Iraq's triumphant homecoming

(FIFA.com) Thursday 16 July 2009 International football made its long-awaited return to Iraq last week, seven years after an international match last graced one of the country's stadiums. The two friendly fixtures pitted the reigning Asian champions against their Palestinian counterparts in an initiative aimed at restoring the country's top stadiums to their former glory through international football. Despite not playing on home soil since 2002, the Lions of Mesopotamia remained close to the hearts of their passionate supporters, who turned up in huge numbers to see their heroes in Arbil on Friday 10 July and in Baghdad the following Monday. In the wake of the historic ties, FIFA.com spoke exclusively to new coach Shaker Nathem, goalkeeper Mohammed Gassid and forward Alaa Abdul-Zahra. Nathem took over the coaching duties from the Serbian Bora Milutinovic, who vacated the post after leading the team at the recent FIFA Confederations Cup, in which they failed to score and exited at the group stage. On his debut last Friday, the former Iraqi international steered his charges to a 3-0 victory in the northern city of Arbil. He then followed that up with an equally impressive 4-0 win just four days later at the Al-Shaab stadium in the capital Baghdad. "I'm overjoyed to have witnessed international action in our stadiums once again. The huge crowds in both Arbil and Baghdad left me speechless," Nathem said after the second game. "The games against Palestine were a message to the entire footballing world," the coach added. "The passion for football and for the national team was crystal clear in the eyes of the Iraqis gathered in their thousands to attend both games. Thanks to our players, we were able to repay that affection by winning both ties." “I'm overjoyed to have witnessed international action in our stadiums once again. The huge crowds in both Arbil and Baghdad left me speechless.” Iraq coach Shaker Nathem Commenting on the decision by the AFC to allow Iraqi clubs and national teams to host matches in the northern city of Arbil, Nathem told FIFA.com "As coach of Iraq's national team, I was more than happy to lead those talented players in the friendlies, and I just hope further steps can soon be taken that will enable Iraqis to host matches in any of their cities." Goalkeeper Mohammed Gassid expressed his delight with the huge crowds that flooded the two venues and spoke of his pride at playing on home soil again after having to use Syria, Jordan and Qatar for their home fixtures for so long. "First of all I'd like to thank the Palestinian team who provided the opposition for these historic matches," said the veteran goalkeeper who made headlines with his displays at June's FIFA Confederations Cup. "I'd also like to thank the tens of thousands of Iraqis who gathered to support their national team in both games." "I've been told that people started to arrive at the Al-Shaab stadium from daybreak to attend the second game. I think this shows the importance of hosting major games in Iraq," he added Gassid's team-mate Alaa Abdul-Zahra also remarked on the huge attendance, saying, "Even for a home game in front of our own fans, what we felt out there was very special. Our supporters ignored the security risks and began flocking to the stadium from the early hours to see their beloved team in the flesh. That's something truly magnificent." "Our dear fans played a crucial role in helping us perform to the best of our ability and win both games," added the veteran frontman, scorer of his side's third goal in Baghdad on Monday."My wish now is that international football can be seen again in every Iraqi city in the near future".

Is the Press Our Deadliest Foe In Afghanistan?

