Iraqi cleric urges attacks on US troops over Gaza

By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD – Anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on Wednesday urged reprisals against American forces in Iraq to protest Israel's Gaza offensive, as Arab anger grows over civilian deaths in the Palestinian territory.

The strongly worded statement signaled a threat by al-Sadr's militia fighters to renew violence against American troops after months of relative calm.

It was unclear, however, just how much influence the once-powerful Shiite leader — who is believed to be in Iran — still has. His fighters have been hit hard in U.S.-Iraqi military operations over the past year.

The U.S. State Department dismissed al-Sadr's calls, describing them as "outrageous."

"Any call for attacks against Americans is outrageous and, frankly, not worthy of much more comment," deputy State Department spokesman Robert Wood told reporters. "Outside calls to attack Americans for what's going on in the region are outrageous."

The Bush administration held off Wednesday from backing an Egyptian-French cease-fire proposal in Gaza, saying it was exploring other options to secure a lasting agreement that would end the violence.

Iraqis have expressed outrage over the Israeli offensive and what is perceived as U.S. inaction, holding protests to show solidarity with the Palestinians. The issue has again put the spotlight on Iraq's relations with Israel as the two countries remain technically at war.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki expressed "great pain and sorrow" over the Israeli offensive and accused the international community of ignoring the plight of the Palestinians.

"It is regrettable that this brutal crime continues with the silence of the international community," he told reporters Tuesday.

He called on other Arab and Muslim nations to "abolish diplomatic relations" with Israel and to "stop all public and clandestine contacts with this murderous regime." Only two Arab countries, Egypt and Jordan, have peace treaties with Israel.

In his own statement, al-Sadr said more action was needed "due to the continuation of Arab silence and the massacres committed by the Zionist enemy under U.S. and international cover."

"I call upon the honest Iraqi resistance to carry out revenge operations against the great accomplice of the Zionist enemy," he said, using rhetoric referring to the United States and Israel.

He also urged that Palestinian flags be raised on mosques, churches and buildings in Iraq and that all countries close Israeli embassies.

Al-Sadr and his militiamen have been staunch opponents of the U.S. presence in Iraq and waged fierce battles in 2004 followed by years of sectarian violence. He ordered his fighters to stand down in 2007 but retained a smaller force.

But his movement's popularity has suffered with the involvement of some militiamen in protection and black market rackets, as well as general fatigue from on-again, off-again fighting.

Israel says it launched the offensive to end rocketing by the Islamic militant group Hamas that has traumatized southern Israel.

Palestinian and U.N. figures show that about 300 of the more than 670 Palestinians killed so far have been civilians.

Israel has lost six soldiers since launching a ground offensive on Saturday — four in "friendly fire" incidents — and four other Israelis have been killed by rocket fire since fighting began on Dec. 27.

In Jordan, meanwhile, two Iraqi planes carrying several tons of medicine, medical supplies, blankets and water reserves containers to be sent to Gaza, landed in Amman airport Tuesday, the Iraqi Red Crescent said.

Rasoul Khedayer, the agency's representative in Jordan, said "Iraq will continue to bring aid supplies to the people of Gaza and will fly more than 10 planes in the coming few days into Jordan."

Also Wednesday, hundreds of thousands of Shiites joined processions to honor the martyrdom of one of their most revered saints. More than 30,000 policemen and soldiers were deployed in Baghdad, Karbala and on roads between the two cities to guard the ceremonies.

Report: US had unrealistic goals in Afghanistan

By ANNE GEARAN, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON – The United States and its partners have shortchanged Afghanistan by focusing on short-term goals pursued without a cohesive strategy or a clear understanding of the way the poor, decentralized country works, an independent study concludes.

The incoming Obama administration should refocus the U.S. war and rebuilding effort in Afghanistan and think of the project as the work of at least a decade, according to the report compiled by the United States Institute of Peace.

The assessment was set for release Thursday at a conference to be attended by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and Army Gen. David Petraeus, who is in charge of the Afghan and Iraq wars.

Petraeus' own review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is expected to be presented to Obama the week after he takes office Jan. 20. The plan would shift the focus from the waning fight in Iraq to the escalating Afghan battle.

President George W. Bush's in-house Iraq and Afghanistan adviser has already done a separate assessment; it has not been made public.

"The Bush administration has had all but eight months of its entire tenure to stabilize Afghanistan and here it is January and one of the top foreign policy priorities for the Obama administration is to stabilize Afghanistan," said J. Alexander Thier, an Afghan scholar at the institute.

