Egypt's left threatens 'million-strong' protest to stop Islamists winning power

Egypt's left threatens 'million-strong' protest to stop Islamists winning power

Jack Shenker in Cairo

Egyptian activists have threatened to return to Tahrir Square in mass demonstration agianst the generals' current 'roadmap' to democracy. Photograph: Chris Hondros/Getty Images Liberals say post-Mubarak transition proposal favours Muslim Brotherhood – but religious groups reject 'constitution-first' plan June 23, 2011 Egyptian activists have threatened to bring mass pro-democracy protests back to Cairo, with a "million-strong" occupation of Tahrir Square planned for 8 July unless the ruling army generals abandon their current "roadmap" to democracy. In an increasingly rancorous debate, which has developed into a proxy war between the nation's fledgling Islamist and secular political forces, 40 different liberal and leftist movements have joined forces to demand that plans to hold elections in September are dropped. Campaigners fear the existing post-Mubarak transition programme – which would see September's ballot held under an amended version of Egypt's existing constitution and then allow members of parliament to oversee the writing of a new constitution – may cede permanent power to the Muslim Brotherhood and other religious groups, who are expected to dominate the poll. Islamists have reacted furiously to the "constitution-first" campaign, arguing that it contradicts the results of a nationwide referendum held in March, in which 77% of the country backed a set of constitutional amendments and endorsed the idea that parliamentary elections should precede any new constitution. "Egyptians will not remain silent on attempts by an irrelevant elite to impose a liberal secular constitution on the people," said the new Salafist party Al-Nour in a statement. Egypt's interim prime minister, Essam Sharaf, has stoked controversy by suggesting elections could be delayed to allow the nation's "political landscape" to take shape – a key demand of many secular revolutionary groups who believe they have not had the time to develop their organisational capacity and are therefore likely to lose out in September to the Muslim Brotherhood, who are already a well-established presence in most towns and cities across the country. But Sharaf – who took office 100 days ago this week and famously marked his appointment by entering Tahrir Square and announcing to protesters "I draw my legitimacy from you" – has faced a storm of criticism for his comments. Any postponement of elections would contradict the official line held by Egypt's Supreme Council of Armed Forces, the country's de facto rulers until a civilian government is ready to take over. The prime minister later said his comments had been "misunderstood" and that the timetable for elections remained the same. Disagreements over the timing and process of writing a constitution have become the main point of division within Egypt's febrile political landscape, which after decades of one-party rule is now being rapidly populated by a wide range of new forces. "This is not just a debate about short-term political gain," said Egyptian journalist Ashraf Khalil, who has followed the issue closely. "Whoever wins the parliamentary elections is going to play a major role in writing the new constitution and they are therefore going to play a major role in shaping the political foundations of the new Egypt." Concerns are mounting that a raft of new parties, including many claiming to represent the "revolutionary youth" that helped to overthrow Mubarak earlier this year, have not even completed the formal party registration process yet and will be in no position to mount a successful appeal for votes by September. "The Brotherhood is clearly ready for elections now – it's been ready for 10 years – whereas the newer secular parties who could not participate in the political process under Mubarak are not," added Khalil. "I'm not expecting an outright Brotherhood victory or the creation of some kind of Iranian theocratic state, but clearly if the new parliament does not have adequate representation from the movements that played such a key part in sparking the revolution then that's a cause for concern." The Brotherhood's new political vehicle, the Freedom and Justice party, has vowed not to contest more than 50% of parliamentary seats and will not run a candidate for president in an effort to assuage concerns at home and abroad over a potential Islamist takeover of the state. That has not been enough to reassure some critics, including a "national consensus conference" led by the deputy prime minister, which has called for the inclusion of an article in the new constitution that would task the military with "protecting" Egypt's civil institutions – a thinly-veiled warning against any potential attempt by an Islamist-controlled parliament to push for a religious state. In an effort to secure a compromise, presidential hopeful Mohamed ElBaradei has proposed that elections precede the new constitution as originally planned, but that a new bill of rights should be drawn up beforehand that would supersede the constitution. This bill of rights would acknowledge the importance of Islamic sharia law in guiding legislation but also affirm Egypt's status as a civil state. ElBaradei's plan has won some support, though questions remain about how such a legal document would be formulated. "We have to search for a compromise," said political analyst Diaa Rashwan. "We have already had a bitterly fought row over the constitutional amendments and the last thing we need now is to have another major battle between political forces that could destabilise things further." Some activists though have labelled the entire row an unnecessary distraction from the more important job of formulating new policies that tackle Egypt's many socio-economic problems and improve the condition of over 30 million Egyptians still living below the poverty line. "This is a waste of time," tweeted the pro-change campaigner and former Google executive Wael Ghonim, who argued that the constitution debate had descended into an ideological point-scoring contest in which neither side was willing to back down.

Law of the jungle in West bank

Law of the jungle

Saleh Al-Naami

Israeli settlers continue to attack Palestinians with impunity, while the Israeli police or army either ignore incidents of violence or abet them, writes Saleh Al-Naami June 23, 2011 Despite the cold in this mountainous region, a group of young men gathered on the outskirts of the town of Al-Moghayer east of Ramallah in the centre of the West Bank. These youth are intent on preventing Jewish settlers from burning the town mosque again after they set it ablaze for the first time three weeks ago. Threats by settlers that they will continue these attacks moved the group of youth to risk their lives and volunteer to foil the settler plots. If conditions were normal, there would be no need for these young men to risk their lives. The arsonists belong to an organisation that is well known to Israeli security agencies, namely the "Boys from the Hills", which Israeli media calls the "thugs wing" of Jewish settlers in the West Bank. This is the seventh mosque that this group has torched in the West Bank, but neither the Israeli police nor the army has arrested any members of this known group. Other indicators of blatant collusion by Israeli security agencies were uncovered by Israeli television recently, namely that the Israeli police have information that members of the group have burned down mosques and intend on setting more on fire based on a religious edict by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, the director of Youssef Hai Religious School near Nablus. Nonetheless, the rabbi was not arrested or held accountable. Also it was revealed that the Israeli Ministry of Education grants the private schools headed by Shapira more than $200,000 annually, although the curricula being taught there is based on religious heritage as interpreted by Shapira, while all the students and graduates at these schools belong to the Boys from the Hills gang. Israeli security agencies, especially the police, ignore complaints by Palestinians who are attacked by the Boys from the Hills and other Jewish groups. As well as torching mosques, the Boys from the Hills also attack Palestinian villages, and Palestinian villagers complain that gang members poison water wells in Palestinian villages and towns. In order to damage agricultural crops, they release herds of pigs to roam the fields and pollute water sources in rural areas. Reports by Israeli human rights groups point a finger directly at Israeli security agencies for providing an environment conducive to violating the rights of Palestinian citizens in the occupied territories, and encouraging settlers to attack them. "Lately, the state of Israel has been aiding settlers who relentlessly attack Palestinians in the occupied territories," wrote Boaz Okon, an Israeli human rights activist, in Yediot Aharonot. Okon described the way law and judicial agencies handle attacks on Palestinian civilians as judicial "apartheid", stating that Israeli conduct towards the Palestinians reminds him of the actions of European settlers towards black slaves in bygone eras. Meron Benvenisti, an Israeli thinker, accused the Israeli army of becoming mere "armed militia cronies to Jewish settlers". In an article published in Haaretz newspaper, Benvenisti -- who previously served as deputy mayor of occupied Jerusalem -- said that at a time when Jewish settlers enjoy all their rights, including being defended by the Israeli army, the Palestinians do not enjoy this privilege although international law obligates Israel to defend people who are under its occupation. Criticism of the army and police and their role in encouraging settlers to attack Palestinians is spreading, including among prominent reserve army generals who have criticised the army and its complicity. General Shlomo Gazit, who previously headed the army's intelligence unit, stated in an article published in Maariv newspaper that the Israeli army deals with animals in a better manner than it does the Palestinians. Israeli human rights groups have revealed that Israeli judicial and police agencies exercise blatant discrimination between Palestinians and Jewish settlers, in a way that promotes continued attacks on Palestinians. According to a report by the Israeli group "�There is Law", some 99.7 per cent of charges against Palestinians in Israeli military tribunals result in guilty verdicts. Meanwhile, only 10 per cent of complaints by Palestinian citizens in the West Bank filed with Israeli police about attacks by Jewish settlers result in charges against perpetrators. Some 90 per cent of these complaints conclude without any charges. "The manner by which Israeli police and judicial agencies handle Palestinian complaints about acts of violence by settlers against them is essentially negligent, indifferent and unprofessional," according to the report. It added that during the first 11 months of last year, the police investigated 299 reports of violence by settlers against Palestinians, and a third of the complaints were about attacks against Palestinians, including beatings, shootings, use of non-firearm weapons, or stone throwing. The report stated that more than 80 per cent of these complaints were closed without charging any settlers. The document added that altogether about 90 per cent of investigations were closed without filing charges. About 83 per cent were closed because the perpetrator was not found, while seven per cent of complaints were not even investigated because the police officers that were contacted could not find the forms for filing a complaint. Meanwhile, 96 per cent of reports by Palestinians about settlers uprooting olive groves in the West Bank were closed without charges, and in most cases Palestinians are unable to file complaints against settlers with the Israeli police because there are no Israeli police stations in Palestinian residential areas since they are only located in settlements. The document continued that many times when Palestinians file reports against settlers, members of the police refuse to receive or handle them. Palestinian citizens are also sometimes asked to present documentation that they do not possess, and therefore the complaint is ignored. The human rights report documented several forms of negligence in handling Palestinian complaints. Some 42 per cent of affidavits by Palestinians were written in Hebrew, which makes it impossible to verify if the police officer wrote down what they said accurately or not. Many times police officers refuse to go to the location where the attack took place, and when they do they do not speak to key eyewitnesses. The report added that in most cases the police do not exert any effort to investigate the identities of Jewish suspects or confront them with the Palestinians who filed the complaint against them. The report comes on the heels of an admission by General Yuval Bazak, the director of the Combat Theory Development Division in the Israeli army, that the Israeli army assists settlers to commit "crimes" against unarmed Palestinian civilians. In an interview with Yediot Aharonot, Bazak said that the Israeli army has turned a blind eye to the activities of settlers during decades of occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which made settlers believe they are above the law. He stressed that the law being exercised in the West Bank is the law of the jungle, asserting that this belief was nurtured by the unusual relationship between settlers and the army. Bazak revealed that the army does not deal with settlers as if it were an authority responsible for implementing the law, but that the relationship between the two is based on a "close friendship". He added that as a result of this "friendship", the Israeli army has not played its role in thwarting attacks by settlers against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank, and that the army has covered up these crimes and has been lenient with the perpetrators.

