The Third Estate Sunday Review focuses on politics and culture. We're an online magazine. We don't play nice and we don't kiss butt. In the words of Tuesday Weld: "I do not ever want to be a huge star. Do you think I want a success? I refused "Bonnie and Clyde" because I was nursing at the time but also because deep down I knew that it was going to be a huge success. The same was true of "Bob and Carol and Fred and Sue" or whatever it was called. It reeked of success."
"The President Has No Mandate to Bomb Iraq or Syria"
June
21, 2014 (EIRNS)—The above headline on a truthout.org article late June
20 accurately reflects the import of a number of stunning defeats
suffered by the President’s policies at the hands of large numbers of
members of the House of Representatives, who aren’t willing to give him
the authority to bomb Iraq or Syria into oblivion.
On
June 19, an amendment by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Rep. Ted Yoho
(R-Fla.) prohibiting the transfer of man-portable air defense systems
(MANPADs) to Syrian rebels passed by a voice vote. In his arguments,
Conyers pointed to media reports that MANPADs could end up in the hands
of terrorists who would use them against Western targets, especially
against airliners. An
amendment introduced by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), which would
have blocked all U.S. weaponry for Syrian rebels, failed to pass by a
vote of 167 to 244, although an earlier amendment with much the same
content, lost by a much smaller margin.
Also
passing by voice vote June 19 was the amendment by Democratic Rep.
Colleen Hanabusa of Hawaii, a member of the House Armed Services
Committee. It states that none of the funds made available in the Defense Appropriations bill
"may
be used with respect to Iraq in contravention of the War Powers
Resolution ... including for the introduction of United States forces
into hostilities in Iraq, into situations in Iraq where imminent where
imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
circumstances, or into Iraqi territory, airspace, or waters while
equipped for combat, in contravention of the congressional consultation
and reporting requirements of sections 3 and 4 of such Resolution."
Senator Patty Murray (above) is the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee and
serves on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office issued the
following:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Murray Press Office
Friday, June 20, 2014 (202)
224-2834
LGBT/VETERANS: Murray Statement on LGBT Benefits Expansion
Despite expansion, gaps still remain for those seeking Social Security benefits
Murray’s
SAME Act named by administration as legislative fix
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), author of the
Social Security and Marriage Equality (SAME) Act, released the following statement after the Obama administration
announced the expansion
of several federal benefits and obligations to married, same-sex
couples. The announcement comes after the Department of Justice
completed their year-long review of
potential legal barriers to these benefits after the Supreme Court
struck down Section 3 of the
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
However,
the report indicates that obstacles still remain for certain couples
seeking benefits from the Veterans or Social Security Administration.
In a memo to President
Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder noted the need for Congress to pass
Senator Murray’s
SAME Act in order to extend full Social Security benefits to married, same-sex couples.
“As we near the one-year anniversary of the historic Supreme Court ruling striking down
DOMA,
today’s news is one of relief and celebration for many of the
committed, same-sex couples across America whose lives have been put on
hold waiting for this report. These
couples, many of them our nation’s heroes, will no longer have to face
uncertainty while caring for or mourning the loss of a loved one.
“However,
I am disappointed there are still many couples seeking Social Security
benefits who will continue to be viewed as second-class citizens in the
eyes of the
law. Your zip code should not determine whether or not your family will
have the means to survive after the death of a spouse, and it shouldn’t
prevent your family from getting the benefits you have earned.
“While I believe the administration had the ability to include these benefits in today’s announcement, my
SAME Act
now provides a legislative roadmap to finally provide these benefits to
all couples, regardless of where they live. This seemingly subjective
denial spousal benefit
claims places an economic and emotional burden on the families of
legally married same-sex couples, and it is inconsistent with the
practice of other federal departments and agencies.
“In
the coming days I will be working with my colleagues in the House and
the Senate to get this job done. I also urge the administration to
continue holding the applications
of those who have applied for Social Security benefits until Congress
or the courts act to fix this unfortunate gap in benefits.”
In May, Senators Murray and Mark Udall (D-CO)
introduced the SAME Act to amend the Social Security Act
in order to provide full benefits to married, same-sex couples
regardless of where they live. Eligibility for spousal benefits provided
under the
Social Security Act are determined by a place of residence
standard. This standard has resulted in applications for Social Security
benefits for legally married same-sex spouses living in states that do
not recognize same-sex marriage being placed on
hold. Representative Ron Kind (D-WI) introduced the companion
legislation in the House of Representatives.
