Veto Schmeeto!

[ProSense]

The U.S. lost the war in Iraq. The U.S. can’t win, even if winning is defined as stability. As long as U.S. combat forces are wedged in the middle of Iraq’s civil war, inflaming the violence, stability will never be achieved. Also, until the civil war ends, an outcome that will not be achieved by U.S. military might, there will be no stability in Iraq. Sounds like a couple of “duh!” statements, but proponents of the war are desperately trying to make the case that the Iraq war is winnable.

What the hell does that mean?

Seemingly oblivious to the fact that victory, like any other goal, requires a plan, Bush constantly spouts his goal, but has never offered a strategy for achieving it. Here is a man who was so determined to depose Saddam Hussein that he lied his way into launching a conventional war, rushing into Baghdad with little planning and based on the misguided premise that Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops with flowers. They didn’t. With Bush’s aversion to a plan B, he is determined to succeed with plan A, which is to occupy Iraq, albeit against the will of the very people he proclaims to have liberated. Bush is now at war with those free and angry Iraqis, also known as insurgents. The Iraq war is lost, despite Bush’s assertion that “We're not winning, we're not losing.” He is still pushing the rhetoric that Iraq is a constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East, calling it a “remarkable development.” Iraq is not a democracy and the results of the war are far from remarkable. Still, Bush is trying to convince Americans and the world that he can win the Iraq war.

In a Wall Street Journal article, neo-conservative Shelby Steele defined winning and explained why victory in Iraq has been difficult to achieve, attributing this to the administration’s “utter failure to define what victory would be in this war.” He also states that “without a description of victory, a war has no goal.” Really? On winning, Steele writes:

Historically victory in foreign war has always meant hegemony: You win, you take over. We not only occupied Germany and Japan militarily after World War II, we also--and without a whit of self doubt--imposed our democratic way of life on them. We took our victory as a moral mandate as well as a military achievement, and felt commanded to morally transform these defeated societies by the terms of our democracy. In this effort we brooked no resistance whatsoever and we achieved great success.

<...>

For every reason, from the humanitarian to the geopolitical to the military, Iraq is a war that America must win in the hegemonic, even colonial, sense. It is a test of our civilization's commitment to the good against the alluring notion of menace-as-power that has gripped so much of the Muslim world. Today America is a danger to the world in its own right, not because we are a powerful bully but because we don't fully accept who we are. We rush to war as a superpower protecting the world from menace, then leave the battle before winning as a show of what, humility? We confuse our enemies, discouraging them one minute and encouraging them the next.

link

Steele certainly defined winning, but his belief that such a victory is possible in Iraq and his notion that ambivalence is the reason winning has been elusive are beyond absurd. He’s also wrong to say that Bush has no goal. In fact, Bush shares Steele’s version of victory, and he alludes to it often:

Like the Second World War, our present conflict began with a ruthless, surprise attack on the United States. We will not forget that treachery, and we will accept nothing less than victory over the enemy.

link

We are living through a watershed moment in the story of freedom. Most of the focus now is on this week's elections -- and rightly so. Iraqis will go to the polls to choose a government that will be the only constitutional democracy in the Arab world. Yet we need to remember that these elections are also a vital part of a broader strategy for protecting the American people against the threat of terrorism.

link

... Success in Iraq would bring something powerful and new -- a democracy at the heart of the Middle East, a nation that fights terrorists instead of harboring them, and a powerful example for others of the power of liberty to overcome an ideology of hate."
President George W. Bush
April 20, 2007

link

This is what the neo-cons want: the complete transformation of the Middle East to democracy by force. In every State of the Union speech since 2004, Bush has made reference to a democratic Iraq, declaring it in some instances as an achievement and in others as a goal:

2004 -- As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny and despair and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends. So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East. We will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror, and expect a higher standard from our friend.

2005 -- We will not set an artificial timetable for leaving Iraq, because that would embolden the terrorists and make them believe they can wait us out. We are in Iraq to achieve a result: A country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself. And when that result is achieved, our men and women serving in Iraq will return home with the honor they have earned.

2006 -- We're on the offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory. First, we're helping Iraqis build an inclusive government, so that old resentments will be eased and the insurgency will be marginalized.

2007 -- This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we're in. Every one of us wishes this war were over and won…Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. Let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.