Thier, the report's editor, does not place all blame with the Bush administration, which led an invasion of Afghanistan shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Other countries and international organizations have too often set unrealistic or shortsighted goals for a country unaccustomed to top-down government, he said.

The study includes essays by scholars in a range of fields.

The U.S. military is preparing to pour at least 20,000 extra troops into southern Afghanistan to cope with a Taliban insurgency that is fiercer than NATO leaders expected. The new troops will augment the 12,500 NATO soldiers — mainly British, Canadian and Dutch — in what amounts to an Afghan version of the surge in Iraq.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said the U.S. can expect to commit significant numbers of soldiers there for several more years. Gates said he will not have to cut troop levels further in Iraq to free up at least two of those three brigades for Afghan duty.

When the additions are complete, the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan will climb to more than 50,000. Some 31,000 U.S. troops are there now.

Violence in Afghanistan has spiked in the past two years. Taliban militants now control wide swaths of countryside. Military officials say they have enough troops to win battles but not to hold territory, and they hope the influx of troops, plus the continued growth of the Afghan army, will change that.

In 2008, 151 U.S. troops died in Afghanistan, more than in any of the seven years since the invasion to oust the Taliban. U.S. officials warn violence will probably intensify next year.

The institute is an independent, nonpartisan institution established by Congress in 1984 to help prevent and resolve violent international conflicts, promote post-conflict stability and increase peacebuilding capacity.

How the war between Russia and Ukraine will start

At the present moment the Kremlin propaganda is imbibing the idea among Russians about the inevitability of a war with Ukraine. Russians need the idea imbibed among them, first of all, -- because Georgians are a different story, they are viewed as "dark ones", "they speak the tongue that is not ours" and they "sell stuff at the markets" (image of an enemy ready-made), -- Ukrainians however are viewed by most of the Russians as a "brotherly Slavic nation", if not even as Russian as they are.

But, as everybody has long known, the power in Ukraine was "seized by fascist and at the same time pro-European American puppet, the horrible orange dictator, spineless at the same time, Yushchenko". Oh well, "little Ukrainian brothers" need to be rescued.

It is not a scenario of some computer game, or a plan of some war between Ukraine and Sierra Leone, like the ones developed by joint staffs to polish their skills. This is Putin's real plan, which is being implemented at the present time. It doesn't mean that the plan will work 100%. But this is the way the things are being planned:

1. A quite large ultra-right group gets set up in Ukraine on Putin's natural gas rubles. For that purpose several right-wing radical organizations, which are now languishing without funding, are united under glaring pro-Ukrainian mottos. Members of the organizations that have not joined the party yet are now being lured over, and novices are getting involved as well. Large-scale rallies, powerful events, and the like.

Their leaders are the only ones who will know that they are serving the Kremlin, maybe not even all of their leaders. Everyone else will be sincerely claiming to be Ukrainian radical patriots. They will certainly declare themselves as part of the legacy of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and Ukrainian Rebel Army (because the name of Yushchenko is associated with the support of Ukrainian Rebel Army), and this is the image that Russian and pro-Russian media will be presenting.

They will be making correct statements and hold rallies (such as fighting against separatism, oligarchs, Ukraino-phobia, illegal migration, etc.) and opposing themselves to the "liberal" nationalists. They will be seeking exclusivity every time the Ukrainian right wing is mentioned.

It is quite possible that the name of the organization will be reminding of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, Ukrainian Nationalist Army or the like, once the organization is formed, since Russians are associating both of the brands with "fascism".

For instance: Ukrainian National Socialist Assembly. Both of the prospective organizations mentioned above will conduct press conferences where they will strongly dissociate themselves from the "provocateurs", but no one will hear them because they are "libs" and a "bunch of renegades".

2. The group holds an event or a few large-scale events in Crimea that will involve the use of force. Moreover, those who deserve it will actually get beaten, the ones who are supposed to be awaiting gallows and prisons instead of just rocks thrown at them. This is where alternative options are possible.

Option one

On the order of President of Ukraine Ukrainian special police squad (Berkut [the name of the unit stands for "Golden Eagle"]) will deal most harshly with the ultra-right, and their leaders and most active members will end up behind the bars. A US flotilla throws its anchors in Sebastopol, Crimea. All of us, me inclusive, start posting outraged messages dedicated to condemning the government. Moscow issues a few threatening statements and this is where this whole story ends.

