Blog Archives
The Iraq Withdrawal: Obama vs. the Pentagon
By Raed Jarrar – Common Dreams
Obama should not forget that he is the Commander-in-Chief, and should stand up to the Pentagon
This Monday, Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, asked officials in DC to approve contingency plans to delay the withdrawal of US combat forces. The next day, the New York times published an op-ed asking president Obama to delay the US withdrawal and keep some tens of thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely. Both the Pentagon and NY times article argue that prolonging the occupation is for Iraq’s own good. According to these latest attempts to prolong the occupation, if the US were to leave Iraqis alone the sky would fall, a genocidal civil war will erupt, and Iran will takeover their nation and rip it apart.
Excuses to prolong the military intervention in Iraq have been changing since 1990. Whether is was liberating Kuwait, protecting the region from Iraq, protecting the world from Iraq’s WMDs, punishing Iraq for its role in the 9/11 attacks, finding Saddam Hussien and his sons, fighting the Baathists and Al-Qaeda, or the other dozens of stories the U.S. government never ran out of reasons to justify a continuous intervention in Iraq. Under President Bush, the withdrawal plan was linked to conditions on the ground, and had no fixed deadlines. Bush only promise what that “as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down”. But Iraqis never managed to stand up, and the US never had to stand down.
Obama came with a completely different doctrine that thankfully makes prolonging the occupation harder than just making up a new lame excuse. He has promised on the campaign trail to withdraw all combat troops by August 31st of this year bringing the total number of US troops down to less than 50,000. Obama has also announced repeatedly that he will abide by the binding bi-lateral agreement between the two governments that requires all the US troops and contractors to leave Iraq by the end of 2011 without leaving any military bases behind. Both these promises are time-based, and not linked to the conditions on the ground. In addition, President Obama announced last week his intention to call an end to Operation Iraqi Freedom by August 31st, and to start the new non-combat mission as of September 1st this. The new mission, renamed “Operation New Dawn”, should end by December 31st 2011 with the last US soldier and contractor out of Iraq.
Conditions on the ground in Iraq are horrible. After seven years under the US occupation, Iraqis are still without water, electricity, education, or health care. Iran’s intervention and control of the Iraqi government stays at unprecedented levels. Iraq’s armed forces are still infiltrated by the militias and controlled by political parties. But so far, the Obama administration has not attempted to use any of these facts as a reason to change the combat forces withdrawal plan, or to ask the Iraqi government to renegotiate the bi-lateral security agreement. This week’s calls to prolong the occupation are surprising because they expose a conflict between the Pentagon on the one hand and the White House and Congress on the other hand. In fact, the executive and legislative branches in both the US and Iraq seem to be in agreement about implementing the time-based withdrawal, but the Pentagon is disagreeing with them all.
Obama should not forget that he is the Commander-in-Chief, and should stand up to the Pentagon. Iraq is broken, but the US military occupation is not a part of the solution. We cannot fix what the military occupation has damaged by prolonging it, neither can we help Iraqis build a democratic system by occupying them. We cannot protect Iraqis from other interventions by continuing our own. The first step in helping Iraqis work for a better future is sticking to the time-based withdrawal plan that Obama has promised and the two governments have agreed upon. President Obama should send a clear message to the Iraqi people to confirm that he is going to fulfill his promises and abide by the binding security agreement with Iraq, and this message must also be clear to the American people in this pivotal elections year.
Egypt detains Muslim Brotherhood Leaders
Thirteen senior members of the Islamist opposition movement in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, have been detained.
They include its deputy leader, Mahmoud Ezzat, the organisation says.
The Brotherhood is officially outlawed in Egypt but its members have many seats in parliament, sitting as independents.
A spokesman for the group said the arrests were an attempt by the authorities to thwart its preparations for elections later in the year.
Supporters are routinely arrested.
Charity work
The Brotherhood has been banned from open political activity since 1954, and leading activists are frequently arrested and imprisoned by the authorities.
Despite this, Brotherhood members standing as independent candidates won 20% of the seats in the last parliamentary election in 2005, its best ever result.
In January, the movement named Mohammed Badie, a 66-year-old veterinary professor, as its new leader.
He has said that the Muslim Brotherhood was not an adversary of the Egyptian government and that he would try to avoid confrontation with it.
The Muslim Brotherhood has influenced Islamist movements around the world with its model of political activism combined with charity work.
US Foreign Policy & Redrawing the Map of the Middle East
Talk by Dr. Azmi Bishara at UC Berkeley after collapse of Baghdad.
Date: 04/11/2003
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five
Part Six
Turkey Slams Arab response to Gaza Plight
The governments have failed to display the reactions that the world's Muslims expected from them
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan condemned the leaders of the Arab states for their inadequate response to the Palestinian’s plight under the three-year Israeli blockade on Gaza.
Shortly before flying to the United Arab Emirates on Sunday, Erdogan denounced Arab leaders’ inadequate response to Palestinian suffering as “pitiful.”
“The governments have failed to display the reactions that the world’s Muslims expected from them. And this has been a pitiful aspect of the matter,” Erdogan said.
An outspoken critic of Israeli policies, Erdogan, left the country as Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak made a one-day visit to Ankara in an attempt to mend relations with Turkey, strained after a diplomatic row.
In a memorable outburst last year, Erdogan stormed out of a debate at the World Economic Forum, accusing Israel of “barbarian” acts and telling its President Shimon Peres, sitting next to him, that “you know well how to kill people.”
Barak’s trip was the highest-level bilateral visit since Israel’s December 2008-January 2009 war on the Gaza Strip prompted the criticism from Ankara.
Ankara, however, said relations with Tel Aviv will continue to suffer unless Israel ends “the humanitarian tragedy” in Gaza.
Tension between the two sides further escalated when Tel Aviv summoned Turkish Ambassador Ahmet Oguz Celikkol to reprimand him over a TV program that showed Israeli agents kidnapping children and shooting old men.
Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon reportedly ‘humiliated’ Ambassador Celikkol during the meeting prompting Ankara to call for an official apology from the Israeli side.
“Barak is an important figure in Israeli politics and both [Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet] Davutoglu and [Turkish Defense Minister Vecdi] Gonul will give the same message, ‘such kind of events should not happen again,’” a senior Turkish diplomat told Xinhua on condition of anonymity.
He said Ankara will continue to press for an end to Tel Aviv’s blockade of the Gaza Strip and resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians during Barak’s visit.