We're carrying out a new strategy in Iraq -- a plan that demands more from Iraq's elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.

The problem is not only that Bush has no plan, but also that the goal is foolhardy. In other words, it’s never going to be achieved with U.S. military force. Bush stayed the course as a pro Iran, pro Hezbollah government emerged in Iraq. More evidence that Bush will never attain his goal came when Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani backed Muqtada al-Sadr against the U.S. It seems that Bush’s actions are helping to increase al-Sadr’s influence. The Shiite cleric, who can rally millions of Iraqis, recently labeled Bush the anti-Christ.

As retired Lt. Gen. William Odom, who served as the Army's top intelligence officer and headed the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration, put it:

"The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place," he said. "The president has let (the Iraq war) proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued. He lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies."

Iraq had no WMD, had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and has no interest in American-style democracy. After rushing to war and delivering four years of rhetoric backed up by inaction, Bush is still attempting to define the mission. War is not an experiment. Brave New Films put together the following video: Tell Us The Mission (Accomplished).


"The Final Word Is Hooray!” That was the title of a March 2006 release by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. It featured a collection of quotes by those who cheered “Mission Accomplished.” Tom Tomorrow compiled several of the quotes into an excellent cartoon: What They Said. The statements make clear the extent to which journalists were willing to go to prop up Bush, long after the case against the war was being made. PBS's Gwen Ifill, "The war winds down, politics heats up.... Picture perfect. Part Spider-Man, part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan. The president seizes the moment on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific." CNN's Lou Dobbs, "He looked like an alternatively commander in chief, rock star, movie star, and one of the guys." Yeah, the media thought Bush was cool because he invaded Iraq!

Four years later, Bush’s ego is soaring and his true character is showing. After passage of the Iraq supplemental bill, Bush issued an official statement referring to the withdrawal deadline as a “surrender date." Marty Lederman, who teaches Constitutional law at Georgetown University, described Bush’s comment as “defining shamelessness down”:

I understand the inevitable urge to spin every issue so as to put one's adversaries in the worst possible light. But really. To play at such name-calling with a matter this solemn and important -- to use official White House stationary to cavalierly insist that the majority party not only favors military "surrender" but "insists upon" it -- is conduct unworthy of a chief executive, let alone a Commander in Chief.

<...>

…If the President wishes to make a case that this majority view would be bad policy, so be it. But is it the President's view that 70-plus percent of the U.S. public favors our "surrender" to some (undefined) enemy?

Senator John Kerry had this to say about Bush’s comment:

The President keeps mischaracterizing it – as usual – misleading Americans – as usual – when he stands up and says to America, “This is a surrender bill.” I mean, since when? What a stupid characterization of an important foreign policy decision.

While Bush is accusing Democrats of surrender, nothing symbolizes failure, or defeat, more than the Baghdad wall project. Victory equals confinement? The Iraq war is lost. Refusing to face that reality, Dick Cheney and journalists like David Broder are lashing out at Democrats and critics of the war. Again, Senator Kerry delivered a well-deserved smack down of Cheney.

In an attempt to save Broder further embarrassment, The Washington Post sent out an query: Is the Iraq War Lost? They published three "no" responses:

No. There has been a dramatic decrease in sectarian violence; the situation in Anbar province and within the Sunni community in general has been transformed; the Maliki government has been incredibly supportive of efforts to go after Shiite militiamen. But it's going to be a long, hard slog.

-- Frederick W. Kagan, American Enterprise Institute; proponent of the recent surge

Dramatic decrease in sectarian violence? Eight of the 28 deadliest days in Iraq happened in 2007.

No. Many said Anbar province was "lost" six months ago. Today, local tribes are cooperating with us to fight al-Qaeda. Iraqis, with our help, are confronting the sectarian violence in Baghdad, seeking to take back their capital so they can pursue political reconciliation.

-- Stephen J. Hadley, national security adviser

Does Hadley really believe Anbar is a shining example of success, or as Bush used to say "turning the corner"?

Anbar is where 4 Marines were killed when a U.S. helicopter was downed in early December, another seven were killed in a crash early in 2007, another three on April 27 and five more troops killed on April 28.

