Archive for the ‘Iraq’ Category

Iraq: Press remarks by High Representative Josep Borrell before the … – EEAS

Check against delivery!

Good afternoon to everybody.

I am very happy to have the opportunity to welcome the Foreign Minister of Iraq, Minister Fuad [Mohammed] Hussein, for this[EU-Iraq]Cooperation Council.

I see that the Minister comes with [an] important delegation - a very large delegation accompanying you, dear Minister - and the presence of Foreign Affairs Ministers from the European Unions side tonight at the meeting, reflects the importance that both sides attach to this partnership and to this Cooperation Council meeting.

You know that the Council Cooperation is the highest level of our bilateral engagement with Iraq.

This is the third Council that takes place after a pause of seven years too many years. But after this pause, we have already had with today [included] three Councils. The pause was mainly due to the situation in Iraq which was very dire years ago. More recently, also for the impact of [the pandemic of] COVID-19.

But the COVID-19 has gone, and Iraq has made a lot of progress - considerable progress - and it is in our interest to contribute to further stabilising the situation and support the authorities.

This meeting will show that we want, Minister, to enhance our cooperation building on what we already have, which is a solid partnership. Because among other things, we are important trading partners. We have an excellent cooperation in [in the field of] security. We are part of the Anti-Da'esh Coalition. We have our civilian mission, our [EU] Assistance Mission in Iraq [EUAMIraq] which assists you on the security sector reform.

And after a difficult post Daesh period, Iraq now has a government with an ambitious domestic agenda that includes a lot of reforms. AndI commend the Prime Minister [of Iraq,Mohammed Shia] al-Sudani for making the fight against corruption a high priority for his government.

On our side, we are keen to support such reforms and encourage our Iraqi friends to remain on this course.

Minister, the Iraqi government can count on our help for the benefit of the Iraqi people, but also for the sake of regional stability. Because yes, we appreciate a lot the constructive role of Iraq in this region.

We have seen recently Saudi Arabia and Iran normalising their relations. This will add more stability to the region. And lets not forget that the first round of negotiations leading to a positive outcome took place in Baghdad. Baghdad was the theatre of this important rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

That is a good reason to welcome your policy as a good neighbourhood relations maker: not only you are stabilising your country, but you are contributing to stabilise the region.

And at the same time, we condemn the attacks against Iraqs territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Minister, my colleague Commissioner [for Home Affairs, Ylva] Johansson will also participate in the Council. Commissioner Johansson - as you know - is in charge of home affairs, thatinclude migration. Migration is an important area where we have to make progress together, sooner than later. Our agenda today is much wider than that.

And Minister, I am very much looking forward to our exchanges, first bilaterally, and then in the Cooperation Council with your delegation, and quite an impressive number of Foreign [Affairs] ministers of Member States of the [European] Union, who will be with us tonight.

Thank you.

Q&A

Q. Mr Borrell, may I ask you a question about this diplomatic breakthrough. If this breakthrough between Saudi Arabia and Iran where Iraq played a role [inaudible]. I would like to ask you if you expect this toenhance lets say or bring morestability to the region by the fact that Iran has to stop its interference in the internal affairs of the countries in the region. Plus, would this agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran ease the difficulties ahead of the JCPOA?

It is certainly good news, the fact that two countries who were - lets say - in a difficult relationship, decided to restart diplomatic engagement and to send Ambassadors. That can only contribute to the stability of the region and ease tensions.

The JCPOA is a different issue. The JCPOA has its own government bodies. We continue working on that. A good relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran is good for everything, but the JCPOA has its own dynamics.

Q. What is the current state of EU-Iraq relation? And what steps is the European Union taking to support Iraq towards stability and prosperity?

This is a general question that has a concrete answer. Our relations are a powerful driver for prosperity for Iraq because, as I said, we are the most important trade partner. Just that justifies that, we have to be in a very good relation. Apart from that, we share the same approaches on many geopolitical problems: fight against terrorism, the need for Iraq to have international support, in order to increase its political stability. Our relations will be for sure a solid contribution to the prosperity and stability of Iraq.

Q. What kind of help will the European Union provide to Iraq? We have many things in Iraq, for example in the politics, the economy. What are you going to do for Iraq?

