Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
unhappycamper
unhappycamper's Journal
unhappycamper's Journal
June 20, 2014
Is Iraq Actually Falling Apart? What Social Science Surveys Show
By contributors | Jun. 20, 2014
By Mansoor Moaddel
Several nationally representative surveys carried out in Iraq between 2004 and 2013 provide important facts about Iraqi orientations toward secular politics, basis of identity, Americans, and Iranians. These facts have serious implications for the territorial integrity of Iraq, support for an Islamic government, and the U.S. policy toward the country. These surveys have shown evidence of:
(1) Support for Secular Politics: A much higher percentage of the Sunnis, even higher than the Kurds in some years, believe that Iraq would be a better place if religion and politics were separated. This support has increased from 60% in 2004 to more than 81% in 2013. By contrast, support for secular politics among the Shia has an inverted U-shape between 2004 and 2013. It went up from 44% in 2004 to 63% in 2011, and then dropped to 34% in 2013.
~snip~
(2) Recognition of Iraq (and not religion) as the basis for identity: The Sunnis and Shia converge in defining selves as Iraqi, rather than Muslim or Arab, above all. This support rose from 22% in 2004 to 80% in 2008, and then dropped to 60% among the Sunnis. Among the Shia, it was 28% in 2004, increased to 72% in 2007, and then dropped to 62% in 2013. There is not much support for Iraqi identity among the Kurds. Among the Kurds, on the other hand, there has been a shift from predominantly Kurdish identity to religion.
~snip~
(3) American Unpopularity: Well over 90% of the Sunnis and 86% of the Shia do not wish to have Americans as neighbors, with these figures remaining largely stable over the last decade.
Is Iraq Actually Falling Apart? What Social Science Surveys Show
http://www.juancole.com/2014/06/actually-falling-surveys.htmlIs Iraq Actually Falling Apart? What Social Science Surveys Show
By contributors | Jun. 20, 2014
By Mansoor Moaddel
Several nationally representative surveys carried out in Iraq between 2004 and 2013 provide important facts about Iraqi orientations toward secular politics, basis of identity, Americans, and Iranians. These facts have serious implications for the territorial integrity of Iraq, support for an Islamic government, and the U.S. policy toward the country. These surveys have shown evidence of:
(1) Support for Secular Politics: A much higher percentage of the Sunnis, even higher than the Kurds in some years, believe that Iraq would be a better place if religion and politics were separated. This support has increased from 60% in 2004 to more than 81% in 2013. By contrast, support for secular politics among the Shia has an inverted U-shape between 2004 and 2013. It went up from 44% in 2004 to 63% in 2011, and then dropped to 34% in 2013.
~snip~
(2) Recognition of Iraq (and not religion) as the basis for identity: The Sunnis and Shia converge in defining selves as Iraqi, rather than Muslim or Arab, above all. This support rose from 22% in 2004 to 80% in 2008, and then dropped to 60% among the Sunnis. Among the Shia, it was 28% in 2004, increased to 72% in 2007, and then dropped to 62% in 2013. There is not much support for Iraqi identity among the Kurds. Among the Kurds, on the other hand, there has been a shift from predominantly Kurdish identity to religion.
~snip~
(3) American Unpopularity: Well over 90% of the Sunnis and 86% of the Shia do not wish to have Americans as neighbors, with these figures remaining largely stable over the last decade.
June 20, 2014
Obama Prepares for Drone War in Iraq
By Juan Cole | Jun. 20, 2014
President Barack Obama announced on Thursday that he will send 300 Green Beret Army special operations soldiers to Iraq. They will be detailed to Iraqi National Army Headquarters and brigade HQs and their primary task will apparently be intelligence-gathering and helping with the Iraqi National Army response to the advances of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL). Likely the intelligence-gathering in turn is intended to allow the deployment in Iraq of American drones. At the moment, the US has no good intelligence on the basis of which to fly the drones.
~snip~
These steps are in part obviously a political response to the Republican War Chorus that has blamed him for doing nothing (they can’t any longer say ‘nothing’) about the Iraq crisis. To the extent the moves are political, they are frankly craven. Obama should just have said no. If he needed covert intelligence, that is what the CIA and the NSA are for. (By the way, if the NSA surveillance program was really doing its job, how come northern and western Iraq could take Washington by surprise by seceding from the country in favor of a would-be al-Qaeda affiliate? Maybe they should be paying less attention to guys in Texas selling dime bags and more to like, actual al-Qaeda?)
To the extent that Obama is likely paving the way to US drone strikes on ISIS in Iraq, he is mysteriously failing to take his own advice. He has already admitted that the Iraq crisis is political and not military, and said that there are no military solutions. The Sunni Iraqis of Mosul, Tikrit and other towns of the west and north of the country have risen up and thrown off the government and the army of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The uprising was coordinated with ISIS, but was made up of many groups and to some extent was the spontaneous act of townspeople. Droning some ISIS commanders to death isn’t going to change the situation in Mosul, a city of 2 million that is done out with the Maliki government.
For Obama to associate himself with an attempt to crush this uprising in favor the the highly sectarian ruling Da’wa Party (Shiite ‘Call’ or ‘Mission’), which is allied with Iran is most unwise. If it had to be done, it should have been done as a covert operation and never spoken of publicly.
Obama Prepares for Drone War in Iraq
http://www.juancole.com/2014/06/obama-prepares-drone.htmlObama Prepares for Drone War in Iraq
By Juan Cole | Jun. 20, 2014
President Barack Obama announced on Thursday that he will send 300 Green Beret Army special operations soldiers to Iraq. They will be detailed to Iraqi National Army Headquarters and brigade HQs and their primary task will apparently be intelligence-gathering and helping with the Iraqi National Army response to the advances of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL). Likely the intelligence-gathering in turn is intended to allow the deployment in Iraq of American drones. At the moment, the US has no good intelligence on the basis of which to fly the drones.
~snip~
These steps are in part obviously a political response to the Republican War Chorus that has blamed him for doing nothing (they can’t any longer say ‘nothing’) about the Iraq crisis. To the extent the moves are political, they are frankly craven. Obama should just have said no. If he needed covert intelligence, that is what the CIA and the NSA are for. (By the way, if the NSA surveillance program was really doing its job, how come northern and western Iraq could take Washington by surprise by seceding from the country in favor of a would-be al-Qaeda affiliate? Maybe they should be paying less attention to guys in Texas selling dime bags and more to like, actual al-Qaeda?)
To the extent that Obama is likely paving the way to US drone strikes on ISIS in Iraq, he is mysteriously failing to take his own advice. He has already admitted that the Iraq crisis is political and not military, and said that there are no military solutions. The Sunni Iraqis of Mosul, Tikrit and other towns of the west and north of the country have risen up and thrown off the government and the army of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The uprising was coordinated with ISIS, but was made up of many groups and to some extent was the spontaneous act of townspeople. Droning some ISIS commanders to death isn’t going to change the situation in Mosul, a city of 2 million that is done out with the Maliki government.
