Iraq: War Crimes, Lies and Statistics

Global Research
Felicity Arbuthnot

    “A rock,

    Breathing with the lungs of a lunatic,

    That is it,

    This is the twentieth century.” (A Mirror for the Twentieth Century: Adonis –
    Ali Ahmad Said, 1930)

Recently a contradictory, but in important areas, remarkably sunny opinion poll on “progress” in Iraq, conducted in April, was released. (i)

It was, it has to be said, a divide and rule sort of survey as it split respondents in to Shia, Sunni, Kurdish – the Shia, obviously were largely supportive of Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki, from the Iranian backed Dawa Party.

However, for those in the West wishing a phoenix to rise from Iraq’s ashes - the illegal invasion, occupation, destruction, resultant mass graves of maybe one and a half million beings, the million orphans, the over four million displaced, the unimaginable, near industrial scale, often daily carnage, nearly a decade on – incredibly, things are looking up.

Around half the respondents thought Iraq was going in the right direction and that Nuri al Maliki was OK at the steering wheel. (Don’t mention torture, secret prisons, hasty swathes of executions and a largely more than questionable judiciary.)

Near three quarter polled said it: “... was more important to have a strong leader to keep Iraq stable, even if it meant giving up some freedoms.”

Arguably then they would have done better with President Saddam Hussein. He even managed to keep the lights and water on for longer, the streets safe and grenade and car bomb free (with the exception of the occasional car bombs, allegedly courtesy of CIA-backed, former post-invasion, interim, allegedly British passport holding “Prime Minister” Iyad Allawi’s Iraq National Accord’s handiwork.)

Seemingly, if an election were held immediately, al Maliki’s Dawa Party would be a popular choice. An unasked question was whether that would be because of the cited fraud, death threats, confiscation of the life-line ration cards until people voted the “right way”, as in previous “free and fair”, post-invasion elections.

In questions on key issues, fifty nine percent opined that security had improved and - fifty percent that basic services had. Both starkly contradict reality.

Here is the current British Foreign and Commonwealth overview on security in Iraq (ii):

Iraqi authorities hang 34 people in a single day

NewKerala

BAGHDAD : More than 30 people were executed by Iraqi authorities on Thursday following their conviction for various crimes, the United Nations reported on Tuesday. It is the largest number of confirmed executions within a single day in years.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said she was shocked to learn that 34 people, including two women, were executed in Iraq on Thursday. "Even if the most scrupulous fair trial standards were observed, this would be a terrifying number of executions to take place in a single day," she said.

The United Nations believes at least 1,200 people have been sentenced to death in Iraq since 2004, but the government is reluctant to release official figures. The UN said at least 63 people are thought to have been executed since mid-November of last year.

"Given the lack of transparency in court proceedings, major concerns about due process and fairness of trials, and the very wide range of offences for which the death penalty can be imposed in Iraq, it is a truly shocking figure," Pillay said about Thursday's executions. Iraq lists 48 crimes for which the death penalty can be imposed, including non-fatal crimes such as damage to property.

"Most disturbingly," said Pillay, "we do not have a single report of anyone on death row being pardoned, despite the fact there are well documented cases of confessions being extracted under duress. I call on the Government of Iraq to implement an immediate moratorium on the institution of death penalty."

Tuesday's report comes just two days after Human Rights Watch warned that Iraq risks falling back towards authoritarian rule amid allegations that security forces have tortured detainees at a secret prison, cracked down on freedom of expression and attacked peaceful protesters as well as journalists. Executions were commonly used by the government of Saddam Hussein.

The opposition in Iraq has compared Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to a dictator as he has failed to appoint defense and interior ministers, giving him full control over those ministries. al-Maliki has also failed to appoint a minister of National Security Affairs. (BNO News)

US Drones Used in Turkey Airstrikes; 5 Killed in Other Iraq Violence

US Drones Used in Turkey Airstrikes; 5 Killed in Other Iraq Violence

AntiWar

Margaret Griffis,

 

U.S. Drones mistook civilians for rebels at the border between Turkey and Iraq. The subsequent attack, which may have taken place inside Iraqi territory left 35 Turkish Kurds dead and wounded 15 more who were apparently smuggling fuel. Meanwhile, at least five Iraqis were killed and 18 more were wounded.

