900 US children have lost parents in Iraq
by kos Wed Dec 15th, 2004 at 17:02:27 PST
Another facet of Bush's legacy:
Perhaps most heartbreaking are the more than 40 troops who died without ever seeing their children. At least 34 wives were pregnant _ four with twins _ when their husbands died, and another15 had babies while their spouses were deployed. While some of the latter were able to return home on paternity leave, most died before they could.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
and we put him in charge...
Iraqi leader attacks US 'errors'
The president of Iraq said coalition actions had created a vacuum.
Iraq's interim president says the United States and Britain made a huge mistake by dismantling the Iraqi army after toppling Saddam Hussein. Ghazi Yawer told the BBC this had created a security vacuum that was partly to blame for the violence.
The president of Iraq said coalition actions had created a vacuum.
Iraq's interim president says the United States and Britain made a huge mistake by dismantling the Iraqi army after toppling Saddam Hussein. Ghazi Yawer told the BBC this had created a security vacuum that was partly to blame for the violence.
Detainee Abuse by Marines Is Detailed
Variety of Units In Iraq Involved
By Thomas E. RicksWashington Post Staff WriterWednesday, December 15, 2004; Page A01
Marines operating in Iraq over the past two years committed a variety of abuses against Iraqi prisoners, including burning a detainee's hands by igniting alcohol-based cleanser in August 2003, according to internal Defense Department documents released yesterday.
By Thomas E. RicksWashington Post Staff WriterWednesday, December 15, 2004; Page A01
Marines operating in Iraq over the past two years committed a variety of abuses against Iraqi prisoners, including burning a detainee's hands by igniting alcohol-based cleanser in August 2003, according to internal Defense Department documents released yesterday.
Major story of the week: The question that shook Rumsfeld
When Rumsfeld fielded questions last week from soldiers preparing to move from Kuwait into Iraq, he finally met his match.
Army Specialist Thomas Wilson, 31, asked the Secretary why soldiers are being sent to war in humvees and trucks so vulnerable that troops must forage for "rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that's already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat."
Many of Wilson's 2,300 comrades in the hangar were applauding in agreement
Read Time Magizines artical
Army Specialist Thomas Wilson, 31, asked the Secretary why soldiers are being sent to war in humvees and trucks so vulnerable that troops must forage for "rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that's already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat."
Many of Wilson's 2,300 comrades in the hangar were applauding in agreement
Read Time Magizines artical
South Korean's Leave Iraq
by kos
Mon Dec 8th, 2003 at 01:08:15 PST
Iraqi guerillas: "Mission accomplished".
A week after two of their colleagues were killed in an ambush, the remaining contingent of 60 South Korean contract engineers and technicians working for the U.S. government on a project north of the capital has decided to leave the country.
It is the largest known withdrawal of contractors over security issues and follows a week of confrontations between the workers and their managers that culminated with yelling and punches Sunday afternoon.
The decision by the men, who were working to fix electrical power lines, is likely to delay one of Iraq's most critical reconstruction projects.
Of course, this all begs the question -- why aren't Iraqi contractors being used? Those guys were able to keep the Iraqi grid working pre-war, unlike the US companies now attempting (and failing) at the task.
Mon Dec 8th, 2003 at 01:08:15 PST
Iraqi guerillas: "Mission accomplished".
A week after two of their colleagues were killed in an ambush, the remaining contingent of 60 South Korean contract engineers and technicians working for the U.S. government on a project north of the capital has decided to leave the country.
It is the largest known withdrawal of contractors over security issues and follows a week of confrontations between the workers and their managers that culminated with yelling and punches Sunday afternoon.
The decision by the men, who were working to fix electrical power lines, is likely to delay one of Iraq's most critical reconstruction projects.
Of course, this all begs the question -- why aren't Iraqi contractors being used? Those guys were able to keep the Iraqi grid working pre-war, unlike the US companies now attempting (and failing) at the task.
If you don't know them, don't send it
Pentagon Limits Gifts to Troops
The Defense Department has a stern message for those considering playing Santa Claus this holiday season to troops abroad: If you don't know them, don't send it.
The agency is reminding the public that it does not accept unsolicited packages -- even holiday gifts -- to troops stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The Defense Department has a stern message for those considering playing Santa Claus this holiday season to troops abroad: If you don't know them, don't send it.
The agency is reminding the public that it does not accept unsolicited packages -- even holiday gifts -- to troops stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Thursday, December 09, 2004
blame it on the troops?
"You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Dec 9th 2004
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Dec 9th 2004
Kerry to Visit Iraq During Mideast Trip
December 09, 2004 12:49pm Washington (AP) - Former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry will travel to Iraq next month as the war-torn country prepares for elections.
The Massachusetts senator, who lost his bid for the presidency in November, is expected to visit several Middle East countries, with the focus on the situation in Iraq and the war on terror.
A decorated Vietnam War veteran, Kerry also plans to meet with U.S. troops, including some from Massachusetts, to thank them for their services, spokeswoman April Boyd said Thursday.
During the campaign, Kerry criticized President Bush's handling of the Iraq war. Although Kerry voted in October 2002 to give Bush the authority to wage war, he later voted against additional funds for Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction, arguing that the commander in chief didn't have a solid plan to restore peace.
The Massachusetts senator, who lost his bid for the presidency in November, is expected to visit several Middle East countries, with the focus on the situation in Iraq and the war on terror.
A decorated Vietnam War veteran, Kerry also plans to meet with U.S. troops, including some from Massachusetts, to thank them for their services, spokeswoman April Boyd said Thursday.
During the campaign, Kerry criticized President Bush's handling of the Iraq war. Although Kerry voted in October 2002 to give Bush the authority to wage war, he later voted against additional funds for Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction, arguing that the commander in chief didn't have a solid plan to restore peace.
More U.S. Soldiers Survive War Wounds
By MARILYNN MARCHIONEAP
Medical WriterDecember 9, 2004, 8:17 AM EST
For every American soldier killed in Iraq, nine others have been wounded and survived -- the highest rate of any war in U.S. history.
It isn't that their injuries were less serious, a new report says. In fact, some young soldiers and Marines have had faces, arms and legs blown off and are now returning home badly maimed. But they have survived thanks, in part, to armor-like vests and fast treatment from doctors on the move with surgical kits in backpacks.
"This is unprecedented. People who lose not just one but two or three extremities are people who just have not survived in the past," said Dr. Atul Gawande, a surgeon at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston who researched military medicine and wrote about it in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine.
