Iraq War News

war blog Iraq war updates
Turkey Warns U.S. That Its Troops Will Fire Back, Milliyet Says in IraqWar.ru (English)



Holy war called for in Iraq in IraqWar.ru (English)



Two More U.S. Soldiers Killed in Iraq in IraqWar.ru (English)



Iraqi Police Tell U.S. Troops -- Get Out of Town in IraqWar.ru (English)



Arms control, intelligence experts accuse Bush administration of misrepresentation in IraqWar.ru (English)



Iraqi oil deals up for grabs in IraqWar.ru (English)



U.S. report on 9/11 to be 'explosive' in IraqWar.ru (English)



Franks: 10-25 Attacks a Day on U.S. Troops in Iraq: "U.S. troops in Iraq face 10 to 25attacks a day, partly because they are hunting for Baathists,"jihadists" and fighters crossing the border from Syria, Gen.Tommy Franks, who ran the war against Baghdad, said onThursday. (Reuters)"

In Yahoo! News: War with Iraq

Support Our Troops
Sgt. 1st Class Dan Henry Gabrielson of Frederic, Wis., is shown in a undated family photo. Gabrielson, 40, was killed Wednesday night, July 9, 2003, when his convoy of bridge builders was attacked in Iraq (news - web sites), said a spokesman for Army Reserve's 88th regional support command. Gabrielson was a specialist in repairing construction equipment with the 652nd Engineer Co. based out of Ellsworth, Wis. He is survived by a wife and three children. (AP Photo)

Support Our Troops
Aid groups in Iraq also under attack

By Kevin Begos | Special to The Christian Science Monitor

BAGHDAD – American troops are bearing the brunt of the daily attacks in central Iraq, with two more soldiers killed Thursday. But international aid groups are also being targeted - undercutting their humanitarian efforts, and causing them to question the close working relationship many have developed with US forces.
In Baghdad, the World Food Program (WFP) expressed alarm Thursday over the rise in shootings, looting, and attacks on trucks bringing food into the country over the past month. It said security at storage facilities is still a major concern.

Other relief organizations are telling volunteers it's too unsafe for them to go to Iraq. "Security problems have complicated almost every aspect of humanitarian efforts" in Iraq, says Mike Kiernan, a spokesman for Save the Children in Washington. He adds that financial donations in the US "have been less than what many charities had expected."

The US military and aid organizations here have similar goals: restore a semblance of normalcy to the Iraqi people as quickly as possible. Working together, they often are more effective. Although international aid groups are used to working in crisis environments, some worry that the symbols of military occupation in Iraq are mixed with those of humanitarian work to an unprecedented degree. And that may be prompting a backlash.

On July 6, the WFP officein Mosul was targeted in a grenade attack, but there were no causalities. The same night a WFP warehouse in Kirkuk was attacked, and warehouses in Nasiriyah and Basra have also been looted.

Latif Bayati, an Iraqi who is a consultant for the UN Development Program in Baghdad, says men armed with AK-47s attempted to enter that compound last week. The main UN compound in Baghdad is guarded by heavily-armed US forces. But security concerns are so great that a new concrete wall is being built around the compound.

Gunnar Ullnaess is in charge of logistics at the largest World Food Program warehouse in Baghdad, and though he gives American troops high marks for their work, he notes that the WFP has made some cosmetic changes to distance itself from the military.

In the early days of work in Baghdad WFP personnel drove large white SUVs - similar to those used by many American officials - and were often greeted with cold stares.

"They are suspicious, of course. They think, 'This big car, this must also be a fat American,' " Mr. Ullnaess says of local people. The agency finally repainted the cars blue, with "WFP" in huge orange letters on the side, and held a meeting with local staff to emphasize that the project is an international humanitarian operation, not one run by Americans.

"So when we put on the [WFP] stickers, then suddenly people were greeting us," he says.

Mark Smith, aid director for the Springfield,Mo., faith-based group Convoy of Hope, says distinguishing between coalition military personnel and other Westerners may not be the only problem.

"There's also the possibility that you just have people who want to make the place as unstabilized as possible, and any Western target, whether it is NGO, military, press, you name it, would be worth attacking," says Smith, who just returned from an assessment trip to Baghdad.

Convoy of Hope is pleased with the progress it had made rebuilding Iraqi schools, but Smith says that's in part because the field work is spearheaded by Arabs who have long experience in the region.

Back in the US, the Bush administration has put a positive spin on progress in Iraq, but some here are saying just the opposite.

"The situation is going from bad to worse," says the Rev. Ikram Mehanni, senior pastor of John Calvin Presbyterian Evangelical Church in Baghdad. "If the Americans do not control this region soon, they will have very bad problems."

Mehanni and many other Iraqis can't believe that a country as powerful, rich, and technologically advanced at the US is unable to restore electricity. But a strategy to bring stability to the country is still developing, in part because many international relief groups aren't used to working with - and under the rules of - the US military.

Many humanitarian groups questioned or flatly opposed the war; yet now find themselves in the uncomfortable position of being dependent on the US for security and even some logistical help. Mr. Smith says Convoy of Hope takes its independence seriously, but that humanitarian groups need to be realistic about the situation in Iraq.

"The military is identifying problems. I'm not necessarily suggesting that the NGOs need to work hand in hand with the military. But the military has got information that the NGOs need to have. And yet a lot of time there just isn't a lot of coordination going on," says Smith, who adds that donations of supplies from the military helped his group successfully complete a medical project.

Peter Singer, a senior scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington, says the Bush administration has to learn to work with humanitarian groups.

The US military already "has resources spread too thin on the ground, and they need all the help they can get," Mr. Singer says, adding that with the growing difference between upbeat Washington speeches and the harsher reality in the field, "guess who's caught in the middle? The soldiers."

The military is also adjusting to doing humanitarian jobs that few were trained for. Capt. Scott Margolis is in charge of Charlie Battery, which is part of the Third Brigade, 1st Armored Division, based in Fort Riley, Kan. His men know how to call in artillery strikes in two minutes or less, but are now providing security for the Al Yarmook hospital in Baghdad by living on site 24 hours a day.

Captain Margolis is also paying salaries, training a new security force, and helping the hospital administration learn a new way of doing business.

"I was not trained in starting a hospital," Margolis says, "but as an officer, you're trained in administration. You know how budgets work. This is public administration, basically."

"Now we're trying to get bureaucracies running again that are not run by one man, that are not corrupt. We're trying to get Iraqis to do a lot of things themselves - and they're doing it. It's just taking time."

Support Our Troops
A Marine Plays to a Smaller Audience
By RAFAEL HERMOSO


gt. Edward Chin of the Marines may have been one of the few people to take the field yesterday at Shea Stadium who had played before a global audience.

Chin threw out the ceremonial first pitch before a modest crowd watching the Mets play the Atlanta Braves. But on April 9, Chin, then a corporal, briefly draped the United States flag atop the head of a 20-foot statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square in Baghdad before it was toppled, the symbolic end to the regime.

Chin quickly replaced the American flag with an Iraqi one, but not before the image was broadcast around the world.

"I was just doing what I was told from down below," Chin said yesterday from a luxury suite at Shea, where he, his family and a group of Marine officers watched the game. "Throughout the whole war, that's how we all stayed alive, by taking orders and giving orders."

