25.4.07

Jessica Lynch Sets the Story Straight

Setting the Record Straight

Jessica Lynch tells Congress what really happened to her in Iraq.

Lynch arrives to testify before Congress on April 24
Susan Walsh / AP
Lynch arrives to testify before Congress on April 24

By Julie Scelfo
Newsweek
Updated: 42 minutes ago

April 24, 2007 - Jessica Lynch became a national hero in 2003 after she was dramatically rescued by a team of Special Ops soldiers from an Iraqi hospital where she was believed to be a prisoner of war. Her story was compelling not only because she was a 19-year-old supply-unit clerk who had stumbled into an attack during convoy travel with her unit, but because she was portrayed by military authorities as having valiantly fought back against her attackers even as her unit was surrounded and her comrades were killed and injured. The legend quickly unraveled, however, after Lynch returned to the States, recuperated from her substantial injuries (broken arm and leg bones, damage to her back and kidneys, and a six-inch laceration to her head) and began to speak out about what had really happened. Today, Lynch testified before a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing probing the source of misleading information about Lynch and about the death of Army Ranger Specialist Patrick Tillman in Afghanistan. NEWSWEEK's Julie Scelfo spoke with Lynch, who turns 24 on April 26, about her experiences.

Excerpts:


NEWSWEEK: Why did you decide to testify?
Jessica Lynch:
Mainly it was about me just getting out the truth. I’ve spent the past four years trying to tell everybody the real truth, and not the stories they put together. They were false, ya know?

What was the greatest misinformation about you?
The whole Rambo story, that I went down fighting. It just wasn’t the truth.

So what really happened?
I didn’t even get a shot off. My weapon had jammed. And I didn’t even get to fire. A rocket-propelled grenade hit the back of our [Humvee], which made Lori [Piestewa], my friend, lose control of the vehicle, and we slammed into the back of another truck in our unit.

Who is to blame for spreading the misinformation?
Well, I think really the military and the media. The military, for not setting the record straight and the media for spreading it, and not seeking the true facts. They just ran with it instead of waiting until the facts were straightened out.

What do you hope Congress achieves with today’s hearing?
I hope it [helps] the Tillman family get the accurate information that they deserve. They need to know what happened to their son and why they were lied to.

Do you feel like this is a pattern, misinformation from the military?
Well, it kind of seems like that’s the way it’s been happening. I hope they can learn from mistakes and correct this and not let other family members and soldiers have to deal with the things that my family and I went through.

What was the hardest part of having misinformation spread?
Knowing that it wasn’t the truth. I just, I had to get [the truth] out there. I wouldn’t have been able to live with myself knowing that’s not exactly how it happened.

You said during your testimony you weren’t there for political reasons. But do you have an opinion about how the administration used your story and Tillman’s story for political gain?
I don’t know because there’s no way of knowing why this stuff was even created in the first place. Only the people who created it would have the answers.

So how is your recovery going?
I still have a lot of problems, a lot of injuries. I will probably never heal or be the same again. But I’m OK with it, and I’ve learned to cope with it in my own way.

You said in your testimony that Iraqi nurses actually tried to return you once to the Americans. What happened?
We were fired upon, and [the] driver of the ambulance had to turn around and brought me back to the hospital.

So the Iraqis were trying to return you?
Yeah, hopefully that’s what they were doing. That’s what I was told they were doing. We were headed to a checkpoint and we were fired upon.

If the Iraqis wanted to give you back, why did the military stage a big rescue? Couldn’t they just knock on the hospital door?
I don’t know. I hope that they had my interests in mind, and were wanting to get me out of there.

Do you feel like you were exploited by the military?
No, I don’t. I felt sort of like that in the beginning, yes. But now, four years later, I don’t.

During today’s testimony Pat Tillman’s brother, Kevin, says he feels his brother’s death was “exploited” for political reasons.
I agree, they did that in a way. Pat Tillman's situation was similar to mine but completely different. He didn’t have the opportunity to come home and tell the truth and set the record straight like I did.

