World Forums

About as good a result as you can get in this instance:

U.S. Military Dismisses Convicted Soldier

By MELISSA EDDY
Associated Press Writer
Published April 1, 2005, 8:10 AM CST

WIESBADEN, Germany -- A U.S. Army captain convicted in the shooting death of a wounded Iraqi was dismissed Friday from the armed forces, but the military court did not impose a prison sentence.

Capt. Rogelio "Roger" Maynulet, 30, was convicted Thursday of assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter, which carries a 10-year maximum sentence. He argued the killing was "honorable" because he wanted to end the man's suffering.

Maynulet, who was convicted of a lesser charge than the one he originally faced, assault with the intent to commit murder, said he was sorry to be forced to leave the Army.

"It's bittersweet," he said. "I'm happy to have my life back, but I'm being forced out of my family. Still, I'm definitely happy I'm not in confinement."

Maynulet stood at attention as Lt. Col. Laurence Mixon, the head of the six-member panel hearing his case, announced the sentence. He then embraced his defense lawyers and his wife, who burst into tears.

Prosecutors had sought a three-year prison term for Maynulet in addition to dismissal from the armed forces, arguing that a strong penalty would send a signal to other U.S. soldiers that such behavior would not be tolerated.

"You commit a serious crime, you are out of the Army. This is not what we do here," prosecutor Maj. John Rothwell said before sentence was passed. "What kind of institution does the U.S. Army become if assault with the intent to commit voluntary manslaughter is an honorable act?"

In an emotional plea to the court for leniency, Maynulet's mother, Carmen, said she was "very, very proud" of her son.

"Please let my son come home," the Cuban immigrant said tearfully.

On May 21, 2004, Maynulet was leading his 1st Armored Division company on a mission near Kufa, south of Baghdad, when it was alerted that a car thought to be carrying a "high-level" target was headed its way.

No details of the mission have been released, but it has been widely reported the company was told radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who led uprisings against U.S.-led forces in Iraq last year, was believed to be in the car.

The company chased the car and fired at it. A passenger who was slightly wounded fled and was later caught. The driver was pulled from the car with serious head injuries and pronounced untreatable by a medic.

Maynulet, praised by his peers during the trial as a dedicated soldier and promising officer, then shot the driver twice. The killing was filmed by a U.S. surveillance aircraft.

Maynulet's defense attorney, Capt. Will Helixon, called Maynulet an outstanding soldier who started many projects in Iraq and was responsible for the arrest of 1,000 insurgents. He said the conviction was penalty enough.

Col. Michael Ryan, who commanded Maynulet in Bosnia and testified during the trial, took a similar view.

"I think the outcome was the proper outcome, and I was pleased with the sentence," he told reporters. "If you look at the total event, justice was served on both sides."

I suppose it was the right result; I still feel sorry for that soldier though. War is hell and none of us know how we'd react in the same situation, especially at that time when the insurgency was probably at or very near its worst.

I just hope the guy can lead a normal life after the army; not being imprisoned will definitely help. You're probably right, Bineaz; as good as anyone could have hoped for in the circumstances.

Marko

Some would say that the mere fact of having to kill other people (even if sanctioned, in the conditions of war) does seriously influence people's psyche to the point that serious psychologic adjustments are needed to function normally...

That makes too much sense

Marko

Regarding what Eugene said:

Some would say that the mere fact of having to kill other people (even if sanctioned, in the conditions of war) does seriously influence people's psyche to the point that serious psychologic adjustments are needed to function normally...

Most men in an army of democracy, such as those from the US and Britain, indeed make the transition.

What I find astonishing is how Eugene, in the absence of having any real military experience whatsoever, is so psychologically damaged. You would think he made the Bataan Death March.

mate wrote:Marko

Regarding what Eugene said:

Some would say that the mere fact of having to kill other people (even if sanctioned, in the conditions of war) does seriously influence people's psyche to the point that serious psychologic adjustments are needed to function normally...

Most men in an army of democracy, such as those from the US and Britain, indeed make the transition.

What I find astonishing is how Eugene, in the absence of having any real military experience whatsoever, is so psychologically damaged. You would think he made the Bataan Death March.

Perhaps, you should provide some materials, in support of your idiocy. At least because an overwhelming majority of Sociological and Psychological opinion is on my side.

The need for serious adjustment for the soldiers does not depend on whether their country is democratic or not. The problem is Psychological.

This is why you see an abundance of the Psychological syndrom cases among the US soldiers returning from various military conflicts. There is even an abundance of information of the similar traumatic post-war syndrom among the soldiers returning from Iraq.

Facts 1 - Mate 0

Eugene

I see you have once again resorted to giving yourself points.



One, have you ever been to war?

Two, do you know many people who have been to war?

I can answer affirmative to both and can tell you in no uncertain terms that the majority of men come through their war experience by and large psychologically intact...especially if they are competently led and trained.

The latter are often hallmarks of a democratic army. It makes a difference fighting as an American WWII GI versus being Red Army cannon fodder driven by a commissar.

