Posts Tagged ‘US troops’

President Obama to restart Guantanamo Bay military tribunals

May 15, 2009

May 15, 2009

In final letters, Saddam Hussein complained of being tortured

May 5, 2009

NY Daily News, Tuesday, May 5th 2009, 9:18 AM

Solic / Getty Images

Saddam Hussein at trial in Baghdad in December 2006.

WASHINGTON – Immediately after U.S. troops captured Saddam Hussein in 2003, Iraq‘s brutal ex-dictator turned into a crybaby over “beatings” by a “detention gang” and sleepless nights amid screams of torture victims.

Saddam poured out his complaints “to whom it may concern” in two Christmas 2003 letters, handwritten in Arabic, which he gave to his U.S. military jailers, the Daily News has learned.

In one letter, he alleged “beatings that I have received following my capture,” in which “not a single part of my body was spared of the severe harm that was inflicted by the detention gang,” adding, “some of the traces are still visible on my body.”

The tyrant and his family, who maintained their 24-year reign over Iraq by torturing and executing thousands, complained that his lockup – believed to be at Baghdad International Airport – was an American-made chamber of horrors.

“My opportunity to sleep in this place is limited and almost scarce,” Saddam wrote. “I don’t think there is anyone with a sensitive and humanitarian heart who can sleep amidst the screams of the tortured and the many blows of the doors and the squeaking sounds of the chairs.”

Saddam whined that his “total hours of sleep did not exceed four to five hours.”

The letters were among 352 pages in his declassified FBI file, which The News requested after his December 2006 execution for crimes against humanity.

Although it is known that other notorious members of his regime were imprisoned nearby, Saddam’s allegations of torture at that facility were not addressed in the heavily redacted FBI file – and are not considered credible by U.S. experts.

His first letter – written nine days after being pulled from a Tikrit spider hole on Dec. 15, 2003 – demanded an accounting of over $1 million in U.S. cash he had with him in an iron safe and “a Samsonite case.”

The prolific poet and novelist also asked for the return of “a number of simple necessities, the most important are notebooks with chapters from a story.”

The U.S. wanted Saddam to figuratively drape the noose around his own neck, ordering the FBI “to overwhelm Hussein with the volume of evidence against him and others regarding human rights violations, mass murders and the use of chemical weapons.”

A brilliant FBI man, George Piro, was Saddam’s sole interrogator. But the Arabic-speaking Lebanese-American agent didn’t have to resort to CIA waterboarding techniques to elicit Saddam’s confessions of massacring fellow Iraqis. Instead, Piro’s now-legendary interrogations relied on another ancient method – conversation.

Saddam became so fond of the G-man, who he thought was a top aide to President George W. Bush, that he spilled his guts. He even ended a hunger strike “for the benefit of Supervisory Special Agent Piro,” a 2004 FBI memo said.

The files also show that the agency tracked Saddam and his family since the early 1970s by building dossiers on the dictator.

Saddam was a teetotaling health nut who “enjoys a good Havana cigar” and, though a Muslim, “is not frequently seen in the mosque [but] prays five times daily,” a 1990 FBI file stated.

His son Uday – slain by U.S. troops in 2003 – was a “ruthless egotist” and a “sadist” who had a “distant relationship” with his dad and enjoyed torturing and murdering his own friends.

“He would shave [their] hair and subject them to fierce guard dogs and electric cattle prods,” the FBI file noted.

jmeek@nydailynews.com

Saddam Hussein’s letter complaining of torture keeping him awake

English translation of Saddam Hussein letter

Iraq rules out extension of U.S. withdrawal dates

May 4, 2009

Reuters, May 3, 2009

Photo
1 of 1Full Size

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Iraq will not extend withdrawal deadlines for U.S. troops set out in a bilateral accord, ending months of speculation about whether U.S. combat troops would stay beyond June in bases in the restive northern city of Mosul.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Iraq was committed to adhering to the withdrawal schedule in the pact, which took effect on January 1, including the requirement to withdraw U.S. combat troops from towns and cities by the end of June and a full withdrawal by the end of 2011.

“These dates cannot be extended and this is consistent with the transfer and handover of responsibility to Iraqi security forces,” Dabbagh said in a statement.