In what is the largest civilian death count in Turkey’s history fighting Kurdish rebels, 35 civilians have been killed in an air strike at an Iraq border point. U.S. drones, which had been relocated from Iraq, had detected the group earlier and mistook them for rebels.

Although many of the victims may have been diesel smugglers, they were not working for the Kurdistan Workers Party (P.K.K.) rebels. Over a dozen of those killed were reportedly teenagers, and some were the sons of village guards. Most of the survivors were said to be wounded, but only one injury was officially reported. Witness put the number of injured at fifteen.

Kurdish officials in Turkey claimed they had warned the military of the smuggler’s presence but were ignored. Meanwhile, protests in Istanbul condemning the air strike were met with water cannons and tear gas. No injuries were reported, but several people were arrested.

In recent days, Iraqi Kurdish officials had complained Turkey was still conducting air strikes, as they have since summer. Then as every summer, the Turkish military stepped up attacks against rebels who use remote northern Iraq for its hideouts. This year’s attacks, however, were more intense.

In political crisis news, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki promised to honor Anbar province’s set of requests concerning government power abuses. The province had put forward a number of demands that needed to be meet to keep them from seeking semi-autonomy status. Despite fears that the premier is creating a dictatorship, the United States is moving ahead with military sales to Iraq.

In Mosul, gunmen stormed a home where they killed an Interior Ministry official and his mother. A female police officer was wounded in a blast. An off-duty policeman was shot dead. Gunmen also killed a civilian.

A bomb killed a soldier and wounded another in Safra.

In Baghdad, two bombs exploded in the Adhamiya neighborhood and wounded six people.
A roadside bomb wounded five people in Baquba.

Four people were wounded in an attack on a school principal’s home in Suleimaniya.
In Balad, a sticky bomb wounded a police officer.

A sticky bomb at the Kirkuk home of a passport official left no casualties. Another bombing took place at the home of a court official.

A Kurdish kidnap victim was released in Rashad after a ransom was paid.

U.S. congressional delegation sets off political IED in Iraq

McClatchy

BAGHDAD — The U.S. Embassy sought Saturday to distance itself from a highly contentious "fact-finding mission" to Baghdad led by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., that led Iraq to demand the entire congressional delegation leave the country.

During an hour and 40 minute meeting Friday with Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, Rohrabacher informed the Iraqi leader that his House subcommittee was investigating the killing by Iraqi troops of 35 Iranian dissidents on Iraqi soil in April.

After Rohrabacher later announced his investigation to the media, Maliki, who's currently acting minister of defense as well as commander-in-chief, apparently hit the roof.

The Orange County conservative, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on oversight and investigations, later told reporters that the "massacre" was probably a crime against humanity. The charge, which often refers to a massive crime against civilians, was first leveled against accused Nazi war criminals during the Nuremburg Tribunal after World War II.

Rohrabacher also asked Iraq to consider at a later stage repaying some of the costs of the 2003 U.S. invasion and the occupation that followed. Iraq's government spokesman publicly responded that Iraq would pay not "a cent."

The U.S. Embassy issued a statement explaining that the Congress is a separate branch of government whose members often disagree with the executive branch. It said it was important for members of Congress to meet and exchange views with Iraqi leaders, "even when there are disagreements."
Embassy spokesman David Ranz noted that congressional visitors "do not necessarily express the views of the U.S. administration or even a majority of the Congress."

Rohrabacher, Rep. Russ Carnahan of Missouri, the ranking Democrat on Rohrabacher's subcommittee, and four other members of the delegation were already in transit Friday night when the Iraqi government announced it had asked for them to leave the country. It appears that the telephone call by a member of the Iraqi government to the U.S. Embassy was also made at about that time.

Other members of the delegation were Republican Reps. Ted Poe of Texas, a member of Rohrabacher's subcommittee, Jeff Duncan of South Carolina and Louie Gohmert of Texas, and Democratic Rep. Jim Costa of California.