Wikileaks exposes US profiteering after Haiti earthquake

Wikileaks exposes US profiteering after Haiti earthquake

By John Marion

June 24, 2011 On June 15, the whistleblower web site WikiLeaks began releasing US diplomatic cables from the period immediately following the devastating Haitian earthquake of January 2010. The cables, from among the 251,287 in WikiLeaks’ possession, provide important information on the machinations of US politicians, on their tight control over Haitian government functions, and about their drive to reopen Haiti to capitalist exploitation. WikiLeaks has reached an agreement with Haiti Liberté, a weekly paper and web site published by Haitian immigrants in the US, under which the paper has first access to the Haitian cables and also helps to post them on the WikiLeaks web site. Concurrently, The Nation is publishing English-language translations of the Haiti Liberté articles. Approximately 1,900 cables from the US embassy in Port-au-Prince will be released on WikiLeaks using this process. One hundred of them had been released as of June 22, including 36 about the earthquake, most written by then-Ambassador Kenneth Merten. The most damning section of the earthquake cables appears at the end of one written on February 1, 2010, with a section titled "The Gold Rush is On!" The "veritable free-for-all" of profit-seekers included a sales presentation given to Haitian President Rene Preval by retired general and former US presidential candidate Wesley Clark on a model of cheap housing that would supposedly shelter the poor from future earthquakes and hurricanes. AshBritt, Inc. was also anxious to get in on the "gold rush." A US corporation with close ties to the Republican party, Ashbritt had already been accused by Broward County, Florida, of double-billing it more than $700,000 after Hurricane Wilma in 1999, and had earned a reputation for profiteering after Hurricane Katrina. In Haiti, AshBritt proposed a national plan to rebuild all government buildings, according to the February 1 cable. In this plan, it was aided by Gilbert Bigio, one of the few billionaires in Haiti, who joined with AshBritt to form the Haiti Recovery Group (HRG). Bigio made much of his fortune during the Duvalier regime, and in 2004 told the Miami Herald, "I don’t think there’s resentment against people who are rich here.… [I]f you know how to manage success, people admire you instead of hate you." In turn, Ashbritt and the HRG were aided by Lewis Lucke, a career USAID bureaucrat appointed unified relief coordinator ambassador shortly after the earthquake. Within months of taking that position, Lucke left it in order to work as a consultant for AshBritt and the HRG. Not content with the $30,000-per-month fee he received from them for two months of consulting, Lucke turned around and sued the companies for $500,000, arguing that he deserved it for having used his government connections to grab $20 million in contracts for the HRG. Now on the board of the company MC Endeavors, Lucke recently called the inauguration of new Haitian president Michel Martelly "an optimistic time for all Haitians and its many international partners [sic]," according to the company’s web site. Like the looting of Wall Street, however, the depredations of capitalism in Haiti are not limited to the actions of individuals. The WikiLeaks cables make plain the concern of the US embassy that clothing manufacturers be able to continue profiting from cheap labor. A February 26, 2010, cable boasts that for the apparel industry, "shipping from Haiti resumed in less than a month, meeting customers’ expectations of having their orders filled on time." Another cable expresses the worry that Wal-Mart will "source" its needs elsewhere if Haiti doesn’t meet its infrastructure needs. Under the guise of "helping" Haitian workers by providing jobs, the February 26 cable elaborates that "international investors, brands, and manufacturers who expressed interest in expanding production in Haiti before the earthquake renewed their commitment to support the Haitian apparel industry, taking advantage of the trade preferences of the HOPE II Act for duty-free export to the US." The embassy makes these boasts despite the story, also related in the February 26 cable, of a factory that completely collapsed during the earthquake, killing at least 300 workers. Cables from June 2009, also released on WikiLeaks this month, detail attempts by the US embassy to advocate on behalf of Hanes and Levi’s against a minimum wage increase, according to Haiti Liberte. The minimum wage increase was being debated by parliament at a time when the average worker in Haiti’s garment sector made the equivalent of US$4.33 per day. The post-earthquake cables also show the extent of the US Government’s control over Haiti, down to the smallest details. A January 19 cable detailing a visit by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton describes repeated attempts by Clinton and her legal counsel to talk President Preval and Prime Minister Bellerive into setting up government-run refugee camps. The Haitian government was afraid that such camps might make "the security situation worse" or lead to protests against the government. A January 26 cable describes a detailed report given to the embassy officer about raw material inventories in the SANOPI industrial park. One of three cables sent on January 29 states that "the Governor and Chief Internal Auditor of the Central Bank have both repeatedly reassured EmbOff that re-establishing payroll for civil servants remains a priority" while "Maxime Charles, President of the Haitian Bankers’ Association told EmbOffs on January 27 that the Central Bank, with the help of MINUSTAH, is supplying funds to bank branches in provinces." In a February 23 cable, a prominent Haitian senator gives the embassy political officer a report about political maneuverings in parliament. Cable after cable expresses the US embassy’s obsessive worry about whether the government of Haiti can afford to meet its police payroll. Despite disagreements over specifics, the cables demonstrate that the US State Department saw Preval and Bellerive as the quickest means of enforcing the needs of international capital. In a section of a January 27 cable titled "Parliament Seeking Relevance," Merten reports that Bellerive did not bother to show up for a Haitian Senate hearing on January 25, while on the same day the lower house passed a resolution but "the resolution had no legal effect and received little coverage in the press." A month later, Merten seems surprised that Parliament has "re-established itself quickly" and is "re-asserting its role as a watchdog." However, he writes parliament off as "inefficient" and expresses the hope that "Preval could sideline Parliament after May 2010 and make limited concessions only as needed." Adding to the cynicism of the Obama administration and its State Department, on February 12, Nancy Pelosi (then speaker of the US House) led a delegation of five senators and seven representatives at a meeting with Preval, Bellerive, and their cabinet. All but one in the US delegation were Democrats, including Senator Tom Harkin and Representatives Charles Rangel and John Conyers. Echoing the mantra of the US bourgeoisie that an earthquake that killed hundreds of thousands could serve as an "opportunity," Pelosi answered Preval’s plea for US private investment by telling him, "we’re receptive...and we would like to hear that Haiti is going toward a different place. If so, you would receive even more support, and we see this as an opportunity to be even more helpful." The "different place" envisioned by Pelosi can only mean more destitution for Haiti’s workers, regardless of which big business party controls the US government.