The journal also published a five-page spread of 21 military photographs that graphically depict the horrific injuries and conditions under which these modern-day MASH surgeons operate. "We thought a lot about it," said the journal's editor, Dr. Jeffrey Drazen, and ultimately decided the pictures told an important story.
"This war is producing unique injuries -- less lethal but more traumatic," he said.
In one traumatic case, Gawande tells of an airman who lost both legs, his right hand and part of his face.
"How he and others like him will be able to live and function remains an open question," Gawande writes. remains an open question," Gawande writes.
(follow link to read the story)
Medical WriterDecember 9, 2004, 8:17 AM EST
For every American soldier killed in Iraq, nine others have been wounded and survived -- the highest rate of any war in U.S. history.
It isn't that their injuries were less serious, a new report says. In fact, some young soldiers and Marines have had faces, arms and legs blown off and are now returning home badly maimed. But they have survived thanks, in part, to armor-like vests and fast treatment from doctors on the move with surgical kits in backpacks.
"This is unprecedented. People who lose not just one but two or three extremities are people who just have not survived in the past," said Dr. Atul Gawande, a surgeon at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston who researched military medicine and wrote about it in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine.
The journal also published a five-page spread of 21 military photographs that graphically depict the horrific injuries and conditions under which these modern-day MASH surgeons operate. "We thought a lot about it," said the journal's editor, Dr. Jeffrey Drazen, and ultimately decided the pictures told an important story.
"This war is producing unique injuries -- less lethal but more traumatic," he said.
In one traumatic case, Gawande tells of an airman who lost both legs, his right hand and part of his face.
"How he and others like him will be able to live and function remains an open question," Gawande writes. remains an open question," Gawande writes.
(follow link to read the story)
Who will own the Election?
Who's plans for the region will win out in the upcomming election Iran's or the U.S.?
Iran Rejects Accusations Over Iraq Vote
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press WriterDecember 9, 2004, 3:47 AM EST
Interim Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawer and Jordan's King Abdullah II, both Sunni Muslims, accused Shiite Muslim-dominated Iran in interviews with the Washington Post newspaper in the United States of trying to influence Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.
Some 60 percent of Iraq's 25 million population is Shiite.
The United States also warned Iran against trying to influence the outcome of Iraq's election on Wednesday, reacting to fears that Tehran was seeking a Shiite-dominated Islamic government in Baghdad. Such an outcome would alter a regional status quo in which Shiites, though they comprise majorities in Iran, Iraq and Bahrain, rule only in non-Arab Iran. Iraq and Bahrain have long had Sunni rulers, including ousted Saddam Hussein.
Iran Rejects Accusations Over Iraq Vote
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press WriterDecember 9, 2004, 3:47 AM EST
Interim Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawer and Jordan's King Abdullah II, both Sunni Muslims, accused Shiite Muslim-dominated Iran in interviews with the Washington Post newspaper in the United States of trying to influence Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.
Some 60 percent of Iraq's 25 million population is Shiite.
The United States also warned Iran against trying to influence the outcome of Iraq's election on Wednesday, reacting to fears that Tehran was seeking a Shiite-dominated Islamic government in Baghdad. Such an outcome would alter a regional status quo in which Shiites, though they comprise majorities in Iran, Iraq and Bahrain, rule only in non-Arab Iran. Iraq and Bahrain have long had Sunni rulers, including ousted Saddam Hussein.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
James Baker makes a sugestion :Focus on Mid Eastern Peace
It has been argued that it really wasn't the Weapons of Mass destruction that was the promting point for the US invasion of Iraq. Senior Bush Administration officials insist that Saddam's opposition had doomed American efforts to make peace between the Arabs and the Israelis in the 1980s. This was the basis of the neo-conservative refrain that "the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad." Likewise, this mistaken conviction was part of the reason that Washington quickly shifted its attention from Afghanistan to Iraq, in the belief that Saddam somehow stood behind both the Taliban and al-Qa'ida. It is certainly the case that Administration figures regularly played fast and loose with the paltry evidence suggesting any kind of relationship between Saddam and bin Ladin, but it is also the case that they did so because they were certain that it existed, even if there was no evidence to support it and most of the evidence available suggested the opposite.
So perhaps the real reason for the invasion was peace in the Middle East. But because the US has become bogged down in Iraq -progress with the Middle East has been put on the back burner. Baker suggest that now, after Yasser Arafat death - the time to act is now. Below is a good analysis's from Slate Magazine - and both New York Time OP pieces it references.
war stories
The Fastest Way To Send a Message
Why is James Baker talking to the president via the New York Times op-ed page?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Dec. 2, 2004, at 6:12 PM ET
Is there about to be a breakthrough in U.S. policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict? If the signs aren't quite hopeful, they're at least extremely intriguing.
Most intriguing is an op-ed piece in today's New York Times by James A. Baker III, urging President George W. Bush to promote the resumption of negotiations, adding, "The time to start is now." The article is fascinating not so much for what it says but for the fact that Baker wrote it at all.
Baker is not merely the man who was secretary of state during the presidency of Bush's father. He also ran the father's re-election campaign. He led W.'s fight against the Florida recount in the 2000 election—which is to say, he's largely responsible for the son's victory. He is widely known as one of the most closely trusted advisers to the entire Bush family. Last year, when Bush tried to persuade European leaders to forgive Iraqi debt, he sent as emissary not his own secretary of state, Colin Powell, but rather, James Baker—as a signal to one and all that the trip was truly serious.
Baker could have called the president on the phone to talk about the Middle East, or any other subject, anytime he wanted. Why did he send the message through the New York Times?
It's worth recalling the last time Baker wrote a Times op-ed piece. It was in August 2002, as the Bush administration was getting set to invade Iraq. In his piece, Baker supported invasion, but he urged Bush not to "go it alone" and to "reject the advice of those who counsel doing so."
The article raised eyebrows all over Washington—and among foreign policy cognoscenti worldwide—for two reasons. First, it amounted to a critique of Bush's foremost security advisers, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, from inside his own family's circle. Second, it was widely assumed that Baker would not have published such an article without at least the tacit approval of the president's father himself, who, along with Baker, had put together a genuinely broad and successful coalition for the 1991 Gulf War.
The following month, President Bush did go to the U.N. General Assembly—against the advice of Cheney and Rumsfeld—and delivered a stern, eloquent, and well-received speech, calling on the Security Council to threaten Iraq with "serious consequences" if Saddam continued to thumb his nose at U.N. resolutions. (Bush's unilateralists won out in the end, six months later, but Baker's arguments seemed to hold sway for at least a while.)