Chin, 23, rejoined Bravo Company of the First Tank Battalion in California on May 29 and was promoted to sergeant in June.

He returned on leave to his home in the Bensonhurst neighborhood of Brooklyn last week and plans to resume his studies at New York City Technical College after he leaves the military on Aug. 11.

Support Our Troops
Finally, a special hello to Doc Peck and his comrades of Bravo Company, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance, United States Marine Corps, currently serving in Iraq. Hang tight, guys.
John Sickels

Support Our Troops


US force nears limit of its global stretch

A decision on deploying troops to Liberia may hinge on needs elsewhere as troop levels stay high in Iraq.

By Peter Grier and Faye Bowers | Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – So many United States troops are now deployed to so many different places around the world that the American military may be in danger of overextension.
Consider the state of the Army, the service most affected by the nation's foreign commitments. There are still upwards of 150,000 soldiers in Iraq, plus 10,000 in Afghanistan. Some 5,000 remain on peacekeeping duty in the Balkans.


Related stories:

05/07/03

Military 'transformation' may not mean smaller forces



monitortalk

Weigh in on issues of the day in our forums.



E-mail this story


Write a letter to the Editor


Printer-friendly version


Permission to reprint/republish




Add in 25,000 GIs based in Korea, plus other foreign stations, and the deployed total is close to 250,000.

This global peacekeeping force must be generated from an active-duty Army of 480,000, plus 550,000 reserves. At the least, the strain may play havoc with training and leave. At the most, it could cause many tired and homesick personnel to leave the service.

Support Our Troops
Posted on Thu, Jul. 10, 2003

Iraqis detained in U.S. prison camps complain of unfair, harsh treatment
By Dana Hull
Knight Ridder Newspapers


BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi citizens who have been detained by coalition forces are complaining bitterly about their treatment in American-run prisons.


U.S. officials say they are moving swiftly to provide better facilities for the scores of people who have been swept up in raids and accused of attacks on U.S.-led forces or other crimes. Looters tore up prisons and jails, so officials have had to rebuild and use temporary ones in the meantime.


Qais Mohammed al Saliman, 54, is an Iraqi engineer who returned to Baghdad in early May after having lived in Denmark since 1990. On May 6, he was arrested when the car he was in was stopped on a popular street along the Tigris River. He said was never told what he was being arrested for.


"They treated me badly. It was very hot, and they put me on the ground with a heavy shoe on my back," he said. "Then a TV truck came, and they pretended to arrest me again for the media."


Al Saliman was taken to "Camp Cropper," a detention facility at the Baghdad International Airport. Because the U.S. military also is using the airport as a base, requests from journalists to visit the facilities have been denied due to security concerns.


"They asked me about Saddam Hussein and I said that he was in hell," said al Saliman, who speaks English well. "I showed them my Danish passport but it didn't make a difference."


Al Saliman was held 33 days, and had no way of letting his elderly mother know where he was. He says he lived with about 130 other men in a tent that was surrounded by wire. When he was released, he said, he was told that they were sorry for holding him.


"They were not human conditions. It was very dirty and there were dust storms. There was no chance to wash before praying. There was only a hole for a toilet, in front of over 100 people," he said. "We Iraqis are people who have high culture. We are educated. I told one of the guards: You may be a cowboy, but we are not Indians. The Americans came here talking about cooperation, and I was treated like an animal in a zoo in my own country."


Coalition officials admit that conditions at Camp Cropper aren't optimal, in large part because of the scorching summer heat. They plan to close the camp as soon as another facility is available.


But they say the coalition is meeting its international obligations. The International Committee of the Red Cross has had access to the facilities. And they say prison conditions - as well as human rights in general - were so appalling under Saddam that rebuilding adequate detention facilities and a public defender system will take time.


"People are not having their tongues cut out anymore," said L. Paul Bremer, the top American administrator in Iraq. "People are not having their children shot in front of them."




The human rights group Amnesty International recently issued a statement that said conditions at Camp Cropper might amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.


About 11,000 prisoners are held across Iraq, coalition officials said at a briefing Thursday. Exact statistics haven't been compiled, and the number fluctuates with new arrests and releases.


Concerns also have been raised about prisoners being forced to wear black hoods over their heads in 110-degree heat.


"I interviewed an 11-year-old boy who was detained for three weeks," said Joanna Oyediran, an Amnesty International researcher. "His father spent days trying to find out what happened and talked to U.S. soldiers at an Iraqi police station, but he never got any information."


Bremer said he was surprised that Amnesty International didn't say in its report that "the human rights of the average Iraqi are light-years better today than they were 12 weeks ago."


---

Support Our Troops
Coalition of the Anonymous
Just which countries, exactly, are helping in Iraq?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 2:30 PM PT


Each day brings fresh evidence that the Bush administration is planning to keep American soldiers in Iraq for a long time—lots of soldiers, for several years—and that it's doing stunningly little to get other countries, from our supposedly vast "coalition," to chip in.


The case goes well beyond today's testimony by Gen. Tommy Franks, the outgoing head of U.S. Central Command, who told the House Armed Services Committee, "I anticipate we'll be involved in Iraq in the future. Whether that means two years or four years, I don't know." This was an only slightly more specific variation on his testimony Wednesday, before the Senate committee, that our troops would be in Iraq "for the foreseeable future." (He made this open-ended remark at the same hearing where Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, after repeated questioning on the subject, that the monthly cost of our stay there has risen from $2 billion to $3.9 billion, not counting reconstruction.)

The median number of Franks' two to four years—three years—is how long Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith said last Monday it would take to train the New Iraqi Army's first 40,000 troops, or just over one-quarter the number of U.S. troops currently in Iraq.

Rumsfeld has recently suggested the commitment might be longer still. At a Pentagon press conference on June 30, he recalled America's own spate of violence in its period of early independence and noted that, following the failed Articles of Confederation, "it took eight years before the Founders finally adopted our Constitution and inaugurated our first President." He added, "That history is worth remembering as we consider the difficulties that the Afghans and Iraqis face."

If that is now the measuring gauge, eight years is probably a conservative estimate. Unlike Saddam and Osama, Benedict Arnold wasn't roaming the countryside after the Revolutionary War. Shay's Rebellion, which Rumsfeld cited as an example of America's post-colonial chaos, was put down by a well-established militia and judiciary, the likes of which don't remotely exist in today's Iraq.

A prolonged occupation has been in the game plan since at least June 13, when, according to the trade journal Inside the Army, the Pentagon signed a $200 million contract with Kellogg Brown & Root—a subsidiary of (guess what) the Halliburton Corp.—to build barracks for 100,000 troops in Iraq, or, as the contract puts it, "the set-up and operation of all housing and logistics to sustain task force personnel." (The journal is available online only by subscription, but a summary of the article can be found here.)

In a disturbing, if unwitting, bit of symbolism, these barracks—which Halliburton has also constructed in Kosovo and Bosnia—are known as "SEAhuts," an abbreviation for "South East Asia huts," since they are similar to the quarters that were built for U.S. troops in Vietnam. (In a move that indicates that Halliburton employs some image-savvy executives, the name has recently been changed to "SWAhuts," for South West Asia.)