For Obama to associate himself with an attempt to crush this uprising in favor the the highly sectarian ruling Da’wa Party (Shiite ‘Call’ or ‘Mission’), which is allied with Iran is most unwise. If it had to be done, it should have been done as a covert operation and never spoken of publicly.
June 20, 2014
U.S. forces used depleted uranium rounds in civilian areas in Iraq, reports finds
By Rob Edwards, The Guardian
Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:46 EDT
~snip~
Coordinates revealing where US jets and tanks fired nearly 10,000 DU rounds in Iraq during the war in 2003 have been obtained by the Dutch peace group Pax. This is the first time that any US DU firing coordinates have been released, despite previous requests by the United Nations Environment Programme and the Iraqi government.
According to PAX’s report, which is due to be published this week, the data shows that many of the DU rounds were fired in or near populated areas of Iraq, including As Samawah, Nasiriyah and Basrah. At least 1,500 rounds were also aimed at troops, the group says.
This conflicts with legal advice from the US Air Force in 1975 suggesting that DU weapons should only be used against hard targets like tanks and armoured vehicles, the report says. This advice, designed to comply with international law by minimising deaths and injuries to urban populations and troops, was largely ignored by US forces, it argues.
~snip~
PAX estimates that there are more than 300 sites in Iraq contaminated by DU, which will cost at least $30m to clean up. DU is a chemically toxic and radioactive heavy metal attractive to weapons designers because it is extremely hard and can pierce armour.
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Military_applications
Depleted uranium
Depleted uranium (DU; also referred to in the past as Q-metal, depletalloy or D-38) is uranium with a lower content of the fissile isotope U-235 than natural uranium.[2] (Natural uranium is about 0.72% U-235—the fissile isotope, and the DU used by the U.S. Department of Defense contain less than 0.3% U-235). Uses of DU take advantage of its very high density of 19.1 g/cm3 (68.4% denser than lead). Civilian uses include counterweights in aircraft, radiation shielding in medical radiation therapy and industrial radiography equipment and containers used to transport radioactive materials. Military uses include defensive armor plating and armor-piercing projectiles.
Most depleted uranium arises as a byproduct of the production of enriched uranium for use in nuclear reactors and in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Enrichment processes generate uranium with a higher-than-natural concentration of lower-mass uranium isotopes (in particular U-235, which is the uranium isotope supporting the fission chain reaction) with the bulk of the feed ending up as depleted uranium, in some cases with mass fractions of U-235 and U-234 less than a third of those in natural uranium. U-238 has a much longer halflife than the lighter isotopes, and DU therefore emits less alpha radiation than the same mass of natural uranium: the US Defense Department states DU used in US munitions has 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium.[3]
Since the U-235 content of nuclear reactor fuel is reduced by fission, uranium recovered by nuclear reprocessing from spent nuclear reactor fuel made from natural uranium will have a lower-than-natural U-235 concentration. Such 'reactor-depleted' material will have different isotopic ratios from enrichment byproduct DU, and can be distinguished from it by the presence of U-236.[4] Trace transuranics (another indicator of the use of reprocessed material) have been reported to be present in some US tank armor.[3]
The use of DU in munitions is controversial because of questions about potential long-term health effects.[5][6] Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by uranium exposure, because uranium is a toxic metal.[7] It is only weakly radioactive because of its long radioactive half-life (4.468 billion years for uranium-238, 700 million years for uranium-235). The biological half-life (the average time it takes for the human body to eliminate half the amount in the body) for uranium is about 15 days.[8] The aerosol or spallation frangible powder produced during impact and combustion of depleted uranium munitions can potentially contaminate wide areas around the impact sites, leading to possible inhalation by human beings.[9]
The actual level of acute and chronic toxicity of DU is also a point of medical controversy. Several studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, and of genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure.[5] A 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[10] The World Health Organization, the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations, states that no risk of reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects have been reported in humans due to DU exposure.[11][12] This report has been criticized for not including possible long term effects of DU on the human body.[13]
The DU penetrator of a 30 mm round[1]
Ammunition
Most military use of depleted uranium has been as 30 mm caliber ordnance, primarily the 30 mm PGU-14/B armour-piercing incendiary round from the GAU-8 Avenger cannon of the A-10 Thunderbolt II used by the United States Air Force. 25 mm DU rounds have been used in the M242 gun mounted on the U.S. Army's Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the Marine Corp's LAV-25.
The U.S. Marine Corps uses DU in the 25 mm PGU-20 round fired by the GAU-12 Equalizer cannon of the AV-8B Harrier, and also in the 20 mm M197 gun mounted on AH-1 Cobra helicopter gunships. The United States Navy's Phalanx CIWS's M61 Vulcan Gatling gun used 20 mm armor-piercing penetrator rounds with discarding plastic sabots made using depleted uranium, later changed to tungsten.
Another use of depleted uranium is in kinetic energy penetrators, anti-armor rounds such as the 120 mm sabot rounds fired from the British Challenger 1, Challenger 2,[31] M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams.[32] Kinetic energy penetrator rounds consist of a long, relatively thin penetrator surrounded by a discarding sabot. Staballoys are metal alloys of depleted uranium with a very small proportion of other metals, usually titanium or molybdenum. One formulation has a composition of 99.25% by mass of depleted uranium and 0.75% by mass of titanium. Staballoys are approximately 1.67 times as dense as lead and are designed for use in kinetic energy penetrator armor-piercing ammunition. The US Army uses DU in an alloy with around 3.5% titanium.
1987 photo of Mark 149 Mod 2 20mm depleted uranium ammunition for the Phalanx CIWS aboard USS Missouri.
According to 2005 research,[33] at least some of the most promising tungsten alloys that have been considered as replacement for depleted uranium in penetrator ammunitions, such as tungsten-cobalt or tungsten-nickel-cobalt alloys, also possess extreme carcinogenic properties, which by far exceed those (confirmed or suspected) of depleted uranium itself: 100% of rats implanted with a pellet of such alloys developed lethal rhabdomyosarcoma within a few weeks.
Depleted uranium is favored for the penetrator because it is self-sharpening and pyrophoric.[30] On impact with a hard target, such as an armored vehicle, the nose of the rod fractures in such a way that it remains sharp. The impact and subsequent release of heat energy causes it to disintegrate to dust and burn when it reaches air because of its pyrophoric properties.[30] When a DU penetrator reaches the interior of an armored vehicle it catches fire, often igniting ammunition and fuel, killing the crew and possibly causing the vehicle to explode. DU is used by the U.S. Army in 120 mm or 105 mm cannons employed on the M1 Abrams tank. The Russian military has used DU ammunition in tank main gun ammunition since the late 1970s, mostly for the 115 mm guns in the T-62 tank and the 125 mm guns in the T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90 tanks.