Permanent US Iraq and Afghanistan Occupations Planned

Permanent US Iraq and Afghanistan Occupations Planned

by Stephen Lendman

June 24, 2011 Nothing reveals Washington's imperial agenda better than its global empire of bases. Sixty-six years post-WW II, America maintains dozens in Germany, Japan, Italy, and South Korea alone. In total, known Pentagon bases way exceed 1,000, as well as perhaps hundreds of other shared and secret ones in about 150 countries on every continent despite no enemies anywhere justifying them. In his 2006 book, "Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic," Chalmers Johnson discussed the known numbers at the time by size and branch of service. He also highlighted the fallout, including oppressive noise, pollution, environmental destruction, expropriation of valuable public and private land, and drunken, disorderly, abusive soldiers committing rape, murder, and other crimes, often unpunished under provisions of US-imposed Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs). Currently, Pentagon bases infest Middle East/North African/Central Asian countries. In fact, at least 88 dot Iraq alone, including: -- permanent, city-sized Main Operating Bases (MOBs); for example, Balad Air Base in northern Iraq covers 16 square miles plus another 12-mile security perimeter; these are large and permanent, have extensive infrastructure, command and control headquarters, accommodations for families in combat-free areas, hospitals, schools, recreational facilities, and nearly everything found in US cities; similar MOBs include Camp Adder in southern Iraq, Al-Asad Air Base in the west, and Victory Base Complex, compromising nine bases, including Camp Victory around Baghdad's International Airport; -- Forward Operating Sites (FOSs), also major but smaller than MOBs; and -- Cooperative Security Locations (CLSs) - smaller facilities to preposition weapons, munitions, and modest troop numbers. These type bases span Afghanistan, besides ongoing expansion and construction of major facilities for permanent occupation. Known major sites include Bagram, Kandahar, and Mazar-e-Sharif air bases. Frontline airfields include Herat, Jalalabad, and a dozen or more others, besides hundreds of large and smaller Pentagon facilities according to Tomdispatch.com writer Nick Turse in his February 10, 2010 article titled, "Totally Occupied: 700 Military Bases Spread Across Afghanistan." Citing "official sources," he said a "base-building boom" began in 2009 for US and Afghan forces. It's ongoing for permanent occupation, including a new Camp Leatherneck and Camp Bastion 11,500 foot all-weather concrete/asphalt runway and air traffic control tower, as well as a Shindand Air Field 9,000 foot runway completed last December. Moreover, spare parts and other supplies have been stockpiled for permanency, not departure, Obama's withdrawal duplicity notwithstanding. More about it below. Washington, in fact, came to Iraq and Afghanistan to stay. Doing so confirms a hostile presence occupied populations detest, including angry South Koreans and Japanese against continued US occupation. In less developed countries, social movements want America pushed back or expelled altogether to regain their sovereign independence, free from US imperial wars, injustice, fallout, and shame when their own nations participate. Last February, puppet president Karzai confirmed Washington's demand for permanent bases, claiming they're in Afghanistan's interest. In fact, US and other NATO leaders agreed on a "transition strategy" last year in Lisbon to hand over control to Afghan forces by 2014. At the time, vice president Biden called it a "drop dead date." He lied. So did Obama like he did earlier, saying withdrawing US forces would begin in July 2011. In December 2009, Obama announced 30,000 more troops for Afghanistan to enable withdrawals beginning in 18 months, insisting at the time America has no permanent occupation plans. He lied again like he's repeatedly done throughout his tenure, knowing America came to Iraq and Afghanistan to stay. Moreover, when he took office in January 2009, 34,000 troops were in Afghanistan. By December, he tripled the number to 100,000. Cutting back incrementally by a third if, in fact, done, will still leave double the force in place from when his tenure began. Nonetheless, on June 22, he addressed the nation, saying: "(S)tarting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 by next summer (to let) Afghan security forces (take) the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete...." False! A large US presence will remain permanently. Drone and other air attacks will continue, killing civilians called militants. Obama's duplicity is politically motivated with November 2012 in mind to assure enough support for reelection despite falling approval ratings. War-weary Americans, in fact, are increasingly burdened during economic hard times. As a result, polls show growing opposition to conflicts. Congressman Dennis Kucinich said "Things are falling apart at home while we (keep) searching the world looking for dragons to slay." Pollster Peter Brown added: "I do not think there is any doubt (that) Afghanistan, the involvement in Iraq, and now (in) Libya has for many Americans raised questions about the wisdom of these policies." The Brookings Institution's Stephen Hess explained that "(a) trio of wars is not exactly what Americans are interested in at this time when they have a very full platter of problems at home," harming them gravely. In fact, when unpopular wars take precedence over pocket book issues, people react angrily, perhaps enough to deny Obama a second term if conditions deteriorate more between now and November 2012. Obama also bogusly claimed significant Afghanistan gains, saying "we've inflicted serious losses on the Taliban and taken a number of its strongholds....(T)he tide of war is receding (and) the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance" when it's nowhere in sight in an endless cauldron of death and destruction, affecting US forces like Afghans. In fact, according to a US Army colonel wishing to remain anonymous, telling Time magazine: "The mendacity is getting so egregious that I am fast losing the ability to remain quiet. These yarns of 'significant progress' are being covered up by the blood and limbs of hundreds - HUNDREDS - of American uniformed service members each and every month, and you know that the rest of this summer is going to see the peak of that bloodshed." He added that America's ability to achieve a secure handover to Afghan forces is "sheer madness, and so far as I can tell, in the mainstream media and reputable publications, it is going almost entirely without challenge." Moreover, the same holds for Pakistan where drone kills enrage people to resist, perpetuating endless conflict. After a decade of war and occupation, in fact, America won't admit it lost and leave. Instead, massive bloodshed continues to create the illusion of progress Obama hopes will help reelect him, mindless that what matters most are pocket book issues, especially when during hard times they go begging. June 7 - 9 Zogby International polling numbers reflect growing voter disapproval, showing 43% approve Obama's performance. Only 38% say he deserves reelection. Besides domestic issues, it reflects growing disenchantment with endless wars, including against Libya that most Americans oppose. Once closer to November 2012, force-fed austerity to finance them may cost sitting politicians their jobs, even Obama if voters think he spurned them when they most need help. For beleaguered Iraqis and Afghans, however, it hardly matters if America came to stay. A Final Comment Controlling Eurasia's vast oil and gas reserves explains why America plans permanent Iraq and Afghanistan occupations, terror bombs Libya, and heads toward possible general war by threatening Syria, Iran, and perhaps other states to fuel its insatiable military-industrial appetite. Washington's strategy also includes encroaching close to Russian and Chinese borders to diminish their military and economic challenge, as well as potential greater dominance by establishing closer ties, thereby weakening America. The policy is fraught with dangers, the same ones Barbara Tuchman explained in her 1962 book, "The Guns of August," on how WW I began and its early weeks. Once started, things spun out of control with cataclysmic consequences, including over 20 million dead, many millions wounded, and a generation of young men lost before it ended. As a result, igniting another global conflict should give everyone pause, including militarists and war profiteers sacrificing sanity, security, and prosperity for inconsequential ephemeral gains by comparison.

The diamond industry’s double-standard on Israel

ΝΑ ΓΝΩΡΙΖΕΙ Ο ΑΝΑΓΝΩΣΤΗΣ ΟΤΙ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΩΣ (ΚΑΙ ΣΕ ΚΑΘΕ ΧΩΡΑ) Η ΚΑΤΕΡΓΑΣΙΑ-ΕΜΠΟΡΙΑ ΑΔΑΜΑΝΤΩΝ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΑΠΟΚΛΕΙΣΤΙΚΩΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΛΗΡΩΣ (ΕΠΑΝΑΛΑΜΒΑΝΟΜΕ, 100% ΑΠΟΚΛΕΙΣΤΙΚΩΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΛΗΡΩΣ) ΕΙΣ ΕΒΡΑΪΚΑΣ ΧΕΙΡΑΣ !!!

 