In March of last year, Senator Murray, a senior member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee,
led a letter to Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki
calling for an expedited waiver process granting same-sex veterans and
their spouses burial rights in national cemeteries. Today’s announcement
also included directive that the VA Acting
Secretary will
“exercise his broad statutory discretion in the area of burial benefits
to designate any individual in a committed relationship for burial in a
national cemetery, which will allow for the inclusion of same-sex
spouses where the domicile provision would otherwise govern.”
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. I just met with my
national security team to discuss the situation in Iraq. We’ve been
meeting regularly to review the situation since ISIL, a terrorist
organization that operates in Iraq and Syria, made advances inside of
Iraq. As I said last week, ISIL poses a threat to the Iraqi people, to
the region, and to U.S. interests. So today I wanted to provide you an
update on how we’re responding to the situation.
First, we are working to secure our embassy and personnel operating
inside of Iraq. As President, I have no greater priority than the
safety of our men and women serving overseas. So I’ve taken some steps
to relocate some of our embassy personnel, and we’ve sent reinforcements
to better secure our facilities.
Second, at my direction, we have significantly increased our
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets so that we’ve got a
better picture of what’s taking place inside of Iraq. And this will
give us a greater understanding of what ISIL is doing, where it’s
located, and how we might support efforts to counter this threat.
Third, the United States will continue to increase our support to
Iraqi security forces. We’re prepared to create joint operation centers
in Baghdad and northern Iraq to share intelligence and coordinate
planning to confront the terrorist threat of ISIL. Through our new
Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, we’re prepared to work with Congress
to provide additional equipment. We have had advisors in Iraq through
our embassy, and we’re prepared to send a small number of additional
American military advisors -- up to 300 -- to assess how we can best
train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces going forward.
American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq, but we will
help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi
people, the region, and American interests as well.
Fourth, in recent days, we’ve positioned additional U.S. military
assets in the region. Because of our increased intelligence resources,
we’re developing more information about potential targets associated
with ISIL. And going forward, we will be prepared to take targeted and
precise military action, if and when we determine that the situation on
the ground requires it. If we do, I will consult closely with Congress
and leaders in Iraq and in the region.
I want to emphasize, though, that the best and most effective
response to a threat like ISIL will ultimately involve partnerships
where local forces, like Iraqis, take the lead.
Finally, the United States will lead a diplomatic effort to work with
Iraqi leaders and the countries in the region to support stability in
Iraq. At my direction, Secretary Kerry will depart this weekend for
meetings in the Middle East and Europe, where he’ll be able to consult
with our allies and partners. And just as all Iraq’s neighbors must
respect Iraq’s territorial integrity, all of Iraq’s neighbors have a
vital interest in ensuring that Iraq does not descend into civil war or
become a safe haven for terrorists.
Above all, Iraqi leaders must rise above their differences and come
together around a political plan for Iraq’s future. Shia, Sunni, Kurds
-- all Iraqis -- must have confidence that they can advance their
interests and aspirations through the political process rather than
through violence. National unity meetings have to go forward to build
consensus across Iraq’s different communities. Now that the results of
Iraq’s recent election has been certified, a new parliament should
convene as soon as possible. The formation of a new government will be
an opportunity to begin a genuine dialogue and forge a government that
represents the legitimate interests of all Iraqis.
Now, it’s not the place for the United States to choose Iraq’s
leaders. It is clear, though, that only leaders that can govern with an
inclusive agenda are going to be able to truly bring the Iraqi people
together and help them through this crisis. Meanwhile, the United
States will not pursue military options that support one sect inside of
Iraq at the expense of another. There’s no military solution inside of
Iraq, certainly not one that is led by the United States. But there is
an urgent need for an inclusive political process, a more capable Iraqi
security force, and counterterrorism efforts that deny groups like ISIL a
safe haven.
In closing, recent days have reminded us of the deep scars left by
America’s war in Iraq. Alongside the loss of nearly 4,500 American
patriots, many veterans carry the wounds of that war, and will for the
rest of their lives. Here at home, Iraq sparked vigorous debates and
intense emotions in the past, and we’ve seen some of those debates
resurface.