Have a look at the result of the meeting and you will find there a good answer. We have a very rich agenda, we will touch about all the topics that mark our relations. Your question was more or less the same as your colleague. I cannot tell you now, what is going to be the result of our meeting, but I am sure that we will cover a lot of issues in which we could improve our relations for the mutual benefit of all of us.

We are the most important trade partners of Iraq, and we are a considerable force for stability. I think that our relation will contribute a lot to the stability of the region, the prosperity of the country. Also, for us, Iraq[is] important, Iraq is an important supplier of energy but not only that.

Link to the video:https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-239018

See original here:
Iraq: Press remarks by High Representative Josep Borrell before the ... - EEAS

A commander’s story: Loss and frustration in Iraq – BBC

21 March 2023

Bill Moore was responsible for the 19th Mechanised Brigade

When a British commanding officer was sent to Southern Iraq in June 2003, he led 4,500 soldiers into war. They were told the country had weapons of mass destruction that were a threat to international peace.

Operation Free Iraq began on 20 March 2003, when the US and UK led a coalition invasion of the country in a mission to remove its leader Saddam Hussein.

Then a brigadier, Bill Moore of Wiltshire, commanded the 19th Mechanised Brigade that operated in the provinces of Al Basra and Maysan.

"A lot of us who came back from the Iraq war, we were no longer the same as when we went away," he said.

"Some of us did not come back.

"We lost nine of the team in Iraq, many more were seriously injured. I could have changed nothing - but a sense of responsibility is something that will stay with me for the rest of my life."

By May, Iraq's army had been defeated and its regime overthrown. Saddam Hussein was later captured, tried and executed.

However, no weapons of mass destruction were uncovered.

Twenty years on Mr Moore, who was aged 44 at the time, has been reflecting on the legacy of the conflict.

Mr Moore with some members of his team in Al Basra

When he arrived in Southern Iraq, it was the height of summer, and soldiers were operating in temperatures as high as 58C.

"There was no electricity, little water and no humanitarian aid," he said.

"People shot at us, they used mortars and made home-made bombs which became very sophisticated and could destroy our tanks.

"Our objective was to provide a secure environment so we could grow the Iraqi institutions and provide stability for the local people to thrive. But that was made very challenging."

Mr Moore said the different departments across the UK government did not work together to provide the right resources for soldiers and local people.

"There was nothing tangible in the two provinces to show the UK was committed to re-construction of Iraq," he said.

"There were no clinics staffed by British doctors and nurses, no cultural offices to engage the locals, there was no training to help Iraqi police, no teachers to help reform schooling and no local government officials to help resolve the financial crisis."

Having later been promoted to Maj Gen, Mr Moore returned to Iraq in 2009 for a joint operation with US and Iraqi Armies

Mr Moore said his brigade faced hostility from local people who did not believe the UK was serious about improving their country.

"If things are not going right in the country, people take it out on the occupying forces, not the powers behind them - so they took their frustration out on us soldiers," he said.

"There would be verbal abuse, stone-throwing, petrol-bombing, and shootings.

"It wasn't because they didn't like what we stood for, it was frustration that nothing was changing.

"Local people were fed up of not having electricity, water, jobs, and they were still living in bombed-out buildings."

Mr Moore working on joint operations alongside the Iraqi Army

Mr Moore said the lack of progress made by the government, created a situation where gaining the trust of local people was difficult.

"One thing we knew we needed to do was to try and understand the culture we were being introduced to," he said.

"I met all the key imams in the area, and also received a couple of dressing downs from them.

"I got on very well with them, they knew we were in a difficult position, but they also had their position to sustain.

"One gave me a telling off about how useless the British were, but I was hugely respectful to him, he was a religious leader.

"Later, I found out he had taped the conversation and played it to his followers, to show he had put a British commander in his place."

Mr Moore commanded 4,500 troops across Southern Iraq in 2003

But a task even more difficult was the weight of being responsible for 4,500 people, even 20 years later, Mr Moore said.

"When we left Iraq in November 2003, we felt a sense of unfinished business, despite doing the best job we could do," he said.

"I always reflect on whether it was worth it - for all the injuries and people who did not come back.