The DU content in various ammunition is 180 g in 20 mm projectiles, 200 g in 25 mm ones, 280 g in 30 mm, 3.5 kg in 105 mm, and 4.5 kg in 120 mm penetrators. DU was used during the mid-1990s in the U.S. to make hand grenades, cluster bombs, and land mines, but those applications have been discontinued, according to Alliant Techsystems.[citation needed] The US Navy used DU in its 20 mm Phalanx CIWS guns, but switched in the late 1990s to armor-piercing tungsten.
It is thought that between 17 and 20 countries have weapons incorporating depleted uranium in their arsenals. They include the U.S., the UK, France, Russia, China, India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand, Iraq and Taiwan.[citation needed] Iran also has performed wide research on DU penetrators since 2001[citation needed]. DU ammunition is manufactured in 18 countries. Only the US and the UK have acknowledged using DU weapons.[34]
In a three-week period of conflict in Iraq during 2003 it was estimated that over 1000 tons of depleted uranium munitions were used.[35]
--
30mm compared to 5.56 mm, 7.62 mm, .50 cal, 20mm and 25 mm rounds
--
GRAPHIC PIX
Birth defects in southern Iraq after we invaded them; this is the least offensive pic I could find.
google: basra birth defects
U.S. forces used depleted uranium rounds in civilian areas in Iraq, reports finds **graphic pix**
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/19/u-s-forces-used-depleted-uranium-rounds-in-civilian-areas-in-iraq-reports-finds/U.S. forces used depleted uranium rounds in civilian areas in Iraq, reports finds
By Rob Edwards, The Guardian
Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:46 EDT
~snip~
Coordinates revealing where US jets and tanks fired nearly 10,000 DU rounds in Iraq during the war in 2003 have been obtained by the Dutch peace group Pax. This is the first time that any US DU firing coordinates have been released, despite previous requests by the United Nations Environment Programme and the Iraqi government.
According to PAX’s report, which is due to be published this week, the data shows that many of the DU rounds were fired in or near populated areas of Iraq, including As Samawah, Nasiriyah and Basrah. At least 1,500 rounds were also aimed at troops, the group says.
This conflicts with legal advice from the US Air Force in 1975 suggesting that DU weapons should only be used against hard targets like tanks and armoured vehicles, the report says. This advice, designed to comply with international law by minimising deaths and injuries to urban populations and troops, was largely ignored by US forces, it argues.
~snip~
PAX estimates that there are more than 300 sites in Iraq contaminated by DU, which will cost at least $30m to clean up. DU is a chemically toxic and radioactive heavy metal attractive to weapons designers because it is extremely hard and can pierce armour.
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Military_applications
Depleted uranium
Depleted uranium (DU; also referred to in the past as Q-metal, depletalloy or D-38) is uranium with a lower content of the fissile isotope U-235 than natural uranium.[2] (Natural uranium is about 0.72% U-235—the fissile isotope, and the DU used by the U.S. Department of Defense contain less than 0.3% U-235). Uses of DU take advantage of its very high density of 19.1 g/cm3 (68.4% denser than lead). Civilian uses include counterweights in aircraft, radiation shielding in medical radiation therapy and industrial radiography equipment and containers used to transport radioactive materials. Military uses include defensive armor plating and armor-piercing projectiles.
Most depleted uranium arises as a byproduct of the production of enriched uranium for use in nuclear reactors and in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Enrichment processes generate uranium with a higher-than-natural concentration of lower-mass uranium isotopes (in particular U-235, which is the uranium isotope supporting the fission chain reaction) with the bulk of the feed ending up as depleted uranium, in some cases with mass fractions of U-235 and U-234 less than a third of those in natural uranium. U-238 has a much longer halflife than the lighter isotopes, and DU therefore emits less alpha radiation than the same mass of natural uranium: the US Defense Department states DU used in US munitions has 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium.[3]
Since the U-235 content of nuclear reactor fuel is reduced by fission, uranium recovered by nuclear reprocessing from spent nuclear reactor fuel made from natural uranium will have a lower-than-natural U-235 concentration. Such 'reactor-depleted' material will have different isotopic ratios from enrichment byproduct DU, and can be distinguished from it by the presence of U-236.[4] Trace transuranics (another indicator of the use of reprocessed material) have been reported to be present in some US tank armor.[3]
The use of DU in munitions is controversial because of questions about potential long-term health effects.[5][6] Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by uranium exposure, because uranium is a toxic metal.[7] It is only weakly radioactive because of its long radioactive half-life (4.468 billion years for uranium-238, 700 million years for uranium-235). The biological half-life (the average time it takes for the human body to eliminate half the amount in the body) for uranium is about 15 days.[8] The aerosol or spallation frangible powder produced during impact and combustion of depleted uranium munitions can potentially contaminate wide areas around the impact sites, leading to possible inhalation by human beings.[9]
The actual level of acute and chronic toxicity of DU is also a point of medical controversy. Several studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, and of genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure.[5] A 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[10] The World Health Organization, the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations, states that no risk of reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects have been reported in humans due to DU exposure.[11][12] This report has been criticized for not including possible long term effects of DU on the human body.[13]
The DU penetrator of a 30 mm round[1]
Ammunition
Most military use of depleted uranium has been as 30 mm caliber ordnance, primarily the 30 mm PGU-14/B armour-piercing incendiary round from the GAU-8 Avenger cannon of the A-10 Thunderbolt II used by the United States Air Force. 25 mm DU rounds have been used in the M242 gun mounted on the U.S. Army's Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the Marine Corp's LAV-25.
The U.S. Marine Corps uses DU in the 25 mm PGU-20 round fired by the GAU-12 Equalizer cannon of the AV-8B Harrier, and also in the 20 mm M197 gun mounted on AH-1 Cobra helicopter gunships. The United States Navy's Phalanx CIWS's M61 Vulcan Gatling gun used 20 mm armor-piercing penetrator rounds with discarding plastic sabots made using depleted uranium, later changed to tungsten.
Another use of depleted uranium is in kinetic energy penetrators, anti-armor rounds such as the 120 mm sabot rounds fired from the British Challenger 1, Challenger 2,[31] M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams.[32] Kinetic energy penetrator rounds consist of a long, relatively thin penetrator surrounded by a discarding sabot. Staballoys are metal alloys of depleted uranium with a very small proportion of other metals, usually titanium or molybdenum. One formulation has a composition of 99.25% by mass of depleted uranium and 0.75% by mass of titanium. Staballoys are approximately 1.67 times as dense as lead and are designed for use in kinetic energy penetrator armor-piercing ammunition. The US Army uses DU in an alloy with around 3.5% titanium.
1987 photo of Mark 149 Mod 2 20mm depleted uranium ammunition for the Phalanx CIWS aboard USS Missouri.
According to 2005 research,[33] at least some of the most promising tungsten alloys that have been considered as replacement for depleted uranium in penetrator ammunitions, such as tungsten-cobalt or tungsten-nickel-cobalt alloys, also possess extreme carcinogenic properties, which by far exceed those (confirmed or suspected) of depleted uranium itself: 100% of rats implanted with a pellet of such alloys developed lethal rhabdomyosarcoma within a few weeks.