No. The war is not lost -- no more than it was in winter 1776, July 1864, December 1945 or November 1950. The challenge is winning back hearts and minds at home, rather than in Iraq, where brave thousands join us each day to fight an evil sort the likes of which we haven't seen in recent memory.

-- Victor Davis Hanson, military historian, Hoover Institution

Ah, the old World War II hegemonic comparison that was the basis of Steele's victory.

There were five "yes" responses from Barbara K. Bodine, a former ambassador and a coordinator for post-conflict reconstruction for Baghdad and central Iraq in 2003; Paul R. Pillar, former deputy chief, CIA Counterterrorist Center; Bruce Hoffman, Georgetown University, adviser, Iraq Study Group; Robert Dallek, presidential historian; and Nathaniel Fick, former Marine infantry officer in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bodine’ response nailed it:

Yes As long as we see Iraq as ours to win or lose, confuse military victory with Iraqi legitimacy, build walls in the middle of the night, play whack-a-mole with province-hopping insurgents and jihadis, and deny space to the political center, then we lose.

What seems to escape the administration and the immovable war supporters is the harsh criticism of Bush’s failed policy by those close to the action. In this video, CNN Michael Ware warns that things in Iraq are unraveling.

Ware recently called out McCain for his stroll in Baghdad. Yet while painting a dire picture of the situation in Iraq, Ware and CNN’s Kyra Phillips made some contradictory statements that sounded a lot like the GOP’s rhetoric:

Phillips: The brigade that was there last year lost 19 troops in 12 months. The brigade there now has lost 50 in six months… There is no way U.S. troops could pull out. It would be a disaster. They are doing too much training. They are helping the Iraqis not only with security, but trying to get the government up and running.

WARE: No. But I mean, remember, the vision for Iraq was to establish this shining model of democracy that was hoped would then spread throughout the region. Well, the security situation has become so bad, Iranian influence has become so strong, Iran is much stronger because of this war. Al Qaeda is much stronger because of this war. …Well, even more than that, I mean, if you just want to look at it in terms of purely American national interest, if U.S. troops leave now, you're giving Iraq to Iran, a member of President Bush's axis of evil, and al Qaeda. That's who will own it…You broke it, you've got to fix it now. You can't leave, or it's going to come and blow back on America.

Maybe someone could interest Phillips in trading her support for continuing the current escalating disaster for the hypothetical disaster that removes American troops from Iraq’s death equation. Ware’s claim is that the mission at the launch of the war is being abandoned because the invasion created new dangers that the U.S. must now stay to address—more hegemonic reasoning. Americans have no right to use Iraq as their base of operation because Bush decided to launch an ill-advised war that led to unintended consequences, and there are many.

There are other reports that provide insights into the situation in Iraq, and you don’t have to be close to the action to piece together that conditions on the ground there are deteriorating. Repeat: Eight of the 28 deadliest days in Iraq happened in 2007 with April 18, when 233 Iraqi civilians were killed, being second only to November 23, 2006. The Guardian (UK) recently ran an article, What matters is the blood in the sand, not Des Browne that details a gruesome reality: “They don't show the cuts of human meat littering the streets, or the hands, feet or heads lying by themselves at the side of the road. They don't show children with holes in their bellies, screaming with pain.” You can check Reuters’ FACTBOX-Security developments in Iraq, April 26. Some things haven’t changed. At the time of the invasion, much was made about the weapons sites that were left unsecured. Almost four years later, many of them are still not secured. In fact, a GAO report released on April 27 indicates that the improvised explosive devices used by insurgents to attack U.S. and coalition troops are being built with materials from these unattended Iraqi ammunition depots. A BBC news report offered this play-by-play of attacks in Iraq, which are increasing despite the surge:

Trying to get into the centre of Baghdad earlier this week offered one view of how far away the Americans and Iraqi authorities are from gaining control here.

We were at the airport. Just before we were due to leave, the entrance car park was hit by a car bomb.

<…>

While we waited with scores of other vehicles, mortars were fired at the airport. Fortunately for us they landed on the other side of the runway, plumes of smoke shooting into the air.

You won't have heard about any of this because at the same time a series of other far more serious attacks was taking place.

<…>

As we drove into the city, we counted six blast holes left by recent roadside bombs along just one 100-metre stretch or road.

A large patch of damaged, blackened Tarmac on a bridge spoke of another attempt to destroy a key crossing.