Those who are the smartest people in the press room too often feel that skepticism of the military somehow gives journalist, editors and op-ed writers more credibility and clout. The media may just be the deadliest foe in Afghanistan, I know they were almost fatal in Iraq. As a war correspondent, I have covered somewhere between 50 to 75 military units from nations throughout the world. Army pilots, Air Force medics or Marine infantrymen, the variety of teams working in a war zone runs the gamut, but no matter how many different American troops I speak to, I'm asked the same question from the men and women serving overseas. "Why is the media so biased against the military?" I am not convinced the "media" as a group conspires to be biased against the military, but the troops overseas have a point, there is a media-military disconnect and there are couple of reasons why. Those who are the smartest people in the press room too often feel that skepticism of the military somehow gives journalist, editors and op-ed writers more credibility and clout. Far too many members of the media are afflicted with "monkey see journalist write". Conventional wisdom and group think become more important than individual reporting and the need to fit in among colleagues. I have come to these conclusions out of personal experience. As I wrote in 2007 about the success of the Anbar Awakening, and how little the war in Iraq resembled what was portrayed throughout most of the media, I was accused of being "naive", biased or an "outright war propagandist." In country, whenever I first meet a unit, I usually get a cold reception because American troops mostly feel the media is out to get them. For some, having a media embed is at worst being forced to host a backstabbing spy or, at best babysitting a spoiled brat. Controversy gets attention and this fits into the very popular template journalists use to portray the American soldier as a victim or the Marine as a villain. The troops generally likes FOX News, but there's no doubt that much of the press gets far less love. While traveling in Iraq, I heard tons of media nightmare stories and this trip to Afghanistan (my third) has been no different. It's sad that members of the American military almost always expect a story on their work to be unfair or portray them in a bad light, but some journalists have been downright dangerous. New York Times writer, David Brooks, revealed the name of an Army Special Forces soldier in an op-ed and was even kind enough to give a small description. Just like CIA operatives, members of Special Forces are not to be revealed in the media, the military public affairs officers make that quite clear to reporters and yet the NY Times still published Brook's piece placing the Special Ops Green Beret and his family back home in danger. It's difficult to understand why the NY Times thinks it's above the rules. "I will not watch CNN." one soldier flatly told me in the mess hall at Camp Airborne, Afghanistan It's not just the American media that seems to have an agenda; I've heard nightmares about the foreign press too. One Green Beret told me of British reporter Stephen Grey, the author of "Operation Snakebite" and "Ghost Plane: The True Story of Operation Snake Bite." In a news report, Grey bluntly accused the Army Special Forces of murdering civilians, an accusation that surprised the men involved in the operation. I was not personally there, but the Green Beret who led the mission that day called the reporting "ridiculous and disappointing" because "Grey saw everything that was going on and was very chummy with us before he left." The Green Berets felt Grey came into the report with an agenda and never intended to give them a fair shake. Grey's Web site is running a story on the "American Gulag," so much for objectivity. Honest and sincere reporting, critical or otherwise can help improve an organization and the military is no exception. The men and women in both Iraq and Afghanistan have up armored to face a motivated and deadly enemy willing to kill with little or no regard. Unfortunately, there is little defense against a free press devoid of free thought and even fewer justifications.

Iraq holds true: No calls for U.S. military's help

By Mike Tharp McClatchy Newspapers BAGHDAD — Two weeks after U.S. combat troops withdrew from Iraq's major cities, amid sporadic outbreaks of violence countrywide, Iraqi authorities aren't asking American forces for help. Although U.S. troops are "just a radio call away," in Baghdad and five other major urban areas, it appears the Iraqis haven't asked even once. In Baghdad, the Iraqis also won't allow U.S. forces on the street, except for supply convoys. The failure to trigger the "Onstar option" suggests that the government of Iraq and its military think they can deal with the car bombings, homemade bombs and attacks with silencer-equipped handguns that have plagued parts of the country in recent days. As the June 30 deadline approached for withdrawing troops from major cities, U.S. military officials told their Iraqi army and national police allies that they were "just a radio call away" in case they needed American military muscle. So far, however, it isn't clear whether there's been a call. McClatchy Newspapers special correspondents in Najaf, Basra, Anbar, Diyala and Mosul report that Iraqi forces have made no requests for U.S. combat help. American officers have been surprised to learn that "out of the cities" meant just that. "The Iraqis have been hellbent on taking control of all security operations in the city and completely excluding the Americans, to the point of completely refusing to permit U.S. patrols of any kind into the city except logistics convoys," one U.S. officer in Baghdad said. Another American soldier who works closely with the Iraqi National Police: "Business is pretty much as usual. Our guys don't ask for help on the ground very often, and not at all since the 30th. We give them the usual help, and they mention several times how pleased they are that we are still here with them." The "usual help" includes more in-depth intelligence sharing, coordinating communications among Iraqi units and pervasive surveillance from the air. The go-it-alone stance of Iraqi security forces comes at a time of scattered but lethal outbreaks of violence over the last week or so. Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city, has been hardest hit by car bombs, suicide bombers and assassinations of police officers with silencer-equipped handguns. Dozens of people have been killed and hundreds wounded. Over several days, insurgents have targeted Christians in Baghdad and Mosul. They've blown up churches, killing several people and wounding scores. On Sunday, a convoy in southern Iraq that was carrying U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill had just passed a homemade roadside bomb when it blew up; no one was hurt. It's clear that Iraqi authorities continue to lean on certain American capabilities they lack. While the Iraqi government has taken a hard line on no U.S. patrols in Baghdad except supply convoys, for example, many Iraqi officers privately have told their U.S. counterparts that they hope for more American involvement because of U.S. intelligence capability. Army Brig. Gen. William Phillips, the commander of the Joint Contracting Command-Iraq/Afghanistan, told McClatchy that "companies that want to come and do business in Iraq understand what the security situation is, but it won't be a deterrent. The (security) agreement is a great step forward for Iraqi sovereignty." The Iraqi National Police have reported a few minor violations of the June 30 agreement. On July 1, a U.S. patrol set up a checkpoint in a village west of Baqouba in Diyala province, searched civilian cars for two hours and drove off. On July 5, an American patrol set up a checkpoint, searched vehicles and conducted house-to-house searches in Abu Ghraib, a western suburb of Baghdad. For now, it seems that the 130,000-plus American troops in Iraq will serve mainly by waiting for that radio call from Iraqi security forces.