"Two, do you know many people who have been to war?"

Oh oh...that was the most careless question...Be prepared to hear about thousands of "veterans" living in Florida who're his personal friends, just like his prized friendship is with an obscure Russian/Ukrainian/whatever chap, on whose behalf he more than once claimed Dynamo Kiev's career, but who in fact was Dynamo Kiev-2(3) team nobody.

You Mate may as well expect now to hear indignant foam-laced invectives directed at me, that such and such was indeed...blah blah...

That's when one's experience of smiling condescendingly at that fool comes handy:)

Cavendish (not the famous lab in Britain) is of course supposed to be the most reliable historical source...for hyperactive googlers:)

mate wrote:One, have you ever been to war?

Does not matter. Most historians and sociologists, presumably, had not been to most wars they are writing about. So? Does that disqualify them?

Two, do you know many people who have been to war?

Million is their name. I, indeed, do know quite a few. In fact, I have a Korean War veteran and a Vietnam War veteran in my place of work. That is aside from the circle of my friends.

I can answer affirmative to both and can tell you in no uncertain terms that the majority of men come through their war experience by and large psychologically intact...especially if they are competently led and trained.

According to many psychological studies, this is not true. In fact, nearly a half of the American troops returning from Iraq have been diagnosed with the traumatic post-war syndrom. This is well documented in press and sciuentif literature.

The latter are often hallmarks of a democratic army. It makes a difference fighting as an American WWII GI versus being Red Army cannon fodder driven by a commissar.

Unfortunately, you draw blanks again. It does not matter who leads people. Killing people is a psychological burden that most people have a difficulty dealing with.

Leonid wrote:Be prepared to hear about thousands of "veterans" living in Florida who're his personal friends, just like his prized friendship is with an obscure Russian/Ukrainian/whatever chap, on whose behalf he more than once claimed Dynamo Kiev's career, but who in fact was Dynamo Kiev-2(3) team nobody.

Yuriy Beszpaliy did have a Dynamo Kyiv career. And, in fact, even represented the USSR-2 team at the Granatkin tournament in 1986. And, to wit, this "nobody" was a Dynamo-2 Kyiv captain for over 3 years, a position that was later taken by Olexander Golovko, his protege, before tha latter moved up to Dynamo Kyiv main roster.

The fact that you never heard of him, speaks in his favor. I do not expect you to have an informed opinion on football that you did not see with your eyes.

In fact, I do not expect you to have an informed opinion on just about anything.

Leo

LOL! He said it exactly as you predicted he would...and all in the space of 5 minute or so.

:P

mate wrote:Leo

LOL! He said it exactly as you predicted he would...and all in the space of 5 minute or so.

:P

LOL, you still provided no support for your deranged and ultimately wrong opinions. How consistently mate-like!

Eugene

The Iraq war is still in full kick, so the verdict remains outstanding as to any lasting psychological damage. I can't say I read such reports as may exist, but I find your banal charges highly dubious, given my experience in some pretty intense light infantry combat zones.

Sure, I can accept that soldiers need a period of decompression and acclimatization in returning from heavy combat. I can accept that therapy assists in this transition, especially given advances in the field and the acceptance of being treated.

Trust me, I know there will be occasional flashbacks. However, the vast majority of men in my experience adjust and adapt positively, each dealing with it in his own way. Some talk. Some never do. Some share. Others hold it in.

Again, I stress that psychological breakdown most often occurs with troops who were ill disciplined...and who really did cross those unwritten rules of honor that every true soldier understands.

Anyways, what I find repulsive is manipulating such statistics, whatever they might be, for political gain. Fine, use them to help the men who need it most...not to negatively slant a particular political party.

Mate

Trust me, I know there will be occasional flashbacks. However, the vast majority of men in my experience adjust and adapt positively, each dealing with it in his own way. Some talk. Some never do. Some share. Others hold it in.

Do you have any numbers supporting your statement? Especially the "majority of men" part?

Anyways, what I find repulsive is manipulating such statistics, whatever they might be, for political gain. Fine, use them to help the men who need it most...not to negatively slant a particular political party.

Are you accusing me of manipulating the statistics? I am just making you aware of them. I do not achieve any political gain from them.

Eugene

No. I am obviously relying on my concrete experience. Trust me, I met lots and lots of men in combat and have been in it myself.

However, please post me your statistics. I'm not going to dismiss them before I see them...but given your history of distortions, sorry, I have a certain doubt as to what you say in such matters.

Anyways, post the links.

mate wrote:Eugene

No. I am obviously relying on my concrete experience. Trust me, I met lots and lots of men in combat and have been in it myself.

However, please post me your statistics. I'm not going to dismiss them before I see them...but given your history of distortions, sorry, I have a certain doubt as to what you say in such matters.

Anyways, post the links.