Option two

President and Special Police Force did not dare and the flotilla did not make it. Russia comes to help its fellow countrymen in Sebastopol and in Crimea as a whole to "defend their lives and their property against the fascist thugs authorized by the Yushchenko regime".

Russian marines start guarding the headquarters of pro-Russian organizations, and then the building of the Supreme Council of Crimea and so on and so forth.

The American flotilla (already having made its way there) throws its anchors in Sebastopol and the bargaining starts. France, Germany or any other prostituting European country offers its services as an intermediary. The bargaining will most likely end up with a partial loss of the Crimean Peninsula (Sebastopol, most probably). Russia experiences a rise in chauvinism and everybody forgets all about the financial crisis. Putin gets elected as a lifetime president.

Option three

The US flotilla never makes it to Crimea (because of Mr. Obama). The Ukrainian army redeploys in Crimea. The Russian army gets its backup and gets rid of the Ukrainian army in about three days. It is followed by the invasion of Crimea, uprising of Tatars (local ethnic group in Crimea, who were deported during the Soviet era), and guerilla warfare. Putin recognizes Ukraine's territorial integrity provided Crimea is independent. Rise of chauvinism in Russia, etc. See above. A pro-Russian regime comes to power in Ukrainian capital Kiev to replace the "Yushchenko regime".

After that someone may possibly issue some kind of a secret order, and someone will start killing somebody off with some unpredictable consequences. But that will be hard to figure out.

You think for yourself about how to prevent these three options from happening. I will be in enough trouble already for writing this article.

An occupation government in Islamabad?

They invaded Iraq to set up an occupation government in Baghdad. But in Islamabad, they have done it without firing a bullet. Read this fascinating insight into what seems like an American-imposed proxy occupation administration with Pakistani faces.

Is Pakistan under occupation? If one is living in the capital, this seems to be the picture as our democratically elected leaders and their state apparatus increasingly behave like an occupation force. Perhaps given our ever increasing concession to the US, one can actually regard the Pakistani state as a proxy occupation force for the US. How else can one explain the present government's desire to recreate the "Green Zone" of Iraq in Islamabad? After all, Iraq's Green Zone basically was necessitated to protect the hated American occupiers and their local Quislings. Obviously, for an occupation force their lives are more valuable to them than the lives of the local people.



In Islamabad, the Navy had sealed its E-8 occupied area from the common Pakistani while the civilian citizen of the capital has not created any hurdles in the movement of naval officers in their residential and workplace areas. More recently the Air Force took the same apartheid-like approach for their E-9 occupied area so a civilian has to undergo many trials before moving in these areas - if allowed at all.



But is this how our democratically elected leaders also think? Now for our civilian leaders it seems all citizens are suspect, barring officialdom and the members of parliament. Too bad elected people can easily forget who sent them there in the first place. So now, thanks to the desire of the new leadership to isolate itself and become an occupation force rather than a representative government, we can undergo the same experiences as our brethren in Iraq. Now if only the wild boars could also realize that, democracy or not, leaders in Pakistan will protect their isolation, come what may, so their forays into the presidency will only result in dire poisoning! Of course, at the end of the day, if people rise up against occupation and increasing hardships, what happens to the self-designed occupiers? A problem has to be resolved and mere cutting off from the problem is no solution but an impediment towards one.



Coming back to the Pakistani state and its concessions to the US, while a complete picture is probably not possible, one does not require an in-camera briefing to make some general assessments as to what has been conceded by Pakistan post-9/11 to the US But a reminder would be timely right now when we are seeing a resumption of the silence on continued US attacks in FATA against our citizens and our sovereignty.



Certainly, in the early days of our entering the US-led "war on terror," we offered certain strategic bases of which Jacobabad has since been returned apparently over two years ago (or so one is informed, but there is always the trust factor that is not totally there for us ordinary citizens). In any case, since our initial giving on this count, we have clearly given some base-like facilities to the US around Warsak, although, ostensibly, here there are only "trainers" for the FC and other Pakistani units involved in "anti-terror operations". But as we all know, even the presence of a few US trainers requires a whole base-like infrastructure in terms of food (they do not trust the local variety), entertainment, logistics, communications (heaven forbid that they have to rely on ours), security, and so on. So, even if informally, we have a base presence in the Warsak area now. As for the Shamsi base in Balochistan where there are Predators, one can safely assume that the US would find it tempting to target Iran from this prime location (westward of Khuzdar). It is time we took back this base which is undermining our own regional security parameters.