"No weapons of mass destruction were found. It is a tricky and frustrating equation to square away.

"Those soldiers and officers, they were somebody's husband or son, or sister or brother."

Sir John Chilcot's inquiry into the war found intelligence "had not established beyond doubt either that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons or that efforts to develop nuclear weapons continued".

"Saddam had built up chemical weapons in the past - and used them against Kurdish civilians and the Iranian military," Mr Cameron said.

"He had given international weapons inspectors the run around for years.

"And the report clearly reflects that the advice given to the government by the intelligence and policy community was that Saddam did indeed continue to possess and seek to develop these capabilities.

"However, as we now know, by 2003 this long-held belief no longer reflected the reality."

More here:
A commander's story: Loss and frustration in Iraq - BBC

The U.S. Invaded Iraq 20 Years Ago. The Grift Just Keeps Going …

The quote that would secure Jim Mattis reputation as the most celebrated Marine general of his generation came during meetings he hadnt wanted to attend. It was April 2004, a half-mile east of the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which had exploded in an insurrection that threatened to doom the American occupation after barely a year. Mattis hadnt wanted to take Fallujah, recognizing that flattening the City of Mosques would throw gasoline on a smoldering nationwide insurrection. But he followed White House-pushed orders to invade, and after roughly a week of intense urban fighting leaving 39 U.S. troops dead, an estimated 616 Iraqi civilians killed, and Fallujah untaken he followed orders to stop.

The first order was stupid, he thought, but combining it with the second was risible. It sent the message that America was not only idiotic during a crucial moment of challenge but also weak. Still, no matter how disastrous the order, no Marine general would ever resign his command as his Marines went through such a crucible, so Mattis reached for a different kind of weapon: his mouth.

In his 2019 memoir, Call Sign Chaos, Mattis recounts sitting down to discuss the future of Fallujah with local notables enlisted to guarantee its security. One of the sheikhs, evidently frustrated, demanded to know when the Americans would leave. Mattis replied that he had bought property on the Euphrates River, where he would marry one of your daughters and retire there. Then he warned the Iraqis: I come in peace. I didnt bring artillery. But Im pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, Ill kill you all.

It was quintessential Mattis: a threat of ultra-violence wrapped in a wit quick enough to make him as quotatious as Shaquille ONeal. As reports of the comment spread, Mattis became something of a folk hero in American military circles and back home. One of his nicknames, much promoted by journalists, was Warrior Monk, emphasizing not only his martial expertise but also his devotion to his craft. Years later, the kill you all line would take pride of place in an adoring Twitter hashtag, #Mattisisms, celebrating not so much his deeds as his attitude.Editors picks

The adulation obscured the fact that Mattis swagger didnt really work. The sheikhs did not act on my warning, Mattis writes in Call Sign Chaos. They were allowing their sons to be recruited by the insurgents while they were talking to me unwittingly abrogating their own authority. Maybe. Or perhaps they didnt like a foreign invader pledging to fuck their daughters and kill everyone they know.

The Iraq War was supposed to showcase American potency after 9/11. But the fuck-around stage gave way within months to a finding-out stage that lasted for years. A war partially predicated on dealing a lethal blow to terrorism instead prompted the creation of the Al Qaeda affiliate that would become the so-called Islamic State. Americas 100-plus years of experience with imperial policing were no match for widespread Iraqi rejectionism. At home, the humiliations of the War on Terror were political fuel for those who said America needed to be made great again. As we approach the 20th anniversary of one of the most unjust and calamitous wars the U.S. ever waged, #Mattisisms read like a way for Americans to save face amid self-inflicted disasters that revealed their weakness.