Traumatic Stress Found in 20% of Soldiers Post-Iraq
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Traumat ... 063004.htm

From the New England Journal of Medicine

Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care

Charles W. Hoge, M.D., Carl A. Castro, Ph.D., Stephen C. Messer, Ph.D., Dennis McGurk, Ph.D., Dave I. Cotting, Ph.D., and Robert L. Koffman, M.D., M.P.H.
ABSTRACT

Background The current combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have involved U.S. military personnel in major ground combat and hazardous security duty. Studies are needed to systematically assess the mental health of members of the armed services who have participated in these operations and to inform policy with regard to the optimal delivery of mental health care to returning veterans.

Methods We studied members of four U.S. combat infantry units (three Army units and one Marine Corps unit) using an anonymous survey that was administered to the subjects either before their deployment to Iraq (n=2530) or three to four months after their return from combat duty in Iraq or Afghanistan (n=3671). The outcomes included major depression, generalized anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which were evaluated on the basis of standardized, self-administered screening instruments.

Results Exposure to combat was significantly greater among those who were deployed to Iraq than among those deployed to Afghanistan. The percentage of study subjects whose responses met the screening criteria for major depression, generalized anxiety, or PTSD was significantly higher after duty in Iraq (15.6 to 17.1 percent) than after duty in Afghanistan (11.2 percent) or before deployment to Iraq (9.3 percent); the largest difference was in the rate of PTSD. Of those whose responses were positive for a mental disorder, only 23 to 40 percent sought mental health care. Those whose responses were positive for a mental disorder were twice as likely as those whose responses were negative to report concern about possible stigmatization and other barriers to seeking mental health care.

Conclusions This study provides an initial look at the mental health of members of the Army and the Marine Corps who were involved in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our findings indicate that among the study groups there was a significant risk of mental health problems and that the subjects reported important barriers to receiving mental health services, particularly the perception of stigma among those most in need of such care.

And this is just one syndrom (there are several, although I am not a medical professional to differntiate between them)

http://www.allianceforsecurity.org/ptsd
Many Vietnam veterans have been worried for a long time that the nature of the conflict in Iraq is a sure-fire mechanism for creating PTSD in our troops. The relentless guerilla-type warfare, the lengthening deployments ensured by the imposition of stop-loss and the sheer bloodiness of this conflict are solid prognosticators of Vietnam era levels. Recently, the New England Journal of Medicine published an Army study indicating 1 in 6 Operation Iraqi Freedom soldiers meet the criteria for psychiatric distress but the number is expected to climb substantially over time.

Eugene

Conclusions This study provides an initial look at the mental health of members of the Army and the Marine Corps who were involved in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our findings indicate that among the study groups there was a significant risk of mental health problems and that the subjects reported important barriers to receiving mental health services, particularly the perception of stigma among those most in need of such care.

This so called conclusion is basically what I generally stated about prolonged combat exposure. Men experience stress from combat and are at risk for developing mental health problems. Some men are reluctant to engage formal psychological therapy.

Nothing new here.

Moreover, I am still inclined to believe that the majority will positively deal with the stress, not developing serious mental health issues. Most men achieve this through a number of cathartic measure: family, friends, personal contemplation, religion, and...increasingly...psychological counseling.

Finally, I am inclined to believe that there is a correlation between combat as part of a trained and well led military versus combat as part of a rogue force. Like I said, there is a difference in being a trained US soldier led by leaders who care about him...with a huge array of services and support behind him...fighting with an army that tries to be discriminate and proportional.

Men know when they cross over that line into lunacy and guilt. Mind you, some accept lunacy and all the consequences.

mate wrote:Eugene

Conclusions This study provides an initial look at the mental health of members of the Army and the Marine Corps who were involved in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our findings indicate that among the study groups there was a significant risk of mental health problems and that the subjects reported important barriers to receiving mental health services, particularly the perception of stigma among those most in need of such care.

This so called conclusion is basically what I generally stated about prolonged combat exposure. Men experience stress from combat and are at risk for developing mental health problems. Some men are reluctant to engage formal psychological therapy.

Nothing new here.

Moreover, I am still inclined to believe that the majority will positively deal with the stress, not developing serious mental health issues. Most men achieve this through a number of cathartic measure: family, friends, personal contemplation, religion, and...increasingly...psychological counseling.

Finally, I am inclined to believe that there is a correlation between combat as part of a trained and well led military versus combat as part of a rogue force. Like I said, there is a difference in being a trained US soldier led by leaders who care about him...with a huge array of services and support behind him...fighting with an army that tries to be discriminate and proportional.

Men know when they cross over that line into lunacy and guilt. Mind you, some accept lunacy and all the consequences.

Mate

What you may or may not believe is worthless (same goes for my beliefs too). The fact remains, a human is a human and no training, upbringing, or social background will change the common lowest denominator of the person's psyche.

There are mass murderers, psychopaths, sociopaths, autistic people, psychologically unstable people in every army, in every society, and in every country.

The Los Angeles Times
Max Boot

The Friend We Betrayed


In 1987, after he was exonerated of corruption charges, former Secretary of Labor Raymond Donovan issued the classic plea of the wronged man: "Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?" Whichever office it is, Ahmad Chalabi may want to apply there as well.