Today's op-ed appears to have been designed with a similar purpose—to send a message to the president, with the pressure of publication behind it. In 2002, Baker meant to thwart action that Bush was about to take as a result of his advisers (invading Iraq without a coalition). Now he means to incite Bush to take action (jump-starting Arab-Israeli peace talks) against some of his advisers' inclinations.
The premise of Baker's piece is that Yasser Arafat's death has "created a unique opportunity for negotiating peace between Arabs and Israelis." Yes, he writes, the president should "continue with his goal of spreading democracy in the Middle East," and the January elections in Iraq are a "critical step in the right direction." But promoting Arab-Israeli peace is "imperative"—both in itself and for these larger goals.
"The road to peace," Baker writes, "does not run through just Jerusalem or just Baghdad. … Today it runs through both." This is a clear reference to the slogan that Bush's neoconservative advisers liked to recite before the invasion of Iraq: "The road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad." In other words, to topple Saddam would be to remove a leading supporter of Palestinian terrorism; moreover, a stable, democratic Iraq would light a blazing trail of freedom across the Middle East. Once this theory proved fanciful, Bush's critics liked to twist the slogan—the road to Baghdad, they said, runs through Jerusalem. In other words, the insurgency can't be defeated—and America's image in the region can't be repaired—until the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is addressed. Baker is telling Bush that the critics are right—the road runs both ways.
Baker allows that Palestinian candidates in the upcoming presidential elections must renounce terrorism. Yet he also writes that Israel should announce that, upon the election of such a Palestinian, "it is prepared to resume substantive negotiations for peace without requiring that all terrorist activities cease in advance." The reason is purely pragmatic: Insisting on such a requirement would "simply empower the terrorists themselves to prevent the resumption of peace negotiations."
Following this advice would require Bush to switch his policies and to apply at least a little pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon—in other words, to "reject the advice" (as Baker put it, in the context of Iraq, two years ago) of those in his inner circle who are fine with letting Sharon do whatever he wants, an attitude that may seem "pro-Israel" but that in fact goes against Israel's long-term interests.
Finally, Baker writes that, while the outcome of talks can't be prejudged, "the plan presented by President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak at Camp David in 2000—and rejected by Yasir Arafat—surely offers one plausible place to start." This must have been the hardest passage for Bush to read—as Baker must surely have realized when he wrote it. The primary watchword of George W. Bush's first term was to do the opposite of whatever Bill Clinton did. Baker is telling Bush to get over this neurosis and do the right thing, whatever Clinton may or may not have done.
Baker is probably stepping in at this time, pressuring Bush to get involved in this issue right away, because this is a crucial moment, a rare convergence of opportunities, and Baker—like anyone who's been involved in the delicacies of Middle East peace talks—must be fearful that we might let it pass by.
Violence in the territories has markedly declined since Arafat's death. An apparent moderate, Mahmoud Abbas, is the top candidate to replace Arafat. The announcement by Marwan Barghouti, who is in an Israeli prison for terrorism, that he too might run for the office has been denounced by leading Palestinians and by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
Yet in the face of all these trends, a vacuum looms at the top of America's foreign policy apparatus. Powell is a lame-duck secretary of state whose words and actions carry no weight whatever. His replacement, Condoleezza Rice, won't be confirmed for a couple of months at least. Iraq and now Iran are occupying the little space for attention that foreign issues can occupy. Baker is telling his friend that he has to open that space a bit wider to allow for the Arab-Israeli conflict too; that this conflict may hold the key to settling the other conflicts; and that he shouldn't let his advisers—the same advisers who led him astray on Iraq—toss up obstacles on this one.
Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate. He can be reached at war_stories@hotmail.com.
**************
mber 2, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Talking Our Way to Peace
By JAMES A. BAKER III
Houston
Two developments - the re-election of President Bush and the emergence of a new Palestinian leadership in the wake of Yasir Arafat's death - have created a unique opportunity for negotiating peace between Arabs and Israelis.
The president should, of course, continue with his goal of spreading democracy in the Middle East. And the planned elections in Iraq this January are a critical step in the right direction. But it is imperative that the president also actively promote peace between Israelis and Arabs.
Stability in Iraq and peace between Palestinians and Israelis can be pursued at the same time. In fact, working toward the latter improves the chances of attaining the former. The road to peace does not run through just Jerusalem or just Baghdad. That is a false choice. Today it runs through both.
The so-called quartet (the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations), which has been working on a "road map" for peace between the Palestinians and Israelis for several years, supports a two-state solution, as do the vast majority of both Palestinians and Israelis. President Bush certainly favors this goal, and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel has publicly supported it as well, although in April he said that the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza could delay a Palestinian state "for many years."
Only the real hard-liners on both sides - Arabs who refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist and Israelis who want to keep the occupied territories rather than exchange them for a secure peace - prefer a one-state solution. A one-state solution would ultimately mean the end of Israel as a democratic Jewish state and would, of course, also foreclose Palestinian aspirations for their own independent state existing peacefully alongside Israel.
So the real question is how to take advantage of this window of opportunity to achieve that two-state solution. Specifically, what steps should be taken? Who needs to do what?
First, it is critical that negotiations resume. For this to happen, of course, Israel must have a negotiating partner on the Palestinian side. That partner will best emerge from free elections. Elections have been scheduled for Jan. 9, and all who support peace between Israel and the Palestinians have an obligation to do all within their power to see that those elections are successfully held.
Palestinian candidates should clearly and unequivocally renounce terrorism as a means of achieving a political result - and call upon their supporters to do likewise. And those Palestinians should commit themselves to an unequivocal, good-faith effort to crack down on terrorist groups that make a target of Israel.
In exchange, Israel should announce that upon the election of a Palestinian negotiating partner, it is prepared to resume substantive negotiations for peace without requiring that all terrorist activities cease in advance. To require the absence of any terrorist act in advance simply empowers the terrorists themselves to prevent the resumption of peace negotiations.
Also, Israel should do whatever it can to encourage freedom of movement and access to polling places under secure conditions to help such elections succeed. It is encouraging that Israel has indicated that all Palestinians will be permitted to vote in such elections whether they live in Jerusalem or in some other location.