The diamond industry’s double-standard on Israel

Seán Clinton

Diamonds are Israel’s number one export commodity. (Gil Cohen Magen/Reuters) EI, June 24, 2011 All too aware of how bad association with war crimes is for business, the diamond industry has taken pains to evade questions about its connections with Israel’s human rights abuses — and so far has escaped scrutiny from watchdog organizations. Representatives for 75 countries affiliated to the United Nations-based Kimberley Process Certification Scheme meeting in Kinshasa this week failed to reach agreement on the export of blood-stained diamonds from Zimbabwe. The elephant in the room was Israel’s burgeoning diamond exports which evade the human rights strictures imposed on Zimbabwe’s diamond exports. A "letter of the month" that I authored and which was published in the April edition of Retail Jeweller magazine exposes these double standards in the Kimberley Process regulations that facilitate the trade in blood-stained diamonds from Israel and Zimbabwe (Letters, Retail Jeweller Magazine, April 2011). The letter caused "consternation" to some in the diamond industry and resulted in the withdrawal of the magazine from a major jewellery trade fair in Switzerland ("Gems editor sorry for 'blood diamond’ boycott letter," The Jewish Chronicle, 7 April 2011). The letter drew the wrath of vested interests and leaders of the Israeli diamond industry. Their response via the Letters page in the May edition of the magazine demonstrated the sensitivity of the global diamond industry to any exposure of the links between Israeli diamonds and Israeli war crimes. Three letters, signed by six prominent members of the global diamond industry, representing eight different organizations, all repeated the same mantra about the delegitimization of Israel. The writers ignored the key issue — that Israel’s cut and polished diamond exports evade the human rights strictures applying to exports of rough diamonds. While the diamond industry continues to promote a soft-focus image of diamonds as objects of desire, the public, increasingly concerned about the ethical credentials of the goods they purchase, are no longer prepared to accept at face value claims that diamonds processed in Israeli are conflict-free . Israel’s diamond trade funds war crimes Israeli Diamond Industry Chairman Moti Ganz said recently: "Americans still buy diamonds to symbolize love and commitment" ("IDI plans its largest participation at JCK Las Vegas," Diamond World, 17 May 2011). For the people in Gaza, on the receiving end of Israel’s diamond-funded white phosphorous and flechette nail bombs, diamonds are more likely to symbolize murder, mayhem and blood-soaked terror than love and commitment. Israeli political economist Shir Hever, in evidence to the Russell Tribunal on Palestine stated in November 2010: "Overall the Israeli diamond industry contributes about $1 billion annually to the Israeli military and security industries … every time somebody buys a diamond that was exported from Israel some of that money ends up in the Israeli military so the financial connection is quite clear" ("Day 2, Part 1 of London Session, Russell Tribunal on Palestine," 21 November 2010). The introduction of the Kimberley Process (KP) regulations in 2003 was supposed to prevent the trade in diamonds that fund human rights violations. However, the Kimberly Process regulations’ narrow definition of a conflict or blood diamond excludes cut and polished diamonds. This anomaly facilitates the situation whereby jewelers can label cut and polished diamonds that are generating revenue used to fund the Israeli military which stands accused of war crimes, as conflict-free. As a result, de facto blood diamonds from Israel contaminate the global market. The absence of a legal definition of a conflict-free diamond facilitates this deception. A public petition by a group of international Palestine solidarity activists, Global Palestine Solidarity (GPS), to the members of the Kimberley Process seeks an urgent review of the definition of a conflict diamond to include cut and polished diamonds that fund human rights violations ("Stop Israel’s Blood Diamond Trade," accessed 1 June 2011). Censorship by online retailers To maintain the charade, a number of the world’s leading diamond retailers have resorted to censorship to avoid answering questions about the provenance of their so-called conflict-free diamonds. Blue Nile, a Seattle-based, NASDAQ-listed company, is the world’s leading online diamond retailer. The company claims their diamonds "are warranted to be conflict-free." Over the past six months, however, subscribers to the Blue Nile Facebook page have on numerous occasions asked how the company can justify the claim that diamonds crafted in Israel are conflict-free as they generate revenue used to fund the Israeli military, which stands accused of war crimes. In response, the company censored their Facebook page, blocking scores of people and their 90,000 Facebook fans from posting new threads or pictures on their wall. Following sustained questioning from people in Ireland over a four-week period prior to 5 November 2010, Blue Nile imposed a blanket ban on all Irish IP address users. This is not the only example of Blue Nile attempting to evade the issue of Israel’s blood diamonds. In February 2011, Blue Nile filed its annual report with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the file is accessible via the Blue Nile website, accessed 21 June 2011). Blue Nile’s annual report is supposed to be a full disclosure of all the information necessary for investors to make an informed decision about the risks to the company’s future trading performance. While this legally-binding statement of the company’s trading performance lists 16 pages of possible risk factors to the business, it fails to mention that the company is selling diamonds crafted in Israel that are the target of an international campaign that seeks to have them classified as conflict or blood diamonds. Nor does it state that the company took evasive action on its Facebook page to prevent people questioning the provenance of their so-called conflict-free diamonds. Retailers attempting to evade accountability Meanwhile, other diamond retailers have also tried to avoid scrutiny for involvement in Israel’s diamond trade. Over the past six months, Brilliant Earth, another leading online diamond retailer, which promotes their diamonds as "ethically sourced" and "conflict-free," has also blocked scores of people who posted questions on their Facebook wall asking if any of their so-called conflict-free diamonds are crafted in Israel. And in April, forty members of the Independent Jewelers Organization (IJO), an 800-member American association of "jewelers with the highest ethical standards," went on a diamond-buying trip to Israel ("," Israeli Diamond industry website, 1 May 2011). When subscribers to their Facebook page queried how they justify buying diamonds in a country that stands accused of war crimes, the administrators censored the page and deleted all references to their trip to Israel. These are just some examples of the difficulties faced by jewelers who sell diamonds crafted in Israel claiming they are conflict-free diamonds. Jewelers want to promote their ethical practices, but if they sell diamonds crafted in Israel they are helping to fund a military regime that stands accused of war crimes. The contamination of the global diamond market with Israeli diamonds gives Palestine solidarity activists enormous leverage with the diamond industry at local, national and international levels. Israel’s biggest export Diamonds are Israel’s number one export commodity, accounting for between one quarter and one third of Israeli exports. In 2008, diamond exports were valued at $19.4 billion with a net value of approximately $10 billion — far exceeding even the gross value of electronic or pharmaceutical exports. The diamond industry in Israel adds 5 percent to the GDP and is a significant source of the revenue needed to sustain Israel’s occupations, siege on Gaza and illegal settlements. Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land and the brutal subjugation of the Palestinian people places a heavy burden on Israeli government finances. According to US government statistics, Israel’s military expenditures consume more than 7 percent of the GDP, or approximately $16 billion per year (CIA World Factbook - Israel). While American military aid of $3 billion per year is significant, the bulk of the money needed to sustain the many facets of Israeli hegemony has to be extracted from the economy in taxes of one form or another. However, American consumers contribute more than the value of Washington’s aid package to the Israeli economy through the purchase of Israeli diamonds. According to the Israeli diamond industry website, approximately 50 percent of all diamonds bought in the US come from Israel ("The Israeli diamond industry - A leading center of the diamond world"). The US is Israel’s most important diamond export market, accounting for roughly 40 percent of exports. In 2010 the net value of Israeli diamond exports to America was $5.8 billion ("IDI plans its largest participation at JCK Las Vegas," Diamond World website, 17 May 2011). Israel’s economy, to a large extent isolated from its natural markets in neighboring Arab states, is heavily reliant on the export of goods and services to Europe, the US and Asia. Israeli planners have long recognized the need for high-value, export-orientated industries that would draw in the foreign currency necessary to sustain the Zionist project in Palestine. Zimbabwe vs. Israel Israel’s overdependence on a luxury fashion commodity leaves it exposed and vulnerable to a consumer-lead rejection of Israeli diamonds. The demise of the Israeli diamond industry could have a significant impact on other sectors of the economy, on the Israeli stock market and on Israel’s ability to attract foreign direct investment. The diamond industry is well aware how easily a brand image that has taken decades to establish can be ruined in a fraction of that time by any unsavory association. In the wake of Israel’s pre-election assault on the besieged residents of Gaza in the winter of 2008-09, a UN Human Rights Council investigation found evidence that Israel committed war crimes and possible crimes against humanity. The $1 billion revenue generated by the Israeli diamond industry helped fund the attack on Gaza — a clear justification for labeling Israeli diamonds "blood diamonds." Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) with observer status in the Kimberley Process (such as Global Witness and others) have a responsibility to ensure their support is not misused by the diamond industry. Despite Israel’s well-documented human rights abuses, none of the NGOs have raised the issue of Israel’s continuing membership of the Kimberly Process scheme. Instead, their attention is mainly focused on diamond exports from Zimbabwe, where government forces are reported to have killed more than 200 persons in the violent takeover of the Marange diamond fields in 2008 ("Zimbabwe: End Repression in Marange Diamond Fields," Human Rights Watch, 26 June 2009). In 2008, Israel’s diamond exports were worth more than 1,200 times that of Zimbabwe’s diamond exports. NGOs cannot remain credible defenders of human rights if they continue to ignore Israel’s diamond-funded occupations, diamond-funded war crimes, diamond-funded siege, diamond-funded colonization and the diamond-funded ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Seán Clinton is a Palestine solidarity activist from Ireland. He is a member of the international group of Palestine solidarity activists, Global Palestine Solidarity, which focuses primarily on the Israel diamond industry.

Afghanistan: Responsible Crimes of Obama & Our Irresponsible Alternative

Afghanistan: Responsible Crimes of Obama & Our Irresponsible Alternative

by Mike Ely

June 24, 2011 "Obama is 'winding the war down’  (!) by barely chipping away piecemeal at his own escalation – while planning a permanent occupation force. This is called 'responsible withdrawal.’" "A police action becomes an invasion, becomes an occupation, becomes a permanent outpost of empire. And at every step there is the mix of whining disappointment and ongoing participation among official liberals." "Would U.S. withdrawal mean that their puppets are exposed? Yes. Is that so bad? No. "Would U.S. withdrawal mean that its future ability to threaten is weakened? Yes. Is that so bad? No." "They will call our logic and demands 'irresponsible’ — well, so be it. We are responsible to a different set of people and a different future. Humanity doesn’t need or want some strutting capitalist 'global policeman’ (whose corruption, murder and plunder masquerades as self-defense and selfless aid.)" by Mike Ely Obama announced his Afghanistan plans this week, and it was all posed as a "responsible withdrawal" — slow, paced, preserving U.S. "gains," protecting U.S. puppets, maintaining the dignity of a superpower. And  the official media arena is filled with debate over whether it is "responsible" enough. So we are presented with a (typical and deceptive) ruling class debate where the most basic realities are shoved to the side. The  facts remain: Obama’s "responsible pace of withdrawal" may will leave troop in Afghanistan forever. And for the foreseeable future they are not far from where Bush-era levels of invasion force. Obama’s plan is a token shift of 10,000 soldiers (leaving by the end of 2011) and maybe (maybe!)  23,000 in another year. Compare these numbers to the current size of the occupation force which is  250,000  military forces by the U.S. and its invasion partners (100,000 U.S. troops, 50,000 NATO troops and 100,000 Pentagon-paid contractors). This is a plan for a continuing war and brutalization of Afghanistan’s people (and of nearby Pakistan) — all while claiming that the invaders "provide the people with the security they need for normal life"! Obama’s plans apparently envision at least 25,000 occupation troops remaining after 2014. Meaning that there is zero discussion involving ending this occupation, but instead plans to make it permanent. Doublethink: Winding down his own escalation, Continuing the war Obama is "winding the war down" (!) by barely chipping away piecemeal at his own escalation – while planning a permanent occupation force. Compare Obama’s withdrawal numbers to his own initial escalation of this invasion: He opened his presidency by sending 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan (a pro-war campaign "pledge" that his antiwar supporters seemed to overlook/excuse). Then that was followed by another 33,000. This "surge" (double-speak for escalation) went parallel with Obama’s expansion of the war into Pakistan (with drone spying, aerial strikes, military raids, covert operations, massive espionage, infuriating killing of civilians and wholesale bribery of military and government officials). A liberal state of calculated disappointment? A police action becomes an invasion becomes an occupation becomes a permanent outpost of empire. And at every step there is the mix of whining disappointment and ongoing participation of official liberals. The candidate who won support (in 2008 election campaign) by presenting himself as the only Democrat to oppose the Iraq war forcefully and publicly — now is the commander in chief of an escalated (and seemingly permanent) Afghanistan War (now the longest war in U.S. history). He continues the massive U.S. occupation and domination of the Persian Gulf (including its northern component of occupation in Iraq). He maintains Guantanamo Bay facilities.  He threatens Iran. And has launched yet another war in North Africa, attacking Libya. It is worth pointing out how massively unpopular this is. The Afghanistan war (which had overwhelming-if-temporary support as a revenge act after  9/11) now has 64% opposition. The decision to continue this war is a cold decision of empire, it is a calculation based on imperialist politics of an establishment elite (not on popular politics). "Responsible" means an empire’s gangster logic The "responsibility" the White House insists it has (like a broken record) is not responsibility toward a) the people of Afghanistan, b) the people dying in this occupation, c) the interests of the broad population of the United States… it is "responsibility" to the empire. Any imperialist who flinches and runs in the face of mere villagers has lost superpower status (some commentators worry), and so the U.S. cannot leave without some form of "victory" or permanence. Meanwhile, left liberals are expressing disappointment.  That is a bit of outrageous double think in its own right. If you don’t want disillusionment, don’t promote illusions. No. Obama is not a "disappointment" — he is a war criminal defending history’s greatest empire of exploitation. It is shameful when liberal opinion-makers play these endless games of disappointment and compromise (as they so-so-methodically prepare minds to support Obama next year!) When they excuse for slow withdrawal (or make pathetic arguments for slightly faster withdrawal) they are (really) participating in global games of budget and power:  How to maintain superpower status and dominance with fewer and less costly forces. We should reject (and expose) that kind of "responsible" logic. There is no "responsible pace of withdrawal." These are unjust, criminal wars of dominance and empire. The wars  must be ended, and we must oppose them. Nothing here is an issue of "American national security" or "national defense" — these are the double-think words of empire, and used to justify threatening and dominating whole regions all around the world. All is in service to American capitalism, profit, and its exploitation of "cheap" resource and labor (with a "cheapness" that  requires global armed force to maintain.) Funds should be cut off, soldiers should resist, protests should be organized, the machinery of war exposed, the complicity in empire called out, and we should participate in the mobilization of global public opinion: Yankee  go home! They will call our logic and demands "irresponsible" — well, so be it. We are responsible to a different set of people and a different future. Humanity doesn’t need or want some strutting capitalist "global policeman" (whose corruption, murder and plunder masquerades as self-defense and self-less aid.) Would U.S. withdrawal mean that their puppets are exposed? Yes. Is that so bad? No. Would U.S. withdrawal mean that its future ability to threaten is weakened? Yes. Is that so bad? No. We should all (on the contrary) be expressing a determination to demand "U.S. out Now!" Out of Afghanistan. Out of the Persian Gulf. Out of Libya. Not at some  pace that preserves empire (and its capacity for the next aggression). Withdraw the nuclear navy threatening Iran and the whole Middle East. Dismantle the "Central Command" which raids and invades half the globe like it was "our backyard." Remove U.S. troops and bases from the heart of Europe (from which the logistics train threatens war anywhere in the planet). Dismantle Diego Garcia. Dismantle the CIA. Destroy the nukes, and drones, and spy satellites. Shut down Guantanamo Bay — not just the notorious prison facility but the forward Marine base itself — and return that Cuban soil to Cuban hands. Out Now. Immediately. In shame and defeat if possible. (The clearer the defeat and exposure of imperialism the better for the consciousness of the people everywhere, including in the U.S. — look at the Vietnam experience!) Leave countries and peoples to their own self-determination and conflicts. Leave people to unfold their own futures (and social transformations) without the cynical shaping by invasion forces and global corporate economics. Don’t thank that soldier "for your service" — ask if they understand who they are serving, ask if they are resisting. Expose the empire to oppose the empire. Oppose the empire to end the empire. This empire won’t dismantle itself As we make such demands, we don’t assume that agreement will come from the White House, or Pentagon or congress. It takes bankruptcy, major upheaval and defeat to end empires.  And this empire too won’t be dismantled until radically different forces come to power dedicated to its destruction. And in that process, even at it beginning stages, as right is clarified from wrong, it needs to be pointed out that those political forces who want a more economical "responsible" empire, or a more multilateral defense of empire, or a more "friendly" or "democratic" face of empire…. what is that but policies of illusion and oppression?