Gen. Franks said at yesterday's hearing that 19 countries have forces in Iraq, with another 19 preparing to send some and 11 discussing the possibility. But nobody is telling just which 19—much less 38, or 49—countries Franks is talking about. Consider this Hellerian conversation I had today with a Pentagon public-affairs spokesman:

ME: How many countries have, or soon will have, forces on the ground in Iraq?
PENTAGON: There's a dozen nations now, a dozen more very shortly, and a dozen more considering it.
ME: How many people does this add up to?
PENTAGON: You'll have to talk with the individual countries about that.
ME: Which countries are they?
PENTAGON: We can't go into that.
ME: How can I talk with the countries if you won't tell me who they are?
PENTAGON: Well, Britain, of course. Poland has publicized its involvement. But, as I'm sure you understand, this is a very discreet subject for many of the others.

Let's ignore for the moment that the spokesman's three dozen nations amount to a baker's dozen fewer than Franks' 49. (They also differ from Feith's remark on Monday, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, that 18 foreign nations have "military capabilities on the ground in Iraq" and over 41 have "made offers of military support.")

Let's also flit over the dubious merits of a coalition whose members do not want their participation known.

Let us focus instead on Franks' base number of nations, 19, an awfully suspicious number. Could these be the 19 nations of NATO? Rumsfeld said at yesterday's Senate hearings that NATO was assisting Poland with the division that it's sending to Iraq. On June 30, a NATO force-review conference did decide to aid Poland "in a variety of supporting roles," including "communications, logistics and movement." However, it would be very misleading to tag NATO, much less to count every member-nation in NATO, as a participant in this plan. NATO Secretary General George Robertson has emphasized, "We are not talking about a NATO presence in Iraq. We are talking purely and simply about NATO help to Poland."

Poland's plan is to send a multinational force of 7,000 personnel to patrol central Iraq, in an area between the U.S. and British zones. Warsaw is contributing 2,000 of this force. Other NATO nations will fill in the other 5,000 slots, on a negotiated bilateral basis. But which countries these are, and how many will come from each, has not been announced, and may not have yet been decided.

Whichever countries are involved, it also remains a mystery just what they will be doing. The example of Australia may provide some clues. The Bush and Blair administrations always cited Australia as a strong coalition partner during the war. However, on May 15, Australian Prime Minister John Howard told his country's Parliament, "Now that the major combat phase is over … we have begun to bring home our defence personnel. … The government has made clear all along that Australia would not be in a position to provide peacekeeping forces in Iraq. Our coalition partners clearly understood and accepted our position."

Even so, Howard noted that Australia would keep in the Iraqi theater a naval task group, an Army commando element ("for a brief period"), two PC-3 patrol planes, two C-130 transport planes, some air-traffic controllers, security for the Australian mission in Baghdad, and a team of experts hunting for weapons of mass destruction. Together, these elements add up to 1,200 personnel. Even though they are not for peacekeeping as the term is commonly understood—even though Howard has explicitly bowed out of the coalition—we can be sure that Bush and Rumsfeld will count them among the faceless total of those still in.

In any case, Rumsfeld seems firmly footed in his prewar mode of insistent unilateralism. During a break in yesterday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearings, a reporter asked him to clarify the administration's position on "reaching out to NATO to provide troops" for Iraq. Rummy's first response was to act as if that was outside his jurisdiction. "The Department of State has been the instrument through which the United States of America has been consulting with many, many dozens of nations and organizations around the world," he said. "They deal with NATO, they deal with the U.N., they have been doing it." He added:

I tend to be very precise when I answer a question and I don't answer what I don't know. Can I say precisely what the request was made—or requests, plural, made—by the United States of NATO? No. You may think it's something I ought to know, but I happen not to. That's life and that's a very honest answer.

There was also this typically rambunctious exchange:

QUESTION: Do you welcome the participation of France?
RUMSFELD: We would be happy to have them.
Q: Will you ask them?
R: I've answered that question four times this morning, Charles. Really. Isn't there a limit?
Q: On France?
R: You keep repeating yourself. I have said that we would be happy to have troops from a wide variety of countries, including France. How's that?
Q: OK.
R: Does that really nail it for you?
Q: It does.
R: Great! Let's hear it for him!

There! That's the attitude that'll get the allies onboard.

Support Our Troops
10 July 2003
Transcript: U.S. Seeks to Maximize International Assistance To Iraq, Feith Says
(Says Iraq should stand on its own as soon as possible) (5380)

"Iraq should be a proud sovereign country standing on its own two feet
as soon as it can," says a top Defense Department policy official and
not become a ward of the international community.

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith told an audience at
the Center for Strategic and International Studies July 7 that the
United States is pursuing three high priorities in Iraq: "improving
security, increasing the quality of life, and creating Iraqi
self-government."

The U.S. wants to maximize international contributions to the work of
the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq, he said: "the
future of Iraq should be a matter of concern to all countries, not
just the United States."

So far, Feith said, 45 countries have offered military support for
security and stability operations in Iraq, with military assets on the
ground from 18 nations. "The capabilities range from combat divisions
and brigades to field hospitals," he said.

"The United Kingdom and Poland have each agreed to lead multinational
divisions to meet stability and security requirements. Other countries
are considering doing so. And still other countries have indicated
their willingness to participate in peacekeeping, in some cases by
contributing units from their national policy forces such as Italy's
‘carbinieri,'" Feith said. Although two NATO members have agreed to
lead multinational divisions in Iraq, he said it would be "a happy
circumstance if NATO were able to take over responsibility for
security in Iraq, but we are far from that stage at present."

The U.S. doesn't and shouldn't act alone, Feith said addressing
criticism of American unilateralism in the world. "It's wrong and
simplistic to assert that we do or that we want to (act unilaterally).
As our coalition work in Iraq demonstrates, when we act we do so in
recognition of the benefits that come from cooperation with our allies
and friends. We have earned the trust of those allies and friends and
we shall earn the trust of the Iraqi people by helping them create a
secure and free Iraq," he added.

The official also defended postwar planning in Iraq. "It is not right
to assume that any current problems in Iraq can be attributed to poor
planning," Feith said, because the conduct of war "always involves
trade-offs."

While considerable progress has been made in restoring basic services
such as electric power and flowing potable water, Feith said much of
the media coverage concentrates on the situation in Baghdad alone,
where electric and water problems are most severe. While attributing
continuing setbacks primarily "to sabotage," he acknowledged that
without the provision of basic services and increased employment
"popular dissatisfaction will aggravate the security problem and make
it harder to create the moderate, democratic political environment in
which new political institutions can be created."

Feith described the Iraqi security situation as complex, with
stability operations under way in some areas of the country while
small-scale combat operations are occurring elsewhere. Ameliorating
the unsettled situation, he explained, will require several projects,
currently under way, to reach fruition: the reconstitution of the
Iraqi civilian police force and the Iraqi judicial system, as well as
the creation of the New Iraqi Army.

Feith said there are at least five groups still causing trouble in a
post-Saddam Hussein era: "Remnants of the Ba'athist regime, foreign
Islamist terrorists, Islamists influence by Iran, looters who are
taking advantage of an opportunity to steal, and the general
criminality that's let loose when the repressive apparatus of a
totalitarian regime suddenly disappears." Security problems have been
exacerbated, he said, "by the fact that last year, the Saddam Hussein
regime suddenly released thousands of criminals from its prisons."