The leader of the Iraqi National Congress has been the most unfairly maligned man on the planet in recent years. If you believe what you read, Chalabi is a con man, a crook and, depending on which day of the week it is, either an American or Iranian stooge.

The most damning charge is that he cooked up the phony intelligence that led to the invasion of Iraq. In the words of that noted foreign policy sage Maureen Dowd: "Ahmad Chalabi conned his neocon pals, thinking he could run Iraq if he gave the Bush administration the smoking gun it needed to sell the war."

Such calumnies are so ingrained by now that La Dowd published that sentence on Sunday, three days after the release of the Robb-Silberman report that refutes it. The bipartisan commission headed by Chuck Robb and Laurence Silberman did not give Chalabi a totally clean bill of health. It found that two INC-supplied defectors were "fabricators." But it also determined that the most notorious liar popularly linked to the INC — a defector known as "Curveball" who provided false information on Saddam Hussein's biological weapons — "was not influenced by, controlled by, or connected to the INC."

"In fact, over all," the Robb-Silberman report concluded, "CIA's postwar investigations revealed that INC-related sources had a minimal impact on prewar assessments." Translation: The CIA's attempts to scapegoat Chalabi for its own failures won't wash.

This is only one of many unsubstantiated accusations against Chalabi. Last August, for instance, an Iraqi judge issued an arrest warrant for Chalabi and his nephew, Salem Chalabi. Ahmad was supposedly guilty of counterfeiting, Salem of having an Iraqi official murdered. Within weeks the bizarre charges were dropped for lack of evidence.

Unfortunately, no court of law has examined the accusations made by anonymous U.S. spooks that Chalabi told the Iranian government that one of its codes had been broken by the United States. U.S. officials claimed that they found out Chalabi was the source of the leak because they were able to decode a message to that effect to Tehran. But why would Iranian agents use the compromised code to transmit that information? And how would a foreign national such as Chalabi get access to secret intercepts? Guess we're supposed to take the U.S. intelligence community's word for all this, even though its judgment has been discredited in every outside inquiry.

Then there's the charge that Chalabi was guilty of fraud at a Jordanian bank he once owned. A secret Jordanian military tribunal convicted him in absentia in 1992. Chalabi argues that this was a frame-up by Jordanians eager to seize his assets and curry favor with Hussein. The truth may come out in a lawsuit that Chalabi has filed in the U.S. against the Jordanian government. In the meantime, claims that he's a swindler must be treated with skepticism.

This man risked his life and his fortune to overthrow one of the worst tyrants of the 20th century. He deserves better. More important, the U.S. would have done better in Iraq if it had been listening to Chalabi as much as conspiracy buffs claimed.

In early 2003, the Bush administration ignored Chalabi's warnings that liberation should not be allowed to turn into occupation. Chalabi wanted to set up an interim government right away. The administration refused on the grounds that exiles had no standing in Iraq. So instead that well-known Iraqi, L. Paul Bremer III, was anointed potentate. His mistakes, which Chalabi criticized, resulted in a critical loss of momentum. A year later, the U.S. finally appointed a government headed by Chalabi's cousin and rival, Iyad Allawi. If an exile could be appointed in 2004, why not in 2003?

But don't worry about Chalabi. Unlike Secretary Donovan, he's done just fine. Contrary to CIA reports that he had no constituency, he has positioned himself at the center of Iraqi politics. He was a leading candidate for prime minister and will probably get a Cabinet post.

On second thought, Chalabi is better off not getting his old reputation — that of a U.S. ally — back. Being reviled in Washington may be the best gift that any Iraqi politician could receive.


Max Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Eugene

The fact remains, a human is a human and no training, upbringing, or social background will change the common lowest denominator of the person's psyche.

There are mass murderers, psychopaths, sociopaths, autistic people, psychologically unstable people in every army, in every society, and in every country.

Every human indeed shares a similar psycho-biological core. However, one's training, upbringing, and/or social background...whatever you might call it...absolutely has an impact regarding the development of a person and their conduct in any number of endeavors.

This is absolutely true in combat. A soldier that is well trained, well led, well equipped, and disciplined is less likely to suffer psychological trauma in combat. He is more likely to maintain a sense of discipline and espirit-de-corps...all things that increase combat power and the likelihood of success. Greater success increases the likelihood of men enduring and coming to terms with combat.

The Wall Street Journal

In Iraqis We Trust

By JALAL TALABANI
April 11, 2005

Through their democratically elected representatives, the people of Iraq have entrusted me with the office of the presidency of the republic. After 50 years of political struggle against discrimination and dictatorship, this is a grand honor and a humbling moment. As we look ahead to a new Iraq based on tolerance and equality, federalism and unity, democracy and freedom, we remember those whose sacrifice made this possible -- Iraqis, Americans, Britons, Poles, Italians, Czechs and so many others from around the world.

As president of Iraq, I shall strive to represent the diversity of a country that has too often in the past denied difference. I shall stand for freedom of thought and expression in a place where it has been trampled and penalized. I will work with the prime minister to ensure that our government's finances are transparent and that our citizens have access to government records; above all, I shall pursue the politics of reconciliation in opposition to the politics of hatred and incitement.