The United States should itself clearly embrace and articulate the unequivocal, good-faith standard for the resumption of dialogue. The United States should further prevail upon Israel to cease settlement activity in the occupied territories pending Palestinian elections and during the resumption of peace negotiations. Washington should also do everything else that it can to encourage both sides to resume meaningful talks. And it should serve, where necessary, as a direct participant in the talks, offering suggestions, brokering compromises and extending assurances.
Finally, the administration must make it unambiguously clear to Israel that while Prime Minister Sharon's planned withdrawal from Gaza is a positive initiative, it cannot be simply the first step in a unilateral process leading to the creation of Palestinian "Bantustans" in the West Bank.
We cannot, of course, prejudge the final outcome of any talks. But the plan presented by President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak at Camp David in 2000 - and rejected by Yasir Arafat - surely offers one plausible place to start.
It is encouraging to witness the quick response from the White House, particularly when President Bush stood with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain shortly after his re-election and said that he wanted to establish an independent Palestinian state living in peace and security next to Israel. "I intend to use the next four years to spend the capital of the United States on such a state," he said.
While the United States cannot dictate the terms of peace to either party, it can and should actively promote the resumption of negotiations. The time to start is now.
James A. Baker III was secretary of state from 1989 to 1992.
*************
James Baker: Don't go it alone with Iraq
From Kelly Wallace
CNN Washington Bureau
CRAWFORD, Texas (CNN) --Former Secretary of State James Baker Sunday warned President Bush not to "go it alone" against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Writing on the op-ed page of Sunday's New York Times, Baker became the latest member of the first Bush administration to issue cautionary words about a military attack against Iraq.
"Although the United States could certainly succeed, we should try our best not to have to go it alone, and the president should reject the advice of those who counsel doing so," Baker wrote.
"The costs in all areas will be much greater, as will the political risks, both domestic and international, if we end up going it alone or with only one or two countries."
Baker said, however, that he believes the only "realistic way" to bring about regime change is through military force, including "sufficient" ground troops to occupy the country.
"Anyone who thinks we can effect regime change in Iraq with anything less than this is simply not realistic," Baker said.
The former chief diplomat urged Bush to build an international coalition like the one he and the president's father brought together during the Persian Gulf War.
He suggested Bush consider pursuing a U.N. Security Council resolution requiring Iraq to submit to an "intrusive inspections regime" and authorizing "all necessary means" to enforce those inspections.
"Some will argue, as was done in 1990, that going for United Nations authority and not getting it will weaken our case," Baker said.
"I disagree. By proposing to proceed in such a way, we will be doing the right thing, both politically and substantively. We will occupy the moral high ground."
Bush, who is winding up his August vacation at his ranch near here, "welcomes" Baker's advice, said White House press secretary Ari Fleischer.
"It is part of the constructive debate from thoughtful people and it underscores many of the things the president has said about ... the threat [Saddam] presents to the world," Fleischer said.
Fleischer said Bush still has not made a decision about how to bring about a change of Iraqi regimes.
Other former Bush administration officials who have spoken out recently include Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to Bush's father.
Scowcroft, in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, voiced his opposition to a military attack on Iraq.
Other Republicans strongly back military action and believe the president should pursue such a course, even if he can't bring together an international coalition.
"I'd much prefer to have a lot of allies out there, both in the Middle East and in Western Europe," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, told CNN's "Late Edition."
"I'd like to have the American people solidly behind the president. But again, if the president has to do it, he has to do it. And that's what leadership is all about."
Before any pre-emptive strike on Iraq, some Democrats argue, the president must make the case to the American people.
"What we have is an administration that is beating its breast with all this rhetoric about how they're going to do this or that," said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, on the same program.
"The president needs the country behind him."
As Bush thinks through options to deal with Saddam, "he will talk to the country about it and he will make the case," a senior administration official said.
To build support in the Arab world for regime change, the State Department is encouraging Iraqi exiles to speak out about the "brutality" of Saddam Hussein, a State Department spokesman said.
Seventeen Iraqi exiles from North America and Europe plan to visit the State Department this week for four days of media training on writing opinion pieces, giving speeches and doing television and radio interviews.
The goal is to make the case that the battle is not between the United States and Iraq, and to convey that the Iraqi people and Iraq's neighbors will be better off without Saddam, U.S. officials said.
Bush will deliver that message personally to Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, in a visit to Bush's Texas ranch.
The president will plead the case to a Saudi government that so far is against a military attack.
The Saudis have also said they will not allow the United States to launch an invasion of Iraq from Saudi soil.
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
More U.S. Soldiers will mean more U.S. Casualties
As the Washington Times points out - Bush plan's to have more troops than ever before in Iraq. From the history of the Vietnam war we should realize that increasing the deployment while proportionally increase casualties and injuries.
Meanwhile, the Iraqis who don't want us there, and who don't believe we will ever leave have added reason to be angry.
Times article here: http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041201-051511-2877r.htm
Biggest US force ever in Iraq by January
Washington, DC, Dec. 1 (UPI) -- More than 10,000 U.S. troops will stay in Iraq beyond their year deployment and 1,500 more soldiers will be deployed there in advance of Iraq's election.
The new deployment bring the U.S. force in Iraq to 150,000 troops in January, the largest force the United States has had in that nation, including during the March 2003 invasion.
Meanwhile, the Iraqis who don't want us there, and who don't believe we will ever leave have added reason to be angry.
Times article here: http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041201-051511-2877r.htm
Biggest US force ever in Iraq by January
Washington, DC, Dec. 1 (UPI) -- More than 10,000 U.S. troops will stay in Iraq beyond their year deployment and 1,500 more soldiers will be deployed there in advance of Iraq's election.
The new deployment bring the U.S. force in Iraq to 150,000 troops in January, the largest force the United States has had in that nation, including during the March 2003 invasion.
Friday, November 26, 2004
'Something was not right'
Cameraman tells Falluja marines why he broadcast controversial shooting
The broadcast last week of footage showing a US marine shooting an injured Iraqi fighter in Falluja caused an international outcry.
Yesterday the cameraman, Kevin Sites, published on his website this open letter to the marines with whom he had been embedded.Since the shooting in the mosque, I've been haunted that I have not been able to tell you directly what I saw or explain the process by which the world came to see it as well.
As you know, I'm not some war zone tourist with a camera who doesn't understand that ugly things happen in combat. I've spent most of the last five years covering global conflict. But I have never in my career been a "gotcha" reporter - hoping for people to commit wrongdoings so I can catch them at it.