What's Really Going On at the Israeli Institute for Biological Research?

What's Really Going On at the Israeli Institute for Biological Research?
Exposing Israel's Most Dangerous Secret

By SALEH EL-NAAMI

June 24, 2011 Drivers will only dart a glance at that mammoth structure nestled in the dunes south of Rishon Litsion southeast of Tel Aviv as they speed on their way. It is forbidden to turn off the Tel Aviv-Rishon Litsion highway onto the side road leading up to that building, which is barricaded by cement walls equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance and warning systems developed by Israel's military industries. That fortress-like structure is the Israeli Institute for Biological Research (IIBR) where Israel develops its biological and chemical weapons and prepares for any eventuality of biological or chemical warfare. It is the most top-secret military installation in Israel. So tightly is it guarded by military censorship that the Israeli press has to turn to Western sources for scraps of information made available to them, very intermittently, by special contacts inside the institute. Only once has the Israeli press been given leeway to discuss what goes on behind those high security walls. That was last month when Avisha Klein filed a suit against the IIBR administration for harassment and emotional abuse. A long-term employee at the institute, Klein has served in various positions, one of which was as part of a team to develop an ointment to protect the skin from mustard gas. But this is only one of the many details that have come to light in the course of the proceedings, which have shed considerable light on the nature and scope of the institute's work. The IIBR is staffed by some 300 scientists and technicians employed in one or more of its many departments, each of which specialises in a specific area of chemical or biological research generally aimed at the production of chemical or biological weaponry. One of these departments, for example, is reported to have developed the poison that was used by the notorious Mossad assassination unit, Kidon, in its botched attempt to eliminate Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshaal in 1997. Nevertheless, if there remains some question over the accuracy of this information, which was reported in Haaretz, no one disputes that the first time the institute's products were used in an assassination operation was in late 1977 when then prime minister Menachem Begin ordered Mossad to eliminate Wadie Haddad. A leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Haddad was accused by Israel of responsibility for several terrorist operations, the last of which was the hijacking of an Israeli passenger plane en route to Entebbe in 1976. According to a recently published book by the Israeli journalist Aharon Klein, Haddad had a great fondness for Belgian chocolates. Mossad obtained some of these special chocolates, coated them with a slow-acting poison, and had them delivered to Haddad, who was then living in Baghdad, by an Iraqi official who was a Mossad agent and who had struck up a friendship with Haddad. Klein relates that the deadly substance was first developed in the IIBR and that its slow-acting and undetectable properties ensured that the agent and the instrument of death would not be discovered. And indeed, following a gradual but severe deterioration in his health, Haddad was flown to a hospital in East Germany where he was diagnosed with leukaemia and eventually died on 28 March 1978. It was not until 32 years later that the truth came to light: that the real cause of death was a poison produced by IIBR. It is not unlikely that Mossad conducted many assassination operations in this way, so as not to leave its fingerprints. In other words, the seemingly accidental deaths of many individuals that Israel regarded as a threat may have actually been caused by substances produced by IIBR. Most likely, the poison that Mossad agents injected into Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in Dubai in February 2010 came from IIBR. According to information that has recently come out, the institute contains a department specialising in the production of vaccines against biological weapons. One of the chief focuses of research and development, here, was anthrax, which Israel fears the Arabs and resistance organisations will use against it in a confrontation. The institute also has a department for developing remedies to minimise and counter the effects of chemical weaponry. The whole presents a gruesome picture of a curious chemical and biological race, with the institute virtually competing with itself to produce antidotes to weapons that it, itself, is producing, or that it fears others will use against Israel in an eventual confrontation. The IIBR works closely and in full coordination with the Israeli army and intelligence, which furnish the institute with their lists of priorities in light of their strategic threat forecasts. For example, information that has come to light during the coverage of Klein's suit reveals that many years ago the Israeli military establishment was concerned that Arab states might use such chemical agents as mustard gas in an potential assault against Israel and, therefore, instructed the institute to develop a chemical substance to minimise the effects of the gas. Not surprisingly, the institute coordinates closely with the Israeli army's medical corps, which receives the antidotes and distributes them to its branches in the military in accordance with demand. The institute also works closely with Mossad and Shin Bet, the agencies primarily responsible for most of the assassination and liquidation operations against Arab and Muslim targets. Also, since Mossad and the military intelligence unit "Aman" are responsible for gathering enemy intelligence and presumably monitor nonconventional weapons programmes in Arab countries, they would instruct IIBR to develop the necessary biological or chemical responses to these programmes. However, the IIBR has another purpose on top of developing and producing biological and chemical weapons and antidotes. It is also a major hard currency income-generator. The Hebrew Haaretz website reports: "The institute has received a grant of hundreds of millions of dollars to develop an anthrax vaccine." The grant followed an attack in the US by a home-grown terrorist group that developed a concentrated strain of anthrax spores and delivered them to several individual targets in US; the vaccines that IIBR was commissioned to develop were destined for use in the US. More importantly, we learn from the website that Israeli soldiers have been used to test the vaccines, causing some permanent physical damage. Reports of the internationally banned use of human guinea pigs raised moral hackles in Israel and sharpened suspicions that the lives of Israeli soldiers had deliberately been put to risk for the sake of financial gain received for promoting the security of another country, namely the US in this case. The IIBR has a live animals department, where rabbits, pigs, monkeys and other animals are used in experiments. And perhaps human beings as well, judging by the suits soldiers filed against the Israeli Ministry of Defence after they were used in the anthrax experiments. The soldiers demand that they be officially recognised as disabled veterans and receive compensation accordingly. The case remains in the courts, but the IDF, caving into pressure from the families of the soldiers and public opinion, recently announced that it would no longer conduct experiments on soldiers. It was Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, who ordered the construction of the IIBR on the basis of the advice of a number of Jewish scientists. Throughout his rule, from 1948 to 1963 (with the exception of the years 1953-1955 when �Moshe Sharett served as prime minister), Ben-Gurion was directly responsible for the institute and every detail in it. The staff were forbidden to disclose to anyone even the smallest tid-bit of data or information without first obtaining Ben-Gurion's approval. That continued to apply even during that interstice when Sharrit was in power, for when this prime minister visited the institute in 1954 scientists had to apologise for not being able to show him the programmes they were working on at the time. Although many scientists have taken a turn to direct the IIBR, it is generally believed that the one to have left the greatest imprint is its current director, Avigdor Shafferman. Shafferman, who has been named in Klein's suit, has the reputation of being something of a powerhouse but also being very strict and quick to fire staff members on disciplinary grounds. Nevertheless, as significant as the details that have come to light in this rare glimpse into the workings of the IIBR may be, little attention has focussed on a larger truth. As the international community hounds a host of countries for pursuing conventional weapons programmes that pale in scale next to Israel's, it refuses to budge an inch to deter Israel, which only encourages Tel Aviv's belligerent and tyrannical behaviour. Saleh El-Naami writes for Al-Ahram, where this article originally appeared.

