Friday, September 2, 2022. The number of assaults within the US
military continue to increase, The October Revolution returns to the
streets of Baghdad, and much more.
Allison Jaslow is an
Iraq War veteran and a member of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of
America. She is in the news today because of an interview she gave this
morning. CNN reports:
"We
need to make sure that our military is as removed from politics as
possible and it's not right if a Democrat uses the military as a
political pawn and it's not right if the Republican Party does it as
well. None of our politicians or elected leaders should do that,"
Allison Jaslow, a former executive director of the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee, told CNN's Brianna Keilar on "New
Day."
She's on solid ground with that critique and she's not the only one making it. CNN's Jeff Zeleny Tweeted:
There’s nothing unusual or wrong with a President delivering a political speech — it’s inherent in the job description — but doing it against a backdrop of two Marines standing at attention and the Marine Band is a break with White House traditions.
It's
not a minor issue but expect the usual nonsense from the partisan
patrol that poses as leftists and pretends to be fact based.
Let's stay with Allison for a bit more.
MILITARY TIMES editor Leo Shane III Tweeted:
. at #ALConv2022: "We’re continuing to fight like hell to make sure that all veterans feel welcome and safe at VA. That means getting women vets -- our fastest growing cohort of vets -- the care they’ve earned, and deserve."
To which Allison replied:
Fighting like hell? I call bulls**t.
Changing the motto outside
front door to be more welcoming to women veterans should be a lay up, but there's been 19 months of inaction by
on it.
#ChangeTheDamnMotto
10:22 AM · Aug 31, 2022
And
the motto goes to the lack of welcoming which goes to the reality of
the way so many are treated within the military. Allison more recently
Tweeted:
Women in the military deserve a culture that respects them, this is not that:
"A new Pentagon survey shows women in the military endured the highest level of unwanted sexual contact since the Defense Department began tracking the data sixteen years ago"
Important additional finding in here: "About one in five troops – 29% of women and 10% of men – reported their assault, and data show that trust in the military to protect privacy of victims, ensure safety, and treat victims with dignity and respect is declining."
And she reTweeted veteran and journalist Paul Szoldra on the same topic:
For years, officials have couched increases in sexual assault reports by claiming that survivors are becoming more comfortable with reporting, but for 2021, that math doesn’t bear out...
So this year, officials aren’t couching it anymore: it’s not good.
Senator
Kirsten Gillibrand has been a fierce fighter on this issue (even
calling out some members of her own party when needed). Her office
issued the following:
Senator Gillibrand: “This data shows a military in a
crisis…We are betraying the trust of service members and their families
and failing the most heroic among us.”
Today, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, chair of the Senate Armed
Services Personnel Subcommittee, responded to the release of the
Department of Defense’s (DoD) Fiscal Year 2021 Annual Report on Sexual
Assault in the Military. The survey showed that 8.4% of active duty
women and 1.5% of active duty men reported at least one unwanted sexual
contact in the prior year, amounting to an estimated 35,900 total active
duty service members – a disturbing rise from previous years.
For years, Senator Gillibrand has fought the DoD to fundamentally
reform how it deals with sexual assault among its ranks.
She earned bipartisan majority support for her bill, the Military Justice Improvement & Increasing Prevention Act, which was blocked from receiving a vote in the full U.S. Senate.
In response to today’s shocking numbers, Gillibrand said: “This
data shows a military in a crisis. Nearly one in ten active duty women
reported unwanted sexual contact during a single year, and that number
rises to one in four when the service member experienced an unhealthy
command climate involving sexual harassment. When service members cannot
trust their leaders to uphold the values of our military services it
means we are failing. Finally, the percentage of cases preferred for
court-martial charges continues to drop. These results are completely
unacceptable.
“We are betraying the trust of service members and their families
and failing the most heroic among us. The current versions of the National Defense Authorization Act in
Congress contain vital military justice reforms that I have fought
for for nearly a decade, and they should be passed and enacted with the
urgency this crisis demands.”
The DoD’s full report can be viewed here.
Let's
move over to Iraq where the press so frequently gets things wrong.
Let's start with ASIA TIMES because they've always been a garbage outlet
but they tend to fool so many. They're pimping a neocon whose sucked
on the US government tit off and throughout his pathetic career. His
name is Hussain Abdul-Hussain and he's a 'journalist.' He's a fool, an
idiot and a whore and it's telling that ASIA TIMES wants to publish his
latest garbage.