This week I've been shocked to see myself painted as some kind of anti-war activist. Anyone who has seen my reporting on television or has read my dispatches on the web is fully aware of the lengths I've gone to to play it straight down the middle - not to become a tool of propaganda for the left or the right. But I find myself a lightning rod for controversy in reporting what I saw occur in front of me, camera rolling.
It's time for you to have the facts, in my own words, about what I saw, without imposing on that marine guilt or innocence or anything in between. I want you to read my account and make up your own minds. Here it goes.
It's Saturday morning and we're still at our strong point from the night before, a clearing between a set of buildings on the southern edge of the city. The advance has been swift, but pockets of resistance still exist. In fact, we're taking sniper fire from both the front and the rear.
Weapons Company uses its 81's (mortars) where they spot muzzle flashes. The tanks do some blasting of their own. By mid-morning, we're told we're moving north again. We'll be back clearing some of the area we passed yesterday. There are also reports that the mosque, where 10 insurgents were killed and five wounded on Friday, may have been re-occupied overnight.
I decide to leave you guys and pick up with one of the infantry squads as they move house-to-house back toward the mosque. Many of the structures are empty of people - but full of weapons. Outside one residence, a member of the squad lobs a frag grenade over the wall. Everyone piles in, including me.
While the marines go into the house, I follow the flames caused by the grenade into the courtyard. When the smoke clears, I can see through my viewfinder that the fire is burning beside a large pile of anti-aircraft rounds.
I yell to the lieutenant that we need to move. Almost immediately after clearing out of the house, small explosions begin as the rounds cook off in the fire.
At that point, we hear the tanks firing their 240-machine guns into the mosque. There's radio chatter that insurgents inside could be shooting back. The tanks cease fire and we file through a breach in the outer wall.
We hear gunshots that seem to becoming from inside the mosque. A marine from my squad yells, "Are there marines in here?"
When we arrive at the front entrance, we see that another squad has already entered before us.
The lieutenant asks them, "Are there people inside?"
One of the marines raises his hand signaling five.
"Did you shoot them," the lieutenant asks?
"Roger that, sir, " the same marine responds.
"Were they armed?" The marine just shrugs and we all move inside.
Immediately after going in, I see the same black plastic body bags spread around the mosque. The dead from the day before. But more surprising, I see the same five men that were wounded from Friday as well. It appears that one of them is now dead and three are bleeding to death from new gunshot wounds.
The fifth is partially covered by a blanket and is in the same place and condition he was in on Friday, near a column. He has not been shot again. I look closely at both the dead and the wounded. There don't appear to be any weapons anywhere.
"These were the same wounded from yesterday," I say to the lieutenant. He takes a look around and goes outside the mosque with his radio operator to call in the situation to Battalion Forward HQ.
I see an old man in a red kaffiyeh lying against the back wall. Another is face down next to him, his hand on the old man's lap - as if he were trying to take cover. I squat beside them, inches away and begin to videotape them. Then I notice that the blood coming from the old man's nose is bubbling. A sign he is still breathing. So is the man next to him.
While I continue to tape, a marine walks up to the other two bodies about 15 feet away, but also lying against the same back wall.
Then I hear him say this about one of the men:
"He's fucking faking he's dead - he's faking he's fucking dead."
Through my viewfinder I can see him raise the muzzle of his rifle in the direction of the wounded Iraqi. There are no sudden movements, no reaching or lunging.
However, the marine could legitimately believe the man poses some kind of danger. Maybe he's going to cover him while another marine searches for weapons.
Instead, he pulls the trigger. There is a small splatter against the back wall and the man's leg slumps down.
"Well he's dead now," says another marine in the background.
I am still rolling. I feel the deep pit of my stomach. The marine then abruptly turns away and strides away, right past the fifth wounded insurgent lying next to a column. He is very much alive and peering from his blanket.
He is moving, even trying to talk. But for some reason, it seems he did not pose the same apparent "danger" as the other man - though he may have been more capable of hiding a weapon or explosive beneath his blanket.
But then two other marines in the room raise their weapons as the man tries to talk.
For a moment, I'm paralysed still taping with the old man in the foreground. I get up after a beat and tell the marines again, what I had told the lieutenant - that this man - all of these wounded men - were the same ones from yesterday. That they had been disarmed treated and left here.
At that point the marine who fired the shot became aware that I was in the room. He came up to me and said, "I didn't know sir - I didn't know." The anger that seemed present just moments before turned to fear and dread.
The wounded man then tries again to talk to me in Arabic.
He says, "Yesterday I was shot ... please ... yesterday I was shot over there - and talked to all of you on camera - I am one of the guys from this whole group. I gave you information. Do you speak Arabic? I want to give you information."
(This man has since reportedly been located by the Naval Criminal Investigation Service which is handling the case.)
In the aftermath, the first question that came to mind was why had these wounded men been left in the mosque?
It was answered by staff judge advocate Lieutenant Colonel Bob Miller - who interviewed the marines involved following the incident. After being treated for their wounds on Friday by a navy corpsman (I personally saw their bandages) the insurgents were going to be transported to the rear when time and circumstances allowed.
The area, however, was still hot. And there were American casualties to be moved first.
Also, the squad that entered the mosque on Saturday was different than the one that had led the attack on Friday.
It's reasonable to presume they may not have known that these insurgents had already been engaged and subdued a day earlier.
Yet when this new squad engaged the wounded insurgents on Saturday, perhaps really believing they had been fighting or somehow posed a threat - those marines inside knew from their training to check the insurgents for weapons and explosives after disabling them, instead of leaving them where they were and waiting outside the mosque for the squad I was following to arrive.
During the course of these events, there were plenty of mitigating circumstances like the ones just mentioned and which I reported in my story. The marine who fired the shot had reportedly been shot in the face himself the day before.
I'm also well aware from many years as a war reporter that there have been times, especially in this conflict, when dead and wounded insurgents have been booby-trapped, even supposedly including an incident that happened just a block away from the mosque in which one marine was killed and five others wounded. Again, a detail that was clearly stated in my television report.
No one, especially someone like me who has lived in a war zone, would deny that a soldier or marine could legitimately err on the side of caution under those circumstances. War is about killing your enemy before he kills you.
In the particular circumstance I was reporting, it bothered me that the marine didn't seem to consider the other insurgents a threat - the one very obviously moving under the blanket, or even the two next to me that were still breathing.
I can't know what was in the mind of that marine. He is the only one who does.