Mattis, who through a spokesperson declined an interview request, doesnt even crack the top 30 list of people culpable for the Iraq War. As a division commander, he was several rungs down from the decision-makers of George W. Bushs administration. Mattis tour ended months before the Marines began another operation to take Fallujah a grueling, bloody, urban battle that has passed into Corps legend. Yet his example is illustrative of an age of American hubris. Even when Mattis saw through the pretexts of the war he suggests in his memoir that Saddam Hussein was boxed in before the offensive even began he, like most officers, chose to serve rather than walk away, and expressed greater displeasure at the prospect of withdrawal from the war than the initial invasion. Ten years later, he was no more an obstacle when he joined the board of another doomed-to-fail enterprise based on deception.Related

Theranos was a Silicon Valley unicorn valued at $9 billion, a startup that claimed to have a proprietary machine that could perform a dizzying array of health analyses from a single drop of blood. The business press ate it up with the exception of Wall Street Journal writer John Carreyrou, whose reporting revealed that the companys technology just didnt work. Founder Elizabeth Holmes had browbeat her lab technicians to deliver impossible results just as Dick Cheney pressured the CIA to connect Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden. (Theranos lead scientist Ian Gibbons committed suicide in 2013, a tragedy his wife laid at Holmes feet.) The prospect that Holmes concept could work became a certainty that it would, a rationalization that transformed lies into pre-truths; vindication awaited, as long as everyone stayed the course. It was the same sort of refrain offered by overseers of the Iraq War and repeated by their media tribunes: The war was constantly on the verge of turning a corner.

The consensus now is that the Iraq War was a mistake, a deviation born of post-9/11 madness. In reality, its an endeavor that captures the spirit of an age of grift. It was a big con that heralded a thousand more.

Mattis should have served as a guardrail for this kind of malfeasance. A corporate board is, in theory, responsible for oversight. That was certainly the sort of reputational validation Holmes sought in assembling her board with statesmen of Mattis caliber, including George Shultz and Henry Kissinger. But as the general had done in Iraq, he went along with an ill-conceived scheme. One of Mattis problems with invading Fallujah in 2004 was poor intelligence: They were tasked to take the city without knowing where the enemy was hiding, he wrote. Yet at Holmes trial in 2021, Mattis testified that for all his time serving on the board of Theranos, Holmes was his sole source of information about the company.

Today, Holmes is serving an 11-year prison sentence for fraud, a very rare example of a corrupt CEO doing time. Mattis went on to serve under Trump, loyally standing by through the Muslim ban, Charlottesville, and family separations. Meanwhile, the type of public deception the Iraq War helped rationalize, license, and unleash has only compounded and escalated in corporate America, from schemes run by Goldman Sachs to the insurance giant AIG and the crypto superfund FTX.

Perhaps it has worked out that way because so few people deceiving the public have paid any appreciable legal, political, or reputational price. Paul Yingling, an Army armor officer who served in Iraqs Nineveh province, wrote in 2007 that a private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war. From the vantage of 2023, it feels quaint that anyone ever thought it would be otherwise.

Bush and Cheney have been functionally rehabilitated by the Trump presidency rather than viewed as its preconditions. One of the most important Democratic validators of the war is our current president. Cultural cues like these function as permission, something Holmes prosecutors evidently understood: They said they werent just seeking to convict Holmes, they wanted to deter future startup fraud schemes. The distance of 20 years makes it easier to see that the disaster of Iraq, combined with the impunity its architects enjoyed, proved that lying and scheming and enabling at ever-greater scale would result in no real reprisal for the powerful.

The prevailing consensus now is that the Iraq War was a mistake, a deviation born of post-9/11 madness. In reality, its an endeavor that captures the spirit of an age of grift. It was a big con built on cherished myths of American power, greatness, and justice that heralded a thousand more.

THE BIGGEST LIES of the war, both self-deceptions and outright deceits, are indelible: Saddam Hussein had illicit stockpiles of the most dangerous weapons on the planet, meaningful ties to Al Qaeda, and a willingness to hand his secret weapons to the terrorist group responsible for the mass murder of 9/11. Bush stopped short of implicating Saddam in 9/11, but not by much, claiming a year after the attacks, You cant distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the War on Terror. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and 4,500 U.S. troops died for lies that the majority of American journalists, with the rare and important exceptions of Warren Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay, promoted rather than debunked.

But the occupation, once underway, floated on a raft constructed from other, less conspicuous lies. The Pentagon initially denied the existence of an Iraqi insurgency and called its adversaries Saddam dead-enders or, more astonishingly, Anti-Iraqi Forces. Bushs portrayal of our foes as people representing violence and innocent death papered over those same disgraces brought about by the Americans, from torture and sexual assault at the Abu Ghraib prison to the massacres of civilians at places like Haditha, Samarra, and Nisour Square. At least one unscrupulous service member even understood a #Mattisism as permission for atrocity. In 2004, a Marine lieutenant named Ilario Pantano wrote one of Mattis favorite refrains, No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy attributed to Sulla, one of the men responsible for destroying the Roman Republic on cardboard that he left on the windshield of a car containing the bodies of Hamaady Kareem and Tahah Ahmead Hanjil, two unarmed Iraqi men he executed.

Through it all, the U.S. resisted acknowledging that its presence was the central cause of the violence it encountered. Americans had no shortage of obstacles to identify, from the scars Iraqi society bore from Saddams fear-based rule to the psychotic religious fanatics who rushed into the post-Saddam vacuum, but it was harder to admit that we were the problem and not the solution. In 2005, Ahmed S. Hashim of the International Institute for Strategic Studies spoke with a fighter battling the Americans at Tal Afar. Prior to the U.S. invasion, the man had been a teacher. He explained to Hashim, simply, What would you do if I had invaded your country?

The Iraqi novelist Mortada Gzar told me that Iraqis are more likely to describe the U.S. presence as an occupation today than they were during the formal occupation of 2003-11. It will not sound neutral if I dont use the term occupier in my social media, unlike 10 years ago, explains Gzar. I didnt initially understand that, having reported from Iraq back then, when it was indisputably a country under foreign occupation. But Amal al-Jubouri, an Iraqi poet, reminded me that I didnt see Iraq through Iraqi eyes.

Many Iraqi writers who were inside Iraq did not dare to name the American invasion as an occupation, al-Jubouri says. The word was dangerous. That may lead those who dared to utter it to a tragic fate through the unknown informers of the new Iraqi political process and the occupiers who reacted immediately by arresting and torturing Iraqis if they received any such reports. The Western press, she continues, called it the insurgency instead of resistance. I certainly did.

ABOUT EIGHT YEARS after Mattis left Iraq, an Army officer responsible for ensuring Theranos compliance with medical regulations, Lt. Col. David Shoemaker, came on the receiving end of a #Mattisism. Mattis wasnt yet on Theranos board. He was by then a military celebrity commander of all U.S. forces in the Middle East and Southwest Asia and having met Holmes after giving a speech in San Francisco, he sought to test Theranos blood analysis on troops in Afghanistan. Shoemaker, who played a key role in the process by which that would happen, grew concerned that Holmes was looking to route around certification from the Food and Drug Administration. He told Holmes he couldnt approve a test without it.

When Shoemaker went to the FDA himself, prompting an FDA inspector to show up at Theranos office, Holmes erupted to Mattis, according to Carreyrous book Bad Blood. Who is LTC Shoemaker and what is going on here? Mattis emailed staff. The general referred to Shoemakers due diligence as this new obstacle and took personal umbrage at it. Shoemakers colleagues presented him with a certificate of survival for having the courage to stand up to Mattis in person and emerging from the encounter alive, Carreyrou writes. Though he didnt even work with Holmes at the time, Mattis directed more skepticism at Shoemaker than he ever would at her.

Mattis joined Theranos board after retiring from the military, which was an unremarkable transition. Several generals who had made their names in Iraq and the associated post-9/11 wars matriculated to corporate America. Surge architect David Petraeus became a partner at private-equity giant KKR. NSA director Keith Alexander took a board seat at Amazon. Stanley McChrystal of the Joint Special Operations Command started a business consultancy. After generations of a revolving door between the defense industry and the military, generals going corporate was normal. Businessmen believed that they were generals of capitalism. Generals, enjoying a worshipful post-9/11 climate, could be forgiven for believing that it was time to collect a reward after all they had given America.

And corporate America was more than ready to give them their payday and reap the reputational rewards. Holmes attracted the enthusiasm of bipartisan titans of American statecraft for her big con. Theranos has assembled what may be, in terms of public service, the most illustrious board in U.S. corporate history, Fortune enthused in 2014. In addition to Mattis, who invested $85,000 of his own money, Shultz, and Kissinger, Theranos boasted Defense Secretary William Perry, GOP Senate leader Bill Frist, and Adm. Gary Roughead, who had been the Navys senior officer. Their high standings in elite circles contributed to the misperception of Theranos probity.

