Mediaboss Marketing

This article originally appeared on AlterNet

TheNew York Times Tim Arango took what could have been an interesting topic for war journalism Irans increased role in Iraq and morphed it into a cynical revisionist history of American and Saudi involvement in the Middle East. In doing so, Arango paints the U.S. as a noble, freedom-loving nation on a mission to improve the lives of average Iraqis, and Iran as a sinister imperial force working to expand its sphere of influence across the region.

Arango sets the table by citing examples of Iranian influence in Iraq, framing the disparate motives at work. He suggests that the U.S. invaded Iraq for pro-democratic purposes, while Irans response to this unilateral invasion (which its government, of course,vehemently opposed) is portrayed as sinister and plotting:

When the United States invaded Iraq 14 years ago to topple Saddam Hussein, it saw Iraq as a potential cornerstone of a democratic and Western-facing Middle East, and vast amounts of blood and treasure about 4,500 American lives lost, more than $1 trillion spent were poured into the cause.

From Day 1, Iran saw something else: a chance to make a client state of Iraq, a former enemy against which it fought a war in the 1980s so brutal, with chemical weapons and trench warfare, that historians look to World War I for analogies. If it succeeded, Iraq would never again pose a threat, and it could serve as a jumping-off point to spread Iranian influence around the region.

Theres so much unmitigated ideology at work in these two passages, we need to take a minute to break it down. Lets begin with the controversial assertion that the [U.S.] saw Iraq as a potential cornerstone of a democratic and Western-facing Middle East.

This was the public relations talking point the U.S. gave for invading Iraq, but was it true? Does Arango provide any evidence or link to an analysis that shows it to be true? For some reason, Arango thinks the same administration that repeatedly lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Saddams links to al Qaeda was on the up-and-up about the pro-democracy motives behind its devastating invasion.

If one wants to know what role democracy played in Bush administration officials decision, perhaps Arango could have asked Condoleezza Rice, Bushs national security advisor, secretary of state and key architect of the war. In an interview withABC in 2011, Rice was crystal clear that we didnt go to Iraq to bring democracy to the Iraqis. And I try in the book to really explain that that wasnt the purpose.

So, did the U.S. see Iraq as a potential cornerstone of a democratic and Western-facing Middle East? Or did it really not care either way?

As Inoted in FAIR last month, nominally down-the-middle reporters are allowed to mind-read U.S. policy makers motives so long as they conclude that those motives were noble and in good faith. Never are reporters allowed to ascribe sinister motives to U.S. officialsthis is only permissible when covering Americas enemies which Arango does in the next paragraph, insisting that from Day 1, Iran saw something else: a chance to make a client state of Iraq.

Note that the U.S. did not seek to make Iraq a client state, but rather a democracy. Big bad Iran however (which not only had nothing to do with the invasion but openly opposed it), was plotting all along to exploit the U.S. invasion to establish a puppet regime. Its a masterful work of 180-degree reality inversion.

The second thing wrong with the opening frame is that Arango mentions the 4,500 American lives lost and the $1 trillion spent but makes no mention of the 500,000 to 1 million Iraqis killed. He mentions the use of chemical weapons but doesnt say who used them it was Iraq, not Iran. He also omits the country that supplied them to Saddam: the United States.

Throughout the piece, Arango couches subjective opinions on Irans sinister motives as something analysts say or believe. Yet the only analyst he actually interviews, Ali Vaez, works at theU.S-government-fundedInternational Crisis Group and provides a vague quote about the Iran-Iraq war shaping Irans leadership.

Everything Iran does is painted as proactive, sinister aggression and everything the U.S. and Sunni monarchies do is done in reaction to this aggression. Take this dubious passage: [Iran]s dominance over Iraq has heightened sectarian tensions around the region, with Sunni states, and American allies, like Saudi Arabia mobilizing to oppose Iranian expansionism.