Ten months after Iraq’s pro-Iran bloc was soundly defeated in
parliamentary elections, and less than a week after Shia cleric Muqtada
al-Sadr announced his retirement from political life, a stalemate
between Shiites who oppose Tehran and those who support it seems to be leading the country toward civil war. Yet this is only half the story.
Yes,
that is only half the story. For example, the other half goes to the
fact that the militias (that his pro-Iran bloc) were disenfranchised and
I know the US government doesn't like that reality to be told but it is
a reality.
I am not a fan of the militias, I have
called them out forever and a day. I strongly called out the move to
make them part of the Iraqi security forces. I still think that was a
mistake. Epic mistake.
But I'm not a whore. The
prime minister, at the last minute, pulled them out of early voting.
They weren't allowed to take part in the election as a result since they
had to be stationed throughout Iraq on election day (to protect polling
places). Mustafa al-Kadhimi does not like the militias because they
have mocked him and criticized him. They do not support him so his move
to disenfranchise them was not just illegal, it was anti-democratic and
the thing a despot does.
A whore, like the one writing
for ASIA TIMES, looks to see where the money is. And the US government
will always pay those who verbally attack the 'enemy' of the
moment. Hussain Abdul-Hussain gets paid for making it all about Iran.
Which is why he then types the garbage he does. Iran this and Iran
that.
The US gave money to Moqtada al-Sadr -- a killer of US
troops. They did that because Moqtada was preferred to the militias. I
really think they need to explain to the American people why their tax
dollars went to a killer of US troops.
The American people
weren't consulted on this. Moqtada was paid off in August of last year
(only the latest pay off) to announce that he wanted his cult to vote in
the elections held October 10, 2021.
Hussain
Abdul-Hussain wants to simplify the issue and make everything about Iraq
or Iran. Because that's where the money is and it's where the blood is
and a neocon whore like Hussain Abdul-Hussain needs other people's
blood to live off of.
Iran and Iraq share a border.
The US government never learns a damn thing.
If you want Iraq and Iran to bicker and the US to benefit, then stay the hell out of it.
It
will happen because their border is in dispute. And when it does
happen, the US government can't just let it develop, they have to try
bring in 800 other issues, "You should be upset about this and about
that!" And all that ever does, is remind the two how much the US wants
them to be opposed to one another.
The US government is like a
stupid person wanting a couple to break up so that they can grab one of
the partners. The US always overplays its hand and always makes a
concealed motive clear, thereby bringing the couple back together.
Let's
got to VOX, believe it or not. Zach's not that smart but I was
pleasantly surprised to learn Zach wasn't covering the topic. Jonathan Guyer is:
The ongoing conflict that has paralyzed the country is
grounded in complex domestic politics — Sadr himself has long been a
powerful figure in Iraqi politics. Its most recent roots, though, start
about a year ago in a parliamentary election where Sadr’s movement won
the most seats. In the ensuing months, Sadr was unable to secure a
majority coalition to his liking, and in July, he urged the
parliamentarians from his bloc to resign. But Iraqi politics quickly
moved on, and as other parties jostled to form a new government, Sadr’s
loyalists held protests outside of government buildings, at one point
even occupying the parliament. Meanwhile, religious politics came into play as a prominent cleric in Iran urged his Iraqi followers to break with Sadr.
“For the average Iraqi who was living through that night
of terror [Monday], it really felt like going back to the war, in which
there was the constant sound of gunfire throughout the night,” [Marsin] Alshamary
told me. “We didn’t know whether we would wake up to a civil war in the
country.”
To understand why the resignation of a man who has
resigned from politics several times before led to street violence, why
elite politics in Iraq are so volatile right now, and why many Americans
are misunderstanding both (hint: They’re overplaying Iran’s role in the
crisis), I spoke with Alshamary, who had just returned from Iraq where
she is based. Our conversation has been lightly edited for length and
clarity.
[. . .]
JG: He resigned in a tweet on Monday. Does that mean he’s left politics?