Hamid Karzai move closer to Iran and Pakistan

Karzai surrounding himself with narrow circle of advisers urging a shift from US to Iran

By Associated Press

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar June 24, 2011 KABUL, Afghanistan — President Hamid Karzai is increasingly isolated and has surrounded himself with an inner circle of advisers who are urging him to move closer to Iran and Pakistan as the U.S. draws down its role in Afghanistan, several friends and aides tell The Associated Press. Their advice is echoed in Karzai’s anti-West rhetoric, which has heightened both in his public speeches and in private. He met recently with Iran’s defense minister, and constantly cautions against trusting the U.S. to have Afghanistan’s best interests at heart. Several of Karzai’s close friends and advisers now speak of a president whose doors have closed to all but one narrow faction and who refuses to listen to dissenting opinions. They say people allowed to see the president are vetted by an inner circle of religious conservatives who belong to a nonviolent wing of Hizb-i-Islami, a radical Islamic group whose relentless attacks on American soldiers forced the U.S. to withdraw from bases in northeastern Kunar and Nuristan provinces. The group’s leader, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, was once an American ally but has since been declared a terrorist by the United States. Although Hekmatyar shares the Taliban’s goal of an Islamic regime, his men have also fought Taliban militants over the past year, and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar is said to despise him. When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, Hekmatyar spent five years in exile in Iran. Inside Afghanistan’s presidential palace, Iran, Pakistan and China are most often referred to as reliable allies, according to Karzai’s friends and advisers. Last year, Karzai openly acknowledged taking "bags" of money from Iran to finance his administration. "A lot of Afghans are very concerned about the direction the country is taking, moving away from the international community ... toward a more conservative practice in which the religious people and warlords have more power," Human Rights of Afghanistan Commissioner Nader Nadery said. "Consistently his aides are pushing him toward Iran and Pakistan," Nadery said. "All those who are managing and controlling his schedule, providing appointments, all see the advantages of breaking with the international community." Karzai seemed to go out of his way to snub the United States in the days leading up to President Barack Obama’s address Wednesday announcing an initial withdrawal of 30,000 U.S. soldiers by next summer. He stood shoulder to shoulder this week with Ahmad Vahidi, the first Iranian defense minister to visit Afghanistan since Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution. He also announced he would attend an anti-terrorism conference in Tehran later this month, while at the same time questioning the sincerity of U.S. and NATO soldiers in Afghanistan. "His timing is confusing," Nadery said. "It is not wise for a politician to come out with such statements at a time when the troop contribution to Afghanistan is being hotly debated in Washington." One adviser whose friendship with Karzai spans decades said he had consistently warned the president against engaging in public battles with the United States, urging closed-door diplomacy instead. Six months ago, he says an angry Karzai called him to the presidential palace. "The president said, 'You are always saying be careful, be careful, telling me what is wrong.’ And then he told me to never call him again. And since then I have not been able to see him and I am still an 'adviser,’" he said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he says he still values his friendship with Karzai. "He will always be my friend but I am worried about him." Others have expressed similar concerns. They say over the last year Karzai has gradually distanced himself from confidantes who urged a more cooperative and less strident approach to U.S. relations. A second adviser told the AP that participants at a recent Afghan security council meeting left "shaking their head at the flip the president has made" away from the U.S. and its Western allies and toward Iran and Pakistan. "We are worried about our old friend," he said. Kabul is rife with speculation about the president’s recent behavior and statements of late, as well as the growing influence of Hekmatyar’s Hizb-i-Islami organization. In part, Nadery blamed Karzai’s disappointment at not getting a strategic forces agreement with the United States that would allow for U.S. bases in Afghanistan as well as give the president protection and negotiation room with Washington. Instead, the document the U.S. gave to Karzai spoke only of a complete withdrawal, he said. The United States has said it will have all its fighting forces out of Afghanistan by 2014 and that the security of Afghanistan will be turned over to Afghan forces. The U.S. has not asked for any bases or centers to remain under its control. "I think the reality of their complete withdrawal has struck home," Nadery said. "Now he sees they may go and they don’t want a (military) presence here, there were no bases that they requested and perhaps now he is thinking, 'Who will protect me?’ And he has turned to Hizb-i-Islami and conservative elements in the country like those on the Ulema (clerics) Council, former warlords, as well as getting closer to Pakistan and to Iran." A nonviolent faction of Hizb-i-Islami was created last year with the express purpose of registering as a political party. Although its members publicly disavowed violence, they have privately said they supported Hekmatyar. "We have a proverb of sorts in Afghanistan: Once a Hizb-i-Islami, always a Hizb-i-Islami," Nadery said. Hizb-i-Islami used widespread intimidation to elect dozens of its candidates in provincial elections. The group has also infiltrated government administration, and at least five of the country’s governors are members of its nonviolent faction, according to Nader and others who closely follow Afghan politics. The growing influence of Hizb-i-Islami, some analysts warn, is also possibly paving the way for another civil war in Afghanistan once the U.S. and NATO withdrawal is complete. Animosity between Hizb-i-Islami and leaders of Afghanistan’s minority ethnic groups runs deep. Hizb-i-Islami and the Taliban are both dominated by Pashtuns, the country’s largest ethnic group. Fahim Dashti, an ethnic Tajik and former editor of the defunct Kabul Weekly, told the AP that militia groups in northern Afghanistan have rearmed, frightened by the growing influence of Hizb-e-Islami in the government and the future implications of peace negotiations with the Taliban. Karzai’s attempts to bring Hekmatyar’s party into an earlier Afghan government got him into trouble with the Northern Alliance, which loosely represents minority ethnic groups. At the height of Afghanistan’s civil war in the early 1990s, Karzai sought to bring Hekmatyar into Kabul to bridge the differences between him and Ahmed Shah Masood, an ethnic Tajik who was ruling the capital at the time. Karzai’s attempts at mediation landed him in jail, beaten by members of the Northern Alliance. He escaped in a vehicle provided by Hekmatyar and driven by Gul Rahman, who was arrested by the United States in 2004 for his alleged links to terrorism. The AP revealed that he was the first Afghan to die in U.S. custody from ill treatment in a facility near the Kabul airport known by inmates as the Saltpit. Hekmatyar, who is in his mid-60s, has been an on-again, off-again ally of the United States over the past several decades. He was a key beneficiary of the U.S. in the 1980s during the fight against invading Russian soldiers. According to testimony from Guantanamo prisoners, Hekmatyar sheltered Osama bin Laden for nearly one year after the collapse of the Taliban regime in 2001. From his bases in Kunar and Nuristan provinces, Hekmatyar kept bin Laden safe until sometime in 2003 when he helped the al-Qaida leader escape to Pakistan, where he was killed by U.S. commandoes last month. Hekmatyar, whose men have also attacked Afghan security forces, sent a delegation to Kabul last year to discuss a formal reconciliation. The delegation has since delivered a blueprint which calls for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan as well as an interim government until new elections can be held. Some think Hizb-i-Islami may be achieving at least some of its goals more effectively from within the existing government. "What I see is very dangerous not just for Afghanistan and the region but for the world," Dashti said. He called the U.S. phased withdrawal "a strategy of escape."