Violence has dropped sharply in Iraq, but suicide bombs and other attacks continue to rock the northern city of Mosul, seen as a final stronghold for Sunni Islamist al Qaeda and other insurgent groups.

The ongoing violence in the city, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad, had prompted speculation that Iraq might grant a waiver for U.S. combat troops to stay in urban bases in Mosul.

Last month, five U.S. soldiers were killed in a suicide attack in Mosul, the single most deadly attack on American forces in more than a year.

Major-General David Perkins, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said last week that Mosul might be the one place where U.S. combat troops might stay on beyond June if requested to do so by the Iraqi government.

“It is quite honestly … the one area where you are most likely to possibly see a decision for U.S. forces to remain there, probably more so than any other place, just based on the activity there (and) the capability of Iraqi security forces,” Perkins said.

Even after June, U.S. forces can conduct combat and other operations within cities if authorized by the Iraqi government. A major U.S. base on the outskirts of Mosul, for example, will not be affected.

“There will still be joint patrols in the city — the difference is that now we will ‘drive’ to work so to speak since we won’t be living in the city any longer,” Colonel Gary Volesky, a senior U.S. official in Mosul, said last week.

(Additional reporting by Tim Cocks)

Iraq insists US troops leave urban areas by June 30

April 29, 2009

Morning Star Online, Tuesday 28 April 2009

THE Iraqi government insisted on Monday that all US troops must pull out of urban areas by June 30, as specified under a deal agreed between Baghdad and Washington in January.

Top US commander in Iraq General Raymond Odierno has talked of possible “exceptions” to the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) in light of the spate of deadly suicide bombings that have rocked Baghdad and Mosul in recent weeks.

But Iraqi Defence Ministry spokesman Major General Mohammed al-Askari emphasised that US troops must leave all cities by then and could only return with the permission of the Iraqi government.

“The general position of the Iraq Defence Ministry is to adhere to the timings in the SOFA,” he said.

Since the SOFA went into effect at the beginning of this year, the US military is obliged to get the green light from the Iraqi government before mounting operations.

And it states that US soldiers are liable to face Iraqi justice if they commit crimes off base.

The SOFA faced its first major test on Sunday, when US troops staged a pre-dawn raid in Kut, killing two civilians and detaining six.

After local residents took to the streets in outrage, Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki branded the raid a “crime” and a “violation of the security pact.”

The US military released the six detainees and apologised, but that did not placate Sheikh Ahmed Abdul-Munim, who lost his wife and brother in the raid.

US airstrike kills six civilians in Afghanistan

April 15, 2009

By Bill Van Auken | wsws.org, 15 April 2009

US attack helicopters killed six civilians Monday in Afghanistan’s mountainous eastern Kunar province near the Pakistan border. The attack follows by less than a week a raid by US troops in nearby Khost province that killed five innocent civilians, four of them relatives of an Afghan army officer.

While US military officials claimed that all those killed in Monday’s attack were “enemy fighters” and that the target had been picked based on “multiple intelligence sources,” Afghan officials on the ground told a very different story.

The governor of the Watapor district in Kunar Province, Zalmay Yousfzai, reported that the helicopters demolished one house and inflicted heavy damage on several others. In addition to the six civilians killed in the raid, another 14 were wounded, four of them seriously, he said.

The district police chief also affirmed that all of those killed and wounded were civilians. Among the dead were a three-year-old girl and a 10-year-old boy. The wounded included a one-year-old.

The Agence France-Presse news agency interviewed two of the wounded at the local hospital, including a 14-year-old boy who said that four members of his family had died in the US air strike.

“We were asleep, and all of a sudden the roof collapsed,” the boy, who identified himself as Zakirullah, told AFP. “I don’t remember anything. I got to know here that my father, my mother, my brother and my younger sister have all been killed, and I am wounded.”

A woman, named Shahida, told the news agency: “We were asleep and heard a strange noise and then the roof and walls collapsed. The people took me out of the rubble and there are many still there. I was told nine people from my family were killed and wounded. I don’t know who is dead, who is wounded and who is alive in my family.”

A spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force said that it would investigate the reported civilian casualties. The spokesman, Capt. Mark Durkin, added that if there were deaths, the occupation forces would “provide assistance to support the law-abiding people affected.”