Depleted uranium is favored for the penetrator because it is self-sharpening and pyrophoric.[30] On impact with a hard target, such as an armored vehicle, the nose of the rod fractures in such a way that it remains sharp. The impact and subsequent release of heat energy causes it to disintegrate to dust and burn when it reaches air because of its pyrophoric properties.[30] When a DU penetrator reaches the interior of an armored vehicle it catches fire, often igniting ammunition and fuel, killing the crew and possibly causing the vehicle to explode. DU is used by the U.S. Army in 120 mm or 105 mm cannons employed on the M1 Abrams tank. The Russian military has used DU ammunition in tank main gun ammunition since the late 1970s, mostly for the 115 mm guns in the T-62 tank and the 125 mm guns in the T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90 tanks.
The DU content in various ammunition is 180 g in 20 mm projectiles, 200 g in 25 mm ones, 280 g in 30 mm, 3.5 kg in 105 mm, and 4.5 kg in 120 mm penetrators. DU was used during the mid-1990s in the U.S. to make hand grenades, cluster bombs, and land mines, but those applications have been discontinued, according to Alliant Techsystems.[citation needed] The US Navy used DU in its 20 mm Phalanx CIWS guns, but switched in the late 1990s to armor-piercing tungsten.
It is thought that between 17 and 20 countries have weapons incorporating depleted uranium in their arsenals. They include the U.S., the UK, France, Russia, China, India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand, Iraq and Taiwan.[citation needed] Iran also has performed wide research on DU penetrators since 2001[citation needed]. DU ammunition is manufactured in 18 countries. Only the US and the UK have acknowledged using DU weapons.[34]
In a three-week period of conflict in Iraq during 2003 it was estimated that over 1000 tons of depleted uranium munitions were used.[35]
--
30mm compared to 5.56 mm, 7.62 mm, .50 cal, 20mm and 25 mm rounds
--
GRAPHIC PIX
Birth defects in southern Iraq after we invaded them; this is the least offensive pic I could find.
google: basra birth defects
June 19, 2014
http://blogs.theprovince.com/2014/06/16/stephen-fuhr-the-f-35-is-totally-unaffordable-and-cant-do-what-was-promised/
Stephen Fuhr: The F-35 is totally unaffordable and can’t do what was promised
June 16, 2014. 1:13 pm • Section: Opinion
KELOWNA — Proceeding with the decision to sole source F-35 fighter jets for the Royal Canadian Air Force is irresponsible and flies in the face of fiscal conservatism. Currently, we are waiting for the results from a special panel of “experts” commissioned by the Harper government’s National Fighter Procurement Secretariat.
The media is reporting it’s highly likely that this panel will recommend the government proceed with its sole sourcing of the F-35 as recommended by the Department of national Defence to Public Works and Government Services Canada. This decision was originally justified with an infamous 160-word memo that preceded a complete statement of “Canadian” operational requirements.
The facts: The F-35 is already seven years behind schedule and is many billions of dollars over budget. The United States Director of Operational Test and Evaluation report indicates significant technical problems with the aircraft’s software and other aircraft systems.
To keep the project moving, several performance requirements have been reduced to below the minimum acceptable as originally demanded by the Joint Operations Requirements Document.
--
http://gizmodo.com/the-f-35-fleet-was-grounded-again-for-the-bajillionth-1591484262
The F-35 Fleet Was Grounded Again for the Bajillionth Time
Adam Clark Estes
Monday 2:36pm
The Pentagon grounded its very expensive and very problematic F-35 fleet over the weekend due to an apparent engine oil leak. Within a day or so, the military inspected all 104 of the jets, three of which did not pass the tests. The rest are now back in the air.
This sort of thing happens with unreasonable frequency. By our latest count, this is the seventh time the entire fleet's been grounded, but it could be even more. It's hard to keep track since this happens all the time. This time is extra embarrassing for the military, not to mention the jet manufacturer Lockheed Martin, because the incident affected one of the new F-35B Joint Strike Fighters, a variant scheduled to make its big international debut on July 4. It's also supposed to be the first F-35 jet declared to be combat ready. It does not seem particularly combat ready.
While all combat fighters suffer setbacks, this program seems particularly doomed. Not only is the total price tag hundreds of billions of dollars over budget—it was already over a trillion dollars to begin with—but the expected delivery date of the first jets has been pushed back by over a year. At this point, people aren't just asking if the program's been mismanaged. They're asking whether the F-35 is simply fundamentally flawed.
The naysayers have a good case. It's becoming increasingly clear that the problems in testing are just a sign of what's to come if the jets make it into active combat. Some estimate that the F-35 will cost up to $40,000 an hour to operate—and that's if everything works like it's supposed to. As our friends at Foxtrot Alpha point out, it's not just the cost that's a problem either.
--
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/17/us-lockheed-fighter-mccain-idUSKBN0ES01E20140617
McCain questions 'cronyism' on Lockheed F-35 program
By Andrea Shalal
WASHINGTON Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:36pm EDT
(Reuters) - Republican Senator John McCain on Monday said he was concerned by recent revelations of U.S. government-industry "cronyism" in developing Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter jet, and said the $398.6 billion program still had "major problems."
McCain, a key member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he had long been troubled by the Pentagon's payment of 85-percent or higher award fees to Lockheed on the F-35 program despite cost increases and schedule delays, adding the background to those decisions was "disturbing."
Former Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter last month said the Pentagon's F-35 program manager told him he had kept the fees high because he liked the Lockheed executive in charge, and the company official had said he would be fired if the fees fell below 85 percent.
Carter, who was the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer at the time, made the remarks at a university event on May 16 and they were reported by InsideDefense.com on May 30.
--
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-17/lockheed-f-35-bulkhead-cracks-solution-proposed.html
Lockheed F-35 Bulkhead Cracks Solution Proposed
By Tony Capaccio 2014-06-17T19:20:04Z
Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and the Pentagon say a fix has been found that should prevent more bulkhead cracks on the Marine Corps version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the costliest U.S. weapons program.
On-the-ground stress testing may resume as soon as Sept. 30, officials said. It was suspended this past September after inspections found cracks in three of six bulkheads on a plane used for such tests.
The suspension increased scrutiny of the Marines’ F-35B, the most complex of three versions because it is intended to take off like a conventional fighter and land like a helicopter. The Lockheed-built plane, which the U.K. and Italy also are buying, is supposed to be declared combat-ready next year.
“They think they’ve got the root cause,” Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer, said in an interview. “They’ve got a process that they want to implement that they believe will fix the problem for the existing jets.
--
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/value+oversold/9953325/story.html
F-35 value oversold
By Celyn Dufay, The Starphoenix June 19, 2014 4:37 AM
The F-35 has been criticized for its single engine, slowness, lack of agility and massive price tag. The main competitor to Lockheed-Martin's F-35 is Boeing's F-18 Super Hornet. The Hornet's combat proven twin-engined jet matches the F-35 in speed, but outperforms its competitor in range and manoeuvrability. It will also save Canadian taxpayers $23 billion.