MA: Excellent question, because really, he doesn’t make it
clear. Muqtada al-Sadr has “left politics” several times before. Usually
it’s before elections, because he’s trying to get concessions. We’re
not sure what it means this time, because his members of parliament have
already resigned. So what more does it mean? That he’s going to
withdraw bureaucrats and high-level officials within the government
institutions and tell them that they’re no longer participating in the
government in any way? Does it mean that he will not make any political
statements going forward? He doesn’t clarify.
After Muqtada’s statement on Twitter on Monday about how
he’s quitting politics, all hell breaks loose in Baghdad and in the
south.
The clashes between the protesters and paramilitary
groups grew increasingly violent. We see the kinds of weapons that you
would see on a battlefield being brought out. There’s a curfew imposed
in Baghdad. The conflict extends beyond the Green Zone, it moves to
neighborhoods in Baghdad, particularly ones where the Sadrists are, and
we hear news of conflict in cities like Basra, which is the southernmost
city in Iraq, Nazriya, and Diwaniya, other important cities in southern
Iraq.
For the average Iraqi who was living through that night
of terror, it really felt like going back to the war, in which there was
the constant sound of gunfire throughout the night. We didn’t know
whether we would wake up to a civil war in the country. Most analysts
thought that this was going to be a long confrontation between Sadr’s
militia — Saraya al-Salam, or the Peace Brigades — and other militias,
other Shia militias in Iraq.
But the next day, a little past noon Baghdad time, Muqtada al-Sadr holds
a press conference. In this press conference, he looks chastised, he’s
apologetic, he apologizes to the Iraqi public for the violence, for what
they had to go through that night. He chastises his followers, saying
that their movement isn’t violent, that they shouldn’t drag Iraq into
corruption and violence, like Iraq is already corrupt, we don’t need
more problems. He even reaches a point where he says both those who were
killed and the killers are all in hell, which is a very, very strong
condemnation of his own followers.
He also gives his followers an hour to leave the Green
Zone and to stop all violence. And the effect is instantaneous, by the
way. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief when he told them to go because
we knew they would follow him.
JG: That’s quite a turnaround. What triggered all of this?
MA: Can I get in the weeds of Shia political authority for a
bit? Muqtada al-Sadr, although he wears a turban and looks very much
like a cleric, doesn’t have the clerical authority to become a spiritual
guide for Shia.
Shia Muslims have to find a particular high-ranking
cleric who is able to direct them in personal matters, social matters,
and sometimes even political matters. In order to become that person,
though, you have to go through a lot of training and reach this level,
where you become an ayatollah essentially. Muqtada’s father, who formed
the base of the Sadrist movement that we see today, he was both an
ayatollah and a social-movement leader.
Muqtada inherited this movement but couldn’t fill in that
void of being a spiritual guide. The person who stepped in was someone
named Kadhim al-Haeri, who was a student of his father’s and who became
the spiritual guide for Muqtada and the movement. Him and Muqtada have
had an on-and-off relationship; there were points of disagreement. But
prior to Muqtada’s tweet, and what really prompts the tweet, is that
last week Haeri releases a statement — keep in mind, he lives in Iran
right now — and in the statement, there’s two things that are important.
First, he makes the unprecedented move of abandoning his
office and saying he no longer wants to be a spiritual guide for anyone,
and that if any of his followers are looking for where to go next, they
should go to Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran. This is
unprecedented in the Shia religious establishment; no one gives up their
position as a spiritual guide and tells someone to go elsewhere. And
it’s very strange why it’s Khamenei who he picks to be the next
spiritual guide. This is the first blow in the statement for Muqtada
al-Sadr, who built his entire movement around being an Iraqi nationalist
and anti-Iranian, to be told that he and his followers should turn to
Khamenei.
The second big blow is Haeri criticizes Muqtada in the
statement. He says that he is not a true inheritor of the legacy of the
Sadr family, this illustrious family of clerics who has been involved in
Iraq for decades. He also says that Muqtada al-Sadr is creating this
strife and chaos and a lot of tension among the Shia. He never says
[Sadr’s] name, by the way, but it’s very clear who he’s talking about.
And this letter must be a slap in the face to Muqtada
al-Sadr, to be so criticized by someone so close to your father, that
the next day we see this response. So that’s the trigger point.
JG: Many observers in Washington frame all of this
around Iran. And obviously, we’re talking about a very influential
cleric who is based in Iran, but you’re saying a lot of this has much
more to do with Iraqi domestic politics and the complexities of a
parliamentary system in a post-civil war country than with outside
powers?