Such blood money does little to assuage the popular outrage provoked by the killing of innocent men, women and children by foreign occupiers. Even President Hamid Karzai, whose corrupt and feeble regime remains in power solely thanks to the US troop presence, has felt compelled to repeatedly condemn such attacks and demand that the occupation force stop killing civilians.

The initial claims that only insurgents were killed, followed by the promise of an investigation is the standard response of the US military. Just four days earlier, after making virtually identical statements, a spokesman for the US-led occupation was forced to acknowledge that those killed in the April 8 attack on the home of the Afghan officer, Col. Awal Khan, had not been “enemy fighters.”

Among the dead were Khan’s wife, who was a local school teacher, two children, and his brother. The wife of the Khan’s cousin, who lived next door, came out of her house during the raid. The US troops shot the woman, who was nine months pregnant, five times in the abdomen.

“She survived but her child died. The child was hit by bullets,” Khost province health director Abdul Majeed told AFP.

In a report released in February, the United Nations said that the civilian death toll in Afghanistan had risen to over 2,100 in 2008, a 40 percent increase over the previous year. It said that US and NATO troops were responsible for at least 828 of these deaths, the majority of them inflicted by air strikes.

According to data compiled by the Afghan Victims Memorial Project, between 156 and 160 civilians have been killed by the US-led occupation forces since President Barack Obama took office on January 21. Of these victims, 56 were children, 15 women, between 41 and 43 men and another 38 to 40 whose age and gender were unknown.

A similar steady escalation of the civilian death toll has been recorded across the border in Pakistan, which the Obama administration is now treating as part of a broader regional theater of war. According to figures compiled by Pakistani authorities, in the course of 60 missile attacks by pilotless Predator drones carried out since 2006, 701 people have been killed, 687 of them civilians. At least 152 people have died in these attacks in the first 99 days of 2009, according to the Pakistani authorities—only two of them linked to al Qaeda.

The most recent Predator attack was launched on April 8, just hours after Pakistani military and civilian leaders met with Obama’s envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen and registered a formal protest over the missile strikes.

The killing of both Afghans and Pakistanis is only going to escalate as some 21,000 more US troops are deployed in Afghanistan in the coming weeks, the Pentagon’s top uniformed officer warned Tuesday.

Admiral Mullen told ABC television that the US escalation would mean a surge of violence.

“I look forward to a very active year,” said Mullen. “I want to be clear that my expectations are as we add more troops, the violence level in Afghanistan is going to go up.”

The military chief said that 17,000 more US combat troops and 4,000 military trainers will soon be deployed in Afghanistan and would ultimately have “the right impact.”

There are already 38,000 US troops in the country. Washington plans to boost that number to 68,000 by autumn, and the top US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, has asked for 10,000 more. Other NATO countries have approximately 32,000 troops in the country.

The US military escalation will serve to intensify resistance to the American occupation on both sides the border, while further destabilizing the government in Pakistan. After more than seven years of military violence, the US is facing a rapidly disintegrating security and political situation in Afghanistan, where the Taliban, driven out of government by the October 2001 invasion, now controls large swaths of the country.

Across the border in western Pakistan—including the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), the Northwest Frontier Province and Baluchistan, which, like southeastern Afghanistan, are inhabited largely by Pashtuns—the US presence has fueled a growing insurgency that has only been strengthened by popular anger over the drone attacks and Pakistani army repression, which in addition to killing civilians, have driven some 550,000 people from their homes.

While Washington has demanded that Pakistan take even more repressive measures to deny the Taliban “safe havens” from which they can launch attacks in neighboring Afghanistan, President Asif Ali Zardari is anxious to damp down the conflict for fear that it will threaten his government’s survival.

Thus, on Monday, to Washington’s consternation, Zardari signed legislation that imposes Islamic law in the Swat Valley, which had been the scene of protracted and bloody fighting between government forces and local Islamist militants. The measure essentially amounts to a peace agreement with the local Taliban, whose ranks have reportedly doubled over the past year.

While the deal was supposed to secure the disarming of the Islamists, last week Taliban fighters advanced out of Swat and moved southeast into the Bruner district, defeating local police and militia in armed clashes and establishing their domination of the valley, which is barely 60 miles from the Pakistani capital.

The Obama administration is desperately attempting to salvage the war launched by President Bush in the name of fighting terrorism, but with the strategic objective of securing US hegemony in Central Asia, with its vast energy resources. Its escalation and extension into Pakistan, however, will have the effect of spreading instability and armed conflict with potentially catastrophic results.