<…>

Last month alone there were more than 100 car bombings, and the number of attacks has continued at a similar rate so far this month. This indicates a high level of organisation.

According McClatchy Newspapers, a new State Department report will show that terror attacks up nearly 30%. Anyone considering writing Bush’s biography should consider one of these titles: “The Art of Losing Wars” or “It’s the Plan, Stupid.”

The Bush administration is a case study for trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Corruption was a problem in 2004 and it still plagues reconstruction efforts in 2007, with the amount climbing from $5 billion to $10 billion missing.

In a 2006 report, Dr. Chasib Latif Ali, executive director of the Health Ministry, complained that only six of the nearly 180 medical facilities the U.S. promised have been turned over to the Iraqis, and they were “not even fully complete.” The New York Times reports that projects completed as part of the reconstruction effort are crumbling. The report cites plumbing and electrical failures, lack of proper maintenance and apparent looting, with some projects abandoned and expensive equipment laying idle.

The tragedy of Bush’s failed Iraq policy isn’t crumbling buildings or missing money, it’s the tens of thousand, possibly hundreds of thousand, Iraqi casualties. Bush comes to grips with the devastating numbers, comma, by disputing the Lancet study. In April, the study’s author, Riyadh Lafta, an Iraqi doctor was denied a visa by both the U.S. State Department and the British Government for travel that would have enabled him to participate in a University of Washington medical conference.

There is no denying that Iraq’s humanitarian crisis is real, via Reuters: UN raps Iraq for withholding "grim" civilian toll. According to the report, “34,452 Iraqi civilians were killed and more than 36,000 wounded in 2006, figures that were much higher than any statistics issued by the government.”

A report by USA Today states that 70% of Iraqi schoolchildren show symptoms of trauma. Iraq’s deteriorating security conditions and “disintegrating health situation,” resulting from lack of access to sanitation (80%), clean water (60%) and a public food distribution system, is giving rise to disease and a refugee crisis.
(Check out this diary by Beachmom: Riverbend leaving Iraq. Few Iraqi bloggers remain behind.)

Still bucking plan B, Bush decided to hire a War Czar. He offered the position to three retired Generals who turned him down. The significance of this, other than career military men balking at a chance to serve at the request of the President, is that these Generals have strong ties to the Bush administration. Here is a description of the three based on an article in the Washington Post:

First, Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a 35-year Marine and former top NATO commander who served on the Defense Policy Board advising the Pentagon early in the Bush administration. At one point he was reportedly considered by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He now works as an executive at Bechtel Corp. developing oil projects in the Middle East.

Second, Army General Jack Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff, was one of the primary proponents of sending more troops to Iraq and presented Bush with his plan for a major force increase during an Oval Office meeting in December.

Third, Air Force General Joseph W. Ralston, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was named by Condoleezza Rice last August to serve as her special envoy for countering the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, a group designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

General Sheehan was the only one to comment: "The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going…So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks.'"

Patrick Lang, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst, offered this assessment in
The Christian Science Monitor: "If this (search for a coordinator) was happening a lot earlier in the Iraq story, things might be different. But no one wants to jump on board when others see the boat listing to one side and are deciding to get off…People see this as a losing policy, and no one wants to be remembered as 'the man who lost Iraq.' "

Conjuring up images of Vietnam, ARMY LT. COL. PAUL YINGLING (note still on active duty), deputy commander, 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment, wrote a blistering criticism of Bush’s failed policy which was published in the Armed Forces Journal:

For the second time in a generation, the United States faces the prospect of defeat at the hands of an insurgency. In April 1975, the U.S. fled the Republic of Vietnam, abandoning our allies to their fate at the hands of North Vietnamese communists. In 2007, Iraq's grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war.

<...>

Armies do not fight wars; nations fight wars. War is not a military activity conducted by soldiers, but rather a social activity that involves entire nations. Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz noted that passion, probability and policy each play their role in war. Any understanding of war that ignores one of these elements is fundamentally flawed.

<...>

America's defeat in Vietnam is the most egregious failure in the history of American arms. America's general officer corps refused to prepare the Army to fight unconventional wars, despite ample indications that such preparations were in order. Having failed t o prepare for such wars, America's generals sent our forces into battle without a coherent plan for victory. Unprepared for war and lacking a coherent strategy, America lost the war and the lives of more than 58,000 service members.