But what’s clear from the last decade is the need for the United
States to ask hard questions before we take action abroad, particularly
military action. The most important question we should all be asking,
the issue that we have to keep front and center -- the issue that I keep
front and center -- is what is in the national security interests of
the United States of America. As Commander-in-Chief, that’s what I stay
focused on. As Americans, that’s what all of us should be focused on.
And going forward, we will continue to consult closely with
Congress. We will keep the American people informed. We will remain
vigilant. And we will continue to do everything in our power to protect
the security of the United States and the safety of the American
people.
So with that, I’m going to take a couple of questions. I’ll start with Colleen McCain Nelson of the Wall Street Journal.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Do you have any confidence in Prime
Minister Maliki at this point? And can Maliki bring political stability
to Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: As I said, it’s not our job to choose Iraq’s
leaders. Part of what our patriots fought for during many years in Iraq
was the right and the opportunity for Iraqis to determine their own
destiny and choose their own leaders. But I don’t think there’s any
secret that right now at least there is deep divisions between Sunni,
Shia and Kurdish leaders. And as long as those deep divisions continue
or worsen, it’s going to be very hard for an Iraqi central government to
direct an Iraqi military to deal with these threats.
And so we’ve consulted with Prime Minister Maliki, and we’ve said
that to him privately. We’ve said it publicly that whether he is prime
minister, or any other leader aspires to lead the country, that it has
to be an agenda in which Sunni, Shia and Kurd all feel that they have
the opportunity to advance their interests through the political
process. And we’ve seen over the last two years, actually dating back
to 2008, 2009 -- but I think worse over the last two years -- the sense
among Sunnis that their interests were not being served, that
legislation that had been promised around, for example,
De-Ba’athification had been stalled.
I think that you hear similar complaints that the government in
Baghdad has not sufficiently reached out to some of the tribes and been
able to bring them in to a process that gives them a sense of being part
of a unity government or a single nation-state. And that has to be
worked through.
Part of the reason why we saw better-equipped Iraqi security forces
with larger numbers not be able to hold contested territory against ISIL
probably reflects that lack of a sense of commitment on the part of
Sunni communities to work with Baghdad. And that has to be fixed if
we’re going to get through this crisis.
Jim Acosta.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Americans may look at this decision
that you’re making today as a sneak preview of coming attractions; that
the number of advisors that you’re planning to send in may just be the
beginning of a boots-on-the-ground scenario down the road. Why is
Iraq’s civil war in the national security interests of the United
States? And are you concerned about the potential for mission creep?
THE PRESIDENT: I think we always have to guard against mission
creep, so let me repeat what I’ve said in the past: American combat
troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again.
We do not have the ability to simply solve this problem by sending in
tens of thousands of troops and committing the kinds of blood and
treasure that has already been expended in Iraq. Ultimately, this is
something that is going to have to be solved by the Iraqis.
It is in our national security interests not to see an all-out civil
war inside of Iraq, not just for humanitarian reasons, but because that
ultimately can be destabilizing throughout the region. And in addition
to having strong allies there that we are committed to protecting,
obviously issues like energy and global energy markets continues to be
important.
We also have an interest in making sure that we don’t have a safe
haven that continues to grow for ISIL and other extremist jihadist
groups who could use that as a base of operations for planning and
targeting ourselves, our personnel overseas, and eventually the
homeland. And if they accumulate more money, they accumulate more
ammunition, more military capability, larger numbers, that poses great
dangers not just to allies of ours like Jordan, which is very close by,
but it also poses a great danger potentially to Europe and ultimately
the United States.
We have already seen inside of Syria that -- or groups like ISIL that
right now are fighting with other extremist groups, or an Assad regime
that was non-responsive to a Sunni majority there, that that has
attracted more and more jihadists or would-be jihadists, some of them
from Europe. They then start traveling back to Europe, and that, over
time, can create a cadre of terrorists that could harm us.
So we have humanitarian interests in preventing bloodshed. We have
strategic interests in stability in the region. We have
counterterrorism interests. All those have to be addressed.