On anniversary of Saddam’s fall, Iraqi protesters vent against US

April 10, 2009
(Photograph)
In Baghdad, tens of thousands of Iraqis crowded into Firdos Square on Thursday to mark the sixth anniversary of the fall of the Iraqi capital to American troops. Here, supporters of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr galther with signs and chant anti-US slogans.
Karim Kadim

Tens of thousands of Sadr’s Shiite supporters expressed solidarity with Iraqi security forces while demanding an end to the US occupation.

Tens of thousands of Iraqis crowded into the square Thursday where Saddam Hussein’s statue was toppled, along with his regime, six years ago. Waving posters of Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr and demanding that President Obama fulfill his promise to withdraw US troops, their presence underscored the eagerness of many Iraqis to see the US leave – but also their apprehension about what comes next, especially after a week of bombings that have marred months of relative calm.The demonstrators in Firdos Square were mostly young men, jubilant despite the pouring rain. Halfway up the decaying green concrete sculpture that replaced the towering image of Saddam Hussein, high school student Karar Abdul Hussein, himself symbolic of the new Iraq, clambered up to get a better view and wave an Iraqi flag.

“We were so happy when they brought down the statue, but now we want the occupation to end. The Americans are very tough against the Iraqis,” he says after being persuaded to climb back down and talk.

Despite the recent bomb attacks, security has improved dramatically since Iraq pulled back from all-out civil war two years ago. For most people, a lack of jobs and essential services, including water and electricity, are now their main concerns. The drop in oil revenue has prompted major budget cuts by the Iraqi government, and long-overdue laws to share oil revenue and power have been stalled by political power struggles and a dead-locked Parliament.

At the age of 20, Mr. Abdul Hussein is working in a restaurant while finishing high school. His father, a member of Mr. Sadr’s militant Mahdi Army, has been in detention since being arrested by US forces three years ago. The local Sadr office supports the family by paying them about $65 a month – more than the Iraqi government does for them.

“This is not democracy,” says Nahab Nehme, a hospital worker, holding one end of a pro-Sadr banner. “When America came, they didn’t do anything for Iraq – they moved Saddam out, but he was their servant, and the people who are in power now are their servants, too.”

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki last year sent the Iraqi Army into Basra to fight Shiite militias, including the Mahdi Army, in what was seen as a turning point in both the Shiite prime minister’s political forces and in security in the south of Iraq.

Sadr, whose forces rose up against US troops in 2004 in the biggest challenge they’d faced since the beginning of the war, waxes and wanes as a military leader, but remains a key political player. He is believed to be engaged in religious studies in Iran and is rarely seen in public these days. But an aide read a statement from him on the sixth anniversary of the regime’s toppling, describing the American presence here as a “crime against all Iraqis.”

“We demand that President Obama stand with the Iraqi people by ending the occupation to fulfill his promises he made to the world,” Ali al-Marwani told the crowd.

“No, no to America; no, no to Israel,” the demonstrators chanted, an echo of protests organized by Saddam Hussein before the war. Supporters also burned an effigy of former president George W. Bush.

“God unite us, return our riches, free the prisoners from the prisons, return sovereignty to our country … free our country from the occupier, and prevent the occupier from stealing our oil,” read Sadr’s message.

He ended by asking demonstrators to shake hands with each other and the Iraqi police who helped protect them. Sadr organization guards were in charge of security at the demonstration with Iraqi police ringing the outside and Iraqi soldiers nearby.

As the rain stopped and the demonstrators flooded into the streets, hundreds lined up to shake hands and kiss the police officers on both cheeks – the traditional Arab greeting.

“The media says the Sadr movement is the enemy of the Iraqi security forces – that we attack the police and the Army – but we are brothers,” says Ahmed al-Musawi, a student at the Medical Institute.

Policeman Ali Falah Ali stood in the square six years ago – a high school student at the time – when US forces put a noose around the statue of Saddam. He says he believes the growing number of Iraqi security forces can now take care of their own country.

“God willing, with the number of troops here, either this year or by next year, day after day the situation will improve,” he says.

Although the anniversary in recent years has been celebrated as a public holiday, authorities said Wednesday that government offices and schools would stay open. Teachers showed up, but few children came to classes. In the commercial area of Karrada, shops were open.