So here we have Sunni states, and American allies, like Saudi Arabia mobilizing to oppose Iranian expansionism. There is no Sunni expansionism or American expansionism or Saudi expansionismexpansionism (whatever that means) is the purview of Iranian aggressors. Saudi Arabia floodingSalafist fightersinto post-invasion Iraq is never mentioned.SaudiandQataribacking of Salafist militias in Syria since at the very least 2011 is never mentioned. The U.S. invasion is not framed as expansionism. Iran always draws first blood, while Gulf monarchies, painted as the besieged victims of the Shia empire, are always reacting, mobilizing to oppose Iran expansionism.

TheTimesflubbed analysis has to be seen within the wider context of American designs in the region. Arangos article serves primarily to advance the Shia crescent concept pushed by Gulf monarchies, neocons, Israel, and liberal foreign policy hawks. This narrative conjures a specter of Iranian influence from Tehran to Beirut, with total regional domination on the horizon. Stopping this sinister plot is the primary pretext for increased military involvement of the U.S. in eastern Syria, where American special forces have set up a de facto base and attacked Syrian and Iranian military assets. Its also Israels justification for its stepped-up military activity in Syria, where it has beenbackinganti-Hezbollah, anti-government rebels in Southern Syria. TheTimesarticle, whether by accident or intent, props up the entire moral and political framework for increased U.S. militarism in Syria and Iraq as territorial ISIS faces its final months.

The problem with Arangos analysis is not that Irans increased role in Iraq isnt a story; it certainly is. Its the revisionist notion that Iran had hatched a devious plot from day one of the U.S. invasion rather than react to shifting forces on the ground from an instinct to survive especially after watching its two neighbors get invaded by the U.S. and its arch regional enemy, Saudi Arabia, fund and arm Salafist mercenaries throughout the Middle East. Throw in the absurd, debunked notion the U.S. was motivated by a desire to spread democracy and what you have is a deeply cynical piece of pro-Pentagon myth-making, instead of an informative look at Irans increased regional influence.

More:
NYT rewrites history of Iraq War, painting US as democracy-lover, Iran as sinister imperialist - Salon

**Since March, MSF teams have treated over 450 severely malnourished children in its hospital in Qayyarah, 60 kilometres south of Mosul. Manuel Lannaud, head of mission in Iraq, explains the different causes and aspects of malnutrition.

Who in the region is affected by malnutrition?**

We began treating severely malnourished children in our hospital in Qayyarah in March. Most are under the age of one and 60 per cent arent even six months old. Some of the mothers arrive from Mosul itself but most live in camps.

Over the past couple of weeks weve seen an increase in the number of malnourished children needing treatment. With bed occupancy often equal to or over 200 per cent, we are about to open a 30-bed unit where we can provide care to children suffering from severe malnutrition. Starting in July, mothers and their babies who, up until now have been accommodated in a 12-bed tent, will be cared for in the new extension.

Whats causing malnutrition in the region around Mosul?

It isnt a problem of access to food. The malnutrition we see here is primarily due to the scarcity of infant formula. Obviously, adults and children in the besieged part of Mosul suffer from lack of food and, indeed, we see a lot of extremely underweight people arriving in the camps. But once theyre out of the city, the adults soon gain weight, but not the babies.

Many Iraqi mothers dont breastfeed and the ones who do usually stop after two to three months. Conditions in the camps combined with stress and exhaustion make breastfeeding even harder.

Theres a political barrier too. International organisations like UNICEF and the World Health Organization (WHO) promote breastfeeding not only in Iraq and provide infant formula, but only on prescription.

We believe distributing infant formula in a conflict situation like Iraq is the only way to avoid children having to be hospitalised for malnutrition. MSF provides infant formula to children when theyre discharged from the hospital and during their follow-up care. We also encourage mothers and tell them how important breastfeeding is, but if they need formula, we give it to them. We also have to ensure that water in the camps is up to standard and we inform mothers this is something they need to be aware of because it can pose a problem.

What can be done to treat malnutrition?

Children whove been hospitalised require close medical supervision. The number of readmissions to Qayyarah hospital is still relatively high. Mothers often want to leave the nutritional feeding centre to get back to looking after their other children, but treating malnutrition takes time, sometimes as much as two or three weeks. Some mothers go against medical advice and then its hard for them to come back to the hospital for lots of reasons, one of them transportation.