<...>

America's generals have repeated the mistakes of Vietnam in Iraq. First, throughout the 1990s our generals failed to envision the conditions of future combat and prepare their forces accordingly. Second, America's generals failed to estimate correctly both the means and the ways necessary to achieve the aims of policy prior to beginning the war in Iraq. Finally, America's generals did not provide Congress and the public with an accurate assessment of the conflict in Iraq.

link

With the situation in Iraq worsening, the cost of the Iraq war surpassing Vietnam and no end to the crisis in sight, acknowledging that the Iraq war is lost isn’t treason, it’s reason. Instead of stating the obvious, Senator Harry Reid could have used Henry Kissinger’s wording: deliver the Iraq bill to Bush on ‘Mission Accomplished’ day. [br />
Veto schmeeto, Bush needs to sign the Iraq bill as a signal that he’s rejoining the reality based community.

Edit fix link.

[ProSense]

1. April is the sixth deadliest month of the war, with 104 U.S. fatalities.

14 U.S. troops killed in 3 days in Iraq

POSTED: 8:33 a.m. EDT, April 30, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Fourteen U.S. soldiers and Marines were killed in Iraq during the past 72 hours, making April the sixth deadliest month of the Iraq war, according to the U.S. military.

A U.S. Marine was killed Sunday during combat operations in Anbar province, west of Baghdad, the military said Monday.

On Sunday, three soldiers were killed and another was wounded when a roadside bomb hit their vehicle during a combat patrol. An Iraqi interpreter also was killed in the attack.

On Saturday, five U.S. soldiers were killed in and around Baghdad.

A soldier died when his combat patrol was sprayed with small-arms fire. Three soldiers died and another was wounded when a roadside bomb struck their patrol southeast of Baghdad.

A fifth soldier died and two others were wounded in another roadside bombing south of Baghdad.

On Friday, three soldiers and the two Marines were killed during combat operations in Anbar province.

The number of U.S. military personnel killed in the Iraq war stands at 3,351, including seven Defense Department civilians. April is the sixth deadliest month of the war, with 104 U.S. fatalities.

more

[Rydz777]

2. Over two thousand more

If Bush is permitted to keep this up until he slinks from office in 2009, we can expect - at this rate - for over two thousand more of our troops to die (not to mention thousands more maimed.) It just has to stop - out NOW. The Democratic Congress must stand firm in the face of this veto - no compromises, no weasel wording, no caving.

[blm]

5. Stand firm AND ratchet it up and submit it again...and again.

.

[Senator]

3. The bushkid "needs to" do absolutely nothing

It's the DC Dems that "need to" rejoin the reality-based community.

The reality is that they are completely impotent with impeachment "off the table."

Only Impeachment ... is a substantive act.

It IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

--

[ProSense]

4. Losing Basra

Serving British soldier exposes horror of war in 'crazy' Basra

Friday, April 27, 2007

By Terri Judd

A British soldier has broken ranks within days of returning from Iraq to speak publicly of the horror of his tour of duty there, painting a picture of troops under siege, "sitting ducks" to an increasingly sophisticated insurgency.

"Basra is lost, they are in control now. It's a full-scale riot and the Government are just trying to save face," said Private Paul Barton.

The 27-year-old, who returned from his second tour of Iraq this week along with other members of 1st Battalion, the Staffordshire Regiment, insisted that he remains loyal to the Army despite such public dissent. He said he had already volunteered to go to Afghanistan later this year.

But, he said, he felt strongly that somebody had to speak out: "I want people to see it as it is; not the sugar-coated version."

<...>

"Last tour, I never fired my rifle once. This time, I fired 127 rounds on five different occasions. And, in my role (providing medical support), I shouldn't have to fire." He added: "We have overstayed our welcome now. We should speed up the withdrawal. It's a lost battle. We should pull out and call it quits."

link

THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ: OUT OF TRANQUILLITY, MAYHEM

As British draw down, violence in Basra is up

The troops bear the brunt as Shiite factions fight for power and oil.