MA: I think the simplicity around the Iran rhetoric is that
everyone looks at this conflict as though Sadr was this anti-Iranian
hero, and the Coordination Framework are the pro-Iranian villains — when
in reality, everyone in the story is a villain. Everyone’s relationship
with Iran is very complicated. The relationship that’s often portrayed
to exist between Iraq and Iran is very much simplified.
To take Muqtada al-Sadr as an example: In many of my
meetings and conversations with the Western diplomats, I’m astounded by
the degree to which they want to believe that Muqtada al-Sadr will be an
anti-Iranian force in Iraq, completely forgetting his violent history
against Iraqis, against Americans, and how at the time, he was supported
by Iran in those endeavors. Now, I expect them to look away as Iran
seems responsible for manipulating Sadr to end the violence. I think
they are misunderstanding Sadr’s intentions in being anti-Iranian. He is
just trying to capitalize on popular sentiments in Iraq that are
anti-Iranian.
There’s also a simplistic narrative around the
Coordination Framework that they’re all pro-Iranian militias, when in
fact, in the Coordination Framework, you have someone like Haider
al-Abadi, the former prime minister during the ISIS war who was close
allies with Washington, as well as Ammar al-Hakim, who was a cleric and a
politician with ties to the West. So not everyone in the Coordination
Framework is a staunch pro-Iranian politician, and Muqtada al-Sadr isn’t
reliably anti-Iranian either.
Regardless of all that, what I find really mystifying is
the willingness to allow Iraq to burn just so that Iran would lose a
little bit of influence, when there is another opportunity to build on
the civil society in Iraq, on the protest movement in Iraq that produced
new members of Parliament and that produced independent MPs, and to
actually support them because they represent the Iraqi street. Actually,
they’re anti-Iranian too, but they don’t do it in a way that invites
violence and confrontation, but they do it in a way that places Iraq’s
interest front and center.
It's an intelligent
discussion that deals with reality. She also offers her feeling on the
future. She's probably right there as well. I disagree but I may be
too hopeful. She, for instance, feels that the next vote will be see
either the same low turnout or maybe even worse. I don't see that. I
see a higher turnout and, yes, that is based in part on what I hear from
people who were members of The October Revolution. Many of them sat
out the election due to the corruption. Their attitudes now are about
developing politicians to run in the next election, taking part in the
next election. (These are a small number of members of The October
Revolution and our communications are as individuals -- they are not
speaking on behalf of the movement.) I may be giving too much weight to
that outcome because, historically, it is the natural outcome.
Moqtada's
violence has now spread to Basra. All of Iraq is watching. The
October Revolution had a large number of potenial voters who sat out the
election. These young Shi'ites sitting it out weren't the only ones.
And as they see the violence in Baghdad and now in Basra, I also believe
that they will be more likely to show up and vote. Again, I could be
wrong.
The occupation of the Parliament triggered a large
response that the western media ignored. A large number of Iraqis were
outraged by both the occupation of the Parliament and what they saw as
the disrespect taking place during the occupation.
Again, I could be wrong about what would happen at the next election.
Read her observations and insight. She's probably more on the mark than I am.
MEMO notes:
The leader of Iraq's Iran-backed
Asaib Ahl Al-Haq militia, Qais Al-Khazali, yesterday ordered the
closure of the militia's offices across the country following violent
clashes that erupted in the southern city of Basra during which four
people were killed.
In a statement posted on
Twitter, Al-Khazali ordered the closure of the militia's offices until
further notice and called on his followers not to respond to any
provocations.
Earlier yesterday, Reuters reported that four men,
including two members of Saraya Al-Salam, an armed faction linked to
Shia cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr, were killed in clashes among rival Shia
Muslim militants in the southern Iraqi city of Basra.
OIL PRICE notes, "Violence in Baghdad is one thing, and has the potential to mildly
move markets as fears increase of threats to the oil industry in OPEC’s
second-largest producer nation. Violence in Basra–the heart of Iraqi
oil–is quite another thing. This is not a separate incident from
what has happened in Baghdad, and that is significant. This is a
spreading of the political unrest in Baghdad as rival Shi’ite groups vie
for power."
Meanwhile, The October Revolution is back in the streets:
