US plans case against AP photographer

AP photographer Bilal Hussein

The US continues to turn everything you assume about "justice" on its fucking head.

How unfortunate Bilal Hussein was born with such a horrid name. He never had a chance.

The U.S. military plans to seek a criminal case in an Iraqi court against an award-winning Associated Press photographer but is refusing to disclose what evidence or accusations would be presented.

An AP attorney on Monday strongly protested the decision, calling the U.S. military plans a "sham of due process." The journalist, Bilal Hussein, has already been imprisoned without charges for more than 19 months.

A public affairs officer notified the AP on Sunday that the military intends to submit a written complaint against Hussein that would bring the case into the Iraqi justice system as early as Nov. 29. Under Iraqi codes, an investigative magistrate will decide whether there are grounds to try Hussein, 36, who was seized in the western Iraqi city of Ramadi on April 12, 2006.

Dave Tomlin, associate general counsel for the AP, said the defense for Hussein is being forced to work "totally in the dark."

The military has not yet defined the specific charges against Hussein. Previously, the military has pointed to a range of suspicions that attempt to link him to insurgent activity.

The AP rejects all the allegations and contends it has been blocked by the military from mounting a wide-ranging defense for Hussein, who was part of the AP's Pulitzer Prize-winning photo team in 2005.

Perhaps Hussein is guilty of "something" having to do with the "insurgents", but charge the son of a bitch and give the AP a decent chance to defend him.


Photo: Bilal Hussein AP
Its always a dicey situation when a news photographer goes for photos of "the enemy" and this could easily be a huge misunderstanding. But no one knows because there are no specifics about his alleged transgressions.

Via Yahoo! News.

U.S. toll in March is twice Iraq forces

Are the Iraqis stepping up or stepping back? I'm going with back.

The U.S. military death toll in March, the first full month of the security crackdown, was nearly twice that of the Iraqi army, which American and Iraqi officials say is taking the leading role in the latest attempt to curb violence in the capital, surrounding cities and Anbar province, according to figures compiled on Saturday.

I'm being somewhat facetious here because the story lists 81 US military deaths as opposed to 44 Iraqi Army deaths which makes that headline off just a bit because it isn't the forces, but rather the army and twice 44 ain't 81. But then it goes on to state 165 Iraqi police were killed, many of them operating as paramilitary fighters.

I would argue anyone fighting for the Iraqi government falls under the category Iraq forces.

Totally off topic, but why do reporters write about the US Army, but write about the Iraqi army without the capital letter? Are they any less noble nor deserving of respect because they aren't in one of our uniforms?

And while I'm nit picking here, why is it Iraqi [A]rmy, but Iraq forces instead of Iraqi forces?

Sometimes I relish an honest display of my ignorance.

(read more)

Bush seeks 8,200 more troops for wars

What's truly sad about this is Bush and probably the Dems view this as a cost thing. It is a cost thing, but it isn't about the money, its about the lives of our military people.

And as Bush continues to float in his own little bubble he seems unaware he is asking for resources the military just doesn't have.

President Bush asked Congress on Saturday for $3.2 billion to pay for 8,200 more U.S. troops needed in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of the 21,500-troop buildup he announced in January.

Bush wants Congress to fund 3,500 new U.S. troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan. The money also would pay for the estimated 3,500 existing U.S. troops he already announced would be staying longer in the region to counter an anticipated Taliban offensive in Afghanistan this spring.

In Iraq, most of the additional troops would help with the latest Baghdad security plan, which is getting under way in the capital. The money would pay for 2,400 combat support troops, 2,200 military police forces and 129 troops for reconstruction teams.

The budget revisions come as many lawmakers opposed to the buildup in Iraq are debating funding for the war. But in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Bush proposed canceling $3.2 billion in low-priority defense items to offset the extra money needed to support the additional troops.

And this at the same time the Pentagon Struggles to Find Fresh Troops

Military leaders are struggling to choose Army units to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan longer or go there earlier than planned, but five years of war have made fresh troops harder to find.

Faced with a military buildup in Iraq that could drag into next year, Pentagon officials are trying to identify enough units to keep up to 20 brigade combat teams in Iraq. A brigade usually has about 3,500 troops.

The likely result will be extending the deployments of brigades scheduled to come home at the end of the summer, and sending others earlier than scheduled.

Final decisions _ which have not yet been made _ would come as Congress is considering ways to force President Bush to wind down the war, despite his vow that he would veto such legislation.

In the freshest indication of the relentless demands for troops in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, commander of coalition forces in the north, told reporters Friday that his troops have picked up the pace of their attacks on the enemy in Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad.