1.4.07

Fallujah Fears a 'Genocidal Strategy'

Inter Press Service
Ali al-Fadhily*

FALLUJAH, Mar 30 (IPS) - Iraqis in the volatile al-Anbar province west of Baghdad are reporting regular killings carried out by U.S. forces that many believe are part of a 'genocidal' strategy.

Since the mysterious explosion at the Shia al-Askari shrine in Samara in February last year, more than 100 Iraqis have been killed daily on average, without any forceful action by the Iraqi government and the U.S. military to stop the killings.

U.S. troops and Iraqi security forces working with them are also executing people seized during home raids and other operations, residents say.

"Seventeen young men were found executed after they were arrested by U.S. troops and Fallujah police," 40-year-old Yassen of Fallujah told IPS. "My two sons have been detained by police, and I am terrified that they will have the same fate. They are only 17 and 18 years old."

Residents of Fallujah say the local police detention centre holds hundreds of men, who have had no legal representation.

Others are killed by random fire that has long become routine for U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. Sa'ad, a 25-year-old from the al-Thubbat area of western Fallujah was killed in such firing.

"The poor guy kept running home every time he saw U.S. soldiers," a man from his neighbourhood, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS. "He used to say: Go inside or the Americans will kill you." Sa'ad is said by neighbours to have developed a mental disability.

He was recently shot and killed by U.S. soldiers when they opened fire after their patrol was struck by a roadside bomb.

Last week, U.S. military fire severely damaged the highest minaret in Fallujah after three soldiers were killed in an attack. What was seen as reprisal fire on the minaret has angered residents.

"They hate us because we are Muslims, and no one can argue with that any more," 65- year-old Abu Fayssal who witnessed the event told IPS. "They say they are fighting al- Qeada but they are only capable of killing our sons with their genocidal campaign and destroying our mosques."

Others believe occupation forces have another sinister strategy.

"It is our people killing each other now as planned by the Americans," Abdul Sattar, a 45- year-old lawyer and human rights activist in Fallujah told IPS. "They recruited Saddam's security men to control the situation by well-known methods like hanging people by their legs and electrifying them in order to get information. Now they are executing them without trial."

IPS has obtained photographs of an elderly man who residents say was executed last month by U.S. soldiers.

"Last month was full of horrifying events," a retired police officer from Fallujah told IPS. "Three men were executed by American soldiers in the al-Bu Issa tribal area just outside Fallujah. One of them was 70 years old and known as a very good man, and the others were his relatives. They were asleep when the raid was conducted."

Another three men from the same tribe were executed similarly in ar-Rutba town near the Jordanian border. Their tribe did not carry out the usual burial ceremony for fear that more people would be killed. Instead, a cousin performed a religious ceremony in Amman in Jordan.

"Seven people were executed in al-Qa'im recently, at the Syrian border," Khalid Haleem told IPS on telephone from al-Qa'im. "They were gathering at a friend's place for dinner when Americans surrounded the house, with armoured vehicles with helicopters covering them from the air. Those killed were good men and we believe the Americans were misinformed."

Adding to the violence are U.S.-backed Shia militias which regularly raid Sunni areas under the eyes of the U.S. and Iraqi army. Residents of Fallujah, Ramadi, and especially Baghdad have regularly reported to IPS over the last two years that Shia militiamen are allowed through U.S. military cordons into Sunni neighbourhoods to conduct raids.

Last month, residents report, more than 100 men aged 20 to 40 were executed by Shia militias in Iskandariya 40 km south of Baghdad and Tal Afar 350 km northwest of the capital. Another 50 were detained by the Iraqi Army's fifth division, that many believe is the biggest death squad in the country.

A U.S. military spokesperson in Baghdad told IPS that their troops "use caution and care when conducting home raids" and "in no way support Shi'ite death squads and militias."

In the face of the U.S.-backed violence, most Iraqis now openly support attacks against occupation forces.