MacPherson says that Canada needs the best jet, and only the F-35 can deliver stealth performance, integrated technologies and radar evasion against opposing systems. However, no plane is invisible, and new radar systems are always in development. Recent reports question the F-35's ability to remain undetected by radar systems being developed in China and Russia.
A new report released by the Rideau Institute and CCPA says the greatest risk attached to flying the F-35 in Canada is the lives of Canadian pilots. MacPherson says modern single-engine jets are as safe or better than twin-engined jets, though data from the U.S. air force Safety Centre say otherwise.
MacPherson is correct, however, that "Generations of Canadian fighter pilots have learned the value of the best, sometimes the hard way."
Flying Pig Update for 6.19.2014
http://blogs.theprovince.com/2014/06/16/stephen-fuhr-the-f-35-is-totally-unaffordable-and-cant-do-what-was-promised/
Stephen Fuhr: The F-35 is totally unaffordable and can’t do what was promised
June 16, 2014. 1:13 pm • Section: Opinion
KELOWNA — Proceeding with the decision to sole source F-35 fighter jets for the Royal Canadian Air Force is irresponsible and flies in the face of fiscal conservatism. Currently, we are waiting for the results from a special panel of “experts” commissioned by the Harper government’s National Fighter Procurement Secretariat.
The media is reporting it’s highly likely that this panel will recommend the government proceed with its sole sourcing of the F-35 as recommended by the Department of national Defence to Public Works and Government Services Canada. This decision was originally justified with an infamous 160-word memo that preceded a complete statement of “Canadian” operational requirements.
The facts: The F-35 is already seven years behind schedule and is many billions of dollars over budget. The United States Director of Operational Test and Evaluation report indicates significant technical problems with the aircraft’s software and other aircraft systems.
To keep the project moving, several performance requirements have been reduced to below the minimum acceptable as originally demanded by the Joint Operations Requirements Document.
--
http://gizmodo.com/the-f-35-fleet-was-grounded-again-for-the-bajillionth-1591484262
The F-35 Fleet Was Grounded Again for the Bajillionth Time
Adam Clark Estes
Monday 2:36pm
The Pentagon grounded its very expensive and very problematic F-35 fleet over the weekend due to an apparent engine oil leak. Within a day or so, the military inspected all 104 of the jets, three of which did not pass the tests. The rest are now back in the air.
This sort of thing happens with unreasonable frequency. By our latest count, this is the seventh time the entire fleet's been grounded, but it could be even more. It's hard to keep track since this happens all the time. This time is extra embarrassing for the military, not to mention the jet manufacturer Lockheed Martin, because the incident affected one of the new F-35B Joint Strike Fighters, a variant scheduled to make its big international debut on July 4. It's also supposed to be the first F-35 jet declared to be combat ready. It does not seem particularly combat ready.
While all combat fighters suffer setbacks, this program seems particularly doomed. Not only is the total price tag hundreds of billions of dollars over budget—it was already over a trillion dollars to begin with—but the expected delivery date of the first jets has been pushed back by over a year. At this point, people aren't just asking if the program's been mismanaged. They're asking whether the F-35 is simply fundamentally flawed.
The naysayers have a good case. It's becoming increasingly clear that the problems in testing are just a sign of what's to come if the jets make it into active combat. Some estimate that the F-35 will cost up to $40,000 an hour to operate—and that's if everything works like it's supposed to. As our friends at Foxtrot Alpha point out, it's not just the cost that's a problem either.
--
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/17/us-lockheed-fighter-mccain-idUSKBN0ES01E20140617
McCain questions 'cronyism' on Lockheed F-35 program
By Andrea Shalal
WASHINGTON Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:36pm EDT
(Reuters) - Republican Senator John McCain on Monday said he was concerned by recent revelations of U.S. government-industry "cronyism" in developing Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter jet, and said the $398.6 billion program still had "major problems."
McCain, a key member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he had long been troubled by the Pentagon's payment of 85-percent or higher award fees to Lockheed on the F-35 program despite cost increases and schedule delays, adding the background to those decisions was "disturbing."
Former Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter last month said the Pentagon's F-35 program manager told him he had kept the fees high because he liked the Lockheed executive in charge, and the company official had said he would be fired if the fees fell below 85 percent.
Carter, who was the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer at the time, made the remarks at a university event on May 16 and they were reported by InsideDefense.com on May 30.
--
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-17/lockheed-f-35-bulkhead-cracks-solution-proposed.html
Lockheed F-35 Bulkhead Cracks Solution Proposed
By Tony Capaccio 2014-06-17T19:20:04Z
Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and the Pentagon say a fix has been found that should prevent more bulkhead cracks on the Marine Corps version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the costliest U.S. weapons program.
On-the-ground stress testing may resume as soon as Sept. 30, officials said. It was suspended this past September after inspections found cracks in three of six bulkheads on a plane used for such tests.
The suspension increased scrutiny of the Marines’ F-35B, the most complex of three versions because it is intended to take off like a conventional fighter and land like a helicopter. The Lockheed-built plane, which the U.K. and Italy also are buying, is supposed to be declared combat-ready next year.
“They think they’ve got the root cause,” Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer, said in an interview. “They’ve got a process that they want to implement that they believe will fix the problem for the existing jets.
--
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/value+oversold/9953325/story.html
F-35 value oversold
By Celyn Dufay, The Starphoenix June 19, 2014 4:37 AM
The F-35 has been criticized for its single engine, slowness, lack of agility and massive price tag. The main competitor to Lockheed-Martin's F-35 is Boeing's F-18 Super Hornet. The Hornet's combat proven twin-engined jet matches the F-35 in speed, but outperforms its competitor in range and manoeuvrability. It will also save Canadian taxpayers $23 billion.
MacPherson says that Canada needs the best jet, and only the F-35 can deliver stealth performance, integrated technologies and radar evasion against opposing systems. However, no plane is invisible, and new radar systems are always in development. Recent reports question the F-35's ability to remain undetected by radar systems being developed in China and Russia.
A new report released by the Rideau Institute and CCPA says the greatest risk attached to flying the F-35 in Canada is the lives of Canadian pilots. MacPherson says modern single-engine jets are as safe or better than twin-engined jets, though data from the U.S. air force Safety Centre say otherwise.
MacPherson is correct, however, that "Generations of Canadian fighter pilots have learned the value of the best, sometimes the hard way."
June 19, 2014
Obama is playing hard against the threat of division in the U.K. and Europe.
Unity and Freedom
El País, Spain
By Editorial
Translated By Álvaro Rodríguez
7 June 2014
Edited by Laurence Bouvard
Something very serious must be going on in crisis-ridden Europe for the president of the United States, Barack Obama, to involve himself in the two referendums that are taking place in the United Kingdom: one on whether the U.K. should stay in the EU, and the other on whether Scotland should separate from the United Kingdom, which is taking place on Sept. 18.