Iraq snapshot - June 24, 2011

Iraq snapshot - June 24, 2011

The Common Ills

Friday, June 24, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, Katty Kay confesses the education system failed her, more reactions to Barack's bad speech, Scott Horton and Patrick Cockburn talk Iraq, Iraq War veteran Aaron Hughes talks about the disconnect ("And when service members get home and they realize that there's no one in this entire country that understands that and understands what they've gone through and wants to listen to them, when the media is continually talking about American Idol or some other pop issue instead of dealing with the actual issues -- that we are conducting two occupations currently, that we are conducting operations in Pakistan, that we are conducting operations in Libya and Yemen.  We have service members on the ground in all of these countries and those service members are experiencing things and they are doing it as they believe on behalf of their country and their country doesn't even know it.  The country doesn't even know what we do.  And then we get home. And then there's nothing.  There's no way to connect that.  And that disconnect, that's the crime and that's the PTSD. That's-that's all of the trauma right there -- is the inability to understand what happened and why no one else understands."), Iraqis take to the street to protest, and more.   US President Barack Obama gave his ridiculous I'm-ending-the-Afghanistan-War . . . in-2014-if-I'm-still-in-office speech Wednesday. Yesterday historian and journalist Gareth Porter discussed the speech on Flashpoints (KPFA) with guest host Kevin Pina.  Excerpt:   Kevin Pina: What has he offered? What has President Obama put on the table in his speech yesterday?   Gareth Porter: I'm afraid my analysis is not a very optimistic one in the sense that I'm afraid he's offering a scam which is very similar to that that he's undertaken in Iraq.  And I say that because what he did in his speech if you really carefully read through it, there's a passage that really demands parsing in light of the Iraq experience -- where he talks about the "responsible withdrawal" from Afghanistan being similar to what we did in Iraq.  By that, he's talking about essentially, you know, once he's withdrawn the full increment of the so-called "surge" troops, that is the 33,000 that he added as a result of a decision in 2009 -- in December 2009 --   Kevin Pina: Subsequent to George Bush's committments --  troop committments.   Gareth Porter:  Well that's right. I mean, first of all, he put in an increment that the Bush administration had already agreed on, he kind of taking up the burden of the Bush administration, that is in March 2009.  But then in Decemeber 2009 came the big 33,000 increment which now he's talking about withdrawing that by the end of 2012 -- sorry, not the end of 2012 but September 2012, excuse me.  And that is not everything that the military and the Pentagon wanted but I calculate that it's about 80% of what they asked for. [ . . .]  My concern is beyond 2012.  He's completely, without any details going to manuever.  What he's going to do about Afghanistan once the surge troops have been removed.  And what he has said is that it will be, like I said, it will be like Iraq.  There will be a responsible withdrawal.  He says there'll be some withdrawal after 2012.   Kevin Pina:  And a larger role for contractors?    Gareth Porter:  He doesn't talk about that but we know that there are contractors in Afghanistan.  But look, there's -- The big problem here is that what he's talking about is the potential for a perpetual war in Afghanistan.  He's really conceeded to the military the idea that even beyond 2013 -- 2013 -- the United States will continue to have combat troops there.  Now he's being very vague in terms of what the policy is going to be like afterr 2013.  But it's clear if you look at what happened in Iraq that this is what's going to happen.   Dana Milbank (Washington Post) heard echoes of George W. Bush's "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" and also questioned the veracity of the claims Barack made:   "Drawdown from a position of strength" sounds eerily like the "return on success" phrase that George W. Bush used in Iraq -- and the similarities did not end there. "We take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding," Obama told the nation. "We have ended our combat mission in Iraq, with 100,000 American troops already out of that country. And even as there will be dark days ahead in Afghanistan, the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance." To be sure, the president was characteristically muted in his celebration, warning of "huge challenges" ahead. His staff was rather less restrained; speaking under the cloak of anonymity, his aides held a teleconference Wednesday afternoon with audible chest thumping. "We haven't seen a terrorist threat emanating from Afghanistan for the past seven or eight years," one boasted, finding "no indication that there is any effort within Afghanistan to use Afghanistan as a launching pad to carry out attacks. . . . The threat has come from Pakistan over the past half-dozen years or so, and longer." So if there hasn't been a terrorist threat coming from Afghanistan for seven or eight years, why did Obama send tens of thousands of additional troops into a conflict that has claimed more than 1,500 American lives? And why is he leaving most of them there?   Justin Rainmondo (Antiwar.com) also sees questions the statements made and notes how truly illogical they were:    Ah yes, those glorious days of "unity" -- when no one, save a brave few, dared stand up against the war hysteria. When anyone who looked vaguely Muslim was attacked in the streets. United in hatred and fear -- what a grotesque nostalgia for our "progressive" president to give voice to! Like his predecessor, Obama has often praised this mystic post-9/11"unity," including twice in this speech, and therein lies the mark of the tyrant, who always welcomes the unthinking submission to authority wartime brings.  This war-narrative is getting threadbare, however, and has some significant gaps: suddenly, we are told that, seemingly out of nowhere, "our focus shifted," and "a second war was launched" – apparently all by itself, by means of spontaneous combustion. One hardly expects him to mention of the key role played by his own party, which stood by and cowered -- or cheered -- as George W. Bush led the nation down into the quagmire, banners flying. But the distancing act -- "by the time I took office" – is a little too glib: Bush gets all the blame for Iraq, and the decision to escalate the Afghan war is pushed off on "our military commanders." But isn't Obama the commander-in-chief? Our president, a prisoner of history, bravely confronts circumstances shaped by others. He praises himself for making "one of the most difficult decisions I've made as President," the launching of the "surge" in which 30,000 more troops were sent to the supposedly neglected Afghan front. "We set clear objectives," he avers, and yet our ultimate goal was -- and still is -- obscured in murk: does anyone, including the President, know what victory looks like?   And in what may be the first editorial board of a daily newspaper since Barack's speech earlier this week to call for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Santa Fe New Mexican offers "Light? What Light? Bring 'em All Home" The president couldn't have chosen worse words Wednesday as a framework for announcing a minimal troop withdrawal from Afghanistan: "The light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance." Shades of Lyndon Johnson, linked forever to the "light at the end of the tunnel" he sought to show a press and public increasingly and properly wary of our war in Vietnam. That war, fought on behalf of a corrupt regime with our military's hands tied, would go on for another half-dozen years after Johnson's public-relations campaign on behalf of futility and 60,000 American deaths before we abandoned the place amid chaos.     Let's move on over to Iraq and let's start by noting The Diane Rehm Show (NPR).  When Diane ignores Iraq on her Friday 'round up' of pretend stories and non-issue, it's disgusting because she knows better, she knows when the US is at war, it is the job of the US press to cover it.  But Diane, for all her faults, was not a War Whore.  Katty Kay was.  The trash from England -- who forever thinks she's about to step into a time machine and be transported back to the 90s where she can Chris Matthews can cackle as they trash Hillary Clinton (Katty's always jumping at the bit to trash Hillary to this day) -- shouldn't be allowed on NPR to begin with.  Truly, the media needed to get accountable after selling the illegal war on Iraq. Accountability would mean two-bit whores like Katty Kay weren't put back on the airwaves.   Of course if that happened, we wouldn't realize just what a stupid imbecile Katty Kay is.    There was Katty, in the second hour, avoiding Iraq even when National Journal's Michael Hirsh managed to work it in for one sentence.  Katty quickly changed the subject.  At the end of the show, Katty found there was time to fill.  So she launched into China -- where no US forces are on the ground.  Maybe Brit's shouldn't host American programs that the US government pays for if they're so stupid that they really think that after the violence in Iraq this week, China was the way to go?   But there was Katty, wanting to talk abot Syria and proving she's the stupidst and sorriest excuse for a journalist today.   KATTY: How nervous are people, Nancy?  I mean, not just in Syria, of course, but in all . . . I mean -- uh, how many countries does Syria border?  I can't count them, but it's right there in the middle of that area.  And it's causing -- the ripples of what is happening in Syria are being uh watched very carefully from Israel --   Nancy A. Youssef: That's right!   KATTY: -- from Lebanon, of course, from Turkey, from Iran.  They must all be watching what's going on there.     Do they not teach geography in England?    She doesn't know what borders Syria but managed to cheerlead the impending Iraq War?     Iran does not border Syria.  Iraq, howevver, does.  What a stupid moron.   She wants to talk about Syria but doesn't know the countries around it.  In 2002 and 2003, you couldn't escape Katty insisting that the US must go to war with Iraq.  And today she doesn't even know that Iraq borders Syria.  (And that Iran doesn't.)     NPR can't deal with Iraq these days and not just Diane's bad show, but all of NPR -- forty dead in four Baghdad  bombings yesterday and not one damn story on any of their three major "news magazines" NPR airs daily.  That's putting the Crock in the Joan B. Kroc Fellowship.  Iraq does get discussed elsewhere, it can be done.  On Antiwar Radio, Scott Horton spoke with journalist Patrick Cockburn about Iraq. Scott Horton: My first question, if it's alright, is going to be about the sujbect of your book there, Moqtada al-Sadr, and the future of Iraq and whether or not that includes the American occupation after the end of this year which is the deadline for withdrawal in the Status Of Forces Agreement.  I'm sure you're aware that the Secretary of Defense and others in the administration have made it pretty clear that they want Malki to "invite us" to stay longer.  I just wonder, of course, you've always told me on this show is that Moqtada al-Sadr is the answer to that question.  Is that still the case and is his position still the same?   Patrick Cockburn: If US troops remain then this is not going to be without opposition -- particularly from Moqtada, from the Sadrists.  So, you know, up to now the assumption has been that they would not stay. I don't think they've quite taken on board that having some troops -- depending on how many troops -- stay, having troops remain and trying to be some sort of player in Iraq you know is going to create a reaction in the opposite direction.     Scott Horton: Well so I mean as far as the oversimplified math of it goes, is it still a matter of Maliki, the prime minister, needs Moqtada al-Sadr's support and Sadr will not support him if he makes this compromise and therefore he will not? Is it that easy?   Patrick Cockburn: No, everything in Iraq is sort of complicated because everybody has the ability to  checkmate everybody else. I mean Maliki got back in because ultimately the Sadrists backed him.  He got support from the US and -- excuse me [coughs] -- he got support from Iran.  Somebody, an Iraqi leader, said to me, you know it's a lucky Maliki, you know, he's got support from the Great Satan -- which the Iranians call the US.  And he got support from the Axis of Evil -- which is what the US calls Iran. Now he needed Moqtada to get back. He needed various other people to get back. He did deals. Now is he going to drop everybody say now he's back in and return to what made him so unpopular previously and try and sort of set up an autocracy.  