"The genocidal Americans are paying for all that," a young man from Fallujah told IPS. "They seem to be in need of another lesson by the lions of Fallujah and Anbar." He was referring to the intensive resistance attacks in and around Fallujah that have killed dozens of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers this month.

According to the U.S. military, at least 1,194 U.S. soldiers have died in al-Anbar province since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The number is far higher than in any other province in Iraq.

(*Ali, our correspondent in Baghdad, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who travels extensively in the region)


One Picture Sits Over Differing Surveys

Inter Press Service
Ali al-Fadhily*

BAGHDAD, Mar 26 (IPS) - The two surveys, one following the other, told quite different stories about Iraq. But Iraqis did not need to look at either to know what their own story is like.

The Sunday Times of London published the results of a survey Mar. 18 carried out by the British firm Opinion Research Business that claimed that most Iraqis prefer life under the new government to life under Saddam Hussein.

Another published the same day, sponsored by USA Today newspaper, the ABC news channel in the United States, BBC and the German television network ARD, found that six in ten Iraqis thought their lives were going badly, and only a third expected anything would get better in a year's time.

But Iraqis were not looking at the surveys - they do not need to. Life around them tells its own story.

"Our government and its American friends don't know much about us," 35-year-old teacher Razzaq Ahmed from Ramadi told IPS. "All they care about is their war against al-Qaeda."

And residents say the government seems to care little about the rights of Iraqi people, their right to life itself. One event after another drives home that message to people.

The killing of 18 boys at a football field in Ramadi last month has left Iraqis fuming. Ramadi, 100 km west of Baghdad, is capital of the restive al-Anbar province.

The United Nations Children's Agency UNICEF said in a statement that "the loss of so many innocent children at play is unacceptable." A statement from the office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called the killing of the boys "a brutal act" that "reveals the ugly face of terrorists."

The killing of the boys at the football field was bad enough, but confusion arising from several contradictory statements infuriated people further. By one account the boys died after a car bomb was detonated near them. Another report said the U.S. forces set off an explosion near a football field to get rid of some material.

There is no evidence that U.S. forces were responsible for killing the boys, but the confused reports inflamed anger against them nevertheless.

"Americans say it is al-Qaeda that did it," Suha Aziz, mother of a four-year-old boy killed a year ago in U.S. military fire told IPS. "But it is their responsibility to maintain peace in Iraq, no matter who does what."

Surveys differ, but most Iraqis seem agreed now in their opposition to the U.S.-led occupation. That includes many leaders from al-Anbar who negotiated with the U.S. military earlier.

"They were only fishing for collaborators through the so-called negotiations," a Ramadi tribal chief told IPS. "The security situation is getting worse and worse and if the Americans do not kill us, then it is for sure that they cannot protect us."

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, an occupying power has a duty to ensure public order and safety in the territory under its authority. The duty attaches as soon the occupying force exercises control or authority over civilians of that territory.

International law also stipulates that the occupying force is responsible for protecting the population from violence by third parties, including newly formed armed groups.

Occupation forces have under the law the duty to ensure local security, which includes protecting persons, including minority groups and former government officials, from reprisals and revenge attacks.

U.S. troops are having a hard time protecting themselves. Al-Anbar has seen some of the strongest resistance against U.S. occupation forces. Security operations in the area, including two massive assaults on Fallujah, have done nothing to calm down the uprising. U.S. bases near Fallujah regularly face mortar attacks.

"The situation in al-Anbar province is still as bad as ever with so many players who are all armed and dangerous," Shakir Ali from Haditha, 200km west of Baghdad, told IPS. "The new militia formed by the U.S. and Iraqi authorities are trying to prove their power at the expense of our citizens."

Officials continue to paint an upbeat picture. Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, the U.S. commander in charge of Baghdad's security told reporters Mar. 20 that residents were pleased with new measures taken.

"Security has been improved, and people can get back to the business of life and not have to worry about getting in and out of their cars, going to market," Fil said. "But we've got a ways to go and we're really just on the front edge of this thing."