It's not the first time Washington has worried about the United Kingdom's EU exit. The relationship between the U.S. and the U.K. is one of a privileged and special nature, which is also important for the rest of Europe. In addition, it's the basis of the trans-Atlantic relationship, which is crucial to the security of the continent and the world. Despite its difficulty in adapting itself to new events, such as the Ukraine crisis, NATO is still the most successful military alliance in history, not so much for the conflicts it has been involved in, but for those it has avoided.
A United Kingdom weakened by the split with Scotland and less committed to the European continent because of its own intention to get out the EU is of little interest to Washington in maintaining the special relationship. "We obviously have a deep interest in making sure that one of the closest allies we will ever have remains a strong, robust, united and effective partner," stated Obama with calculated words, which the Labour member of parliament Douglas Alexander welcomed, "Building bridges, not putting up new barriers, is the challenge of our generation."
In addition to that, there’s certainly a domino effect on the continent. To the United States, Europe without Britain is a more distant land and in many ways, more likely to be persuaded by the hostile views, which spread along its Slavonic boundaries and in the Middle East. Fragmented, Europe is weaker, less safe and of course, less interesting as a strategic ally.
Unity and Freedom
http://watchingamerica.com/News/240774/unity-and-freedom/Obama is playing hard against the threat of division in the U.K. and Europe.
Unity and Freedom
El País, Spain
By Editorial
Translated By Álvaro Rodríguez
7 June 2014
Edited by Laurence Bouvard
Something very serious must be going on in crisis-ridden Europe for the president of the United States, Barack Obama, to involve himself in the two referendums that are taking place in the United Kingdom: one on whether the U.K. should stay in the EU, and the other on whether Scotland should separate from the United Kingdom, which is taking place on Sept. 18.
It's not the first time Washington has worried about the United Kingdom's EU exit. The relationship between the U.S. and the U.K. is one of a privileged and special nature, which is also important for the rest of Europe. In addition, it's the basis of the trans-Atlantic relationship, which is crucial to the security of the continent and the world. Despite its difficulty in adapting itself to new events, such as the Ukraine crisis, NATO is still the most successful military alliance in history, not so much for the conflicts it has been involved in, but for those it has avoided.
A United Kingdom weakened by the split with Scotland and less committed to the European continent because of its own intention to get out the EU is of little interest to Washington in maintaining the special relationship. "We obviously have a deep interest in making sure that one of the closest allies we will ever have remains a strong, robust, united and effective partner," stated Obama with calculated words, which the Labour member of parliament Douglas Alexander welcomed, "Building bridges, not putting up new barriers, is the challenge of our generation."
In addition to that, there’s certainly a domino effect on the continent. To the United States, Europe without Britain is a more distant land and in many ways, more likely to be persuaded by the hostile views, which spread along its Slavonic boundaries and in the Middle East. Fragmented, Europe is weaker, less safe and of course, less interesting as a strategic ally.
June 19, 2014
From a talk I gave at the University of Michigan in late 2002, publised at the beginning of 2003.
Cons of Going to War against Iraq (Cole, Jan. 2003)
By Juan Cole | Jun. 19, 2014
Costs of War
The regional costs of a US war on Iraq are potentially great: The war will inevitably be seen in the Arab world as a neo-colonial war. It will be depicted as a repeat of the French occupation of Algeria or the British in Egypt-or indeed, the British in Iraq. These were highly unpopular and humiliating episodes. The US, even if it has a quick military victory, is unlikely to win the war diplomatically in the Arab world. Pan-Arabism has been more aspiration than reality in the past century, but this US war against Iraq might well promote the formation of a stronger regional political bloc.
As a result of resentment against this neocolonialism, the likelihood is that al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations will find it easier to recruit angry young men in the region and in Europe for terrorist operations against the US and its interests. The final defeat of the Baath Party will be seen as a defeat of its ideals, which include secularism, improved rights for women and high modernism. Arabs in despair of these projects are likely to turn to radical Islam as an alternative outlet for their frustrations. The Sunnis of Iraq could well turn to groups like al-Qaida, having lost the ideals of the Baath. Iraqi Shi’ites might become easier to recruit into Khomeinism of the Iranian sort, and become a bulwark for the shaky regime in Shi’ite Iran.
A post-war Iraq may well be riven with factionalism that impedes the development of a well-ensconced new government. We have seen this sort of outcome in Afghanistan. Commentators often note the possibility for Sunni-Shi’ite divisions or Arab Kurdish ones. These are very real. If Islamic law is the basis of the new state, that begs the question of whether its Sunni or Shi’ite version will be implemented. It is seldom realized that the Kurds themselves fought a mini-civil war in 1994-1997 between two major political and tribal factions. Likewise the Shi’ites are deeply divided, by tribe, region and political ideology. Many lower-level Baath Party members are Shi’ite, but tens of thousands of Iraqi Shi’ites are in exile in Iran and want to come back under the banner of ayatollahs.
Internal factionalism is unlikely to reach the level of Yugoslavia after the fall of the communists, since US air power can be invoked to stop mass slaughter. But there could be a good deal of trouble in the country, and as the case of Afghanistan shows, the US cannot always stop faction fighting.
--
Related video:
CNN: “Study: 935 False Statements Leading up to the War with Iraq”
Cons of Going to War against Iraq (Cole, Jan. 2003)
http://www.juancole.com/2014/06/cons-of-going-to-war-against-iraq-cole-jan-2003.htmlFrom a talk I gave at the University of Michigan in late 2002, publised at the beginning of 2003.
Cons of Going to War against Iraq (Cole, Jan. 2003)
By Juan Cole | Jun. 19, 2014
Costs of War
The regional costs of a US war on Iraq are potentially great: The war will inevitably be seen in the Arab world as a neo-colonial war. It will be depicted as a repeat of the French occupation of Algeria or the British in Egypt-or indeed, the British in Iraq. These were highly unpopular and humiliating episodes. The US, even if it has a quick military victory, is unlikely to win the war diplomatically in the Arab world. Pan-Arabism has been more aspiration than reality in the past century, but this US war against Iraq might well promote the formation of a stronger regional political bloc.
As a result of resentment against this neocolonialism, the likelihood is that al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations will find it easier to recruit angry young men in the region and in Europe for terrorist operations against the US and its interests. The final defeat of the Baath Party will be seen as a defeat of its ideals, which include secularism, improved rights for women and high modernism. Arabs in despair of these projects are likely to turn to radical Islam as an alternative outlet for their frustrations. The Sunnis of Iraq could well turn to groups like al-Qaida, having lost the ideals of the Baath. Iraqi Shi’ites might become easier to recruit into Khomeinism of the Iranian sort, and become a bulwark for the shaky regime in Shi’ite Iran.
A post-war Iraq may well be riven with factionalism that impedes the development of a well-ensconced new government. We have seen this sort of outcome in Afghanistan. Commentators often note the possibility for Sunni-Shi’ite divisions or Arab Kurdish ones. These are very real. If Islamic law is the basis of the new state, that begs the question of whether its Sunni or Shi’ite version will be implemented. It is seldom realized that the Kurds themselves fought a mini-civil war in 1994-1997 between two major political and tribal factions. Likewise the Shi’ites are deeply divided, by tribe, region and political ideology. Many lower-level Baath Party members are Shi’ite, but tens of thousands of Iraqi Shi’ites are in exile in Iran and want to come back under the banner of ayatollahs.