We don't know. He keeps sort of ducking and diving. But I don't think having a continued US presence is going to stabilize Iraq.   The Youth of Iraq continue attempting to save their country with protests demanding the basic rights owed alll human beings.  Today's protests were called "Firm Roots Friday."  The Great Iraqi Revolution notes, "Our Correspondent in Baghdad: Streams of crowds approaching Tahrir amidst pressures and hurdles imposed by heavily deployed security forces around the Squar while the crowds chant 'THEY ARE ALL THIEVES!'"  Here for video of the Baghdad protesters chanting "'Jethab Nourie Al Maliki' (Nourie Al Maliki is a Liar)!!!"  And they note:   A witness in Tahrir stated to GIR that the streets leading to Tahrir have been cutoff at some distance from Tahrir - he also stated that the police questioned him about his camera and was told by a soldier that journalists should get permission from them before entering Tahrir! He was cursed and insulted by them and so were all journalists!   And:   Youngman Haider Hamzouz: I was harassed in Tahrir, today by Police, Army and some individuals in plain clothes... after they had insulted me ; there was an attempt to beat me up by a soldier and was forced to delete some of the videos I had shot of ambulances passing through Tahrir.. I was questioned for 45 minutes close to Tahrir..I am well now... but the Press isn't...It is in Danger.     Meanwhile Tony Clarke is a member of the House of Lords in England (he's Labour Party, for those who wonder) and he's penned "Obama must tackle Iraq's new dictator" (Independent of London): Few could have expected it. Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, once the darling of bi-Partisan US administrations, today seems engulfed in domestic upheaval as the Arab Spring has shown no sign of abating in Iraq. But rather than choosing to resign power respectfully like in Tunisia and Egypt, al-Maliki seems to have made up his mind to hold a firm grip on power using deadly force like fellow dictators in Libya and Syria. No longer able to tolerate the weekly demonstrations by Iraqis in central Baghdad's al-Tahrir Square, and with widespread arrests failing to subdue the population irate over corruption and lack of basic services, earlier this month al-Maliki sent his thugs under the disguise of ordinary government supporters to brutally attack protestors demanding the resignation of his government. Iyad Allawi, a former Iraqi Prime Minister and the de-facto leader of the opposition movement, recently launched a stunning televised attack on al-Maliki accusing him of running a new dictatorship in Iraq and owing his Premiership to Iran's theocratic rulers. Will the cry for Barack to face reality get larger? Will Nouri continue to be the designated thug of the occupation? Al Mada reports that Nouri spent yesterday blaming others for his problems including insisting that politicians and the media worked together to malign his 100 Days and that the 100 Days program he implemented was a success. As per usual, Moqtada al-Sadr issues statements of support for Nouri. He did the same when protests were really taking hold last February. Moqtada al-Sadr has apparently cast himself in the role of First Lady of Iraq. Al Mada also offers a profile of Ayad Allawi based on anonymous sourcing and it paints him as depressed, considering ending political participation, weighing whether to make London home, etc. He is said to be depressed over the continued upheaval in Iraq and Nouri's inability to lead. Al Rafidayn reports on another political player in the mix, Ammar al-Hakim. The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq president is calling for all participants to continue dialogue and he cautioned against reaching the "point of no return."  In related news, Aswat al-Iraq reports, "The head of the National Alliance Ibraheem al-Jaffari discussed today with Vice-Premier Saleh al-Mutlaq the most prominent question in the Iraqi arena and means of providing the best of services to the citizens. H called for an end to the dilemma with the security ministries and dialogue to bring viewpoints closer for national interests." Reuters notes a Baijia home invasion resulted in the murder of 1 police officer and his wife and a children's doctor was kidnapped in Kirkuk today. Aswat al Iraq notes 1 police officer was shot dead in Baghdad and 1 clothing store owners was shot dead in Mosul.     In the US, an Iraq War veteran is in legal trouble. He is 26-year-old Elisha Leo Dawkins. Susannah Nesmith (New York Times) reports Elisha has been "in federal lockup" for a month with the government planning to deport him because of a passport application and his apparently not being a citizen. His attorney explains that Elisha was raised in this country and led to believe he was a citizen. He was never informed he wasn't. The US military considered him a US citizen and gave him a very high security clearance. The State Dept issued him a passport. Kyle Munzenrieder (Miami New Times) adds, "Dawkins applied for a passport in order to serve in Guantánamo. A question on the form asked if he'd ever applied for a passport before. He checked no. That wasn't entirely true. He had begun an application for a passport before deploying to Iraq but never finished the process. That single check on a box is why he now sits behind bars." Carol Rosenberg (Miami Herald) explains, " His lawyer says he grew up fatherless and estranged from his mother, staying with relatives in Miami, believing he was a U.S. citizen. He even obtained a Florida Birth Certificate to get a passport to travel to war as a soldier, with neither the Navy, the Army nor the state of Florida apparently aware of a two-decade-old immigration service removal order issued when he was 8 years old." He joined the military, the US sent him into war. That should be the end of the story, he should be considered a citizen if he wasn't before. But that's not how the policies work. What actually is required is for him to apply for citizenship. And now that he knows he's not a citizen, he could apply but a conviction -- yes, a conviction on what he's being charged with -- would mean that he would be barred from becoming a citizen. If anyone in the government really valued the service those being sent to war zones are doing, this wouldn't be happening. Barack Obama should be ashamed that his administration is prosecuting this case. And he should be ashamed because as much as Elisha deserves to stay in the US and have citizenship, so do many others and Barack's done nothing on that issue despite a lot of pretty words in 2008 about citizenship for immigrants.  Elisha's attorney might want to explore whether Elisha has PTSD.  If he does, I don't understand how the US government could legally deport him and believe they would have to provide treatment immediately as well as drop deportation efforts.   Earlier this month, Aaron Hughes and other members of Iraq Veterans Against the War -- Malachi Muncy, Scott Kimball, and Sergio K --  appeared on KOOP's Rag Radio which airs each Friday in Austin (airwaves) and online (live from two p.m. Central time to three).  This week, IVAW has posted the audio to the hour long discussion.  We'll do an excerpt where they were discussing PTSD.     Aaron Hughes:  60% of the service members that are veterans of these occupations that have applied to the VA -- which is only a quarter of the service members that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan -- that's only a quarter of the service members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan -- of that quarter, 60% of them are diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.   Thorne Dreyer: Now what do we mean by Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?  I mean, back in the old days of war, we talked about people being shell-shocked.   Aaron Hughes:  Yeah.   Thorne Dreyer:  What -- As a clinical diagnosis, what are we talking about?   Aaron Hughes: Well the diagnosis changed.  In the Civil War, it was Soldier's Heart. In WWI, it was Shell-Shock.  And in WWII, it was Battle Fatigue.  And in Vietnam, it was Combat Stress.  And now -- now it's called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  They syllables keep getting longer as George Carlin pointed out in a comedy sketch.  But basically, it's -- it's everything from nightmares to anxiety, to depression, to anger issues.  And they can be subtle.  Like these-these issues, I think, you know for me, I was home in 2004 but it wasn't until 2006 that I realized I was dealing with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder when I had a basically a psychotic break.  I lost it.  And that was triggered by listening to 50 cal. rounds in a audio tape going off.  And I -- I just disappeared emotionally and psychologically.  But, you know, I think -- I think what a lot of service members don't realize is how deep these issues and how much they're underneath the surface.  And that's why a lot of service members, they may even volunteer to go back on a third deployment like Malachi did and he can talk to you a little bit about that.  But before he does, I just -- I just want to point out that the percentages go up every time somebody goes on a deployment.  And these brothers that are going -- brothers and sisters -- that are going on their third, fourth and fifth deployment, some of them are never going to come home.   Thorne Dreyer:  Malachi -- and you guys, when you signed up, you weren't signing up for -- you weren't expecting to be going back and back and back.  I mean, that wasn't part of the deal.  Tell us about that and tell us about your multiple deployments.   Malachi Muncy: Yeah-yeah.  I actually volunteered for my second deployment.  You know, I had a really, really rough first deployment.  My wife had tried to kill herself and I didn't get to go home for that.  My mother has another psychotic break and was institutionalized.  My father died while I was deployed.  I did get to go home for that. And on top of that, 36 hour missions and roadside explosives like you said and uhm -- So it was a really rought deployment.  I didn't really get to take in everything, I couldn't compute everything.  And so when I came home, I was cut loose pretty quick -- cut loose to being a civilian -- civilian-soldier, you know, National Guard.  And, uh, got in trouble with the law for shoplifting.  I was taking a lot of methamphetimes and anything that could get me up and going, driving fast, doing all sorts of crazy adreneline stuff and I ended up trying to commit suicide in October of 2005.  And -- and after that event, I came to the conclusion that I needed -- I either needed help or I needed to get back to Iraq because all these problems weren't in Iraq, these problems were here at home.  And so I volunteered to go back and they took me back and it wasn't a big deal to them that I had tried to kill myself.  It wasn't a big deal to them that I had pointed a weapon at an NCO on my first deployment.  They didn't have any problem with where I was mentally so long as I took specific meds and there was no oversight as to whether or not I took those meds.  It was just, 'Here we have on this piece of paper that you're taking those meds.  Good to go."   Thorne Dreyer: Is transitioning back one of the real problems because they don't -- they don't -- they prepare you to kill but they don't prepare you to, you know what I mean, let go of that stuff?  Right?   Aaron Hughes: This is Aaron again.  I would -- I would argue that it's not so much the transition home as it is the disconnect. This country isn't at war.  The service members are at war.  And when service members get home and they realize that there's no one in this entire country that understands that and understands what they've gone through and wants to listen to them, when the media is continually talking about American Idol or some other pop issue instead of dealing with the actual issues -- that we are conducting two occupations currently, that we are conducting operations in Pakistan, that we are conducting operations in Libya and Yemen.  We have service members on the ground in all of these countries and those service members are experiencing things and they are doing it as they believe on behalf of their country and their country doesn't even know it.  The country doesn't even know what we do.  And then we get home. And then there's nothing.  There's no way to connect that.  And that disconnect, that's the crime and that's the PTSD. That's-that's all of the trauma right there -- is the inability to understand what happened and why no one else understands.  In fact, that's actually the definition of trauma: It's an experience that you haven't processed and therefore you can't communicate it. You keep rewinding it in your head.  You keep trying to relive it over and over and over again which is why you have nightmares, why you have dreams, why you have anxiety.  But you can't because you never actually experienced it the first time. And when you get home, there's no one that's experienced these wars. And that's -- that's where the trauma exists.