(*Ali, our correspondent in Baghdad, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who travels extensively in the region)


Another Casualty: Coverage of the Iraq War

Dahr Jamail | March 23, 2007

Editor: Erik Leaver, IPS and John Feffer, IRC

Foreign Policy In Focus

www.fpif.org

Iraq is the most dangerous place in the world for journalists. Along with names and dates, the Brussels Tribunal has listed the circumstances under which Iraqi media personnel have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. This extremely credible report cites 195 as dead. If non-Iraqi media representatives are included, the figure goes beyond 200. Both figures are well in excess of the media fatalities suffered in Vietnam or during World War II.

The primary reason why reporting from Iraq is dangerous for all journalists is the horrific security situation. Iraqi journalists reporting from the streets are in perpetual danger. If any of the countless militias does not want a certain story made public, it will make sure that the journalist has filed his or her last story. Not to mention the scores of reporter deaths which have been the combined handiwork of the Iraqi government, occupation forces and/or criminal gangs.

Despite President Bush’s assertion that life in Iraq is improving, a senior Iraqi journalist was found dead in the capital on March 3, 2007. On the same day the body of the managing editor of Baghdad’s al-Safir newspaper, Jamal al-Zubaidi, was found shot in the head.

The Realities of Repression

The United States continues to claim that its military operations in Iraq bring freedom and democracy. But such freedom apparently doesn’t extend to Iraqi journalists. Several journalists critical of the United States or the U.S.-backed Iraqi government have been killed. For instance, on March 4, 2007 gunmen killed prominent journalist Mohan al Zaher in his home. That Sunday, his column concluded with the lament, “...if this is the democracy that we (Iraqis) dreamt of.” His earlier articles questioned U.S. policies in Iraq.

The U.S. military has also conducted direct raids on media establishments and representatives. During the invasion, on April 8, 2003, a U.S. warplane bombed the al-Jazeera bureau in Baghdad, killing 35-year-old journalist Tareq Ayoub. Britain’s Daily Mirror later cited the “top secret” minutes of a meeting during November 2004 where George W. Bush attempted to get British Prime Minister Tony Blair to consent to the bombing of the al-Jazeera headquarters in Doha, Qatar.

More recently, on February 23, 2007, U.S. soldiers raided and ransacked the offices of the Iraq Syndicate of Journalists (ISJ) in central Baghdad. The soldiers arrested ten armed guards and seized ten computers and 15 small electricity generators meant to be donated to families of killed journalists. Youssif al-Tamimi of the ISJ in Baghdad told one of my close colleagues, “The Americans have delivered so many messages to us, but we simply ignored all of them. They killed our colleagues, shut down our newspapers, arrested hundreds of us and now they are shooting at our hearts by raiding our headquarters. This is the freedom of speech we received.” Many Iraqis believe that the U.S. soldiers were conveying from their leadership to Iraqi journalists the message of zero tolerance for criticism of the U.S.-led occupation.

The U.S.-backed Iraqi government also directly controls the media. The Coalition Provisional Authority under the U.S. administrator, L. Paul Bremer, created the Media and Communications Commission as an instrument of control. This commission, incorporated into the Iraqi constitution, regulates licensing, telecommunications, broadcasting, information services, and all other media establishments. Under the authority of this commission, in July 2004, security forces of the interim Iraqi government raided and shut down the Baghdad office of the Arabic satellite channel al-Jazeera. Initially the network faced a month-long ban on reporting out of Iraq. In November 2004 the Iraqi government announced that any al-Jazeera journalist found reporting in Iraq would be detained. Subsequently the ban was extended indefinitely and continues today.

Another instance of blatant media repression by the Iraqi state took place on November 11, 2004. During the siege of Fallujah when Iraqi journalists along with this writer were reporting the killing of civilians and the use of prohibited weapons like white phosphorous by the U.S. military, Iraq’s Media High Commission issued a warning on the official letter head of the prime minister. The letter instructed reporters to, “Stick to the government line on the U.S. led offensive in Fallujah or face legal action” and also to “set aside space in your news coverage to make the position of the Iraqi government, which expresses the aspirations of most Iraqis, clear.”