Donald Trump, a rare soul who truly merits the term con artist, sought to exploit that same perception. Enlisting Mattis as his defense secretary, Trump boasted that he was teaming up with a guy known as Mad Dog. It was a nickname Mattis had let his chosen media interlocutors know he used ironically, but Trump wasnt known for reading between lines. Unlike his rapport with Holmes, Mattis had a fraught relationship with Trump. He cast his own arrival at the Pentagon as a force of continuity, and the foreign-policy establishment, fearful of Trumps chaotic potential, cheered. Mattis escalated the Afghanistan war once again, intensifying the bombing of Somalia and, to his credit, arguing Trump out of torturing detainees. But along with his White House ally H.R. McMaster, Mattis also pivoted U.S. foreign policy in a crucial way, issuing a defense strategy for the reemergence of long-term, strategic competition. To bipartisan acclaim, it recontextualized American foreign policy as an imperial struggle against Russia, which Trump resisted, and China, which Trump embraced.

Beyond that, the line between resistance and complicity for Mattis was blurry. When Trump signed an infamous order preventing people from several Muslim-majority nations from traveling to the U.S., he did so at the Pentagon, with Mattis applauding over his shoulder. Mattis acquiesced to Trumps ban on military service from transgender troops and deployed roughly 5,800 service members to the southern border in support of an election-timed hysteria over migration. He finally quit in 2018, because he believed Trump to be insufficiently committed to the American empire not, say, a year earlier, when Trump hailed a white-supremacist riot in Charlottesville.

Mattis resignation gambit worked, in a way. He stepped down to stop Trump from withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and Syria, and Trump backed off. The result has been that U.S. troops remain there without any defined mission. Sometimes a vague backstop to an ISIS resurgence, sometimes an insurance policy to another Iraqi military collapse, something like 2,500 U.S. troops in Iraq and 900 in Syria face attacks from an evolving list of enemies, most recently militias backed by Iran. Its a version of the residual force Mattis and many others sought from the beginning. And it leaves Iraqis with the contradictory legacy of Americans who neither leave nor deliver on their grandiose promises of a brighter future. The U.S. presence is beyond the reach of Iraqs political institutions, as was proven when the U.S. refused to abide by a 2020 parliamentary vote to expel the troops.

This is all out of mind for American elites, who have long since moved on. Iraqis, who have paid the cost of Americans delusions, dont have that luxury. The war has created a country of multiplied mafias, al-Jubouri says. The middle class totally disappeared, and there are now two categories of people. Those who participated in the American political process and their adherents became the new Iraqi elites the ordinary people from all backgrounds, the majority, are living under the poverty line.

Meanwhile, a familiar form of capitalism has reshaped liberated Iraq. The streets and gardens of Baghdad were the lungs for its inhabitants to breathe the blessed smell of their flowers and blossoms of their trees. Gardens were the identity of their capital, remembers al-Jubouri. The gardens after the invasion turned into investment projects for the new investors. The large houses of the Baghdadis have been sold with overexaggerated prices due to money laundering, to the extent that no Baghdadi citizen can afford to buy even a studio there.

She continues: Its the greed of the new Iraqi capitalism, which turned everything into an open auction, excluding only the oxygen; and if they can get it controlled, then even our breath will be for sale.

OBVIOUSLY, FRAUD IN AMERICA didnt begin with the invasion of Iraq. The country that gave the world P.T. Barnum, Ivan Boesky, junk-bond king Michael Milken, and Trump (who pardoned Milken) is no innocent babe constantly committing well-meaning blunders. Iraq belongs in a lineage of wars, American and otherwise, waged on false pretexts, from President Polks 1846 lie that American blood has been shed on American soil to invade Mexico thats how we got California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, and parts of five other Western states to the inciting Gulf of Tonkin non-event in Vietnam.

So, to be clear, Iraq didnt cause Holmes to lie about Theranos ability to perform a battery of tests from a single drop of blood. But it supercharged an impulse that was already there. Capitalism, particularly its current incarnation, isnt much interested in the difference between truth and deception. Both Apple and Microsoft stole the windows-based graphical interface from Xerox, as University of Chicago economic historian Jonathan Levy recounts in his recent book, Ages of American Capitalism. When Steve Jobs confronted Bill Gates about Microsoft naming its operating system Windows, Gates shot back, We both had this rich neighbor named Xerox, and I broke into his house to steal the TV set only to find that you had already stolen it. That was who Holmes modeled herself after, down to the black turtlenecks Jobs favored. She was hardly unique in not caring about the distasteful aspects of one of modern Americas greatest corporate success stories.