Following is the transcript of Feith's remarks as delivered:

(begin transcript)

U.S. Department of Defense DoD News Briefing
Douglas J. Feith, USD (Policy)
Monday, July 7, 2003

Feith: Thank you, John -- good afternoon.

It's an honor to be here to address you. The Center for Strategic and
International Studies commands great respect in our government.
(Former Deputy Defense Secretary) John Hamre leads the Center ably as
you all know and produces work that improves our understanding of an
impressive range of national security issues.

John has asked me to offer some thoughts about the creation of a new,
free Iraq -- and, in particular, the question of how the United States
and the Coalition can build trust there. We want the Iraqis to trust
our competence and good faith. Also, the United States wants many
countries to contribute to the Coalition's work in Iraq. It helps if
they trust U.S. leadership.

The foundation of U.S. policy in Iraq is that Iraq belongs to the
Iraqis. Coalition forces are there to liberate the country, not
conquer it and not exploit it. We intend for the Iraqis to run their
own affairs as soon as possible. And we are taking care that Iraq's
economic resources are used honestly, efficiently and transparently
for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

The United States has the following high-priority objectives in Iraq:
Improving security, increasing the quality of life and creating Iraqi
self-government.

To help us attain these objectives, and to emphasize that the future
of Iraq should be a matter of concern to all countries, not just the
United States, we also have an instrumental objective -- maximizing
international contributions.

I'd like to give you a quick status report on these objectives:

Security is our most important and pressing objective, but its
fundamental to recognize that security, economic and political
objectives are closely interrelated.

Without security we can't rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure and protect
it from sabotage. Nor can we expect Iraqi political life to revive if
Iraqis don't feel secure enough to travel, go to meetings -- express
their views without intimidation.

Now on the other hand, we can't increase employment and provide basic
services -- if we cannot increase employment and provide basic
services, popular dissatisfaction will aggravate the security problem,
and make it harder to create the moderate, democratic political
environment in which new political institutions can be created.

In addition, re-invigorating Iraqi political life and creating
institutions of Iraqi self-government are keys to improving security
and improving the economy. Until Iraqis fully absorb the fact that
they are responsible for their own destiny, we can't expect their
whole-hearted contributions to improving security and reviving the
economy.

The security situation in Iraq is complex -- in some areas, we are
engaged in what we call stability operations, but in other areas,
we're still engaged in small-scale combat operations.

As (Defense) Secretary Rumsfeld has noted, we have to deal with at
least five different groups of trouble-makers: Remnants of the
Ba'athist regime, foreign Islamist terrorists, Islamists influenced by
Iran, looters who are taking advantage of an opportunity to steal and,
the general criminality that's let loose when the repressive apparatus
of a totalitarian regime suddenly disappears. In this case, magnified
by the fact that last year, the Saddam Hussein regime suddenly
released thousands of criminals from its prisons.

Of these challenges, the most serious now arises from the remnants of
the old regime, which have not yet accepted that that regime -- and
the inordinate privileges that they received from it are gone forever.

Even though this Ba'athist problem is a serious one, it's confined
chiefly to the Sunni heartland, including part of Baghdad and several
corridors that are radiating out from the city.

In Kirkuk and Mosul in the north, the security situation has been
better, and we've succeeded in keeping the lid on the ethnic
antagonisms resulting from Saddam's Arabization policies.

In the Shi a south -- with the terrible exception of the incident
recently in which six British soldiers were killed -- the situation
has also been relatively quiet.

We're addressing the security situation in several ways -- recently
we've undertaken combat operations -- such as Desert Scorpion --
directed against the Ba'athist remnants.

Our recent offer of large rewards for information on Saddam Hussein
and his sons emphasized our determination to root out the Ba'athists
and deny them any hope of regaining political power.

In addition, we are considering options for trying former regime
officials for atrocities. We're reconstituting the Iraqi civilian
police force and -- after providing training -- putting it back on the
streets. This process takes times, for -- as one can easily imagine --
we mean to make sure that police work in the new Iraq is appropriate
for a democratic country.

We've also begun the process of creating the New Iraqi Army. Under the
leadership of (former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy) Walt
Slocombe who worked with John [Hamre] at the Pentagon during the
Clinton administration, Iraq should have a new division of 12,000
ready within a year and a 40,000-person force ready within three
years.

We understand the necessity of involving Iraqis as much as possible in
addressing the security situation. The reconstituted police force and
army are two mechanisms by which Iraqis will become responsible for
security. But we're open to other possibilities as well.

In addition, Ambassador Bremer (CPA Administrator) is reconstituting
the Iraqi judicial system, to enable it to try cases of looters,
saboteurs, and other criminals.

We've made progress with respect to providing basic services, although
we continue to encounter setbacks mainly due to sabotage. Of course,
one reason the saboteurs have been so effective is that the Iraqi
infrastructure was threadbare before the war began. Saddam's neglect
of the basic infrastructure is now taking its toll.

It's important, again to distinguish among the various parts of the
country -- in particular, between Baghdad and elsewhere. News
coverage, understandably, tends to concentrate on Baghdad, where we
fact the most severe problems in providing basic services such as
electricity and water. Elsewhere in the country, the situation is
better -- and in some areas, services are more reliable than they were
pre-war.

Ambassador Bremer has recently turned his attention to reviving the
Iraqi economy. Much ink has been spilt on discussing certain large
contracts awarded to U.S. companies for Iraqi reconstruction. But
equally important is the fact that these prime contractors are being
encouraged to make maximum use of Iraqi subcontractors on their
project. In addition, a large public works project is being
inaugurated to provide employment.

It bears mentioning that quality of life problems are rooted not in
the war -- which did remarkably little damage to the Iraq
infrastructure -- but in the terrible conditions that Saddam created
over decades, which have been compounded by post-war sabotage and
looting.

As today's newspapers report, we are moving forward on creating an
Iraqi Interim Administration that will give Iraqis a meaningful
opportunity to participate immediately in Iraq's governance. A
Governing Council is to be established soon. Our goal is to give the
Governing Council -- a representative group of Iraqis -- as much
authority as possible, and in time turn the various ministries over to
their control. This group would also serve as the Iraqi people's
representative to the Coalition Provisional Authority and to the world
at large.

Support Our Troops
Facing a reality check in Iraq

Most of Iraq is stable, and most Iraqis continue to cooperate with the U.S. mission in the hope that it will succeed in passing power to a representative government. But in military terms, the postwar situation is getting worse rather than better. Enemy forces, concentrated in areas north and west of Baghdad where support for the old regime was strongest, have grown bolder and more effective by the week, and Saddam Hussein himself apparently managed to smuggle a defiant message to the al-Jazeera network in time for the Fourth of July. While their degree of organization and connections with the former dictator are debatable, the militants pose a clear strategic threat to the U.S. mission beyond the painful cost in lives they are exacting. The danger is that they will succeed in triggering a broader guerrilla war against U.S. troops fed not just by loyalty to the Baath Party but also by popular discontent with American occupation — a war that could destabilize Iraq and the region around it. To head off that threat, the Bush administration needs to act decisively and soon.