The initial effort for us to get situational awareness through the
reconnaissance and surveillance that we’ve already done, coupled with
some of our best people on the ground doing assessments of exactly what
the situation is -- starting, by the way, with the perimeter around
Baghdad and making sure that that's not overrun -- that's a good
investment for us to make. But that does not foreshadow a larger
commitment of troops to actually fight in Iraq. That would not be
effective in meeting the core interests that we have.
Q Just very quickly, do you wish you had left a residual force in Iraq? Any regrets about that decision in 2011?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me;
that was a decision made by the Iraqi government. We offered a modest
residual force to help continue to train and advise Iraqi security
forces. We had a core requirement which we require in any situation
where we have U.S. troops overseas, and that is, is that they're
provided immunity since they're being invited by the sovereign
government there, so that if, for example, they end up acting in
self-defense if they are attacked and find themselves in a tough
situation, that they're not somehow hauled before a foreign court.
That's a core requirement that we have for U.S. troop presence
anywhere.
The Iraqi government and Prime Minister Maliki declined to provide us
that immunity. And so I think it is important though to recognize
that, despite that decision, that we have continued to provide them with
very intensive advice and support and have continued throughout this
process over the last five years to not only offer them our assistance
militarily, but we’ve also continued to urge the kinds of political
compromises that we think are ultimately necessary in order for them to
have a functioning, multi-sectarian democracy inside the country.
Juliet Eilperin.
Q Mr. President, you just mentioned Syria a moment ago. The
United States has been slow to provide significant weapons and training
directly to the Syrian opposition. Has the expansion of the Syria war
into Iraq changed your mind about the type of weapons and training we’re
now willing to give the opposition there? Is that what prompted
Secretary Kerry to say of Syria, “We are augmenting our assistance in
significant ways”? And can you elaborate on what you are you doing now
that you weren’t doing before?
THE PRESIDENT: That assessment about the dangers of what was
happening in Syria have existed since the very beginning of the Syrian
civil war. The question has never been whether we thought this was a
serious problem. The question has always been, is there the capacity of
moderate opposition on the ground to absorb and counteract extremists
that might have been pouring in, as well as an Assad regime supported by
Iran and Russia that outmanned them and was ruthless.
And so we have consistently provided that opposition with support.
Oftentimes, the challenge is if you have former farmers or teachers or
pharmacists who now are taking up opposition against a battle-hardened
regime, with support from external actors that have a lot at stake, how
quickly can you get them trained; how effective are you able to mobilize
them. And that continues to be a challenge. And even before the
situation that we saw with ISIL going into Iraq, we had already tried to
maximize what we could do to support a moderate opposition that not
only can counteract the brutality of Assad, but also can make sure that
in the minds of Sunnis they don't think that their only alternative is
either Mr. Assad or extremist groups like ISIL or al Nusra.
Q And can you speak to what you might be doing differently, as the Secretary of State alluded to?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that the key to both Syria and Iraq is
going to be a combination of what happens inside the country working
with the moderate Syrian opposition, working with an Iraqi government
that is inclusive, and us laying down a more effective counterterrorism
platform that gets all the countries in the region pulling in the same
direction. And I alluded to this in the West Point speech. I talked
about it today with respect to the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund.
There is going to be a long-term problem in this region in which we
have to build and partner with countries that are committed to our
interests, our values. And at the same time, we have immediate problems
with terrorist organizations that may be advancing. And rather than
try to play Whac-a-Mole wherever these terrorist organizations may pop
up, what we have to do is to be able to build effective partnerships,
make sure that they have capacity. Some of the assets that have been
devoted solely to Afghanistan over the last decade we’ve got to shift to
make sure that we have coverage in the Middle East and North Africa.
You look at a country like Yemen -- a very impoverished country and
one that has its own sectarian or ethnic divisions -- there, we do have a
committed partner in President Hadi and his government. And we have
been able to help to develop their capacities without putting large
numbers of U.S. troops on the ground at the same time as we’ve got
enough CT, or counterterrorism capabilities that we’re able to go after
folks that might try to hit our embassy or might be trying to export
terrorism into Europe or the United States.
And looking at how we can create more of those models is going to be
part of the solution in dealing with both Syria and Iraq. But in order
for us to do that, we still need to have actual governments on the
ground that we can partner with and that we’ve got some confidence are
going to pursue the political policies of inclusiveness. In Yemen, for
example, a wide-ranging national dialogue that took a long time, but
helped to give people a sense that there is a legitimate political
outlet for grievances that they may have.