Theranos appealed to Mattis because, he said, in triage, this could be very, very helpful. A far easier way to save troops lives would be not to wage imperial wars like the one America launched two decades ago.

As the Iraq War persisted, the fraud cycle back home accelerated. Bushs invasion roughly coincided with the era of accounting frauds at corporate giants like Tyco and WorldCom, which now seem like footnotes. Eclipsing them all was a massive scheme in which banks turned their questionable loans during a housing bubble into financial instruments that concealed the fundamental toxicity of these assets. It devastated peoples homes, savings, and nearly the entire global economy in 2008. The subsequent Wall Street bailout reinforced the lesson of elite impunity that Iraq taught.

Carreyrous exposure of Theranos seemed to reveal a generational corporate deceit. Lately, it seems more like a new normal. Three years after Theranos collapse, Tesla CEO Elon Musk baselessly tweeted he had funding secured to take the electric-vehicle company private, swelling and then crashing Teslas stock price and seemingly violating the Securities and Exchange Act. His lies caused regular people to lose millions and millions of dollars, argued an attorney for Tesla shareholders in January during a class-action trial. Even as his trial was set to begin, Musk sold $3.6 billion worth of Tesla stock, The Wall Street Journal reported, weeks before the company announced that it delivered significantly fewer vehicles in 2022 than it had forecast. In an unsurprising turn, Musk was acquitted of wrongdoing on Feb. 3.

Last November, as Elizabeth Holmes waited for Judge Edward Davila to sentence her, another dizzying fraud began to unravel, this one involving the cryptocurrency exchange platform FTX. Pitched as a trustworthy exchange of a new and often unstable asset, FTX siphoned money to a crypto-trading firm co-owned by Sam Bankman-Fried, prompting an $8 billion solvency crisis. Like Holmes and Musk, FTX founder Bankman-Fried had enjoyed years of fawning media coverage that amounted to a cult of personality. He had thrown huge amounts of money into Democratic politics and media organizations like Vox, ProPublica, and Semafor, in the apparent hope of convincing an audience presumed to be skeptical of a digital currency favored by the right that crypto and specifically FTX was a safe bet. Even a federal indictment has not stopped Bankman-Fried from publicly insisting upon his blamelessness. After all, people like him usually get away with it.

None of these economic and geopolitical disasters have persuaded America to dim its global ambitions. The Biden administration, unencumbered by Trumps fondness for Putin, has embraced Great Power Competition, outlined in the Mattis Pentagons defense strategy. With Biden decoupling the U.S. economy from Chinas and rallying Europe against Russias aggression in Ukraine, Great Power Competition is coalescing into a commitment to wage two Cold Wars simultaneously, a global struggle for control of the 21st century.

Theranos appealed to Mattis because, he explained in court, in triage, where you have casualties going in, this could be very, very helpful for medical personnel if it could do what she said it could do. A far easier way to save troops lives would be not to wage imperial wars like the ones America launched two decades ago, and that continue to this day.

Most of the Iraqis see the occupation has yet to end properly, says Gzar, who tried to illustrate this twilight state between occupation and sovereignty in his 2020 novel, Fadhel and Abass. One of the characters describes the case to the leaving U.S. troops, he summarizes in an email interview. He told them, what you are doing is just like a doctor who opened up an ill body. He removed the cancerous tumor, and instead of closing the open body, the doctor just left, celebrating that his job is nicely done! But they left the hollow body to die.

See more here:
The U.S. Invaded Iraq 20 Years Ago. The Grift Just Keeps Going ...

UN chief praises moves toward stability in rare Iraq visit

The U.N. chief has praised Iraq for repatriating citizens detained in neighboring Syria on suspicion of ties to the Islamic State group during a rare visit to Baghdad

BAGHDAD -- The United Nations chief on Wednesday praised Iraq for repatriating citizens detained in neighboring Syria on suspicion of ties to the Islamic State group and pledged international support for the countrys efforts to regain stability and security.