Beyond bases, Pakistan also agreed to information/intelligence sharing and so all the equipment at airports, ports, and so on, through which information is gathered is shared with the Americans. But it seems there is little reciprocity from the US side on this count. What is unclear, and I wonder if we will ever know truly, the compromises made by Pakistan on renditions and the handing over of Pakistani citizens to the US. What we do know is that some agreement on this count was also put in place, with some individuals actually making money as a result - to Pakistan's eternal shame. It would also appear that this agreement continues since Zardari, despite grandiose statements, did not even mention Dr Afia Siddiqui's name while in the US recently.



It also appears that we allowed, and continue to do so, 24-hour overflights for US and NATO tactical operations over/through Pakistani airspace. Such instructions have been given to our air traffic controllers. In addition, over briefings given in the past, we were told that all Predator/missile attacks the US undertook were initially done with permission from Pakistan. But now it appears they have stopped seeking that permission. In fact, the Libbi strike was also carried out without Pakistani permission so we do not know when the US altered policy and chose not to inform, let alone seek Pakistani permission for attacks on Pakistani territory.

What we do know is that there was no agreement on ground attacks by US forces. Tut since the present government has been in power a question mark hangs over this aspect of so-called cooperation with the US Especially since, after Zardari declared in New York, that Pakistani forces had not fired on US intruders, there has been not even a murmur of protest at the increasing US violations against Pakistani sovereignty and Pakistani citizens. In fact, so emboldened have the US and NATO become that, for the first time, in a reversal of the earlier stance, the NATO command has declared support for US intrusions into Pakistan! So, an intelligent conclusion would be that our new government has added to the concessions made by Musharraf.

As for the money Pakistan supposedly has received in return, first it should be clear that no amount of money can justify handing over a chunk of our sovereignty to the US for military purposes. In any case, the Coalition Support Fund went to the government and was to be shared 40:60 by them and the military, but from all accounts the military never got the full 60 percent. As for weapons, it is a cruel joke that continues to be played on the Pakistanis - or is our military so desperate for US equipment and training? It should not be since the army especially has managed without for many decades.

In any case, the largesse of night-vision goggles and supplies for our Cobra helicopters is hardly state-of-the-art transfers! More humiliating for the army has been the regular accounting of these goggles by US personnel which requires the army to collect all the goggles from far and wide and show them to their Yank givers before being returned to use! Now we had yet another absurdity of the US giving us a 32-year-old frigate which we have to restore at a cost of $ 65 million. If you want to see a proper military partnership simply look at what the US is giving India in terms of weapons systems and weapons technology and then realize where you stand with the so-called ally, the US!

But if our parliamentarians still think the US is our ally, Boucher's latest visit should have made things clearer. No talks, the Americans simply want to kill all our people who they classify as Taliban! This has been the other compromise we made with the US: No successful talks with our people on the pattern of the IRA-UK-Ireland talks and others of a similar pattern-only military response. After all, what seems to have remained hidden to all our leaders, although it has been clear to the rest of us for some years now, is the disruptive and negative US agenda for Pakistan. But our rulers continue to play the US game and our legislators do not seem to have the will to assert their democratic force to change course for the better. There are other solutions to our "terrorism/extremism" problem, but someone in power has to be prepared to move away from the US and listen to their own people. Until then, they are becoming our occupiers by proxy.

Top 5 lies about Israel's assault on Gaza

Lie #1: Israel is only targeting legitimate military sites and is seeking to protect innocent lives. Israel never targets civilians.

The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated pieces of property in the world. The presence of fighters within a civilian population does not, under international law, deprive that population of their protected status, and hence any assault upon that population under the guise of targeting fighters is, in fact, a war crime.

Moreover, the people Israel claims are legitimate targets are members of Hamas, which Israel says is a terrorist organization. Hamas has been responsible for firing rockets into Israel. These rockets are extremely inaccurate and thus, even if Hamas intended to hit military targets within Israel, are indiscriminate by nature. When rockets from Gaza kill Israeli civilians, it is a war crime.

Hamas has a military wing. However, it is not entirely a military organization, but a political one. Members of Hamas are the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people. Dozens of these elected leaders have been kidnapped and held in Israeli prisons without charge.