The international NGO Reporters Without Borders, which advocates freedom of the press, releases an annual worldwide press freedom index. Countries are ranked on the basis of surveys designed to record any kind of harassment of journalists and state violence against them that forces them to flee or abandon their work. In 2002, under Saddam Hussein and his draconian control of the media, Iraq ranked a dismal 130. In 2006, after three years of U.S. occupation, Iraq fell to 154. The NGO has also declared Iraq to be among the world’s worst hostage market, with 38 journalist kidnappings in three years.

Direct Manipulation

Currently there are two main channels for information on Iraq: the Pentagon and the Iraqi stringers who work for Arab media outlets. For audiences unfamiliar with Arabic or alternative news sources on Iraq, the only available news comes from daily press releases by the U.S. military that are parroted by the establishment media.

Another dubious source of information is the U.S.-sponsored Iraqi television station al-Iraqiyah that began broadcasting in May 2003. In January 2004, the U.S. Defense Department awarded the Florida-based Harris Corporation a 12-month contract to manage the Iraqi Media Network, including al-Iraqiyah, and provided the physical infrastructure for the expansion of the network.

The U.S. military also hired the Washington-based public relations firm Lincoln Group to manipulate Iraqi public opinion in favor of the United States. The group’s covert program, worth millions of dollars, included various media activities that faked independent journalism in order to conceal the fact that it was U.S. state and military propaganda. Former Lincoln Group employees claim that U.S. military officials were aware of payments to Iraqi newspapers to print pro-U.S. articles and editorials.

Such state control has a boomerang effect. False news generated for the Iraqi public in local papers also comes to the United States as “news.” This indirect state-meddling abroad, coupled with direct repression of the media at home, is also reflected in the Reporters Without Borders press freedom index. In 2002, the United States ranked 17th. In 2006, after six years of Bush administration, the rank has fallen to 56th.

Covering the War at Home

Unlike in Iraq, the problem in the United States began before the 2003 invasion. In the prestigious New York Times, Judith Miller dutifully parroted the propaganda issued by the Bush administration about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction during the lead-up to the invasion. Quoting one anonymous source after another, she became a highly effective vehicle of the Bush administration in disseminating misinformation and lies about Saddam Hussein’s possession of and attempt to acquire WMDs.

Later, during an interview with PBS Frontline conducted on July 13, 2006, in the presence of her lawyer, Miller brazenly defied criticism of her WMD coverage saying, “I didn’t feel that I had anything to apologize for with my WMD coverage.”

Once the invasion was launched, anchorman Tom Brokaw of NBC Nightly News announced to viewers nationwide, “One of the things that we don’t want to do...is to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq because in a few days we’re going to own that country.”

The Pentagon’s “embedded” program where mainstream media journalists volunteer to act as propagandists requires a journalist to sign a contract giving the military control over her or his output which amounts to total censorship. Embedding continues to this day, as does corporate ownership of the media. Together they ensure coverage of the occupation that is biased in favor of the state as the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) has exposed.

Corporate ownership of the media has much to do with the transformation of nationally televised news personalities into cheerleaders for war. Take the example of the Associated Press. Its board of directors includes the CEOs and presidents of ABC, McClatchy, Hearst, Tribune, and the Washington Post. Two of the directors belong to extremely conservative policy councils like the Hoover Institute, a Republican policy research center located on the campus of Stanford University and referred to as “Bush’s brain trust.” Douglas McCorkindale, another member of the AP board, is on the board of Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contract company. The board of AP displays a clear tilt toward right-wing conservative views, represented by a huge corporate media network of the largest publishers in the U.S.

Today in the United States, our media is more homogenized than ever. Only six corporations control the major U.S. media: Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, General Electric, Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, and Bertelsmann. These corporations also happen to be heavy financial supporters of the elite political groups (Republicans and Democrats alike) that control this country. They put politics ahead of responsible journalism.