My door will always be open to those who genuinely renounce violence and seek peaceful accommodation into our nascent democracy. That is why I proposed, in my first speech as head of state, an amnesty for those who have been led astray by terrorism.

But while the new Iraq is open to all, there must be no underestimating our determination to vanquish terrorism. Conciliation is not capitulation, nor is compromise to be deemed equivalent to imbalanced concession. Rather, it is through conciliation and compromise that we are building a fair Iraq, a just state for all its peoples. Democracies, unlike dictatorships, are forgiving and generous, but they cannot survive unless they fight. And fight we shall.


The choice of peace or war lies not with the Iraqis who ignored terrorism and intimidation to vote in their millions, the Iraqis to whom I am accountable. No, that decision lies with the terrorist minority that despises freedom and spurns every offered opportunity to enter the political process. The attacks on election officials, the suicide bombings of voters, and the cowardly attacks on brave Iraqis waiting in line to join our fledgling security forces are not the tactics of "resistance" or "freedom fighters" but of murderers and criminals.

Nor are the terrorists by any stretch of the imagination the repressed or the disadvantaged. They chose violence despite consistent exhortations to contribute to the new Iraq. They are, for the most part, representatives of the old regime, Baathists who gorged themselves on their compatriots' riches. They are not the dispossessed of the earth but those who have been deprived of their palaces.

Slaying terrorism, and the extremist nationalism and perversion of religion that breeds it, will require our greatest effort, both as Iraqis and as new members of the alliance of democracies. We will again and again ask and work with our neighbors to assist us by controlling their borders, intercepting the transmission of funds to the terrorists and by handing over Baathist fugitives. We, in turn, will work with our neighbors to ensure that Iraq is never again a haven for terrorists. All such foreign-armed groups in Iraq must be neutralized and rendered harmless in a manner that is just and legal. Iraqis, the victims of the vilest stratagems and subterfuges, will not fight a "dirty war."

Our commitment to human rights, primarily of the individual, but also of our diverse ethnic and religious heritage for which we suffered, must be absolute. The justice of our cause must be reflected in the manner in which we rectify the crimes of the past.

The rehabilitation of Basra, the refloating of the ancient marshes of southern Iraq, the return of the ethnically cleansed to Kirkuk, the renaissance of the holy cities as centers of learning and piety, all these are acts of justice. They must be accompanied by the trials of the major Baathist criminals. Justice for the major perpetrators cannot be separated from the vindication of the rights of the individual victim.

Nor is justice independent of constitutionalism. Here the progress in Iraq has been remarkable, in place of the provisional Baathist constitution of 1970 we now have the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL), a progressive liberal interim constitution. The TAL represents the highest achievement of the new Iraq. The result of intense argument between the legitimate representatives of all of Iraq's communities, the TAL embodies the virtues of compromise. By sensibly sharing power under the TAL we all acquire more rights and security than if we were to each selfishly pursue our maximal objectives.

The TAL governs all politics in Iraq until the adoption of a final constitution. There can be no government, no elections, and no politics of any kind outside of the framework of the TAL. Any attempt to circumvent the TAL would not only be illegal, and an affront to the rule of the law, but an implicit rejection of the justice of the liberation of Iraq from the outlaw Baathist regime.

For all the talk of Iraq as a "model" for the Middle East, we know that there are unique factors at play in building our federal, multi-ethnic democracy. Indeed, we do not seek to export our political ideas or experiences, a practice that has too often led to instability in the Middle East. Rather, we ask that the uniqueness of the Iraqi experience be recognized and our newly restored sovereignty respected. We will not allow the naysayers (who predict disaster awaiting us around every corner) and their companions in despondency, the apologists for despotism, to distract us with their uninformed comment from our vision of a democratic and equitable society: The rectification of past crimes and the binding up of the many wounds inflicted upon us by the Baathist regime -- these are matters for Iraqis alone.

We seek foreign assistance to help us develop our security forces and to partner with us as we try to further sustainable economic growth in our shattered country. We hope that the United Nations will live up to its ideals. The assistance provided by the U.N. during the recent elections was invaluable and an important step toward the return of this organization to Iraq. A continued and consistent U.N. engagement, which bolsters the new Iraq, will convince Iraqis to put aside their qualms about an organization that many of them identify with the previous Baathist regime.

A greater international role is important to lift some of the burden from the shoulders of the United States. Our gratitude to the American people is immense and we should never be embarrassed to express it. Time and again the U.S. has given the world its most precious resource in the cause of freedom, the lives of its most talented and courageous young men and women.

Now, the time has come for the rest of the world to recognize that a federal, democratic Iraq that can defend itself against terrorism is a goal worthy of broad international support. The victory of the new Iraq will be the triumph of freedom over hate, of decency over intolerance. Who would not want to share in such a worthy campaign?

Mr. Talabani is the president of Iraq.

The violence in Iraq is still continuing and American losses are picking up once again. The realization, thus, is that Iraqi elections and the parlament have shallow if any effect on the state of events in Iraq today.