Others have been targeted for assassination, such as Nizar Rayan, a top Hamas official. To kill Rayan, Israel targeted a residential apartment building. The strike not only killed Rayan but two of his wives and four of his children, along with six others. There is no justification for such an attack under international law. This was a war crime.

Other of Israel's bombardment with protected status under international law have included a mosque, a prison, police stations, and a university, in addition to residential buildings.

Moreover, Israel has long held Gaza under siege, allowing only the most minimal amounts of humanitarian supplies to enter. Israel is bombing and killing Palestinian civilians. Countless more have been wounded, and cannot receive medical attention. Hospitals running on generators have little or no fuel. Doctors have no proper equipment or medical supplies to treat the injured. These people, too, are the victims of Israeli policies targeted not at Hamas or legitimate military targets, but directly designed to punish the civilian population.

Lie #2) Hamas violated the cease-fire. The Israeli bombardment is a response to Palestinian rocket fire and is designed to end such rocket attacks.

Israel never observed the cease-fire to begin with. From the beginning, it announced a "special security zone" within the Gaza Strip and announced that Palestinians who enter this zone will be fired upon. In other words, Israel announced its intention that Israeli soldiers would shoot at farmers and other individuals attempting to reach their own land in direct violation of not only the cease-fire but international law.

Despite shooting incidents, including ones resulting in Palestinians getting injured, Hamas still held to the cease-fire from the time it went into effect on June 19 until Israel effectively ended the truce on November 4 by launching an airstrike into Gaza that killed five and injured several others.



Israel's violation of the cease-fire predictably resulted in retaliation from militants in Gaza who fired rockets into Israel in response. The increased barrage of rocket fire at the end of December is being used as justification for the continued Israeli bombardment, but is a direct response to the Israeli attacks.



Israel's actions, including its violation of the cease-fire, predictably resulted in an escalation of rocket attacks against its own population.



Lie #3) Hamas is using human shields, a war crime.



There has been no evidence that Hamas has used human shields. The fact is, as previously noted, Gaza is a small piece of property that is densely populated. Israel engages in indiscriminate warfare such as the assassination of Nizar Rayan, in which members of his family were also murdered. It is victims like his dead children that Israel defines as "human shields" in its propaganda.



There is no legitimacy for this interpretation under international law. In circumstances such as these, Hamas is not using human shields, Israel is committing war crimes in violation of the Geneva Conventions and other applicable international law.



Lie #4) Arab nations have not condemned Israel's actions because they understand Israel's justification for its assault.

The populations of those Arab countries are outraged at Israel's actions and at their own governments for not condemning Israel's assault and acting to end the violence. Simply stated, the Arab governments do not represent their respective Arab populations. The populations of the Arab nations have staged mass protests in opposition to not only Israel's actions but also the inaction of their own governments and what they view as either complacency or complicity in Israel's crimes.

Moreover, the refusal of Arab nations to take action to come to the aid of the Palestinians is not because they agree with Israel's actions, but because they are submissive to the will of the US, which fully supports Israel. Egypt, for instance, which refused to open the border to allow Palestinians wounded in the attacks to get medical treatment in Egyptian hospitals, is heavily dependent upon US aid, and is being widely criticized within the population of the Arab countries for what is viewed as an absolute betrayal of the Gaza Palestinians.

Even Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been regarded as a traitor to his own people for blaming Hamas for the suffering of the people of Gaza. Palestinians are also well aware of Abbas' past perceived betrayals in conniving with Israel and the U.S. to sideline the democratically elected Hamas government, culminating in a counter-coup by Hamas in which it expelled Fatah (the military wing of Abbas' Palestine Authority) from the Gaza Strip. While his apparent goal was to weaken Hamas and strengthen his own position, the Palestinians and other Arabs in the Middle East are so outraged at Abbas that it is unlikely he will be able to govern effectively

Lie #5) Israel is not responsible for civilian deaths because it warned the Palestinians of Gaza to flee areas that might be targeted.

Israel claims it sent radio and telephone text messages to residents of Gaza warning them to flee from the coming bombardment. But the people of Gaza have nowhere to flee to. They are trapped within the Gaza Strip. It is by Israeli design that they cannot escape across the border.

It is by Israeli design that they have no food, water, or fuel by which to survive. It is by Israeli design that hospitals in Gaza have no electricity and few medical supplies with which to treat the injured and save lives. And Israel has bombed vast areas of Gaza, targeting civilian infrastructure and other sites with protected status under international law. No place is safe within the Gaza Strip.