“Business is good – a lot of people are renovating,” says Ghanam Ghazi, overseeing painters at a new men’s clothing store. He says security has generally been good, but people are worried about a spate of bombings that have killed dozens of Iraqis in Baghdad.

He and his coworker, Ahmed Thamer, say they have little faith in Obama, and want proof that US forces are leaving. The US president visited Iraq Tuesday and told Iraqi leaders and US officials that it was time to phase out America’s combat role.

Mr. Thamer says that his childhood friend, Ahmed Ismael, was shot dead by US forces in 2004 when his car got in the way of an armored convoy in Baghdad.

“They’re not like the Iraqi troops,” he says. “The Iraqi troops – we can talk to them, we can deal with them

Will Obama Vacate Iraq?

April 8, 2009

Nasir Khan, April 8, 2009

On February 27, 2009 President Barack Obama delivered his much-anticipated policy speech on Iraq. The important point in his announcement was the withdrawal of some U.S. troops from Iraq by August 31, 2010. However, it did not mean an end to the American occupation of Iraq, or an end to an illegal genocidal war that the Bush-Cheney administration had started. Despite his high-blown rhetoric about withdrawing from Iraq, Obama did not deal with many important questions. Thus what was not said cannot be regarded as an oversight but rather as an indication of how the new administration intends to pursue its policy objectives. Those who had wished to see a break by the new administration with the Bush-Cheney administration’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned because they detect the continuation of the goal of the U.S. domination, which the American rulers usually refer to as the ‘U.S. interests’ in the region.

At present the U.S. has 142,000 combat troops in Iraq. But what is often glossed over is the fact that there is almost a parallel army of American mercenaries and private military contractors whose numbers range from 100,000 to 150,000. Thus both the regular fighting force and these mercenaries are virtual foreign occupiers. However, the planned withdrawal of U.S. troops will not amount to ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Obama wants to keep more than 50,000 occupying troops in Iraq. His innovation, if we can call it so, lies in classifying them as ‘non-combat’ troops or a ‘transitional force’. And what will they be doing? It is worth noticing how Obama formulates the policy objective that shows the real intentions of the occupiers: ‘we will retain a transitional force to carry out the three distinct functions: training, equipping , and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian; conducting targeted counterterrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq.’

So, instead of ‘combat brigades’, the re-labelled ‘transitional force’ will carry on the ‘targeted counterterrorism missions’! This cannot fool anyone. What this in effect means is that that the 50,000 soldiers will continue to accomplish the ‘mission’ that the former U.S. president George W. Bush had laid out for them.

President Obama has plans to remove all such remaining U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. But things are far from certain. What will happens if the resistance against the occupier and its puppet regime in Baghdad continues and the U.S. policy-makers and military planners conclude that the challenge to American hegemony and its geopolitical interests in Iraq persists? In that case, this plan can be replaced with a new one neatly drafted by the Pentagon. Such concern was aired by the NBC’s Pentagon’s correspondent Jim Miklaszeswki on February 27, 2009 that ‘military commanders, despite their Status of Forces agreement with the Iraqi government that all U.S. forces would be out by the end of 2011, are already making plans for a significant number of troops to remain in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline, assuming that the Status of Forces Agreement would be renegotiated. And one senior military commander told us that he expects large number of American troops to be in Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years.’ In case of such need to keep the American forces in Iraq, the puppet regime in Baghdad will hardly be in a position to resist the American diktat and pressure. That means the colonial occupation of Iraq according to U.S. designs and interests will continue.

There are a number of important issues that President Obama did not touch in his speech. What will happen to more than 100,000 mercenaries and private military contractors operating in Iraq? Dyncorp, Bechtel, Blackwater have been used by American military and they have been immune to any accountability for killing Iraqis. The recent change of name from Blackwater to ‘Xe’ does not change the mission of the mercenaries and their crimes in Iraq. Again, the ultimate responsibility for the actions of such people lies with the American government. The peace movement should demand the Obama administration to redress the issue.

In Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone, the Bush administration built the largest embassy of any nation anywhere on Earth, a sprawling complex of buildings to accommodate up to 5,000 American diplomats and officials. That shows what long-term objectives the Bush administration had for Iraq and the Middle East. Besides, it was again the illegal action of the occupying military power in which the people of Iraq had no say. An embassy is meant for diplomatic relations between two states. But the gigantic building to accommodate thousands of officials in the capital of an occupied oil-rich country shows the true intentions of the American rulers. These buildings should be closed down or handed over to the Iraqis.