The first step toward regaining the initiative would be full acceptance by the administration of the fact that more resources are needed — more money, more civilian administrators and more troops. Assertions by Pentagon officials that the current force is large enough don’t square with reports from the field, which depict a steadily mounting conflict as well as sinking morale among some U.S. units exhausted after months of hard duty. Nor are the Pentagon’s reports about the recruitment of allied forces encouraging: Though 70 nations have been contacted, only about 10 have made concrete commitments, and the number of non-U.S. troops is due to rise only from 12,000 to 20,000 by the end of summer. The poor support is a direct result of the administration’s poor diplomacy, both before and after the war — and, in particular, its insistence on monopolizing control over Iraq while mostly excluding the United Nations. India and Pakistan, for example, are reluctant to deploy troops under U.S. rather than U.N. command, and European countries have been slower to supply aid and advisers who could be assisting with reconstruction.

The only way to bolster U.S. forces without dispatching still more American soldiers and reservists is for the Bush administration to formally seek assistance from the United Nations and NATO — and, in doing so, patch its relations with France, Germany and other allies that opposed the war. That would open the way not only to greater numbers of allied troops but also to more help in such tasks as training Iraqi police forces and restoring power and other vital services in cities. Internationalizing the occupation would deflect growing Iraqi fears that the United States plans to rule the country indefinitely. Meanwhile, the administration could seek explicit U.N. and allied support for a detailed plan to return Iraq to self-government. The sketchy current scheme, under which U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer is to appoint an interim council and convene a convention to write a new constitution, is opposed by key Shiite leaders and might increase rather than assuage Iraqi dissatisfaction.

While reaching out to U.S. allies, President Bush also needs to speak more clearly about Iraq to the American people. Last week he finally acknowledged that rebuilding Iraq would be “a massive and long-term undertaking,� but his shallow “bring ‘em on� taunt to the militants merely underlined his failure to clearly explain the objectives of U.S. forces and how long it may take to achieve them. Americans are now dying in Iraq at the rate of nearly one per day. Mr. Bush needs to tell the country why that sacrifice is necessary — and what he will do to mitigate the threat.

— Washington Post

Support Our Troops
Collins visits Iraq

By Nina Heiser, York County Coast Star




WASHINGTON - Senator Susan Collins found the morale of the troops amazingly high, the conditions harsh and the heat brutal when she and eight others took a three-day trip to Iraq last week.

"One impression I was left with was how important it is to capture Saddam Hussein," she said. "I had been expecting to see more damage from the war but because the bombing was so direct, there was not nearly the damage one would expect."

General John Abizaid, the new centcom commander who replaced General Tommy Franks this week, has a commitment of 30,000 troops by September from Poland, Italy and the Netherlands.

It is time for the administration to expand upon that and do a better job of soliciting troops from other countries to serve as peacekeepers in Iraq, Collins said.

It is also important to put an Iraqi face on the government, she said. The delegation met local officials who had recently been elected in Kirkuk with the mayor being Kurdish, one assistant mayor being of Arab descent and the other was Turkoman.

"It will make a difference when the people see Iraqis making the decisions," she said.

Selected to go on the three-day trip to Iraq by Senator John Warner, Collins was one of a bi-partisan group of senators from the Armed Services Committee and the only woman to go on the trip.

They were briefed by the CIA and the Special Joint Task Force in charge of the search for Hussein and Collins said the task force is making progress but Hussein remains elusive. It is evident, however, that he is still in Iraq, Collins said.

Collins arrived at Andrews Air Force Base Thursday and immediately after a national press briefing flew home to Maine where she participated in July 4 parades in Winslow and Eastport.

She spent the weekend kayaking and swimming before heading back to the nation's capital Monday.

"As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I get briefings all the time but they don't hold a candle to hearing from the people who are on the front lines," Collins said. "There is the climate of fear and the challenges the troops face."

In the south, sabotage and looting of the high tension wires was especially problematic, she said, with people stripping the wire for the copper. With some 24 million people in Iraq, Collins estimated that about 22 million were happy to see Saddam Hussein gone but that remaining 2 million pose a hard security threat to the troops.

Ironically, Collins said, during the war, the troops treated all Iraqi people as hostile but now that the war has been declared over, they don't know if the Iraqis they meet are friend or foe.

The soldiers' natural inclination is to be friendly with kids and yet, she said, even the kids pose a hazard to the U.S. troops.

There are, however, many positive stories, according to Collins, including the story told her by a major in the Army.

The major had been in charge of reopening a middle school, closed by Hussein with an order that it not be reopened until his return. She told the senator that after the school had been reopened and a new headmaster hired, the girls at the school came to the base for a week to thank the soldiers.

She spoke with an Iraqi responsible for running an oil refinery in Basra who wouldn't answer any questions about Hussein, she said, because he, like many other Iraqis, feared retribution should the exiled leader return to power.

Collins said that she was struck by the difference in attitude toward Americans in the three regions she visited; with northerners in the city of Kirkuk welcoming the American visitors with cheers and thanking them. It was not like that at all in Baghdad and Basra in the southern region of Iraq where Hussein's hold was stronger, she said.

"The great fear for the Iraqi people is that the Americans will leave too soon and Saddam will come back," she said. "We have to get him. There is a climate of fear after 30 years of his breathtaking brutality.

"I saw mass graves around Babylon where 10,000 to 15,000 bodies had been buried and I kept thinking of the contrast of the marvel of the ancient world with the horror of the modern world."

Collins said that when Saddam was overthrown, people rushed to the site to dig up the victims and bury them properly, leaving behind piles of plastic bags filled with the dead. American soldiers arranged for the land to be blessed in honor of the unclaimed victims of a massacre that occurred after the Gulf War. There had been an uprising after the Gulf War, Collins said, and the participants had been forced into the pit where they were shot.

When Hussein's troops ran out of ammunition, she said, they simply buried the remaining people alive.

"We need to show the American public what really happened and the horrible disparity of wealth," Collins said. "Saddam looted the country and kept his people in poverty.

"We are making progress but it is not evident because of the continuing violence.

"There are 1,300 humanitarian projects going on in Iraq. The worst thing would be for us to leave before the job is done. The country would slide into chaos."

Nina Heiser can be reached at nheiser@seacoastonline.com

Support Our Troops
Thsi article is very biased I take it with a grain of salt as they do not talk about the schools we have built or the hospitals we have stoked.

The US' quagmire in Iraq

By Michael Jansen

Jordan Times

Thursday, July 10, 2003



IRAQ HAS become the “Land of the Terrified Conqueror�. The US responded to attacks on its troops by Iraqi individuals and groups with a security sweep and bravado. This week, the retiring head of US Central Command, General Tommy Franks, echoed his boss, George Bush, when he repeated the taunt, “Bring `em on,� when referring to the Iraqi resistance against US occupation. Unfortunately, Franks let down senior military men when he said that the 145,000 troops the US has in Iraq are sufficient. Several serving and retired generals have criticised Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for insisting on a “light� deployment, arguing that he sent enough soldiers to win the war but not keep the peace. Franks' final observations make one wonder what political post he seeks to fill now that he has left the armed forces. Former Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki displeased Rumsfeld mightily and departed under a cloud some months ago by calling for the dispatch of 200-250,000 troops to the theatre of war. Having loudly and persistently committed himself to a policy of limiting the number of troops, Rumsfeld cannot concede reinforcements without losing face.