Peter Maer.
Q Thank you, sir. Going back to where you see Prime Minister
al-Maliki playing a role at this point, you said that it’s a time to
rise above differences, that there’s a need for more inclusive
government. Is he a unifier? And how much clout does the United States
ultimately have with any of the leadership in Iraq at this point
really?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we still provide them significant assistance. I
think they recognize that, unlike some other players in the region, we
don’t have territorial ambitions in their country. We’re not looking to
control their assets or their energy. We want to make sure that we’re
vindicating the enormous effort and sacrifice that was made by our
troops in giving them an opportunity to build a stable, inclusive
society that can prosper and deliver for the basic needs and aspirations
of the Iraqi people.
And at the same time, they are a sovereign country. They have their
own politics. And what we have tried to do is to give them our best
advice about how they can solve their political problems. Now that they
are in crisis, we are indicating to them that there is not going to be a
simple military solution to this issue. If you start seeing the
various groups inside of Iraq simply go to their respective corners,
then it is almost certain that Baghdad and the central government will
not be able to control huge chunks of their own country. The only way
they can do that is if there are credible Sunni leaders, both at the
national level and at the local level, who have confidence that a Shia
majority, that the Kurds, that all those folks are committed to a fair
and just governance of the country.
Right now, that doesn’t exist. There’s too much suspicion, there’s
too much mistrust. And the good news is that an election took place in
which despite all this mistrust, despite all this frustration, despite
all this anger, you still had millions of Iraqis turn out -- in some
cases, in very dangerous circumstances. You now have a court that has
certified those elections, and you have a constitutional process to
advance government formation.
So far, at least, the one bit of encouraging news that we’ve seen
inside of Iraq is that all the parties have said they continue to be
committed to choosing a leadership and a government through the existing
constitutional order.
So what you’re seeing I think is, as the prospects of civil war
heighten, many Iraq leaders stepping back and saying, let’s not plunge
back into the abyss; let’s see if we can resolve this politically. But
they don’t have a lot of time. And you have a group like ISIL that is
doing everything that it can to descend the country back into chaos.
And so one of the messages that we had for Prime Minister Maliki but
also for the Speaker of the House and the other leadership inside of
Iraq is, get going on this government formation. It’ll make it a lot
easier for them to shape a military strategy. It’ll also make it
possible for us to partner much more effectively than we can currently.
Q Given the Prime Minister’s track record, is he a unifier? Can
he play that role after what we’ve seen play out over the last couple of
weeks is brought into play?
THE PRESIDENT: I think the test is before him and other Iraqi
leaders as we speak. Right now, they can make a series of decisions.
Regardless of what’s happened in the past, right now is a moment where
the fate of Iraq hangs in the balance, and the test for all of them is
going to be whether they can overcome the mistrust, the deep sectarian
divisions, in some cases just political opportunism, and say this is
bigger than any one of us and we’ve got to make sure that we do what’s
right for the Iraqi people. And that’s a challenge.
That’s not something that the United States can do for them. That’s
not something, by the way, that the United States Armed Forces can do
for them. We can provide them the space, we can provide them the
tools. But ultimately, they’re going to have to make those decisions.
In the meantime, my job is to make sure that American personnel there
are safe; that we are consulting with the Iraqi security forces; that
we’re getting a better assessment of what’s on the ground; and that
we’re recognizing the dangers of ISIL over the long term, and developing
the kinds of comprehensive counterterrorism strategies that we’re going
to need to deal with this issue. And that’s going to involve some
short-term responses to make sure that ISIL is not obtaining capacity to
endanger us directly or our allies and partners. But it also is going
to require some long-term strategies, as well.
Because part of what we’ve with respect to ISIL is a broader trend
that I talked about at West Point -- rather than a single network, a
discreet network of terrorists, this fluid combination of hardened
terrorists, disaffected local leadership. And where there’s vacuums,
they’re filling it and creating the potential for serious danger for all
concerned.
Thank you very much.
Q On Iran, Mr. President, any words on what you’re willing to do, and are you also willing to work with them?