The United States has 58 permanent military bases in Iraq, as a part of the larger network of American military bases around the world. President Obama should give a clear indication that when the American troops are withdrawn, the illegal use of Iraqi military bases will also come to an end.

Let us hope that President Obama’s words match his actions; actions that will signify a change in the direction of American imperial policy. It was encouraging to see that when he turned to the Iraqi people and said: ‘The United States pursues no claim on your territory or your resources. We respect your sovereignty and the tremendous sacrifices you have made for your country. We seek a full transition to Iraqi responsibility for the security of your country.’

The American rulers have inflicted immeasurable death and destruction on the Iraqi people and the infrastructure of their country. They have caused untold humanitarian disaster and suffering in Iraq. The people of Iraq have seen only death, destruction and barbarity at the hands of the occupiers since the U.S. invasion of their country. The Belgian philosopher, Lieven De Cauter, the initiator of the BRussells Tribunal, writes: ‘During six years of occupation, 1.2 million citizens were killed, 2,000 doctors killed, and 5,500 academics and intellectuals assassinated or imprisoned. There are 4.7 million refugees: 207 million inside the country and two million have fled to neighbouring countries, among which are 20,000 doctors. According to the Red Cross, Iraq is a country of widows and orphans: two million widows as a consequence of war, embargo, and war again and occupation, and five million orphans, many of whom are homeless (estimated at 500,000).’

For us the ordinary human beings, such a degree of inhumanity shown by the rulers of the United States towards the people of a great country and callous imperviousness to the suffering of so many people is hard to understand. In addition, Iraq, the cradle of human civilisation eventually fell in the hands of the American occupiers and they vandalized the ancient treasures and artifacts, which were the common heritage of all humanity.

In sum, the peace movement should demand the complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops, the withdrawal of all mercenaries and military contractors hired by the Pentagon. All American military bases in Iraq should be closed and the full sovereignty of Iraq over its land and air be respected. All lucrative oil contracts the occupiers made with the puppet regime in Baghdad should be held null and void. Above all, the United States should be held accountable to pay reparations for the damage it caused and pay compensation to the victims of aggression. We should demand that the International Criminal Court takes steps to indict the alleged war criminals. The governments of the United States and Britain have a special responsibility to hand over the principal war criminals to The Hague and to facilitate the task of such trials.

Protests in Washington, Calif. call for war’s end

March 22, 2009

Nafeesa Syeed, Associated Press Writer | Yahoo NewsSat Mar 21, 2009

AP – Anti-war protesters carry mock coffins draped in American flags across the Memorial Bridge to Arlington, …

WASHINGTON – Before war protesters ended their demonstration Saturday afternoon, several placed cardboard coffins in front of the offices of northern Virginia defense contractors such as KBR Inc. and Lockheed Martin Corp. as riot police stood by.

Lockheed Martin you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide!” they chanted as part of a demonstration that began in Washington to mark the sixth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.

Arlington County, Va., authorities estimated there were 2,500 to 3,000 protesters.

Organizers from the ANSWER Coalition said more than 1,000 groups sponsored the protest to call for an end to the Iraq war. Carrying signs saying “We need jobs and schools, not war” and “Indict Bush,” demonstrators beat drums and played trumpets as they marched from near the Lincoln Memorial past the Pentagon into Virginia.

Meanwhile, at a similar protest in San Francisco, tension grew after four or five dozen activists surrounded a group of riot-equipped police, throwing sticks and water bottles. Police responded by regrouping in riot formation and physically detaining several protesters who pushed and shoved with officers.

Protest leaders shouted from the stage, urging police to leave. Barriers were quickly erected between police and protesters as an organizer urged calm and the activists started to disperse.

In Washington, protesters demanded that President Barack Obama immediately withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq, saying thousands of Iraqis have died and thousands of American troops have been wounded or killed.

“We think it’s especially important for this new administration to feel the pressure from people that we don’t want more war,” said Obama supporter Pat Halle, 59, of Baltimore.

Anti-war activists said even though former President George W. Bush is out of power, they are disappointed with what they see as stalled action from Obama.