"Could I use more forces? No question about it," Mixon said, adding that he had asked for more.

(pic via Shakespeare's Sister)

Bizarro world that is Iraq

File under: This is what the Iraqis have to put up with every damn day.

This is a weird story. Earlier today, a blast near a soccer field in Ramadi kills scores of children. Also today, apparently, the US military conducted an explosion near a soccer field in Ramadi that hurt a bunch of children. But the US military is saying the deadly attack couldn't have happened, because they'd have known about it. At the same time, both of these attacks sound awful similar - like they may be the same explosion, i.e., one we caused.

(read more)

The logistics of a SURGE™

This is a pretty good article about the problems of logistically supporting 140,000 fighting personnel. If Bush sends in 21,000 more soldiers he needs thousands more to support them. And keep in mind that anyone in Iraq is a target.

As the theater commander Gen. John P. Abizaid told Congress last week, psychologically and bureaucratically, the budget, the personal lives of the soldiers and the institutions involved can't shoulder nor sustain any significant increase.

...

Someone has to operate the gyms, the internet cafes, provide the hot meals and hot water, the amenities that far too many in uniform expect and "require" at their bases. It is just a reality of U.S. military culture that the build-up (and the care and feeding of) the desk warriors and sustainers in the Green Zone, at Camp Victory at the old Saddam International Airport and at mega-bases like Balad is mightily responsible for the military failure on the ground.

But ol' bubble boy doesn't worry about such trifles. He's on a mission to salvage his legacy.

(read more)

U.S. fires into Pakistan to hit back at Taliban

File under: This can't be good.

Asserting a right to self-defense, American forces in eastern Afghanistan have launched artillery rounds into Pakistan to strike Taliban fighters who attack remote U.S. outposts, the commander of U.S. forces in the region said Sunday.

The skirmishes are politically sensitive because Pakistan's government, regarded by the Bush administration as an important ally against Islamic extremists, has denied that it allows U.S. forces to strike inside its territory.

The use of the largely ungoverned Waziristan area of Pakistan as a haven for Taliban and al-Qaida fighters has become a greater irritant between Washington and Islamabad since Pakistan put in place a peace agreement there in September that was intended to stop cross-border incursions.

Army Col. John W. Nicholson, commander of the 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, said that rather than halt such incursions, the peace deal has led to a substantial increase.

Pakistani border forces, which had been active in stopping Taliban incursions into Afghanistan as recently as last spring, stopped offensive actions against them once the peace deal took effect, he said.

"That did relax some of the pressure on the enemy," Nicholson said.

The Pakistan army's top spokesman said Sunday that coalition forces operating in Afghanistan are not allowed to fire into Pakistani territory but acknowledged that artillery fire from the coalition had landed inside Pakistan in recent days. Pakistan also plans to seek "clarification" about Nicholson's comments. [emphasis mine]

Would someone please read Bush the definition of "sovereignty"? Just in case he has no idea what it means. Or more likely couldn't care less about other counties' right to it.

(read more)

How the US Army's being worn down in Iraq

I've mentioned this before, but the US military has neither the "ready" troops nor equipment to wage additional war. I doubt that will stop Bush, however.

Recently, the Washington Post reported that US President George W Bush's "surge" of troops to Iraq by 21,500 "would create major logistical hurdles for the US Army and Marine Corps". That's a nice way of putting it, like calling a tsunami a maritime disturbance or an earthquake a tectonic-plate adjustment.

The truth is that after nearly four years of fighting in Iraq, the US military is deeply stressed and worn out by its operations there. While most dispassionate observers are aware of this, it is not



something the Bush administration likes to talk about. Nevertheless, the truth is that from a US military perspective, Iraq is increasingly burdensome.

Consider the following facts. Last year senior Marine Corps officials admitted that if the war in Iraq ended tomorrow and marine units were shipped home, it would cost US$12.8 billion to re-equip them with vehicles and gear lost in combat and through wear and tear. That outlay would take up a significant portion of the corps's yearly budget, which in 2004 stood at nearly $17 billion.

Last July, Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to Bush noting that up to two-thirds of the army's combat brigades were not ready for wartime missions, largely because they were hampered by equipment shortfalls.

Much of the equipment deployed in Iraq is beginning to wear out as a result of heavy use, harsh operating conditions, and the frequent attacks launched by insurgents. Furthermore, the quantity and quality of weapons in units away from the war zone are eroding as equipment is transferred to deploying units. The latter problem is particularly pronounced in the reserves, which already were functioning with a deficit of modern equipment when the war began.

(read more)