U.N. Secretary-General Antnio Guterres spoke to reporters during a rare visit to Baghdad, his first in six years, ahead of this months 20-year anniversary of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

The years that followed Saddam's overthrow saw widespread sectarian violence and the rise first of al-Qaida in the region and later, the extremist Islamic State group, which at one point controlled wide swaths of territory, including Iraqs second-largest city, Mosul. We recognize that the challenges Iraq is facing did not arise overnight, Guterres said, speaking at a news conference alongside Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani. They are the product of decades of oppression, war, terrorism, sectarianism and foreign interference.

He praised the formation of Iraq's new government in October, after a yearlong political stalemate, and the country's ambitious and forward-looking reform agenda. He also pledged U.N. support for systematic governance reforms and for measures to address Iraqs looming water crisis, which experts expect to be exacerbated by climate change.

Guterres commended Iraq for repatriating its citizens from northeastern Syria, particularly from al-Hol camp, which holds tens of thousands of women and children primarily the wives, widows and children of IS fighters in what human rights groups have described as dangerous and squalid living conditions.

On Sunday, Iraq repatriated some 582 people from the camp to a rehabilitation center near the town of Qayara, south of Mosul.

Guterres described Iraqs actions as an example for the world while noting that many women and children remain stranded in desperate conditions.

He called for implementation of promised measures that would allow members of the Yazidi religious minority displaced by IS attacks to return to their homes in the town of Sinjar and for the central government in Baghdad and Iraq's northern semi-autonomous Kurdish government to reach agreements on contentious budget issues and on a law governing oil and gas deals.

Guterres was to visit the Iraqi Kurdish region's government and in the city of Irbil on Thursday, and meet with Kurdish leaders.

Visit link:
UN chief praises moves toward stability in rare Iraq visit

How Star Wars influenced Uday Husseins paramilitary unit in Iraq

For children and adults alike, Star Wars represented the defining film of a generation but most children didnt grow up to lead a paramilitary force as the son of a brutal authoritarian.

From 1995 until his death in Mosul in 2003, Uday Hussein, the erratic eldest son of the countrys former president, led the paramilitary group Fedayeen Saddam, or Saddams Men of Sacrifice.

Saddam admired science fiction movies like Star Wars, but it was Uday who took his admiration of the series to the extreme, infusing elements of the films characters into the Fedayeens uniforms. Made up of the elder Husseins most loyal supporters, the roughly 40,000-strong group adopted one prominent look from the series most notable villain Darth Vader.

Helmets were made of black fibre-glass with a deep neck & ear guard, culminating to a pronounced point to the centre of the peak, according to a description from the Imperial War Museums. Above the right side is fitted a black rubber oval (fitted upside down in this case) showing a silhouette of Saddam Hussein wearing his military style beret.

U.S. troops walk by scattered helmets and ammunition at the former Fedayeen Saddam headquarters in Kut in April 2003. (Wally Santana/AP)

Also on the rubber oval was Arabic writing that translated to The Lord, The Homeland, The Leader. Regardless of appearance, the helmet offered virtually no ballistic value, a lack of protection Darth Vader would no doubt find disturbing.

The helmets were further described as having an impression of being sinister to the civilian population, an appearance that was reflected in the groups ruthless attacks on political opponents and extrajudicial killings, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

Uday also employed the group to carry out the beheadings of approximately 200 women as part of an anti-prostitution campaign, according to a State Department report.

In the end, the groups guerrilla attacks on coalition forces following the 2003 invasion may have surprised military leaders and policy makers in Washington, but the Fedayeen Saddams efforts would ultimately not prevent the units dissolution.

Observation Post is the Military Times one-stop shop for all things off-duty. Stories may reflect author observations.

Zamone Z Perez is a rapid response reporter and podcast producer at Defense News and Military Times. He previously worked at Foreign Policy and Ufahamu Africa. He is a graduate of Northwestern University, where he researched international ethics and atrocity prevention in his thesis. He can be found on Twitter @zamoneperez.

The rest is here:
How Star Wars influenced Uday Husseins paramilitary unit in Iraq