Conciliation is not capitulation, nor is compromise to be deemed equivalent to imbalanced concession.

Some vigorously discussed Western governments might do well to take a leaf out of this book.

State of play?

The government of a dubious election in Iraq is trying to gain some legitimacy, sorely tested by not adhering to popular will and ousting the occupation, the presence of which is touted by war supporters to be absolutely necessary to keep the peace in Iraq, while some war opposers, including those residing in the country, maintain that the occupation is a major reason the insurgency exists, and that Iraq can keep its own peace.

The warned of insurgency has not abated in light of the election of the third interim government, despite hopes that this would occur. The WMD rationale has been exposed as a furfy, and the debate on it should have been put to bed after the Duelfer report, but there remain true believers who speculate in the absence of anything concrete. For example, despite the ISG's conclusion that no WMD went to Syria, some desperate souls still hold on to this possibility. The Bush administration has not fully conceded the WMD error, turning their consternation on 'bad intelligence'. The second phase of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose brief was to examine government handling of inteligence, has failed in its remit. Phase two was a rehash of phase one. There has been, to date, no formal examination of what happened to intelligence on Iraq at the government level.

Debate continues over the make-up of the insurgency. While most agree that foreigners make up a tiny portion of militants, this doesn't stop some from beating this minority up into the latest bete noir in the GWOT, even contesting that this factoid represents good strategy on the part of the administration under the belief that the majority of Islamic militants have been drawn to the one battle field. Today I read of terrorist attacks in Egypt.

Financing 'intervention' has blown out to five times the projected cost. The privatisation of Iraq is a major issue for its workers, and corruption seems to have soared to highs well beyond those in the days of the former regime.

The international community is making conciliatory noises, including Iraq's neighbours, who surely have no vested intetrest in dealing with the new government backed by Western forces.

Elections in Palestine and the expulsion of Syrian forces in Jordan are portrayed as consequences of US foreign policy in the region, rather than as a result of local events. Handy quotes from a handful of locals have been deployed to back up this contention. Of course, there is contrary local commentary on the street and in the reviled Arab press.

Infrastructure in Iraq has not improved significantly, and oil production has been compromised again and again by militants. The recent price hikes for petrol internationally may be attributed to this. In Iraq, the price of petro has risen astronomically, and is scarcer than ever.

Little has changed since the election of a new government. There is hope yet. Meaningful improvement has been just around the corner for the last two years. The declaration of quick success from pro-war folk has become more equivocal in the light of ongoing problems, but certainty has not abated much from the regulars. Iraq will one day improve of course, and if it be 15 years from now, I suspect those folk will attribute that to intervention. Should it not, the same people will protest that "at least we didn't sit on our hands, at least we didn't take the 'do nothing' route, opur intentions were sound", once again making the mistake of believing that the only other option apart from war was inaction. I suspect that such people will always view war as a tool for policy, and be born again, should Iraq fail further, to protest that the only alternative option to attacking Iran/Syria/Pakistan or whichever country may be targeted next will be to 'do nothing'. They. Will. Never. Learn.

Chalabi, I notice above, is a misunderstood warrior for good. No doubt Allawi, who chose to quit government, the demands he made exceeding his election results, was a pretender. How many know that Adnan Pachachi, one even the severest war critics could give the thumbs up to, has quit politics and the country?

The current government is headed by US-connected exiles. The US cannot keep out of Iraqi politics, as hard as they try. Rumsfeld gave public advice recently, and many in the current crop are receiving tutelage on governance from the US in the US.

I've been reading a lot of Iraqi blog sites. The voices I would like to have heard more from in 2002 - 2003 finally have a forum - the internet. I guess I have the US to thank for that. And what stories they tell.

Fallujah was an interesting experiment.

Bin Laden is still at large. International terrorism has not abated. I hope the conciliatory overtures of the US admin a few months ago continue in fact. A pity all those high explosives, radioctive materials and conventional weapons were not better secured in Iraq - now all gone to looters, including. probably, the insurgency/militancy/terrorists and across the border, which the Deulfer report refers to but somehow neglects to detail, while investing a lot of verbiage on non-proscribed procurement and OFF rorts, the latter dwarfed by billions misplaced by the US-appointed interim governments.

If the insurgency is mainly old Ba'ath 'henchmen', the mission is not over, but has changed. Who would have suspected they would have been so resourceful dragging the invaders into a guerilla war? The 'critical left', aparently.

Looks like the bastard Saddam's secular government is going to be replaced by a quasi-Islamic republic.

Those 14 US bases in Iraq are going to make for a headache for the new government. If they are meant to be staging ground for the enforced eemocratisation of the ME, I doubt Iraqis are going to be very supportive. If I were POTUS, I would organise or provoke some incursions from neighbours to frighten the Iraqis into supporting an aggressive US posture towards neighbouring countires from their home soil. But, I muse.

There is so much to talk about.