At the beginning of July, a preventive feeding programme that includes follow-up care and malnutrition screening for children will be opened in one of the camps. More humanitarian aid agencies must get involved in this type of screening thats so critical to the process of preventing and managing malnutrition.

More here:
Iraq: Babies most affected by malnutrition around Mosul - ReliefWeb

The moon lights up a statue of Virgin Mary in Erbil, Iraq (Getty Images)

A French Catholic group has sent the new statues from Lourdes to Erbil, where they will be carried through the streets in procession

A Catholic charity has sent 15 statues of the Virgin Mary to the Middle East to replace ones destroyed by ISIS.

The group uvre dOrient, a French association dedicated to helping persecuted Christians, has sent the statues from Lourdes to Ankawa, a suburb of the city of Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan, which has a majority Catholic population.

Aleteia reports that once they arrive, they will be carried in procession through the town by Chaldean and Syriac Catholics, before being blessed and sent to their parishes.

uvre dOrient say the processions will be a testament to Jeremiah 31:17: And here is hope for thy last end, saith the Lord: and the children shall return to their own borders.

In March, a senior aid worker described the Chaldean Catholic population in northern Iraq as on the verge of extinction, warning that the West must help.

Stephen Rasche, legal counsel and head of resettlement programmes for the Chaldean Archdiocese of Erbil, said: The future really does hang in the balance, adding: History could look back on this and say in their time of greatest need, they didnt get the support and the community disappeared. That could happen. We need to be honest about that.

Christian families were forced to flee the Nineveh Plains when ISIS took control of the region in 2014, mainly finding refuge in Erbil. Although the terror group is slowly losing territory, many thousands of Christians remain in the city as IDPs (internally displaced persons).

Since 2003, Iraqs Christian population has collapsed from 1.4 million to 275,000.

Go here to see the original:
Catholic group sends 15 Virgin Mary statues to Iraq to replace ones destroyed by ISIS - Catholic Herald Online

When lookingatIraq, itis easy to understand why this country has been atthe forefront of world news for more than a decade:itrepresents one of the most complex geopolitical pictures in the region.

I will try here to analyze and understand the landscape of the U.S. and international coalition within the context of Iraq and the fight against the Islamic State group (ISIS), even though we are probably at leasta year away from the country's full liberation since Tal Afar, Qaim, Hawega, and small pockets remain under ISIS's control.

From the perspective of the U.S.andcoalition members, the liberation of Mosul means the end of the demi-state entity of ISIS.The militant group's containment will remain an important goal for the United States, especially with the previous expansionist threat it posed inLebanon,Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

The U.S.regards the problem of ISIS in terms of geopolitical regional considerations, while Iraqis only look at the situationfrom a purelynational or local perspective. After the liberation of Mosul, the U.S. mightturn its attention and focus towards Syria, where it is trying to oust ISISfrom Raqqa, the group's de facto capital,on top of the complexitiesand anticipated ramifications of the civil war.

To Americans,the Iraqi political equation relates more to how close or far Iraqis are from their allies and enemies, such asIran,in the region.

A view of Mosul's Old City through an Iraqi forces sniper hole in the wall of a frontline position in Adedat, a neighbourhood in the Old City of west Mosul, the last area of the city under Islamic State control, June 22, 2017. Martyn Aim/Getty

On the Iraqi side, alack ofcommon visiontoward the U.S.does not help either partyto strengthen our relationship.This begs the question:what is the nature ofBaghdad and Washington relations following encompassing security, military and political cooperation following the liberation of Mosul?

The U.S. will not wait for Iraq to provide an answer to this question, but will workquietly to push the country toward security and political stabilityespecially since the U.S.knows the extent of the rift created by ISIS's occupationand, before it, a decade-long insurgency.

In comparison with Iraq'smilitary advancement, the currentpolitical discourse has stalled. This is a result of different internal and geopolitical visions within the country's political arena. This weakness reflects the depth of the complexity and breadth of the parties involved . Stakeholders seetheliberation of Mosul as a crossroad thatdivides betweenthe history of the Islamic State group's rise and the politics thatencouraged its spread, and the future of Iraq in the context of ISIS's desires and determination to increase its influence in the country.

