Welcome! Our goal at Winds of Change.NET is to give you one power-packed briefing of insights, news and trends from Iraq that leaves you stimulated, informed, and occasionally amused every Monday & Thursday. This briefing is brought to you by Andrew Olmsted of Andrew Olmsted dot com.
TOP TOPICS
- A suicide car bomb killed the head of Iraq's Governing Council and at least eight other Iraqis in Baghdad. Abdel-Zahraa Othman, also known as Izzadine Saleem, was the second member of the Governing Council to be assassinated. The council selected Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer, a civil engineer from the northern city of Mosul, to replace Saleem. Although this may be a difficult blow to U.S.attempts to stabilize Iraq, the Governing Council was slated to turn whatever power it had over to the interim government July 1. If this attack doesn't derail the transition, the new government should be able to move on from this attack without great difficulty.
- There are reports that an roadside bomb containing Sarin nerve gas has been discovered. This Command Post link is tracking the story as it evolves.
- Ryan Boots of Sound & Fury offers "The Carnival of the Liberated," a set of highlights from Iraqi bloggers last week.
- Meanwhile, former M.P. and ACLU executive Bob Harmon analyzes the legal and military dimensions of the Abu Ghraib scandal, with reference to the Yamashita command responsibility precedent.
Other Topics Today Include: the U.S. puts down an uprising in Baghdad; Coalition command structure revised; Fallujah townspeople and al-Sadr discuss cooperation; al-Sadr's political success; Saddam told he could be given back to 'his' people.
REPORTS FROM THE FIELD
- Fighting in Baghdad appears to have stopped for the time being in the wake of what Brigadier General Mark Kimmit called "a minor uprising" that saw some 38 Iraqis killed.
- The United States is revamping the command structure of American forces in Iraq. Wretchard takes a look at what this may mean for the occupation and the Defense/State Dept. conflict.
IRAQI POLITICS
- Representatives from Fallujah reportedly met with Motaqda al-Sadr Sunday to discuss taking up common cause against the Coalition. If true, this could be a disastrous turn of events for the Coalition. But at the same time, one of the former Iraqi generals in charge of the security force in Fallujah called on its leaders to support American efforts to stablize Iraq. So the question remains, which side will come out on top? (Hat tip: The Agonist.)
- al-Sadr may not be having great success in driving Coalition forces from Iraq, but he may be garnering public support for himself through his high-profile fighting in Najaf, Kufa and Karbala. With the push for early elections in Iraq growing, al-Sadr may end up becoming a successful political player in Iraq regardless of his success on the battlefield. Scott Wilson at the Washington Post examines other problems Sadr's revolt has raised for Coaltion forces, and why a Fallujah-style solution may not work with the Shi'ites.
- As the June 30 deadline for handover of power to an interim Iraqi government looms close, the United States is hard at work on the new American embassy in Baghdad. The embassy will be responsible for helping the new Iraqi government keep the peace while a final government is put in place, meaning that a great deal of responsibility will rest on controversial ambassador John Negroponte after 30 June. And a lot of questions remain over the precise role the embassy will play, the authority it will hold, and the goals it will try to achieve.
THE INTERNATIONAL STAGE
- If the interim Iraqi government asks the Coalition to leave Iraq, America will do so. So says Secretary of State Colin Powell, settling a minor controversy that arose when Thursday's Congressional testimony offered two different answers to the question. Powell also said the U.S. would accept a theocratic government in Iraq, if that was the result of the elections.
- A report claiming that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approved the use of tougher interrogation techniques is drawing a strong backlash from the Pentagon. Phil Carter takes a look at the report and the Pentagon reaction to it.
- Phil Carter examines the expected guilty plea from the first of the MPs to be prosecuted for Abu Ghraib. Phil hits the nail on the head when he points out that "The fact that [their superiors] didn't know about these events isn't enough. If they should have known about them, by doing proper nighttime inspections and spot-checks, and they didn't know, then they're still legally culpable." I'll go one further and say that leaders at the prison should have known what was going on, and they were either negligent for not knowing or knew what was going on and didn't say anything.
- National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice says the U.S. and Russia are "on the same page" regarding a pending U.N. Security Council resolution endorsing the interim government of Iraq that will take power on 30 June. That may be true, but it does raise the question of what Rice had to promise Russia in exchange for their vote.
- Colin Powell was in Jordan Sunday trying to repair U.S.-Arab relations in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal. Unsurprisingly, King Abdullah II of Jordan used this meeting as an opportunity to try and gain U.S. support for the Palestinians against Israel once again, suggesting that reported Arab anger over Abu Ghraib may well be a front by Arab governments (not known to be overly concerned about public opinion in their own dealings) to put pressure on the Bush administration to undertake some favored positions.