Rohrabacher told McClatchy late Saturday that he had not pointed the finger of responsibility at Maliki, who as commander-in-chief and acting defense minister was head of the armed forces at the time of the killings.

"If the prime minister felt guilty about it, for whatever reasons, that's his business. We didn't say anything to implicate him," Rohrabacher said in a telephone interview from Istanbul, Turkey. "We did say that the massacre of so many civilians was a crime, and we needed to make sure that those responsible for it were held accountable."

Those killed were members of the People's Mujahedeen of Iran, or MEK by its Farsi language initials, a militant Iranian group that fought Iran under Saddam Hussein and got stranded in Iraq after the U.S. overthrew the dictator. The U.S. has listed the MEK as a terrorist group for more than a decade.
Rohrabacher said he thought the person responsible for the massacre may have been a colonel, who was commanding troops on the ground at the time. He said that if Maliki had told his subordinates to tell their troops not to hold back and to open fire even if they were up against unarmed civilians, "then he would be culpable. Otherwise he's not."

Rohrabacher said he had no regrets for what he'd said and would issue no apology.
Iraq wants other countries to take the 3,400-plus MEK members now ensconced at Camp Ashraf, north of Baghdad and close to the Iranian border. Rohrabacher agreed that would be the best outcome, but he said he didn't want the U.S. to open its doors.

"I don't think the United States should take in everyone who's in a bad situation," he told McClatchy in an earlier phone interview.

Carnahan didn't respond to requests for an interview but issued a statement that skirted any criticism of Rohrabacher's investigation. "Last April's reports of deadly clashes and other violence against the residents of Camp Ashraf are deeply concerning," he said. "I encourage the government of Iraq to swiftly follow through with a thorough investigation of this incident."

The chair of the full House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., also had no problems with the mission.

"Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, including me, have, for some time, raised concerns with the Department of State about the welfare of the residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq and recent actions by Iraqi authorities against camp residents," she said in a statement. As for Rohrabacher's visit to Iraq, "we understand ... that the delegation had robust discussions and departed without incident."

U.S. still putting pressure on Iraq to allow troops to stay after December

All Voices

The U.S. apparently is still trying to pressure Iraq to give it permission to keep boots on the ground in Iraq after December of this year when all are supposed to be gone. There will still be plenty of people though to run the huge embassy and guards as well. But the U.S. wants even more despite a firm No from Prime Minister Maliki so far.

But U.S. officials are still waiting for an answer they claim, meaning a Yes of course. Iraqi officials say that the present political situation makes a vote on allowing U.S. troops to stay politically untouchable. The parliamentary speaker says Iraq is in no hurry to make a decision.

The U.S. had warned the Iraqi government that it needed a decision within weeks. There has been no move to reduce troop levels and the U.S. seems to be waiting for approval to keep them there.

Iraq would find it difficult to sell to the public the idea of the U.S. staying on longer. Not only that, but Moqtada al-Sadr threatens rebellion and violence against the troops if this should happen. Al Sadr is a key member of the Al Maliki government.

Neither the Iraqi people nor the American people apparently have any say in whether U.S. troops stay. Probably it would be voted down in both countries. THere was supposed to be a referendum in Iraq on the last Status of Forces Agreement but it was never held.

Iraq's own Arab spring

Guardian
Jonathan Steele

A renewed sense of nationalism is uniting protesters over delays to US troop withdrawal

Followers of Muqtada al-Sadr burn US flags during a rally marking
the eighth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad on April 9.

Stretched close to the limit by combat in Afghanistan and determined not to get into a ground war in Libya, the Pentagon is stepping up the pressure to maintain a huge US troop presence in today's largely peaceful Iraq. What might seem at first sight strange and unnecessary is in fact fully in line with the ambitions of those who planned the invasion eight years ago. Whether neocons or "realists", they always wanted to have a long-term political and military footprint in the northern sector of the Middle East, strategically placed between Syria and Iran.

As with so many elements of the geopolitical strategy he inherited from George Bush, Barack Obama has gone along with it. So it should be no surprise that Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chief of staffs, was in Baghdad on Friday urging the government to amend the agreement under which all US forces have to leave Iraq by the end of this year. Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, was in the Iraqi capital on a similar mission a few weeks earlier.