“Obama seems to be led somewhat by the bureaucracies. I want him to follow up on his promise to end the war,” said 66-year-old Perry Parks of Rockingham, N.C., who said he served in the Army for nearly 30 years, including in Vietnam.

Obama has said he plans to withdraw roughly 100,000 troops by summer 2010. He promises to pull the last of the U.S. troops by the end of 2011, in accordance with a deal Iraqis signed with Bush.

There were about 138,000 troops in Iraq as of March 13.

In southern California, hundreds of protesters gathered in Hollywood. Among them were peace advocate Cindy Sheehan — whose son was killed in Iraq — Oscar-winning screenwriter Paul Haggis and Ron Kovic, a paralyzed Vietnam veteran whose story was chronicled in the book and film “Born on the Fourth of July.”

Protesters in Los Angeles were expected to follow a rally with a march and then a symbolic “die in” where they would lie down in a major Hollywood Boulevard intersection to symbolize the soldiers who have died in the war.

Protesters waved signs and sold bumper stickers and T-shirts commemorating the event.

Denise Clendenning, 51, an environmental scientist from Chino Hills, Calif., said she hopes Obama will rethink his strategy to withdraw most of the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and call all of them back instead.

“We all have a lot of confidence in him,” she said, holding two signs that read “Out of Iraq” and “End the War.”

In Washington, U.S. Park Police said no arrests were made. However, there sometimes was commotion among activists.

At one point during the demonstration in Virginia, some taunted police while others urged their fellow protesters not to bother authorities. Some protesters then began arguing among themselves.

This year, the protest in Washington was held on a weekend — a few days after the March 19 anniversary of the war, which began in 2003. Last year’s weekday protest was marked by lower turnout than in previous years.

___

Associated Press Writer Christina Hoag in Los Angeles and Jason Dearen in San Francisco contributed to this report.

Can Congress Save Obama from Afghan Quagmire?

March 11, 2009

by Robert Naiman | CommonDreams.org, March 10, 2009

A progressive Presidency is a terrible thing to waste. It only comes around once every so often. Wouldn’t it be a shame if Americans’ hopes for the Obama Administration were squandered in Afghanistan?

Members of Congress who want the Obama Administration to succeed won’t do it any favors by keeping silent about the proposed military escalation in Afghanistan. The actions of the Obama Administration so far clearly indicate that they can move in response to pressure: both good pressure and bad pressure. If there is only bad pressure, it’s more than likely that policy will move in a bad direction. In announcing an increase in U.S. troops before his Afghanistan review was complete, Obama partially acceded to pressure from the military. If we don’t want the military to have carte blanche, there needs to be counterpressure.

Some Members of Congress are starting to speak up. Rep. Murtha recently said he’s uncomfortable with Obama’s decision to increase the number of troops in the country by 17,000 before a goal was clearly defined, AP reports. Sen. Nelson is calling for clear benchmarks to measure progress in Afghanistan, and said he may try to add benchmarks to the upcoming war supplemental bill this spring, CQ Today reports.

But these individual expressions of discomfort will likely not be enough to stop the slide towards greater and greater military escalation.

Eight Members of Congress (Walter Jones, Neil Abercrombie, Roscoe Bartlett, Steve Kagen, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Ed Whitfield, and Lynn Woolsey) have initiated a letter to President Obama urging him to reconsider his support for military escalation. The letter argues that military escalation may well be counterproductive towards the goal of creating a stable government that can control Afghanistan, noting that a recent Carnegie Endowment study concluded that “the only meaningful way to halt the insurgency’s momentum is to start withdrawing troops. The presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving the resurgence of the Taliban.” [You can find the letter – and ask your Representative to sign it – here.]

There is political space for challenging the logic of escalation.

Forty-two percent of Americans think troops in Afghanistan should be increased, up from 34 percent in January, CBS News reports, no doubt reflecting the largely uncritical press treatment that the proposal for military escalation has received. But the same CBS News/New York Times poll still found that more people thought that U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan should be decreased (24%) or kept the same (23%) – i.e. 47% thought troop levels should be decreased or stay the same, rather than increased.