Following last weekend's spate of attacks on US troops in Baghdad, which boosted the number of fatalities to 30 since May 1, when Bush declared the war to be over, soldiers have dramatically lowered their public profile. They no longer patrol on foot, supervise operations in petrol stations, or stop at roadside vendors for cold drinks. On the one hand, they are afraid. They see comrades wounded every day and killed several times a week. On the other, they are disillusioned and angry. Many troops have been in the region for six months or more. They were told they would be going home by August at the latest. But this is not possible. For many, their stay seems to be open-ended.

Rumsfeld's original projection was for the withdrawal of all but 30,000 troops from Iraq. But the mess caused by the toppling of the Baathist government means that they must stay on for an indefinite period. The law and order situation deteriorates daily while the temperature soars above 50 degrees. Soldiers' families are fearful and want their loved ones to come home. Families and hometowns of troops put up yellow ribbons on the doors of their houses and on light posts to show that they are waiting for soldiers to return. Soldiers are writing letters to their representatives in Congress demanding to be repatriated.

The environment is increasingly hostile due to Iraqi anger over rising crime, lack of electricity and water, unemployment and harsh living conditions. Iraqis blame the Bush administration for ousting the former government without having concrete plans for a new regime capable of governing and providing security. Not trained for peacekeeping and policing, US troops carry on treating Iraqis as enemy combatants. The occupation forces continue with alienating practices they introduced during the first days of the war. These include trigger-happy shootings, strip searches of men, hooding and cuffing of detainees, and breaking down doors of Iraqi houses in the middle of the night to look for hidden weapons.

Conservative Iraqis are particularly incensed when male troops search Iraqi women for weapons. All Iraqis are outraged when they seen photographs and video film of a US soldier, boot on the head of a prone Iraqi prisoner's head. Iraqis have been sensitised — as have most Arabs — by years of similar video footage of Israeli soldiers humiliating, binding, beating and hooding Palestinian prisoners in their underwear. The US and Britain should have done everything they could to avoid emulating Israel. The more Israeli practices they adopt the greater the Iraqi resentment.

The appearance since July 4, the US national day, of two tapes purported to be from former President Saddam Hussein has exacerbated the uncertainty and uneasiness already felt by US troops who believed they had seen the last of the Iraqi ruler. He haunts the streets of Baghdad and the cities of the central area of the country where troops move about in fear. Loyalists are said to be targeting Iraqis collaborating with the US occupation administration and sabotaging infrastructure, but it is not clear who is staging such attacks. Uncertainty breeds more uncertainty.

The soldiery has also been discouraged by the continuous chopping and changing by US Viceroy L. Paul (“Jerry�) Bremer III who has demonstrated that he and his backers in Washington do not know what they are doing in Iraq. The US is unlikely to honour the promise of “democracy� any time soon.

Last weekend, Bremer made “concessions� to seven returned Iraqi exile opposition groups with the aim of persuading them to join a transitional governing council which would have the power to appoint ministers in an interim government, over which Bremer would have ultimate control. This would serve until a constitution has been written and an elected government is in place. This could take two, three or five years. Bremer arrogated to himself the power of appointment soon after his arrival in Baghdad in May, prompting several of seven groups of returned politicians to threaten that they would not join the council. This week, just 24 hours after municipal councils took over in Baghdad and Najaf, the mayor of Karbala resigned, accused of corruption. These developments reflect the rapid turnover of US appointed personnel in key positions. Even analysts close to the neoconservatives (“neocons�) who dominate the Bush administration have begun to question its fitness to govern Iraq, a notoriously difficult country to rule.

Finally, it is unclear how much news of the debate in the US and UK over the casus belli reaches the troops in Iraq. But those who are informed may understand the Bush administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair hyped up the threat Iraq's weapons of mass destruction allegedly posed to the region and the West. Soldiers in the know are likely to pass on the suggestion to their fellows that the US and UK went to war on a false pretext. This is likely to further undermine the already plunging morale of the troops serving in Iraq. The fact that morale and discipline are low was revealed this week by reports that US troops trashed and looted Baghdad's new international airport, including the serviceable civilian jets on the tarmac.

Replacements for stolen objects and repairs could cost as much as $100 million.

Having ousted the government of Iraq, Washington is in no position to cut its losses and run. Its troops will have to stay on and on until the US has established a credible and effective administration, imposed law and order and rebuilt a good deal of the infrastructure it destroyed when it brought down the former government. Domestic popular resentment, stirred by the realisation that the Bush administration has projected “American boys and girls� into a new quagmire could even deprive Bush of office when he runs for election in November 2004.

Support Our Troops

NEWS RELEASE from the United States Department of Defense

No. 498-03
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Jul 10, 2003
(703)697-5131(media)
(703)428-0711(public/industry)

DoD Identifies Army Casualty

The Department of Defense announced today that Sgt. Christopher P. Geiger, 38, of
Allentown, Pa., died on July 9 in Bagram, Afghanistan. Geiger died of a non-combat
related cause while supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

Geiger was assigned to the 213th Area Support Group, Allentown, Pa.

[Web Version: http://www.dod.mil/releases/2003/nr20030710-0187.html]

-- News Releases: http://www.defenselink.mil/releases
-- DoD News: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html
-- Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html#e-mail
-- Today in DoD: http://www.defenselink.mil/today

Support Our Troops
War-weary troops long for home


By Peter Greste
BBC correspondent in Baghdad



Attacks are taking their toll on US soldiers
It was a single shot - nothing spectacular - but that split-second act of Iraqi resistance might well be recorded as the point at which America turned from liberator to occupier.
The soldier who died was on a foot patrol through the Baghdad University.

There was no sign of imminent danger, according to the politics and engineering students who saw what happened.

The soldier was almost certainly feeling relaxed and at ease as he sipped his soft-drink in the stifling heat.

Like all American troops on patrol here, he was sweating beneath his Kevlar flak-jacket and helmet.

They provided no protection whatsoever from the man who walked through the lunch-time crowd, put a pistol to the back of the soldier's skull, and pulled the trigger.

Options narrow

The killing was an audacious strike that forced the US military planners here to once more re-think their strategy across Iraq.

We've learned, to our cost, that as soon as you let your guard down, the bad guys whack us out of nowhere

US soldier
"Every time there's another attack, our bosses look at it and work out how to avoid the same thing happening again," said Lieutenant Brian Kendrick of the 1st Armoured Division.

"We're getting new orders all the time, but I'm not sure how you stop that kind of thing, unless we give up the foot patrols. But they are the best way of getting in touch with people, and gathering intel (intelligence)".

As the steady drum-beat of attacks strike the coalition forces each day, the options for the military planners narrow.

'Hard to fight back'

There are no more foot patrols through the Baghdad University now.


The relationship between US forces and Iraqis has suffered

Soldiers hardly ever leave their armoured Humvee vehicles, and every Iraqi civilian is treated as a potential attacker.

And for every death, there are at least a dozen other attacks that do not make the daily press bulletins.

In military terms, they are barely a pinprick on the rump of the American military, but they are taking their toll on the individual soldiers.

"You can't ever relax here," said one.

"There's no obvious danger, but we've learned to our cost that as soon as you let your guard down, the bad guys whack us out of nowhere. But with so many civilians around, it's hard to fight back."

But some American troops are.