The Australian

You can be for the truth or with the terrorists

JOURNALISM may be the first draft of history, but it is often a very rough draft indeed. The perspective offered by history frequently requires a total rewrite. This especially applies to war. And it must be especially remembered in the wake of the terrible news that an Australian, Douglas Wood, has been taken hostage by Iraqi insurgents. Wood has become the latest propaganda tool in their battle with Coalition forces, with the Iraqi people and with Iraq's new democracy. The terrorists want US, Australian and British troops out of Iraq and will rely on a media-fuelled compassion campaign to achieve that goal. And driven by daily deadlines, ratings and its instinctive objection to the Iraq war, the media will no doubt comply.

That is a pity. While Wood deserves all our help and our sympathy, Iraq, and indeed kidnap victims such as Wood, would benefit if more journalists reported not just the daily horrors of war, but also stories that provide for a longer view. Much of our media has not done that to date. Most of the media took up a common position on Iraq very early on. Intervention was a dreadful mistake. "Quagmire" was the word du jour for months on end. "Quagmire" harked back to Vietnam, the first war beamed home to the baby boomer generation on their televisions. Back then, the media played a pivotal role in turning public opinion against continued military intervention in Vietnam. Back then, most contemporary journalists thought Vietnam would be better off if US troops pulled out. History is not so sure.
Fast forward 30 years and it is as if the same generation, now all grown up and making television programs and writing newspaper reports about a different war, has hit the replay button. Certainly, Jane Fonda has not draped herself over one of Saddam Hussein's tanks, but a steady line of Hollywood types has been bashing George W. Bush for going into Iraq. And the media has hardly budged from their bad-news angle.

Admittedly, there was a brief moment in early March when even the most anti-war newspapers seemed to be revising their positions on Iraq. Like a breath of fresh air, London's Independent newspaper dared to ask "Was Bush right after all?" as it tracked developments across the Middle East, from Lebanon to Palestine, from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and, yes, in Iraq. Ditto Germany's Der Spiegel and France's Le Monde.

But, alas, the bad-news angle is too seductive. Even when the Iraqi parliament approved a new cabinet last week, much of the media's tone was bleak. For The Sydney Morning Herald's Paul McGeough, it was a case

of the "war-weary Iraqis" heaving a "sigh of relief" over the endorsement of a "government of sorts".

Delete the gratuitous descriptions and here's the news. Iraqis now have their first democratically elected government in 50 years. While some cabinet jobs are yet to be settled, the new 27-member cabinet includes Shia, Sunnis, Kurds and even a Christian. Six are women. The jockeying for position in this "government of sorts" looks pretty much like the usual haggle-fest that goes on in democracies when positions of power are up for grabs.

Good news is not hard to come by. But when something positive does happen, it either gets filtered through the anti-war eyes of the media or is all but ignored. And that is what the terrorists are counting on. They must detest The Wall Street Journal. Each fortnight the paper's website (http://www.wsj.com) includes a round-up of good news from Iraq. It makes for refreshing reading, if only to even up the Iraq ledger.

Last week came the latest instalment, all 27 pages of it. It included reports that Baghdad real estate prices are on the rise, that the Baghdad Stock Exchange is back trading at expanded volumes. That production of oil in the south is reaching 1.1million barrels a day, close to pre-war levels. That USAID projects are helping to set up proper legal and regulatory authorities. That USAID work on Baghdad Airport is nearly complete, giving it "100 per cent electrical self-sufficiency" freeing up power for the national grid.

One sobering reminder of life under the former Iraqi dictator also failed to make the cut at most Australian newspapers. Late last week it was revealed that 113 Kurds – all but five of them women and children – were found in mass graves near the southern city of Samawah. There is a skeleton of a teenage girl clutching a bag of possessions. Many women were wearing their best clothes, like the shiny gold and purple dress found in one of the 18 trenches. Ten were babies. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, more than 290 mass graves have been found, filled with at least 300,000 people believed to have been executed by the Baathist regime.

The Australian and The Daily Telegraph reported the story yesterday. But where was the rest of our press on this important story? Ignoring it, perhaps, because they are loath to remind us that the Iraqi people are free from such tyranny.

The media is a player in modern warfare. The more they inform us about hostages, the more hostages are taken. This is the deadly, inevitable, side to the information age. But if the media would more often lift their head above the ruck and look to the longer view as well as today's disaster, the distinction between journalism and history may not be quite so stark as it is now.

But, alas, the bad-news angle is too seductive. Even when the Iraqi parliament approved a new cabinet last week, much of the media's tone was bleak. For The Sydney Morning Herald's Paul McGeough, it was a case

of the "war-weary Iraqis" heaving a "sigh of relief" over the endorsement of a "government of sorts".

Don't see anything wrong with those generalizations.

War-weary Iraqis? What, they are enjoying the daily destruction?

Sigh of relief? McGeough could have said they were jubilant, which has some degree in truth, but how accurate a general statement is that? He could have said Iraqis were 'deeply suspicious', which is also true to some degree.

Government of sorts? The author themselves describes the shortfall in ministry positions. The election was not largely attended by an entire cultural group making up more than a fifth of the electorate.