Internal factionalism is unlikely to reach the level of Yugoslavia after the fall of the communists, since US air power can be invoked to stop mass slaughter. But there could be a good deal of trouble in the country, and as the case of Afghanistan shows, the US cannot always stop faction fighting.
--
Related video:
CNN: “Study: 935 False Statements Leading up to the War with Iraq”
June 18, 2014
The designer of the F-16 explains why the F-35 is such a crappy plane
Casey Chan
Yesterday 12:54am
According to the Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the F-16, the F35 is a turkey. Inherently, a terrible airplane. An airplane built for a dumb idea. A kludge that will fail time and time again. Just impossibly hopeless. And judging from the bajillion times the F-35 fleet has been grounded, well, he's probably not wrong. It's a trillion dollar failure. Watch Sprey eviscerate the F-35 in the video below.
The designer of the F-16 explains why the F-35 is such a crappy plane
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-designer-of-the-f-16-explains-why-the-f-35-is-such-1591828468The designer of the F-16 explains why the F-35 is such a crappy plane
Casey Chan
Yesterday 12:54am
According to the Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the F-16, the F35 is a turkey. Inherently, a terrible airplane. An airplane built for a dumb idea. A kludge that will fail time and time again. Just impossibly hopeless. And judging from the bajillion times the F-35 fleet has been grounded, well, he's probably not wrong. It's a trillion dollar failure. Watch Sprey eviscerate the F-35 in the video below.
June 18, 2014
Man walks past near remains of burnt vehicles belonging to Iraqi security forces in the northern Iraq city of Mosul, June 13, 2014.
Gulf War III ???
By Kathy Malloy
OpEdNews Op Eds 6/17/2014 at 19:16:44
President Obama is caught between a rock and a hard place -- no pun intended. He's catching hell from the right for withdrawing troops from Iraq when a status of forces agreement could not be reached with neo-dictator Maliki. And he's sure to catch even more fire from the left if he sends troops in now to quell the ISIS crisis.
Looks like the dreaded drone strikes may be the only viable option. What was that Rumsfeld said about a quagmire? Seems so long ago ...
Reuters details the current lose-lose proposition:
~snip~
We've seen this failed experiment before (Vietnam?), and yet we seem doomed to lather, rinse, repeat. The Neocons accuse Obama of running and retreating in Iraq. How easy it is for them to toss our young service men and women into these meat grinders, then scream "quitter!" when the Democrats have to dig them out.
Gulf War III ???
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Gulf-War-III---by-Kathy-Malloy-Gulf-Stupidity-Syndrome_Gulf-War-Syndrome_Military_Neocons-140617-665.htmlMan walks past near remains of burnt vehicles belonging to Iraqi security forces in the northern Iraq city of Mosul, June 13, 2014.
Gulf War III ???
By Kathy Malloy
OpEdNews Op Eds 6/17/2014 at 19:16:44
President Obama is caught between a rock and a hard place -- no pun intended. He's catching hell from the right for withdrawing troops from Iraq when a status of forces agreement could not be reached with neo-dictator Maliki. And he's sure to catch even more fire from the left if he sends troops in now to quell the ISIS crisis.
Looks like the dreaded drone strikes may be the only viable option. What was that Rumsfeld said about a quagmire? Seems so long ago ...
Reuters details the current lose-lose proposition:
"The Bush administration actually believed we could export democracy to the Middle East. Bush announced the 'Bush Doctrine' in 2005, in his second Inaugural Address. 'The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands,' Bush declared. 'So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.'
~snip~
We've seen this failed experiment before (Vietnam?), and yet we seem doomed to lather, rinse, repeat. The Neocons accuse Obama of running and retreating in Iraq. How easy it is for them to toss our young service men and women into these meat grinders, then scream "quitter!" when the Democrats have to dig them out.
June 18, 2014
"Iraq’s night is long
Dawn breaks only to the murdered,
Praying half a prayer and never finishing a greeting to anyone.”
Mahmoud Darwish, Athar al-Farasha (tr. Sinan Antoon).
Iraq’s Night is Long
by VIJAY PRASHAD
June 17, 2014
Northern Iraq, between the Kurdish zone and Baghdad, convulsed before the blitzkrieg of three formations — the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS), the Iraqi Islamic Army (manned by former Ba’athists) and elements of the former Mujahedin Shura Council. Like the Mongols, ISIS – the main force – runs across the landscape unchecked. It did not take long for Iraqi army soldiers to throw off their uniforms and join the caravans of Iraqis fleeing north and south from along the Tigris River cities of Mosul and Tikrit as well as from the western city of Tal Afar – along the road that links Iraq to Syria. Those Iraqi soldiers captured by the ISIS and their confederates had a perilous time. ISIS soldiers divided them up by their sectarian denominations. Before their own video cameras, ISIS troops slaughtered the Shia soldiers – 1700 by their own admission – and then posted the video on-line. Sunni soldiers were forced, on pain of death, to recite their fealty to the eternal Islamic State. The UN Human Rights chief, Navi Pillay, has already said that these killings constitute a war crime.
ISIS is the leading force in this new adventure, but it is not alone. Next to it is the Iraqi Islamic Army, led by Saddam Hussein’s former deputy Izzat al-Dori Ibrahim, and the Muslim Ulema Association. What unites these three forces – al-Qaeda extremists, Ba’athists and decamped Iraqi military personnel – is despair at Iraqi premier Nouri al-Maliki’s sectarianism and the failures of the Iraqi state to draw in the largely Sunni towns that run up the River Tigris from Baghdad. Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of the Mahdi Army, said in February that Iraq “is ruled by wolves, thirsty for blood, souls that are eager for wealth, leaving their nation in suffering, in fear, in water puddles, in dark nights, lightened only by moonlight or a candle, swamped by assassinations based on differences or after ridiculous disagreements.” He left for Iran, fed up with the politics and violence in his land. This despair is what gave ISIS the opportunity to build its bases in northern Iraq.
Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said that the rise of ISIS is not related to the Iraq War of 2003, but to the western inaction in Syria. But ISIS was born in 2004, first as al-Qaeda in Iraq under the leadership of the bloodthirsty Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then two years later it was reborn as Islamic State of Iraq. Slow growth in the small towns of northern Iraq amidst former Iraqi military men and hardened Ba’athists helped the Islamic State grow despite the US destruction of the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi, and the Sunni Awakening movement of 2005. As interest in the Sunni Awakening waned in Washington and Baghdad, its fighters joined the Islamic State. These are veterans of the insurgency against the US-UK occupation of Iraq. They had nothing to do with Syria.