To protect against an ISIS revival, the Iraqi government, the United Nations, andfriendly countries like U.S. and Iran must focus the dialogon unifying the visions between the different parties in Iraq.Knowing that infrastructure and energy sources in the western regions (Sunni lands) are poor will make the pursuitto divideIraq into federal units counterproductive. It is important to remember that Sunni strength liesin Iraq being a united, cohesive country, likewise for the Kurds and their independence project.

A member of the Iraqi forces walks past a mural bearing the logo of the Islamic State (IS) group in a tunnel that was reportedly used as a training centre by the jihadists, on March 1, 2017, in the village of Albu Sayf, on the southern outskirts of Mosul. Ahmad Al-Rubaye/AFP/Getty

The Iraqigovernment isfeeling the repercussions of attrition in their fight against terrorism, as well asfacing severe challenges (security, political and economic) thatlimittheir focusto a few priorities.

Regarding the recent tensions between Iraq and Turkey, and Ankara'sinterference in Iraq, the containment of Turkeys expansionist approach might be a focus of the U.S.It understands that the political volatility in Turkey will have a direct impact on the course of events during the liberation of Iraq and Syria from ISIS.

Here, Turkey will try to cement its military presence to bea permanent player in the Iraqi and Syrian discussion around Mosul and others cities like Raqqa, because of itsview thatthatthe Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) isa national security threat.

The strength of the Peshmerga fighters in the liberation of Mosul would be a positive element in the consolidation and unity of Iraq buttheirwillingness to cooperate with Baghdad on the control of areas they have liberated within the conflict and disputed zones will depend on how far it goes to achieving their ultimate goal:an independent Kurdistan.

Kurdish peshmerga women fighters during combat skills training at their camp in Sulaimaniya, northern Iraq, on September 18, 2014. Ahmed Jadallah/reuters

Here is a golden opportunity for the Kurdish leadership in Iraq to work with other Iraqis to build on the foundations of a new, mutually beneficialstrategy with the central government and all of the country's communities. Will coexistence and common development with the south be their project? Or will they bank on further trenches being built, resulting in a zero sum game?

The participation of Kurdish Peshmerga forces in the liberation of Nineveh Province will bolster international support forthe Kurds' cause, especially within U.S. Congress.

All Kurdish eyes will be on Washington D.C. after the September independence referendum to see what freedom and maneuvering that Kurdish players will be granted on the global stage.

Geopolitics remains an important factor within Iraq and the region;the U.S. and President Trump should not losesight of that.

Lukman Faily was the Iraqi Ambassador to the United States between 2013 and 2016. He also served as Iraqs Ambassador to Japan from 2010 to 2013.

Read the original post:
US Victory Against ISIS In Iraq Must Not End With Trump Abandoning Baghdad - Newsweek

The Army on Thursday announced that 2,100 soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division will deploy to Iraq this fall.

The soldiers are with 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division at Fort Polk, Louisiana. They will deploy in support of Operation Inherent Resolve as part of the regular rotation of forces, according to the Army.

The 10th Mountain soldiers will replace those from 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division.

"Our soldiers have spent the last year preparing for this mission and are ready to handle any threat anywhere. Without their sacrifice and efforts, our unit would not be the combat focused force it is," said Col. Brian Sullivan, the brigade commander, in a statement. "I want to extend heartfelt gratitude to our soldiers and their families for everything they have done and continue to do."

This will be the Army's first brigade-sized deployment as part of the Associated Units Pilot Program, a program that pairs active Army units with Army Reserve and National Guard units so that they can train and potentially deploy together.

Soldiers from 3rd BCT have trained with soldiers from the 36th Infantry Division of the Texas Army National Guard since March 2016, according to the Army.

The brigade will maintain a presence at Fort Polk to train for future deployments and continue their partnership with the 36th Infantry Division, officials said.

"During the last several months, the Patriots have worked hard and completed multiple training events to include a Joint Readiness Training Center rotation in preparation for this important mission," said Maj. Gen. Walter Piatt, commander of the 10th Mountain Division, in a statement. "I am extremely confident and proud of the entire 3rd Brigade team."

Read the original post:
Army announces Iraq deployment for 2100 soldiers - ArmyTimes.com