The author makes a familiar complaint and supports it by lamenting the lack of cheering for a series of flawed political events occuring in the midst of a life and death (mainly death) reality for the populace that a not-quite-formed government is unable yet to ameliorate.

The Australian and The Daily Telegraph reported the story yesterday. But where was the rest of our press on this important story? Ignoring it, perhaps, because they are loath to remind us that the Iraqi people are free from such tyranny.

What bald propaganda. Tyranny now has a different face(s) and is more rapacious than the tyranny of the last few years of the Ba'ath regime.

One sobering reminder of life under the former Iraqi dictator also failed to make the cut at most Australian newspapers. Late last week it was revealed that 113 Kurds – all but five of them women and children – were found in mass graves near the southern city of Samawah.

Saddam's deplorable brutality is old news. Everyone knows. And he's out of the picture. This author wants the media to reinforce Hussein's past, well-known brutality to justify the current mess.

The media is a player in modern warfare. The more they inform us about hostages, the more hostages are taken. This is the deadly, inevitable, side to the information age.

Fantasy. Foreign media inspires where local realities fail to prod militancy? This familiar furfy is simply a frustrated imagining for pundits who need to blame someone for the mess in Iraq (excepting the instigators of that action, of course). This statement is just the kind of journalism she castigates McGeough on, only worse. It lacks any substance whatsoever.

Imagine it. 60 people killed in one go in America, and the press shouldn't report it because it only encourages others.

McGeough, by the way, has been covering Iraq for 15 years, and has spent much of his time actually in the country, including the last two years.

But if the media would more often lift their head above the ruck and look to the longer view as well as today's disaster, the distinction between journalism and history may not be quite so stark as it is now.

This author doesn't want real-time reportage. She wants a historical tally.

The major papers barely cover or don't cover at all the daily incidents of militancy in Iraq. This, too is now relegated to the general in all but a few news reports.

The reason that not much good news in Iraq is being reported, is that there is little good news.

An election does not a democracy make. Neither does a political process flawed from its inception. Not yet, anyway, The real Iraqi government is yet to be elected in. The current, and third post-invasion, is also transitional.

The author seems to be saying that we should receive more reports of past atrocities from a regime now defunct, while less on current atrocities from the ongoing militancy in Iraq. Perhaps she was disappointed also at the ubiquitous pre-war reporting on holes in WMD and al Qaeda link claims because they undermined public support for the war.

The author is Janet Albrechsten. If you know her work and political predilictions, this article is no surprise. She has been uncovered for plagiarising and is a favourite of the Howard government (as they are hers). The government has rewarded her efforts by appointing her to the board of the public broadcaster in Australia (the ABC). There's more to the story, but you can probably guess the gist.

Here is the article's link;

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/co ... 22,00.html

The national papaer is the right of politics balcner to publications like The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age in Melbourne. Albrechsten is one of the more extreme contributors. Her logic is usually as poor as her research and analyses.

Barry

Did you realy expect Sunni extremists, who have long held absolute power in Iraq, to let go so easily...especially under the tutelage of an American occupation that generally treats them with kid gloves. I don't think you quite understand how Shiites and Kurds are being restrained in this situation, as they are baying for vengeance with every strike by a so called suicide bomber. In fact, that they are restrained shows something remarkable in a region long known for the most savage tit for tat reprisal culture.

This is war Barry. I told you a long time ago that this is a contest of wills, one where he with the greatest willpower will win, pure and simple. Yes, people will die in the process, as even the most crystal clear just wars, say WWII, exact a terrible price in blood. However, what shouldn't be obfuscated is the basic nature of the combatants.

Sure, we're all human after all, aren't we Barry. Then again, I see one side truly trying to bequeath a meaningful value proposition to a people who really have never know such. The other side is nihilist and strikes at woman and child alike, without discrimination or proportionality. One side has enabled elections, strirring glimmers of democracy and the imagination in a region where such things are foreign. The other side is dedicated to destroying any hopes for democracy and subjugating people to totalitarian and radical religious madness.

So Barry, which side do you now support? Are you still tacitly criticizing the US while giving a free ride to our nihilst loon asylum enemies? It has been a long time and we need to get reacquinted, you and I. Indeed, I have heard the most vile and impassioned against the Roman Catholic Church following the passing of Pope John Paul the Great and the appointment of Pope Benedict. I could have sworn I heard echoes of your criticism amidst those shrill cries of more liberalism, more gender equality, and less rigidity in the Catholic Church.



However, I have a confession to make Barry. I often wonder why such critics don't apply the same criticisms to radical Islamists that truly are as conservative and totalitarian as the Catholic Church is alleged to be. All this intellectual foment and appeal towards for a Catholic Church that provides all manners of services and cares for the afflicted of the world...but nary a voice of discontent towards the animals that blow up people with impunity in the name of Allah.

No, it's the US stupid! The US is the bane of it all!

I confess Barry, I just don't get it. Help me and bless me dear Barry, for I know not what I think in all of this. Forgive me, for it seems I sin in not computing the wisdom of liberalism.