THE PRESIDENT: Our view is that Iran can play a constructive role if
it is helping to send the same message to the Iraqi government that
we’re sending, which is that Iraq only holds together if it’s inclusive
and that if the interests of Sunni, Shia and Kurd are all respected. If
Iran is coming in solely as an armed force on behalf of the Shia, and
if it is framed in that fashion, then that probably worsens the
situation and the prospect for government formation that would actually
be constructive over the long term.
Q What’s your sense of that right now?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that just as Iraq’s leaders have to
make decisions, I think Iran has heard from us. We’ve indicated to them
that it is important for them to avoid steps that might encourage the
kind of sectarian splits that might lead to civil war.
And the one thing that I think has to be emphasized -- we have deep
differences with Iran across the board on a whole host of issues.
Obviously, what’s happened in Syria in part is the result of Iran coming
in hot and heavy on one side. And Iran obviously should consider the
fact that if its view of the region is solely through sectarian frames,
they could find themselves fighting in a whole lot of places. And
that’s probably not good for the Iranian economy or the Iranian people
over the long term either. I suspect there are folks in Iran who
recognize that. A Iraq in chaos on their borders is probably not in
their interests. But old habits die hard, and we’ll have to see whether
they can take what I think would be a more promising path over the next
several days.
Thank you very much, everybody.
CONTACT: Gretchen Andersen (212) 982-9699 or press@iava.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Corporal William "Kyle" Carpenter, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret) Receives Medal of Honor
Carpenter is the eighth living Medal of Honor recipient from post-9/11 wars
New York, NY (June 19, 2014)
– President Barack Obama awarded the Medal of Honor, the nation’s
highest military award, to Corporal William "Kyle" Carpenter, U.S.
Marine Corps (Ret), for conspicuous gallantry. Corporal Carpenter
received the Medal of Honor for his courageous actions while serving as
an Automatic Rifleman with Company F, 2d Battalion, 9th Marines,
Regimental Combat Team 1, 1st Marine Division (Forward), I Marine
Expeditionary Force (Forward), in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Iraq
and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) joins a grateful nation in
honoring Corporal Carpenter for receiving the Medal of Honor. “IAVA
congratulates Corporal Kyle Carpenter on this momentous honor,” said
IAVA CEO and Founder Paul Rieckhoff. “His incredible bravery and
selflessness to protect his fellow Marines serves as just one example of
the heroism exemplified by our New Greatest Generation of veterans. For
the past few weeks, our community has been learning about the upsetting
news concerning Iraq and the VA scandal. Carpenter’s story serves as an
inspiring shot of hope. IAVA members across the world are inspired by
Carpenter's leadership, courage and tenacity. And we look forward to
watching him continue to inspire for the rest of his life.” Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (www.IAVA.org)
is the nation's first and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
representing veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan and has more than 270,000
Member Veterans and civilian supporters nationwide. Celebrating its 10th
year anniversary, IAVA recently received the highest rating -
four-stars - from Charity Navigator, America's largest charity
evaluator.
So far we have spent years trying to get Maliki to be more democratic, not be oppresive and exclusionary to the Sunnis. We've basically driven these Sunnis into the arms of the radicals. So what make us think that with American help, American airstrikes, more military equipment from the US that he'll change at all.
Well Maliki never even appointed a Minister of Defense. He ran it all from his office there in Baghdad. He replaced good generals with bad generals. He starved the troops for a lot of the things they needed. And he alienated the Sunni components of the military and even the Shia components of the military to the point where they no longer felt the kind of loyalty to Maliki and the government in Baghdad necessary for soldiers to fight. And this is a consequence of the mismanagement of the government and the corruption of Maliki and we are obviously paying a big price for that.
Ava and C.I. cover pretty much everything. I can't imagine any other media critique this week will critique as many programs as they cover here. What they find is no real change in the way Iraq is covered from the way it was in the pre-war coverage.
Jim, Dona, Jess, Ty, "Ava" started out this site as five students enrolled in journalism in NY. Now? We're still students. We're in CA. Journalism? The majority scoffs at the notion.
From the start, at the very start, C.I. of The Common Ills has helped with the writing here. C.I.'s part of our core six/gang. (C.I. and Ava write the TV commentaries by themselves.) So that's the six of us. We also credit Dallas as our link locator, soundboard and much more. We try to remember to thank him each week (don't always remember to note it here) but we'll note him in this. So this is a site by the gang/core six: Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I. (of The Common Ills).