Both Sunni and Shia protesters were on the streets last week to denounce the US plans, united by a common sense of nationalism that has not been seen since the first year of the US occupation, before sectarian divisions were artificially inflamed. In Mosul around 5,000 people, including provincial council members and tribal leaders, rallied against any extension of the US presence, while supporters of the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr marched in Baghdad.

A revival of national pride played a large role in persuading the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, to stand firm against the Bush administration in its last months of office when the White House was forced to agree to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq last summer and accept a deadline of the end of this year for the remaining 47,000 to leave.

Mullen and Gates have been warning the Iraqi government that the risk of Arab/Kurdish clashes over the country's oil deposits around Kirkuk and a lingering threat from al-Qaida require US troops to stay. The counter-argument is that Iraq has survived the withdrawal of US combat troops for nine months without any breakdown of security. At a time when Arabs throughout the region are struggling to win their rights and dignity, why should Iraq submit to the humiliation of a large US ground force that no other Arab country in the region consents to?

Unlike the end of 2008, when the agreement on US forces was reached, Sadr now has a contingent of ministers in government, and it should be easier for Maliki to resist the Americans. He is facing his own "Arab spring" pressures after thousands joined Day of Rage protests in February over unemployment, corruption and lack of electricity. Twenty people died after security forces opened fire. Maliki would be foolish to give them a new cause to oppose him.

The looming row comes hard on the heels of last week's publication of official documents showing that several months before the 2003 invasion Tony Blair's government agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf. The case it made was that British companies ought to benefit from post-Saddam oil contracts if Britain supported regime change.

The documents were obtained under Freedom of Information requests by the energy industry expert, Greg Muttitt, for his excellent book, Fuel on the Fire, an investigation of western corporate activities in Iraq. Though the documents do not support the simplistic claim that the invasion was "all about oil", they show that taking control of Iraq's nationalised oil sector was an important lure. The book's most interesting sections deal with the post-invasion period, when US and British diplomats and other officials worked closely with the oil majors to get the Iraqi government to privatise the oil fields and give favourable contracts to foreign companies – despite brave resistance from oil workers, trade unions, and Iraq's corps of professional engineers (most of whom were conveniently sidelined for having been Baathists).

It is a textbook example of how international pressures are put on politicians to get them to buckle. Hussain al-Shahristani, the oil minister, emerges as a tragic figure. A nuclear scientist who was tortured for refusing to support Saddam Hussein's ambitions, he fled the country – but unlike other prominent exiles opposed the US invasion. Yet once in power he banned the oil workers' union, ordered police raids on their offices, and seized their assets.

In dealing with the oil companies he also seemed tough by getting BP and other companies to accept lower fees than they had demanded for every barrel of oil extracted. But, as Muttitt points out after close reading of BP's Rumaila contract, several changes agreed after the auction hugely weakened the ministry's original terms.

The lesson is that full transparency and unhurried public debate are as crucial when offering a country's natural resources to powerful outsiders as they are when offering long-term military bases. National sovereignty requires no less.

Military to Iraq: Are You Really Gonna Kick Us Out?

Danger Room

There are fewer than nine months left in the U.S. military’s long war in Iraq. By the end of the year, the remaining 47,000 U.S. troops will finish packing up their gear and leaving. It’s safe to say their leaders are feeling a certain separation anxiety.

Most notably, Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Iraq last week and loudly warned that its fractious political leadership was running out of time to request the U.S. to stay. If that construction seems odd — and reminiscent of a jilted lover — it’s out of diplomatic necessity and bureaucratic reality.  The U.S. and Iraq signed an accord in 2008 mandating a full military withdrawal. To halt that withdrawal requires a cumbersome renegotiation, and the host nation has to initiate it. Clock’s ticking.

Gates has signaled for months that he’d be open to keeping some residual force in Iraq. But now that Iraq has traded places with Afghanistan as a “forgotten war,” he’s been a chorus of one. Now the military command in Baghdad is starting to register angst. An anonymous senior military official assembled reporters on Wednesday to warn that a continued U.S. presence would be “best for Iraq,” especially if the country wants to avoid the political turmoil plaguing its neighbors.