“As news outlets fall into the hands of large conglomerates with holdings in many industries, conflicts of interest inevitably interfere with news gathering,” according to FAIR. “Independent media are essential to a democratic society, and...aggressive antitrust action must be taken to break up monopolistic media conglomerates.”

Until that happens in the United States, media coverage of Iraq is likely to worsen. As for Iraqi journalists, promises of free speech and freedom of the press--just like the earlier promises of liberation, economic opportunity, and freedom for the Iraqi people--will not materialize before the end of the U.S. occupation of the country.

Dahr Jamail has reported from inside Iraq and is a Middle East expert. He writes for Inter Press Service, The Asia Times, and is a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

Give Us Some Real Political Leaders

Inter Press Service
Ali al-Fadhily*

Read story on website

BAGHDAD, Mar 15 (IPS) - Many Iraqis are now looking to local political leadership to fill wide gaps in a fractured government that is failing to provide security and basic needs.

"Iraqis feel lost amongst too many political currents that blew their country away with their narrow sectarian and personal interests," Mohammad Jaafar, a Baghdad-based politician formerly involved in the interim government told IPS.

"I am ashamed to say that I am or even was an Iraqi politician after all the damage to our country that we caused. It is entirely our fault and there is no question about that."

Many politicians feel similarly.

"The only solution for the Iraqi dilemma is to change the whole crew of politicians including myself," Thafir al-Ani, Iraqi MP for the Sunni al-Tawafuq List told IPS earlier. "We must admit that we have failed our people, and so we should make way for newcomers who may improve the situation."

Iraqis have been confused by the turbulent political machinations since Saddam Hussein was overthrown in March 2003 following a U.S.-led invasion. Saddam had been placed in political power by a CIA-backed coup in 1968.

The Coalition Provisional Authority led by L. Paul Bremer took over the administration of Iraq after the invasion, followed by a U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council. This body was then followed by an interim government led by Iyad Allawi, a former CIA asset.

Iraqis then voted Jan. 30, 2005 to bring in a government they expected would call for a U.S. withdrawal and bring stability and security to the war-torn country.

Instead, the country burns in violence, with very little reconstruction. Much of the population lives in survival mode. This has made people angry with the current government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

"Iraqis dream of a new face who will lead them to security and prosperity -- even if he were a new dictator," Aziz Nazzal, an Iraqi analyst based in Baghdad told IPS.

"Iraqis have tried kings, communists, Arab nationalists, dictators and now Islamists, but have never found a system that could tap the huge potential of Iraq in a way that fulfills people's hopes for a developed and safe country."

Many are also frustrated with their religious leaders, most of who find a place in the current government.

"We followed our religious leaders and trusted them for four years thinking they would lead us ashore after our long sufferings," Foad Hussein, a teacher now working as a taxi driver in Baghdad told IPS. "But all we got is death and terror. They seem interested only in protecting their personal interests and their close family members."

What may emerge now as a grassroots movement is beginning to call for a shift towards local politics.

"Let's go home and do something" -- that is a call often heard now at refugee centres. Some believe the answer may lie in tribal arrangements; others want political leaders "who did not get their hands dirtied" in the current mess.

"Tribes in Iraq are not sectarian and our chiefs of tribes are the best interim solution," Mukhlis al-Bahadly from the Sadr City area of Baghdad told IPS. "They are the ones who can lead us until this country finds its way out of this mess."

There is little hope that this can happen while Iraq is occupied by the United States.

"We know who the good people are and we will choose them if we ever have the chance, but they refuse to participate in any solution under occupation," said Sheikh Jassim al- Badri, a cleric from Baghdad. "Clean hands could not eat out of the same plate with the occupation, but they will definitely take their positions as soon as the occupation leaves or some acceptable arrangement is agreed."

Rumours run of "shadow governments" being formed abroad, but Iraqis have little faith in people who fled and left them to face the situation.

General Nizar al-Khazraji, former chief of staff in the previous army, former minister for foreign affairs Naji al-Hadithi and some others are said to have formed such 'governments' abroad to replace the current government when the time comes.

No one is sure yet what, and who, will work.