But observing all of this as an experienced war reporter who always bore in mind the perils of this conflict, even knowing the possibilities of mitigating circumstances - it appeared to me very plainly that something was not right. According to Lt Col Bob Miller, the rules of engagement in Falluja required soldiers or marines to determine hostile intent before using deadly force. I was not watching from a hundred feet away. I was in the same room. Aside from breathing, I did not observe any movement at all.
Making sure you know the basis for my choices after the incident is as important to me as knowing how the incident went down.
I did not in any way feel like I had captured some kind of "prize" video. In fact, I was heartsick. Immediately after the mosque incident, I told the unit's commanding officer what had happened. I shared the video with him, and its impact rippled all the way up the chain of command. Marine commanders immediately pledged their cooperation.
We all knew it was a complicated story and, if not handled responsibly, could have the potential to further inflame the volatile region. I offered to hold the tape until they had time to look into incident and begin an investigation - providing me with information that would fill in some of the blanks.
For those who don't practise journalism as a profession, it may be difficult to understand why we must report stories like this at all - especially if they seem to be aberrations, and not representative of the behaviour or character of an organisation as a whole.
The answer is not an easy one.
In war, as in life, there are plenty of opportunities to see the full spectrum of good and evil that people are capable of. As journalists, it is our job is to report both - though neither may be fully representative of those people on whom we're reporting.
But our coverage of these unique events, combined with the larger perspective, will allow the truth of that situation, in all of its complexities, to begin to emerge. That doesn't make the decision to report events like this one any easier. It has, for me, led to an agonising struggle - the proverbial long, dark night of the soul.
When NBC aired the story 48 hours later, we did so in a way that attempted to highlight every possible mitigating issue for that marine's actions. We wanted viewers to have a very clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the fighting on that frontline. Many of our colleagues were just as responsible.
Other foreign networks made different decisions, and because of that, I have become the conflicted conduit who has brought this to the world.
I interviewed your commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl, before the battle for Falluja began. He said something very powerful at the time - something that now seems prophetic. It was this:
"We're the good guys. We are Americans. We are fighting a gentleman's war here - because we don't behead people, we don't come down to the same level of the people we're combating.
"That's a very difficult thing for a young 18-year-old marine who's been trained to locate, close with and destroy the enemy with fire and close combat. That's a very difficult thing for a 42-year-old lieutenant colonel with 23 years experience in the service who was trained to do the same thing once upon a time, and who now has a thousand-plus men to lead, guide, coach, mentor - and ensure we remain the good guys and keep the moral high ground." I listened carefully when he said those words. I believed them.
So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera - the story of his death became my responsibility.
The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us.
I pray for your soon and safe return.
www.kevinsites.net
The broadcast last week of footage showing a US marine shooting an injured Iraqi fighter in Falluja caused an international outcry.
Yesterday the cameraman, Kevin Sites, published on his website this open letter to the marines with whom he had been embedded.Since the shooting in the mosque, I've been haunted that I have not been able to tell you directly what I saw or explain the process by which the world came to see it as well.
As you know, I'm not some war zone tourist with a camera who doesn't understand that ugly things happen in combat. I've spent most of the last five years covering global conflict. But I have never in my career been a "gotcha" reporter - hoping for people to commit wrongdoings so I can catch them at it.
This week I've been shocked to see myself painted as some kind of anti-war activist. Anyone who has seen my reporting on television or has read my dispatches on the web is fully aware of the lengths I've gone to to play it straight down the middle - not to become a tool of propaganda for the left or the right. But I find myself a lightning rod for controversy in reporting what I saw occur in front of me, camera rolling.
It's time for you to have the facts, in my own words, about what I saw, without imposing on that marine guilt or innocence or anything in between. I want you to read my account and make up your own minds. Here it goes.
It's Saturday morning and we're still at our strong point from the night before, a clearing between a set of buildings on the southern edge of the city. The advance has been swift, but pockets of resistance still exist. In fact, we're taking sniper fire from both the front and the rear.
Weapons Company uses its 81's (mortars) where they spot muzzle flashes. The tanks do some blasting of their own. By mid-morning, we're told we're moving north again. We'll be back clearing some of the area we passed yesterday. There are also reports that the mosque, where 10 insurgents were killed and five wounded on Friday, may have been re-occupied overnight.
I decide to leave you guys and pick up with one of the infantry squads as they move house-to-house back toward the mosque. Many of the structures are empty of people - but full of weapons. Outside one residence, a member of the squad lobs a frag grenade over the wall. Everyone piles in, including me.
While the marines go into the house, I follow the flames caused by the grenade into the courtyard. When the smoke clears, I can see through my viewfinder that the fire is burning beside a large pile of anti-aircraft rounds.
I yell to the lieutenant that we need to move. Almost immediately after clearing out of the house, small explosions begin as the rounds cook off in the fire.
At that point, we hear the tanks firing their 240-machine guns into the mosque. There's radio chatter that insurgents inside could be shooting back. The tanks cease fire and we file through a breach in the outer wall.
We hear gunshots that seem to becoming from inside the mosque. A marine from my squad yells, "Are there marines in here?"
When we arrive at the front entrance, we see that another squad has already entered before us.
The lieutenant asks them, "Are there people inside?"
One of the marines raises his hand signaling five.
"Did you shoot them," the lieutenant asks?
"Roger that, sir, " the same marine responds.
"Were they armed?" The marine just shrugs and we all move inside.
Immediately after going in, I see the same black plastic body bags spread around the mosque. The dead from the day before. But more surprising, I see the same five men that were wounded from Friday as well. It appears that one of them is now dead and three are bleeding to death from new gunshot wounds.
The fifth is partially covered by a blanket and is in the same place and condition he was in on Friday, near a column. He has not been shot again. I look closely at both the dead and the wounded. There don't appear to be any weapons anywhere.
"These were the same wounded from yesterday," I say to the lieutenant. He takes a look around and goes outside the mosque with his radio operator to call in the situation to Battalion Forward HQ.
I see an old man in a red kaffiyeh lying against the back wall. Another is face down next to him, his hand on the old man's lap - as if he were trying to take cover. I squat beside them, inches away and begin to videotape them. Then I notice that the blood coming from the old man's nose is bubbling. A sign he is still breathing. So is the man next to him.
While I continue to tape, a marine walks up to the other two bodies about 15 feet away, but also lying against the same back wall.
Then I hear him say this about one of the men:
"He's fucking faking he's dead - he's faking he's fucking dead."