When the Syrian civil war broke out in 2011, it was the Islamic State in Iraq under its dynamic leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – as al-Akhbar’s Radwan Mortada found – that helped set up the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra. Over the course of 2012 and 2013, ISIS and al-Nusra began to fall out, as the latter felt that it had authority over Syria and wanted Syrians to be doing the bulk of the fighting in that country. The Islamic State expanded its name to the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria, increasing its fighters with imports from across the world. By early 2014, there might have been as many as a hundred thousand fighters who were willing to fight under the colors of ISIS. Most are not jihadis, as I found, but disgruntled veterans of the Sunni Awakening and its type of outfits. ISIS provided the best vehicle for their frustrations.
Iraq’s Night is Long
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/17/iraqs-night-is-long/"Iraq’s night is long
Dawn breaks only to the murdered,
Praying half a prayer and never finishing a greeting to anyone.”
Mahmoud Darwish, Athar al-Farasha (tr. Sinan Antoon).
Iraq’s Night is Long
by VIJAY PRASHAD
June 17, 2014
Northern Iraq, between the Kurdish zone and Baghdad, convulsed before the blitzkrieg of three formations — the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS), the Iraqi Islamic Army (manned by former Ba’athists) and elements of the former Mujahedin Shura Council. Like the Mongols, ISIS – the main force – runs across the landscape unchecked. It did not take long for Iraqi army soldiers to throw off their uniforms and join the caravans of Iraqis fleeing north and south from along the Tigris River cities of Mosul and Tikrit as well as from the western city of Tal Afar – along the road that links Iraq to Syria. Those Iraqi soldiers captured by the ISIS and their confederates had a perilous time. ISIS soldiers divided them up by their sectarian denominations. Before their own video cameras, ISIS troops slaughtered the Shia soldiers – 1700 by their own admission – and then posted the video on-line. Sunni soldiers were forced, on pain of death, to recite their fealty to the eternal Islamic State. The UN Human Rights chief, Navi Pillay, has already said that these killings constitute a war crime.
ISIS is the leading force in this new adventure, but it is not alone. Next to it is the Iraqi Islamic Army, led by Saddam Hussein’s former deputy Izzat al-Dori Ibrahim, and the Muslim Ulema Association. What unites these three forces – al-Qaeda extremists, Ba’athists and decamped Iraqi military personnel – is despair at Iraqi premier Nouri al-Maliki’s sectarianism and the failures of the Iraqi state to draw in the largely Sunni towns that run up the River Tigris from Baghdad. Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of the Mahdi Army, said in February that Iraq “is ruled by wolves, thirsty for blood, souls that are eager for wealth, leaving their nation in suffering, in fear, in water puddles, in dark nights, lightened only by moonlight or a candle, swamped by assassinations based on differences or after ridiculous disagreements.” He left for Iran, fed up with the politics and violence in his land. This despair is what gave ISIS the opportunity to build its bases in northern Iraq.
Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said that the rise of ISIS is not related to the Iraq War of 2003, but to the western inaction in Syria. But ISIS was born in 2004, first as al-Qaeda in Iraq under the leadership of the bloodthirsty Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then two years later it was reborn as Islamic State of Iraq. Slow growth in the small towns of northern Iraq amidst former Iraqi military men and hardened Ba’athists helped the Islamic State grow despite the US destruction of the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi, and the Sunni Awakening movement of 2005. As interest in the Sunni Awakening waned in Washington and Baghdad, its fighters joined the Islamic State. These are veterans of the insurgency against the US-UK occupation of Iraq. They had nothing to do with Syria.
When the Syrian civil war broke out in 2011, it was the Islamic State in Iraq under its dynamic leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – as al-Akhbar’s Radwan Mortada found – that helped set up the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra. Over the course of 2012 and 2013, ISIS and al-Nusra began to fall out, as the latter felt that it had authority over Syria and wanted Syrians to be doing the bulk of the fighting in that country. The Islamic State expanded its name to the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria, increasing its fighters with imports from across the world. By early 2014, there might have been as many as a hundred thousand fighters who were willing to fight under the colors of ISIS. Most are not jihadis, as I found, but disgruntled veterans of the Sunni Awakening and its type of outfits. ISIS provided the best vehicle for their frustrations.
June 18, 2014
Iraq pays price of US sectarian meddling
By Ramzy Baroud
Jun 18, '14
"Labeiki ya Zaynab" chanted Iraqi Shi'ite fighters as they swayed, dancing with their rifles before TV news cameras in Baghdad on June 13. They were apparently getting ready for a difficult fight ahead. For them, it seemed that a suitable war chant would be answering the call of Zaynab, the daughter of Imam Ali, the great Muslim Caliph who lived in Medina 14 centuries ago. That was the period through which the Shi'ite sect slowly emerged, based on a political dispute whose consequences are still felt until this day.
That chant alone is enough to demonstrate the ugly sectarian nature of the war in Iraq, which has reached an unprecedented highpoint in recent days. Fewer than 1,000 fighters from the the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS) advanced against Iraq's largest city of Mosul on June 10, sending two Iraqi army divisions (nearly 30,000 soldiers) to a chaotic retreat.
The call to arms was made by a statement issued by Iraq's most revered Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, and read on his behalf during a Friday prayer's sermon in Kerbala. "People who are capable of carrying arms and fighting the terrorists in defense of their country ... should volunteer to join the security forces to achieve this sacred goal," the statement in part read.
The terrorists of whom Sistani speaks are those of ISIS, whose numbers throughout the region is estimated to be at only 7,000 fighters. They are well organized, fairly well-equipped and absolutely ruthless in their conduct.
Iraq pays price of US sectarian meddling
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-01-180614.htmlIraq pays price of US sectarian meddling
By Ramzy Baroud
Jun 18, '14
"Labeiki ya Zaynab" chanted Iraqi Shi'ite fighters as they swayed, dancing with their rifles before TV news cameras in Baghdad on June 13. They were apparently getting ready for a difficult fight ahead. For them, it seemed that a suitable war chant would be answering the call of Zaynab, the daughter of Imam Ali, the great Muslim Caliph who lived in Medina 14 centuries ago. That was the period through which the Shi'ite sect slowly emerged, based on a political dispute whose consequences are still felt until this day.
That chant alone is enough to demonstrate the ugly sectarian nature of the war in Iraq, which has reached an unprecedented highpoint in recent days. Fewer than 1,000 fighters from the the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS) advanced against Iraq's largest city of Mosul on June 10, sending two Iraqi army divisions (nearly 30,000 soldiers) to a chaotic retreat.
The call to arms was made by a statement issued by Iraq's most revered Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, and read on his behalf during a Friday prayer's sermon in Kerbala. "People who are capable of carrying arms and fighting the terrorists in defense of their country ... should volunteer to join the security forces to achieve this sacred goal," the statement in part read.
The terrorists of whom Sistani speaks are those of ISIS, whose numbers throughout the region is estimated to be at only 7,000 fighters. They are well organized, fairly well-equipped and absolutely ruthless in their conduct.
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 16, 2005, 11:12 AMNumber of posts: 60,364