"We need a leader who really cares for us," a 55-year-old teacher from Baghdad who asked to be referred to as Fatima told IPS. "They all say they love us, but where is that love? All they did was drag us into poverty and a war between our brothers."

And some have just left it to God.

"Only God can save us by giving us a man who really cares for us," said 35-year-old Jamal Hakki from the Ghazaliya district of Baghdad. "All humans in other countries are either against us or with themselves while we face our destiny on our own."


*(Ali al-Fadhily files in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our specialist writer on Iraq and the Middle East who is based in the U.S.)



Security Meet Ends, Insecurity Does Not

Inter Press Service
Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily

Read story from website

BAGHDAD, Mar 12 (IPS) - The security conference held last Saturday in Baghdad produced statements, drew mortar fire, and brought little hope of security.

The conference, which was attended by representatives from 13 countries including Syria, Iran and the United States, was held inside the heavily fortified "green zone" in central Baghdad.

Representatives from Iraq's six neighbouring countries (Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait and Syria) and delegates from the five permanent UN Security Council countries (the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France) were present along with several Arab representatives.

Iraqi President Jalal Talibani was reported to have observed the conference on video from his bed at the al-Hussein Medical City in Amman, Jordan.

International media were invited to show that the meeting was intent on bringing security to Iraq. That plan backfired after mortar shells landed within 50 metres of the conference centre, shattering glass panes in the building.

Conflict arose within the conference itself. Iran demanded a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. The United States accused Iran of assisting Shia militias.

"The whole world was there including some resistance fighters who, for the first time, responded to an Iraqi government call to attend a meeting," Yassen Abdul Rahman, a lawyer and anti-occupation activist who attended the conference told IPS.

"The heroes of the resistance were represented by the shower of mortar missiles that broke the glass that separated the conference from the reality of the situation outside."

Iraqis seemed divided over the value of the conference.

"We cannot afford to give up hope," activist on women's issues Ahlam al-Lami told IPS. "Those at that meeting are representatives of the whole world, and they are responsible for bringing back life to us. We might just give them an excuse to escape their responsibility if we say there is no hope."

Others were less optimistic.

"Those who met inside the green zone are so persistent at keeping (Iraqi Prime Minister) Nouri al-Maliki and his gang in power in Iraq that they are polishing their U.S.-made shoes with international wax for a better appearance," health expert Dr. Abdul-Salam al-Janabi told IPS.

Some Iraqi leaders accused the U.S.-backed Iraqi government at the conference of exploiting sectarian and ethnic differences to the advantage of the occupation forces.

"It is the same sectarian picture given once more by the Iraqi government," a senior staff member of the Iraqi ministry of foreign affairs told IPS.

United Iraqi Alliance leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who also leads the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shia group close to Iran, accused some Arab countries of supporting "terrorism."

In a speech before the conference, Hakim attacked Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa who had called on the UN Security Council to support a proposed amendment of the new Iraqi constitution. The amendment move, backed by opposition groups, could lead to a challenge to the legitimacy of the Iraqi government.

Mussa had also called for disbanding of the local militias and expansion of political dialogue in order to achieve more balance in Iraq.

The ruling coalition is showing cracks. Hakim's Shia coalition members have developed serious differences in strategies. These led recently to withdrawal of the al-Fadhila Party from the Prime Minister's United Iraqi Alliance. Party leaders quit, citing "faulty sectarian policies."

The move destabilised Iraq's teetering government further.

Many Arab political analysts believe that this conference was yet another attempt by the U.S. administration to buy time in Iraq while it prepares to deal with Iran.

The U.S. military currently has two aircraft carrier battle groups in the region. This is the first time such a force has been positioned there since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.


(Ali al-Fadhily is our Baghdad correspondent. Dahr Jamail is our specialist writer who has been covering Iraq and the Middle East for several years.)



Innocent Tortured Detainee Speaks w/ NPR



This is absolutely deplorable.
Gonzales is treading on thin ICE, and I'll laugh my ass of when he drowns