If we want the US government to seriously pursue diplomacy, there must be serious counterpressure against sending more troops without end. If you want recycling, you have to discourage the establishment of new landfills. If you want economic development and human rights to be at the center of trade policy, you have to jam up corporate trade deals. If you want diplomacy, there has to be a significant political pushback to military escalation.

Robert Naiman is Senior Policy Analyst at Just Foreign Policy.

US Influence in Iraq Far From Over

March 2, 2009

by Eric Margolis | Toronto Sun, March 2, 2001

Barack Obama won the votes of many Americans by promising to swiftly end the Iraq War and bring U.S. troops home. He denounced George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq as a “violation of international law.”

So will U.S. troops leave Iraq? Will those responsible for this trumped-up war face justice?

No, on both counts.

President Obama says U.S. combat troops will leave Iraq by August 2010. However, the U.S. military occupation will not end. What we are seeing is a public relations shell game.

The U.S. has 142,000 soldiers and nearly 100,000 mercenaries occupying Iraq. Obama’s plan calls for withdrawing the larger portion of the U.S. garrison but leaving 50,000-60,000 troops in Iraq.

To get around his promise to withdraw all “combat” troops, the president and his advisers are rebranding the stay-behind garrison as “training troops, protection for American interests, and counterterrorism forces.”

At a time when the U.S. is bankrupt and faces a $1.75 trillion deficit, the Pentagon’s gargantuan $664 billion budget (50% of total global military spending) will grow in 2009 and 2010 by another $200 billion to pay for the occupation of Iraq and Obama’s expanded war in Afghanistan. Throw in another $40 billion to $50 billion for the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

Obama insists the U.S. will withdraw from Iraq. But his words are belied by the Pentagon, which continues to expand bases in Iraq, including Balad and Al-Asad, with 4,400-metre runways for heavy bombers and transports.

AIR BRIDGE

They are key links in the U.S. Air Force’s new air bridge that extends from Germany to Bulgaria and Romania, Iraq and the Gulf, then onward to Afghanistan and Central Asia.

Besides Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone and U.S. embassy (the world’s largest), the Pentagon reportedly wants to retain 58 permanent bases in Iraq (by comparison, there are 36 in South Korea), total control of its air space and immunity from Iraqi law for all U.S. troops.

The U.S. also will retain major bases in neighbouring Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and Diego Garcia. U.S. oil companies are moving in to exploit Iraq’s vast energy reserves, the Mideast’s second largest after Saudi Arabia.

U.S. troop levels will remain high during Iraq’s December elections to ensure “security,” according to the Pentagon. In other words, ensuring the U.S.-selected regime “wins” the vote. Iraqi parties, notably Baath, opposing the U.S. occupation, are banned from running. Many Iraqis believe the U.S. will never leave their nation.

In short, contrary to all Obama’s high-blown rhetoric about pulling out of Iraq, Washington clearly intends it will remain a U.S. military, political and economic protectorate. Washington is following exactly the same control model the British Empire used to rule Iraq, and exploit its oil: Install a figurehead ruler, keep him in power using a “native” army (read today’s Iraqis army and police). RAF units based in Iraq (read U.S. air bases) bomb any rebellious areas. Smaller British ground units based in non-urban areas are on call to put down attempted coups against the king. The U.S. plan for Iraq is identical.

Obama made clear that officials responsible for the Iraq war, torture, kidnapping or assassination will not be prosecuted. The theft of over $50 billion in U.S. “reconstruction” funds sent to Iraq is being hushed up.

By contrast, Britons are demanding release of cabinet documents leading to war that are likely to expose Tony Blair’s lies and illegalities.

BYGONES

There is no corresponding call for justice in the United States. Obama tells the public, let bygones be bygones. Unless, of course, it’s Osama bin Laden.

Between 600,000 and one million Iraqis died as a result of President George W. Bush’s aggression, which cost nearly $1 trillion and some 4,500 U.S. dead. Four million Iraqis remain refugees. The U.S. holds over 20,000 Iraqi political prisoners.

Mr. President, this is not a bygone. It’s a historic crime that demands justice. Keep your word about withdrawing from Iraq. Enough with the Bush doubletalk.

Eric Margolis is a columnist for The Toronto Sun. A veteran of many conflicts in the Middle East, Margolis recently was featured in a special appearance on Britain’s Sky News TV as “the man who got it right” in his predictions about the dangerous risks and entanglements the US would face in Iraq. His latest book is American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World