Through my viewfinder I can see him raise the muzzle of his rifle in the direction of the wounded Iraqi. There are no sudden movements, no reaching or lunging.
However, the marine could legitimately believe the man poses some kind of danger. Maybe he's going to cover him while another marine searches for weapons.
Instead, he pulls the trigger. There is a small splatter against the back wall and the man's leg slumps down.
"Well he's dead now," says another marine in the background.
I am still rolling. I feel the deep pit of my stomach. The marine then abruptly turns away and strides away, right past the fifth wounded insurgent lying next to a column. He is very much alive and peering from his blanket.
He is moving, even trying to talk. But for some reason, it seems he did not pose the same apparent "danger" as the other man - though he may have been more capable of hiding a weapon or explosive beneath his blanket.
But then two other marines in the room raise their weapons as the man tries to talk.
For a moment, I'm paralysed still taping with the old man in the foreground. I get up after a beat and tell the marines again, what I had told the lieutenant - that this man - all of these wounded men - were the same ones from yesterday. That they had been disarmed treated and left here.
At that point the marine who fired the shot became aware that I was in the room. He came up to me and said, "I didn't know sir - I didn't know." The anger that seemed present just moments before turned to fear and dread.
The wounded man then tries again to talk to me in Arabic.
He says, "Yesterday I was shot ... please ... yesterday I was shot over there - and talked to all of you on camera - I am one of the guys from this whole group. I gave you information. Do you speak Arabic? I want to give you information."
(This man has since reportedly been located by the Naval Criminal Investigation Service which is handling the case.)
In the aftermath, the first question that came to mind was why had these wounded men been left in the mosque?
It was answered by staff judge advocate Lieutenant Colonel Bob Miller - who interviewed the marines involved following the incident. After being treated for their wounds on Friday by a navy corpsman (I personally saw their bandages) the insurgents were going to be transported to the rear when time and circumstances allowed.
The area, however, was still hot. And there were American casualties to be moved first.
Also, the squad that entered the mosque on Saturday was different than the one that had led the attack on Friday.
It's reasonable to presume they may not have known that these insurgents had already been engaged and subdued a day earlier.
Yet when this new squad engaged the wounded insurgents on Saturday, perhaps really believing they had been fighting or somehow posed a threat - those marines inside knew from their training to check the insurgents for weapons and explosives after disabling them, instead of leaving them where they were and waiting outside the mosque for the squad I was following to arrive.
During the course of these events, there were plenty of mitigating circumstances like the ones just mentioned and which I reported in my story. The marine who fired the shot had reportedly been shot in the face himself the day before.
I'm also well aware from many years as a war reporter that there have been times, especially in this conflict, when dead and wounded insurgents have been booby-trapped, even supposedly including an incident that happened just a block away from the mosque in which one marine was killed and five others wounded. Again, a detail that was clearly stated in my television report.
No one, especially someone like me who has lived in a war zone, would deny that a soldier or marine could legitimately err on the side of caution under those circumstances. War is about killing your enemy before he kills you.
In the particular circumstance I was reporting, it bothered me that the marine didn't seem to consider the other insurgents a threat - the one very obviously moving under the blanket, or even the two next to me that were still breathing.
I can't know what was in the mind of that marine. He is the only one who does.
But observing all of this as an experienced war reporter who always bore in mind the perils of this conflict, even knowing the possibilities of mitigating circumstances - it appeared to me very plainly that something was not right. According to Lt Col Bob Miller, the rules of engagement in Falluja required soldiers or marines to determine hostile intent before using deadly force. I was not watching from a hundred feet away. I was in the same room. Aside from breathing, I did not observe any movement at all.
Making sure you know the basis for my choices after the incident is as important to me as knowing how the incident went down.
I did not in any way feel like I had captured some kind of "prize" video. In fact, I was heartsick. Immediately after the mosque incident, I told the unit's commanding officer what had happened. I shared the video with him, and its impact rippled all the way up the chain of command. Marine commanders immediately pledged their cooperation.
We all knew it was a complicated story and, if not handled responsibly, could have the potential to further inflame the volatile region. I offered to hold the tape until they had time to look into incident and begin an investigation - providing me with information that would fill in some of the blanks.
For those who don't practise journalism as a profession, it may be difficult to understand why we must report stories like this at all - especially if they seem to be aberrations, and not representative of the behaviour or character of an organisation as a whole.
The answer is not an easy one.
In war, as in life, there are plenty of opportunities to see the full spectrum of good and evil that people are capable of. As journalists, it is our job is to report both - though neither may be fully representative of those people on whom we're reporting.
But our coverage of these unique events, combined with the larger perspective, will allow the truth of that situation, in all of its complexities, to begin to emerge. That doesn't make the decision to report events like this one any easier. It has, for me, led to an agonising struggle - the proverbial long, dark night of the soul.
When NBC aired the story 48 hours later, we did so in a way that attempted to highlight every possible mitigating issue for that marine's actions. We wanted viewers to have a very clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the fighting on that frontline. Many of our colleagues were just as responsible.
Other foreign networks made different decisions, and because of that, I have become the conflicted conduit who has brought this to the world.
I interviewed your commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl, before the battle for Falluja began. He said something very powerful at the time - something that now seems prophetic. It was this:
"We're the good guys. We are Americans. We are fighting a gentleman's war here - because we don't behead people, we don't come down to the same level of the people we're combating.
"That's a very difficult thing for a young 18-year-old marine who's been trained to locate, close with and destroy the enemy with fire and close combat. That's a very difficult thing for a 42-year-old lieutenant colonel with 23 years experience in the service who was trained to do the same thing once upon a time, and who now has a thousand-plus men to lead, guide, coach, mentor - and ensure we remain the good guys and keep the moral high ground." I listened carefully when he said those words. I believed them.
So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera - the story of his death became my responsibility.
The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us.
I pray for your soon and safe return.
www.kevinsites.net
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Mass Offensive Launched South of Baghdad
Tue Nov 23,
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Some 5,000 U.S. Marines, British troops and Iraqi commandos launched a new offensive Tuesday aimed at clearing a swath of insurgent hotbeds south of Baghdad, the U.S. military said.
The cluster of dusty, small towns located south of the capital, has been a major area for insurgent activity. U.S. and Iraqi forces have come under repeated attacks by car bombs, rockets, and small arms fire in the area.
The region has become known as a "triangle of death" for the numerous attacks by Sunni Muslim insurgents and criminal gangs on Shiites, Westerners and members of the Iraqi security services.