That’s an odd message to send. The U.S. war in Iraq has been an anguished experience. Nearly 4450 U.S. troops have lost their lives there — most recently on Sunday. And the two-year long drawdown has largely been successful, even while Iraq spent months without an elected government in 2010, avoiding the predictions of a return to chaos. Now that getting out looks doable, U.S. officials aren’t arguing that staying in Iraq is in the U.S. interest, they’re arguing it’s a great deal for the Iraqis.

But it’s not hard to see what’s going on. Precisely because the U.S. war was so arduous, many in uniform have whispered for months that they’re wary of the post-Saddam enterprise collapsing in the wake of an American pullout. After this year, the U.S. military presence will diminish to a few hundred troops to help with U.S. weapons sales and training. But the State Department will raise a hired army of 5,500 contractors — something it’s never done before — to protect 17,000 civilian employees. All this while the Mideast is in the midst of a historic wave of revolution. No wonder there’s some anxiety at U.S. Forces-Iraq.

U.S. defense officials have said they’ve heard from their Iraqi military counterparts that they want the U.S. to stay. Indeed, last August, the chief of the Iraqi military said he’d need U.S. help until 2020. Politically, that’s been a nonstarter, owing to the residual desire among Iraqis to be done with U.S. occupation. Tens of thousands of Iraqis loyal to the U.S.’ nemesis, Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, greeted Gates’ comments with protests pledging a renewed insurgency. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki needs Sadr’s support to govern.

There’s a similar dynamic in Washington. Barack Obama won the presidency in part by pledging an end to the Iraq war. That’s a promise he’s on track to keep ahead of his reelection, and his top aides have shown no sign of backing off. Gates is on his way out of the Pentagon this year, so he’s free to speak his mind. (He certainly feels Iraq is more central to U.S. interests than an ill-defined war in Libya.) The idea, in a nutshell, is that Obama would be boxed into staying if Maliki came forward and requested it.

In other words, the obstacles to a prolonged U.S. presence in Iraq are the leaders of both countries — one of whom wants to get out in order to stay in power, and the other can’t ask his counterpart to stay for fear of losing power. Both of them feel there’s greater political risk to a prolonged U.S. military presence then to its end, but that calculation carries the risk of alienating their defense establishments. Nine years of a painful war should have taught everybody that getting out is the hardest part of all.

Iraq’s biggest oil refinery shut down after attack

International Business Times

Gunmen have attacked and bombed Iraq's largest oil refinery, Baiji, shutting down the facility and killing at least five employees.

"Armed men entered the refinery and shot dead two of the engineers," said Abdul Qader al-Saab, the facility's deputy chief.

"Then they detonated bombs at one unit, the al-Shamal unit, of the refinery, which represents 25 percent of the refinery's production. In the morning, we came to put out the fire, which erupted as a result of the bombs."

Baiji, located in Salaheddin province north of Baghdad, was badly damaged by a fire. It was one of Iraq’s three most important refineries and at one time was controlled by Sunni insurgents to finance their activities. It produced about 150,000 barrels of oil per day (other sources its capacity is almost double that figure).

Analysts said that while attacks on pipelines are common, targeting a refinery itself is rare.

Ahmed al-Jubouri, the governor of Salaheddin province, told Reuters "it's a big loss for the whole country. All Iraqi cities depend on its production.".
Officials said the damage was severe and would take at least two weeks to repair.

The attack followed days of protests across Iraq against the corruption of the current regime of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and its perceived failure to provide jobs and basic services, including fuel.

Another oil refinery, in Samawa in southern Iraq was also shut down by fire, but reports indicate this was not due to a terrorist attack.
“Yet another concern is the attack's impact on the country's oil industry as a whole, which only recently has begun to spring back to life. The government has been trying to lure foreign investors to build four new refineries, without much success" said Ruba Husari, editor of Iraq Oil Forum, according to the Washington Post. "It has been difficult to get international companies to come to construct these. Now you have another element of risk."