Sapping morale

Soldiers at a checkpoint recently believed they had spotted a sniper preparing to attack from the roof of a nearby building.

I don't think they [his commanders] really know what they're doing. I certainly don't

Sgt Todd Lewis
They fired at the position, and went to see what was there.

They found they had indeed killed someone - an 11-year-old boy.

It is a complex, messy and badly defined battlefield that is driving the Americans ever further from the very people they are supposed to be liberating, and sapping morale at the same time.

"I don't mind doing my duty. That's why I signed up," Sergeant Todd Lewis said.

"But the problem is I don't know how long I'm going to have to do it. I was married two years ago, and I've only seen my wife for six months in that time.

"We usually know how long we're going to be away, but the most our bosses are telling us now is 'We'll try to have you home before Christmas'. I don't think they really know what they're doing. I certainly don't," he said.

In and out?

And so, the question of an exit strategy has now become central to the issue of flagging troop morale.

It exists in broad theoretical terms - the plan is to set up political structures, draft a new constitution, hold elections and then pray that the result will be a Western friendly and oil-rich government in Baghdad.

But that is not the kind of clear "roadmap", to borrow a term, with defined timetables and obvious way-points along the route that the Iraqi people or coalition soldiers want to see.

"First they said we'd be in and out as quickly as possible," said Sergeant Lewis.

"Now they're saying that we'll be here for as long as it takes to establish freedom and democracy. The longer I'm here, the less sure I am that it will happen."

Support Our Troops
U.S. Troops Could Be in Iraq in 4 Years



WASHINGTON (AP) -- American troops may still be in Iraq four years from now, Gen. Tommy Franks told Congress on Thursday.

The wartime commander told the House Armed Services Committee: "I anticipate we'll be involved in Iraq in the future. Whether that means two years or four years, I don't know."

There are nearly 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, some of them under fire from anti-U.S. forces. "We need to not develop an expectation that all of these difficulties will go away in one month or two months or three months," Franks testified.

The general said the troop strength would be held at the current level at least through the end of the year.

Pleading for patience, President Bush said the United States would "have to remain tough" in Iraq despite attacks on U.S. soldiers that killed at least two more Americans on Thursday.

Bush spoke in Gaborone, Botswana, amid a debate at home about erroneous evidence that the administration cited as part of its justification for the invasion of Iraq.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who is running for president, said the United States does not have sufficient forces to reconstruct Iraq without support from other nations.

"We now know that the administration went to war without a thorough plan to win the peace," he said. "It is time to face that truth and change course, to share the postwar burden internationally for the sake of our country, for our standing in the world and most of all for the young Americans in uniform who cannot be protected from an enemy attack by an announcement, no matter how well staged, that hostilities are over."

A group of arms control experts accused the administration of misrepresenting intelligence information to justify the war.

Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the private Arms Control Association, was one of several experts challenging the administration.

"We, along with an increasing number of others, believe that the administration made its case for going to war by misrepresenting intelligence findings as well as citing discredited intelligence information," Kimball said Wednesday.

And on Capitol Hill, Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said he had a fear "we may find ourselves in the throes of guerrilla warfare for years."

"We cannot leave Iraq," Skelton said at a committee hearing with retired Gen. Tommy Franks, the U.S. commander in the war. "This must be a success."

Another committee member, Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., said CIA Director George Tenet should be called to testify in public.

She said the committee owed it to the U.S. troops in Iraq "to evaluate whether the intelligence used to send them into harm's way ... was sound."

Bush, responding to concern about the rising casualty toll, said, "There's no question we have a security issue in Iraq, and we've just got to deal with it person to person. We're going to have to remain tough."

More than 70 American soldiers have died since Bush declared major combat over May 1. "It's going take more than 90 to 100 days for people to recognize the great joys of freedom and the responsibilities that come with freedom," he said. "It's very important for us to stay the course, and we will stay the course."

Franks testified, meanwhile, that besides the 19 countries with forces in Iraq, another 19 were preparing to send troops and 11 were discussing it.

Wednesday, at a news conference in South Africa, Bush said he was "absolutely confident" about going to war despite the discovery that allegations Saddam Hussein had sought uranium in Africa for a nuclear weapons program was based on fabricated information.

When the war began in March, Iraq posed no threat to the United States or to its neighbors, a former senior State Department intelligence official said Wednesday.

Its missiles could not reach Israel, Saudi Arabia or Iran, said Greg Thielmann, who held a high post in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

But Thielmann, one of four critics at a session held by the private Arms Control Association, said the Bush administration had formed a "faith-based" policy on Iraq and took the approach that "we know the answers; give us the intelligence to support those answers."

Thielmann said the administration had distorted intelligence to fit its policy purposes. He said Iraq had no active nuclear weapons program and that while Tenet told Congress Iraq had Scud missiles, the intelligence finding actually was that the missiles could not be accounted for.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the administration decided to use military force because the information about the threat of Saddam's regime was seen with a different perspective after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11."

Under questioning from Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., Rumsfeld said he did not know how much the administration would propose to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the new budget year that begins Oct. 1.

He said under the $62.4 billion midyear spending bill, the United States expects to spend an average $3.9 billion a month on Iraq from January through September this year. An average of $700 million a month is being spent in Afghanistan.

The Pentagon said Wednesday 1,044 American servicemen and women have been wounded in action or injured since the war in Iraq began March 20. Of that total, 382 have been wounded or injured since Bush declared major combat over, according to the Pentagon's figures. Of the 212 U.S. troops who have died in Iraq since the war began, 74 died after May 1, not including Thursday's toll.




Created: 7/10/2003 3:55:05 PM
Updated: 7/10/2003 3:57:50 PM

Support Our Troops
This political grandstanding is really starting to irk me. President Bush isn't even in the US and Kerry is backstabbing him. I say NO to Kerry for any political office.

Kerry Demands that Bush 'Tell the Truth' About Iraq
Sen. Byrd, Other Democrats Join Criticism

Reuters
Thursday, July 10, 2003; 3:45 PM


Democratic White House contender John Kerry called on President Bush Thursday "to tell the truth" about Iraq -- including the fact that "the war is continuing and so are the casualties."

The Massachusetts senator also urged Bush to acknowledge that "we lack sufficient forces to do the job of reconstruction in Iraq, and withdraw in a reasonable period," and need more help from allies.

Kerry's critique was arguably the toughest so far by any of the four Democrats in Congress who voted to authorize Bush to use force, and are now seeking their party's 2004 presidential nomination.

The senator delivered his remarks shortly after the number of U.S. soldiers killed by hostile fire in Iraq since Bush declared the end to major combat on May 1 rose to 31

Support Our Troops
Soldiers' families mourn loss of loved ones

By The Associated Press




Maria Whitlow often disappears with a small photo of her son. She will drive or walk to a quiet place.

That's been the case since she learned Monday that her 30-year-old son, Sgt. David B. Parson, of Kannapolis, N.C., was killed in Iraq.

"She'll just go walk or sit," said her husband, Bill Whitlow. "That's her way of grieving."

The U.S. Department of Defense initially reported that Parson was shot while conducting a raid on a house, and that's the report that Parson's family in Kannapolis got, Bill Whitlow said.

A soldier later told Parson's wife that he was shot multiple times taking a defensive position when their vehicle came under attack, according to family.