By Alexandra Zavis, Times Staff Writer
April 29, 2007

<...>

Through most of 2006, British forces had recorded an average of 20 significant attacks per week in the four southern provinces under their control: Muthanna, Dhi Qar, Maysan and Basra. The number increased steadily from September, peaking at 90 incidents per week in February, and dropping to about 50 in March and April, said Lt. Col. Kevin Stratford-Wright, a British military spokesman.

<...>

At the national level, the leading Shiite parties joined forces under the banner of the United Iraqi Alliance to secure the largest share of parliamentary seats for Shiites, who make up about 60% of Iraq's 27 million people.

But they have competed for power in the provinces. The deep fissures have paralyzed Basra's government and now threaten Maliki's fragile coalition.

The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, a party with ties to Iran that also works closely with the United States, dominates the Basra provincial council and the national Shiite alliance. But the party split in the vote for provincial governor, allowing Waili, of the smaller Al Fadila al Islamiya, or Islamic Virtue, party, to clinch the post.

Al Fadila, which controls the oil facilities protection force and key industry jobs, recently pulled out of the national Shiite alliance after Maliki refused to give the party the oil ministry.

The party used to have close ties to followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr, SCIRI's main rivals. Sadr's loyalists boycotted the 2005 polls and have no council seats. But gunmen from the two sides clashed in March in what appeared to be a battle for control of the city's electricity network. Two weeks ago, Sadr's supporters were believed to be among hundreds of demonstrators who pitched tents in front of Waili's office, pledging not to leave until he was removed from office.

<...>

On Saturday, 27 of the council's 40 members signed a vote of no confidence against the governor, just over the two-thirds required to oust him, council spokesman Nadim Jabiri said. Al Fadila's 12 representatives did not attend the session. There was no immediate response from Waili.

link

The two deadliest months for British troops: March 2003 (27 killed) and April 2007 (12 killed)

[ProSense]

6. Reconstruction report on civilian contractor casualties

Reconstruction report: 916 death claims for civilian contractors in Iraq

Coverthumb As On Deadline told you yesterday, the The Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that seven of eight projects it reviewed were not working as planned, even though a number had been described to the public as "successes."

USA TODAY has its own story on the auditors' findings. You can read their entire report here. In addition to the failures, the document includes an assessment of the security situation in Iraq. Here's an excerpt:

Since Iraq reconstruction began, 916 death claims for civilian contractors working on U.S.-funded projects in Iraq have been filed. In the quarter ending March 31, 2007, the Department of Labor reported 146 new death claims. (The State Department) reports that 16 U.S. civilians died in Iraq this quarter. Since the beginning of the U.S. reconstruction effort, 224 U.S. civilians have died in Iraq.

link

[ProSense]

7. Kurds say they will oppose (U.S.-backed) draft oil law

Kurds say they will oppose draft oil law

[ProSense]

8. "the streets in Basra and Baghdad are 'sure to erupt in joy"

Juan Cole via Salon:

In that same speech to the VFW, Cheney addressed criticisms of the looming Iraq war: "Another argument holds that opposing Saddam Hussein would cause even greater troubles in that part of the world, and interfere with the larger war against terror. I believe the opposite is true. Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace. As for the reaction of the Arab 'street,' the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are 'sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans.' Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of Jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991."

[saltpoint]

9. delete

[ProSense]

10. Ambush on Iraq highway claims 14 lives; Green Zone under attack

Gunmen kill 14 travelers on Iraq highway

By SINAN SALAHEDDIN, Associated Press Writer
43 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - Gunmen ambushed travelers on a highway leading from Baghdad to Shiite areas to the south on Tuesday, killing 14 people, while mortar rounds slammed into an area near the Iraqi prime minister's office in the U.S.-controlled Green Zone in the capital, a government official said.

The attacks against the travelers began at 6:45 a.m., when gunmen took aim at a minibus, killing 11 Shiites and wounding three, as it passed near Iskandariyah, 30 miles south of Baghdad in a predominantly Sunni area dubbed the "Triangle of Death" because of frequent insurgent violence.

About 45 minutes later, a group of gunmen standing on the highway opened fire at civilian cars, killing three people and wounding five near Latifiyah and about 6 miles north of the site of the initial attack.

The attacks occurred on the main highway linking the capital to predominantly Shiite southern provinces. Farmers often use the road to transport goods and Shiite pilgrims use it for treks to the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, but they have to go through the dangerous areas closer to Baghdad.

more