Some individuals may develop a dermal hypersensitivity reaction, erythema (injured or irritated skin), edema, burning sensations, or a follicular rash." Potential long-term health risks are high, wildlife contamination making anyone eating Gulf seafood vulnerable. "Community residents should not fish" in oil-contaminated areas, nor should federal, state or local officials allow them. Some Final Comments On August 20, New York Times writer Ian Urbina headlined, "BP Settlements Likely to Shield Top Defendants," saying: "People and businesses seeking a lump-sum settlement from BP's $20 billion oil spill compensation fund will most likely have to waive their right to sue not only BP, but also all the other major defendants involved with the spill, according to internal documents from the lawyers handling the fund." In other words, the fix is in, Obama and BP officials conspiring to let responsible parties off the hook, settlement terms designed to deny victims just compensation and for many, perhaps most, none at all, given the strict guidelines of eligibility required. Claims czar Kenneth Feinberg is a notorious "fixer," mandated to save BP, Transocean, Halliburton, and blowout preventer maker Cameron International potentially tens of billions in liabilities, strong-arming victims to waive their right to sue in return for amounts too meager to matter. According to Urbina, the dilemma for those suing is deciding between "years of litigation (or) accept(ing) the (offered) settlement....before the full (extent of) damage" is known. Most important is that "those who cannot demonstrate damages caused by the direct impact of oil on beaches and fisheries will be ineligible for money." For example, small businesses, not located directly on affected beaches, experiencing sharp revenue drops "will not be able to receive compensation...." in violation of the federal Oil Pollution Act that excludes geographical limitations. The same holds for area residents living away from the shoreline. Property owners who've seen sharp valuations drops, will also be cheated. So will cleanup workers and area residents later contracting diseases, mental illness, lost income, or other harmful effects. As point man, Feinberg will deny, obstruct, and let criminal defendants off the hook, then (on BP's payroll) be handsomely paid for his services, the same ones he performed earlier for Wall Street banks, Agent Orange producers, asbestos manufacturers, and Dalkon Shield maker AH Robins as well as against 9/11 victims. Only corporate interests matter, not people whose lives they destroy, Obama officials doing nothing to help them - instead being complicit partners in the greatest ever environmental crime, whitewashing it by giving the all-clear, declaring "mission accomplished," and protecting corporate criminals at all costs. Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.