It would be the third major military offensive against insurgents since the massive Fallujah operation, which has claimed the lives of more than 50 U.S. soldiers and injured more than 400.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Some 5,000 U.S. Marines, British troops and Iraqi commandos launched a new offensive Tuesday aimed at clearing a swath of insurgent hotbeds south of Baghdad, the U.S. military said.
The cluster of dusty, small towns located south of the capital, has been a major area for insurgent activity. U.S. and Iraqi forces have come under repeated attacks by car bombs, rockets, and small arms fire in the area.
The region has become known as a "triangle of death" for the numerous attacks by Sunni Muslim insurgents and criminal gangs on Shiites, Westerners and members of the Iraqi security services.
It would be the third major military offensive against insurgents since the massive Fallujah operation, which has claimed the lives of more than 50 U.S. soldiers and injured more than 400.
Soldiers Try to Beat the Back-Door Draft!
A Class Action Lawsuit is being filed to Defend Troops Under Stop-Loss!
Any soldiers presently in Iraq or home on leave who are under Stop Loss Orders:
A class action lawsuit is being brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of GIs stationed in Iraq who are under Stop Loss Orders.
If you want to join on to the Class Action lawsuit against Stop Loss, please contact Staughton Lynd immediately at 330-652-9635 SALYND@aol.com
The Center for Constitutional Rights will file a lawsuit in federal district court for the District of Columbia on Monday December 6, requesting an injunction hearing December 9th or 10th.
If you or a family member can attend the press conference on December 6th, please contact Staughton Lynd or CCR, 212-614-6464.posted 22 november 2004
Any soldiers presently in Iraq or home on leave who are under Stop Loss Orders:
A class action lawsuit is being brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of GIs stationed in Iraq who are under Stop Loss Orders.
If you want to join on to the Class Action lawsuit against Stop Loss, please contact Staughton Lynd immediately at 330-652-9635 SALYND@aol.com
The Center for Constitutional Rights will file a lawsuit in federal district court for the District of Columbia on Monday December 6, requesting an injunction hearing December 9th or 10th.
If you or a family member can attend the press conference on December 6th, please contact Staughton Lynd or CCR, 212-614-6464.posted 22 november 2004
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Getting the money
The Defense Department's operational and maintenance budget is expected to rise in 2005 to $140.6 billion, a considerable increase over $127.6 billion in 2004. From there, operations and maintenance rises to $163.9 billion in 2009, when the total defense budget will near half a trillion dollars.
While supplemental spending programs have covered Iraq and Afghanistan, concerns linger that this source of funding may peter out.
"What classically gives is the supplementals stop coming and the president ends up funding the war through monies that were earmarked for other things, like procurement," said Jon Kutler, chairman and chief executive of Jefferies Quarterdeck, an investment bank.
That could have implications for the defense industry, which counts on procurement spending and research and development contracts, as much as on the production of spare parts and replacements.
High-technology defense and communications programs often capture the spotlight and therefore the federal dollars, Kutler added, but traditional programs cannot be ignored, either -- particularly when they are seeing heavy use as part of extended operations in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Defense giants like Boeing (BA), Lockheed Martin (LMT) and Northrop Grumman (NOC), are counting billions from big-ticket programs like the F/A-22 Raptor, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Aegis cruisers and the V-22 Osprey.
National missile defense is also a White House priority, drawing $9.2 billion in fiscal-year 2005, one of the biggest outlays of any program.
"Now that the election is over and we go from rhetoric to reality, what is going to happen with all the different conflicting issues?" Kutler asked.
The answers to that question are tied to the U.S. strategy in Iraq, and how big a role there is there for the American military.
Raed whole story at: http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journalid=24065048&brk=1
While supplemental spending programs have covered Iraq and Afghanistan, concerns linger that this source of funding may peter out.
"What classically gives is the supplementals stop coming and the president ends up funding the war through monies that were earmarked for other things, like procurement," said Jon Kutler, chairman and chief executive of Jefferies Quarterdeck, an investment bank.
That could have implications for the defense industry, which counts on procurement spending and research and development contracts, as much as on the production of spare parts and replacements.
High-technology defense and communications programs often capture the spotlight and therefore the federal dollars, Kutler added, but traditional programs cannot be ignored, either -- particularly when they are seeing heavy use as part of extended operations in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Defense giants like Boeing (BA), Lockheed Martin (LMT) and Northrop Grumman (NOC), are counting billions from big-ticket programs like the F/A-22 Raptor, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Aegis cruisers and the V-22 Osprey.
National missile defense is also a White House priority, drawing $9.2 billion in fiscal-year 2005, one of the biggest outlays of any program.
"Now that the election is over and we go from rhetoric to reality, what is going to happen with all the different conflicting issues?" Kutler asked.
The answers to that question are tied to the U.S. strategy in Iraq, and how big a role there is there for the American military.
Raed whole story at: http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journalid=24065048&brk=1
Friday, November 12, 2004
The numbers represent real people.
American Deaths
Since war began (3/19/03): 1, 228
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list) 1091
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03):766
Since Handover (6/29/04):367
American Wounded
Official : 8,956
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Fallujah-Eye of the Storm
U.S. Army and Marine units roared into the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah through a breach near the railroad station at dawn Tuesday, facing lighter-than-expected resistance as they began house-to-house searches in the second day of their drive to retake the city from Islamic militants.
Heavy machine gun fire crackled from the eastern and central parts of the city and black smoke rose from near a mosque. The military said the advance into the northwestern Jolan section was going “smoothly” with minimal collateral damage despite round-the-clock bombardment.
“That’s our guys fighting right now,” said Maj. Clark Watson, with 3rd Battalion 1st Marine Regiment, as machine guns jackhammered nearby. “It’s going well, it’s a good day.”- AP
Heavy machine gun fire crackled from the eastern and central parts of the city and black smoke rose from near a mosque. The military said the advance into the northwestern Jolan section was going “smoothly” with minimal collateral damage despite round-the-clock bombardment.
“That’s our guys fighting right now,” said Maj. Clark Watson, with 3rd Battalion 1st Marine Regiment, as machine guns jackhammered nearby. “It’s going well, it’s a good day.”- AP
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Chris Rock about the War on Terror
Back to Complete
War News Index
Chris Rock about the War on Terror
Interesting thoughts on the shift from patriotism to hate-reism. Shown during the Kobe Bryant scandal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