ETCETERA
- CIA operatives questioning Saddam Hussein are now threatening to turn him over to the provisional Iraqi government if he doesn't start talking. While this will probably play well on Hussein's admitted fears of being given back to his people, the timing of the announcement has got to be considered poor, at best. (Hat tip: Rantburg.)
- If you haven't done so already, you need to read Dan Darling's rationale for the war in Iraq and what to do next. (Part II is here.) You may disagree with it, but Dan raises points that deserve to be argued on the merits.
- Abu Ghraib has claimed its first Western casualties, as an editor from Britain's The Mirror was canned over his decision to run faked photos of British troops abusing Iraqis. The Boston Globe didn't fire anyone over its own decision to post pictures from an internet porn site while claiming they were pictures of U.S. troops, but certainly their credibility has taken a solid hit over the decision. (Hat tip: The Command Post.)
- The troops are still there. So is the Winds of Change.NET consolidated directory of ways you can support the troops: American, Australian, British, Canadian & Polish. Anyone out there with more information, contact us!
- Don't forget Chief Wiggles' Toys for Iraq drive!
Thanks for reading! If you found something here you want to blog about yourself (and we hope you do), all we ask is that you do as we do and offer a Hat Tip hyperlink to today's "Winds of War". If you think we missed something important, use the Comments section to let us know.
the phil carter piece you link to concerning s. hersh's writings on captives and attacks on al qaeda leadership is nonsense sitting on ignorance. carter's commentary on this merely demonstrates his own ignorance.
all of the "facts" and issues have been dealt with exhaustively more than a year ago. this is absolutely nothing more than hersh repackaging old material in a manner designed to attack the bush administration.
it is not illegal, under any convention, to attack the command structure of a combatant force. that does not meet any test of assassination. rumsfield was furious that these simple ideas were not grasped by military professionals.
most of the people we have in custody do not meet the legal defination of pows. they are then not protected by geneva convention restraints. however, generally, the abu ghraib prisoners are defined as geneva convention pows by the u.s., in spite of the fact they are literally not. certain of them are removed from that group and transferred to other, non-geneva convention facilities.
the indignities some abu ghraib prisoners have been subjected to resulted from the illegal activities of a few and were in conflict with the clearly defined rules of the u.s. which were elucidated at the direction of sec rumsfield. a close reading and understanding of the nonsense of hersh and carter would even establish that.
this is just more hysteria of which you have become a part. really, you should stop your work on this web site, as a result of this nonsense you have published. obviously, you are too ignorant for the job and have no journalistic scruples.
As always, constructive criticism is greatly appreciated. If you could offer some, that would be great. If the Phil Carter piece (capital letters, btw, are a marvelous invention you might consider in the future) has been so thoroughly debunked, it doesn't seem unreasonable for you to take the time to provide some links to the debunking. Instead you seem more interested in discussing things that aren't even in the article. After reading your 'rebuttal,' I'm inclined to believe that you didn't actually read the piece at all, and that you simply dislike Phil because of his political stance and therefore consider all of his work worthless.
I'm more interested, however, in your assertion that "the indignities some abu ghraib prisoners have been subjected to resulted from the illegal activities of a few". Do you have evidence of this, or are you simply making an assertion backed by your political beliefs? Because if you don't have any evidence, than I would suggest that it is in the best interest of all Americans that we allow the Army to continue its investigations and try to determine just how far this problem spread. As you would have noted if you had read Phil's article, he doesn't believe that Rumsfeld or the Pentagon was likely to have approved sexual humiliation or assault as interrogation techniques, and I concur with that assessment. I see no reason why we shouldn't make sure that that isn't the case, however. If, as I believe, Rumsfeld had nothing to do with this, than his name is cleared; surely that is a better outcome than allowing innuendo to continue to swirl around his reputation. If he did have something to do with it, however, than I would hope that we all are in agreement that he should face the appropriate consequences.
As far as the Iraq Reports go, if you dislike how I do them, feel free to let Joe and Dan know and I'm sure that, if they agree, they'll kick me to the curb. Until that time, however, I'm going to seek out sources that can illustrate what's really happening rather than trying to simply confirm someone's prejudices.
Thanks for the good links. Information unfiltered is a wonderful thing. Keep up the good work.
For the lastest in political news and views and links to bloggers, candidates, and government sites, bookmark All Things Political (www.allthingspolitical.org). For my rantings on the news of the day, see my Blog, All Things Political (www.allthingspolitical.blogspot.org)
re: Important Iraq stuff, or maybe not - a lefty friend brought to my attention the conspiracy theories surrounding Nick Berg, have you seen this shit? I haven't been following the story too closely, and though I was aware that there have been some weird discrepancies between different versions of the events I was certainly surprised at the extent of some of the theories that are circulating. There's a list of 50 'fishy circumstances' at http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/15/22827/0477, and while some are blatantly stupid and many others are pretty easily explicable, I am wondering if anyone has bothered to debunk these theories or else whether there might be something to them...?