Parson was assigned to the 1-37th Armored Battalion, 1st Armored Division in Friedburg, Germany.

He's one of two soldiers with North Carolina ties to die in separate incidents this week.

Spc. Chad L. Keith, 21, of Batesville, Ind., died Monday in Baghdad when his vehicle drove past an object that exploded on the side of the road. He was assigned to the 2-325th Infantry, Company D at Fort Bragg, N.C.

Parson would have been married six years on July 17. He and his wife, Mary "Emmy," 23, have three children, ages 1-4. They married when she was just 17.

Parson grew up in Mayodan and joined the Marines a year of so after he graduated from high school. Trained as a sniper and scout, he became a weapons instructor at Quantico, Va.

He left the Marines after four years and moved to Kannapolis to be near his mother and stepfather.

Parson did maintenance work at Concord Regional Airport on planes owned by NASCAR drivers.

But Bill Whitlow said his stepson decided he preferred a more regimented life, so he joined the Army.

The family shipped out to Germany in February; Parson left for Iraq on Mother's Day.

A memorial service for Parson was held Thursday in Kannapolis. Another service is expected sometime next week at Fort Bragg.

Mary Belman, of Spotsylvania, Va., worries for daughter, and how she will cope with the loss of her husband.

She said Emmy Parson plans eventually to live near Fort Bragg, to give her children access to military benefits.

"The children will force her to keep going," she said.

Keith's father said his son would have been promoted to sergeant next month. He was a paratrooper in the 82nd Air borne Division.

Mark Hitzges said his son was on the track team and ran cross country in high school. He enlisted in 2000.

"We stood behind him," Hitzges said. "It was not expected, but we were proud of the fact that it was something he wanted to do."

Keith deployed March 17. His father said he had been ready to go since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Keith is the third paratrooper from the 325th to die in Iraq. All three have died since Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq on May 1.

Support Our Troops
Iraq Police Tell U.S. Troops to Stay Away
By PAUL HAVEN
Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq

Local police officers protest at the mayor's office in Fallujah, Iraq Thursday, July 10, 2003. The officers made a 48-hour ultimatum that American soldiers leave the main police station, where they have been staying along with the local police. The Iraqi officers claimed that the soldiers' presence there is putting them in danger of attack from insurgents. (AP Photo/John Moore)
With daily shootings and rocket attacks against U.S. soldiers claiming two more lives, even Iraqi policemen said Thursday they want to keep a safe distance from coalition troops for fear of getting caught in the crossfire.

Several dozen Iraqi police, most wearing new uniforms provided by the U.S. military, marched on the mayor's office in Fallujah, a restive town west of Baghdad, insisting American soldiers stop using their station as a base. The Iraqis said they would quit their posts if the soldiers don't find a new home within 48 hours.

Also Thursday, the U.S. military announced several new attacks.

An American soldier was shot and killed near the city of Mahmudiyah, 15 miles south of Baghdad, on Wednesday evening.

Another soldier was killed and one wounded Wednesday in a rocket-propelled grenade assault on a five-vehicle convoy near Baqouba, 45 miles northeast of Baghdad, said Lt. Col. Bill MacDonald of the Army's 4th Infantry Division.

In the city of Ramadi, 60 miles west of the capital, three separate overnight mortar attacks targeted U.S. servicemen, but there were no reports of casualties, the military said.

The military also said a soldier died Wednesday in Balad from what it described as a non-hostile gunshot incident. There were no further details. Another American soldier stationed near Balad, 55 miles north of the capital, died of a non-hostile gunshot wound Monday; soldiers at a nearby air base said he took his own life.

Since President Bush declared major combat operations had ended on May 1, at least 31 U.S. soldiers have been killed by hostile fire and 46 others have died in accidents and other non-hostile circumstances, a total of 77.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq, said the Iraqi police in Fallujah have every right to protest in Iraq's emerging democracy, but he insisted American forces would not leave the police station.

He said that if the Iraqis follow through with their threat, "we'll find some more" police to patrol the city.

The fears of the Fallujah police are not without foundation.

Insurgents fired two rocket-propelled grenades at American troops in the city Wednesday, causing no casualties. And an explosion Saturday at a police graduation ceremony in Ramadi, 28 miles west of Fallujah, killed seven U.S.-trained recruits.

On June 24, protesters in the southern city of Majar al-Kabir stormed a police station after British troops fired on protesters. Four British soldiers died in the attack on the station, and two others were killed in a clash near the mayor's office.

Fallujah has seen several deadly attacks on American and Iraqi forces since U.S. troops killed 20 protesters in late April.

Attacks by pro-Saddam Hussein insurgents in recent weeks have threatened to drag Iraq's American and British occupiers into a military and political quagmire. The U.S. military insists the resistance does not amount to a full-fledged guerrilla war, and say they have no evidence it is being coordinated on a nationwide level.

The military acknowledges, however, that the continued uncertainty over Saddam's fate has fueled the rebels. Saddam has not been seen since the overthrow of his regime in April, though tapes purportedly of the ousted dictator have been aired on Arabic television since then. American officials are offering $25 million for information leading to the arrest of Saddam, and $15 million for each of his sons Qusai and Odai.

Most of the attacks have taken place north and west of Baghdad called the "Sunni Triangle," a region known as a stronghold of Saddam supporters, although many residents deny that the former dictator, also a Sunni Muslim, still has followers among them. Fallujah, Ramadi and Baqouba are all within the triangle.

The attacks, as well as sabotage against Iraqi infrastructure, have stymied efforts to return security and vital services to the country. At night gangs roam darkened streets, and killings and carjackings occur in broad daylight.

Sanchez disputed complaints that Baghdad's crime rate was out of control, saying it "is no worse than any American city."

Coalition authorities said Thursday they expect it to cost $1.7 billion over five years to revamp Iraq's dilapidated power industry. Lack of electricity _ and air conditioning _ in Baghdad has raised frustration, with the city suffering through temperatures up to 122 degrees.

Also Thursday, the military announced that U.S. forces had seized 12 Iraqi artifacts allegedly looted from the National Museum in Baghdad. The pieces included miniature statues, a skull and a clay bowl, all from about 3,200 B.C.-3,000 B.C. The artifacts were found wrapped in a rice bag in a raid on a Baghdad residence on Monday.

Support Our Troops
Soldier slain in war in Iraq to be buried in Mifflin

Thursday, July 10, 2003

MIRIAM SEGALOFF
Enterprise Staff Writer

A U.S. Army soldier killed last month in Iraq will be buried Saturday at the Mifflin Township Cemetery.

Army Pfc. Kevin Ott, 27, was listed by the Department of Defense as "whereabouts unknown" on June 25. On June 30, the DOD reported Ott's body, along with that of another soldier, were located on June 28 in Taji, Iraq, about 20 miles northwest of Baghdad.

Ott will join an estimated 500 military personnel interred at the Mifflin cemetery. The burial will follow a 10:30 a.m. funeral service at Southwest Community Church of the Nazarene in Harrisburg, just outside of Orient.

Calling hours are scheduled for Thursday from 6 to 8 p.m. and Friday from 2 to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. at the Schoedinger-Norris Chapel on Broadway in Grove City.

According to Ott's brother-in-law Jim Pack, several member's of Ott's family are buried at Mifflin and his mother was raised in the township.

B