Dutch return 69 stolen antiquities to Iraq

Mike Corder ASSOCIATED PRESS THE HAGUE | The Dutch government turned over dozens of antiquities stolen from Iraq to Baghdad's ambassador on Thursday and urged other countries to clamp down on the illicit trade of artifacts. The 69 pieces include cylindrical stone seals older than 2000 B.C. and a terra-cotta relief depicting a bearded man praying. "These things should not be bought and sold," said Diederik Meijer, an archaeologist with the Dutch National Museum for Antiquities, which will display the treasures before they are returned to Iraq. Mr. Meijer declined to put a value on the artifacts, saying it could encourage illegal trade. Despite efforts to stop the looting of historical sites, such theft is still happening in Iraq. Mr. Meijer showed an aerial photo of an official archaeological dig surrounded by a landscape pockmarked with illegal excavations. Dutch Education, Culture and Science Minister Ronald Plasterk said the ancient artifacts were surrendered by Dutch art traders after police informed them the artifacts were stolen. U.S. customs authorities and Interpol had alerted Dutch officials that the items were being sold here. Mr. Plasterk said the artifacts came from the "cradle of civilization," the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that once was known as Mesopotamia. Among other items Mr. Plasterk handed to Iraqi Ambassador Siamand Banaa was a sawn-out fragment of a flagstone with an inscription of King Nebuchadnezzar dating from 570 B.C. and a decorated nail from 2100 B.C. that would have been used to anchor a building's foundations. "We should cherish and honor the start of civilization in Iraq," Mr. Plasterk said, "and consider it the responsibility of the world to make sure it stays there. These objects lose a lot of their value if they are stolen from their site." Mr. Banaa praised the Netherlands for tracing and returning the stolen goods and said he hoped other countries would "emulate the Dutch example." Looting in Iraq earlier led to an outcry when American troops largely stood by as thieves carried away priceless antiquities from the National Museum in the chaos that followed the 2003 capture of Baghdad. About 15,000 artifacts were stolen from the museum, and the lead U.S. investigator said last year that trafficking in those items helped finance al Qaeda in Iraq as well as Shi'ite militias. Eventually, about 8,500 items were recovered in an international effort that included culture ministries across the region, Interpol, museum curators and auction houses. Jordan, Syria and Egypt were among countries that returned stolen objects to Baghdad, the scientific and literary hub of the Arab world in the eighth and ninth centuries. The museum reopened in February. The U.N. cultural body UNESCO has said of the roughly 7,000 pieces still missing from the museum, about 40 to 50 are considered to be of great historical importance. It was not immediately clear when the antiquities being returned by the Dutch were looted.

Still Not Stimulated?

Washington Post Calls for additional spending by a government already neck-deep in red ink Friday, July 10, 2009 BY ANY MEASURE, the current fiscal and monetary policies of the United States are highly stimulative, almost incredibly so. The Obama administration projects that the federal budget deficit for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 will hit $1.8 trillion, or 12.3 percent of gross domestic product. Mr. Obama's budget plan calls for an additional $1.2 trillion deficit, or 8 percent of GDP, in fiscal 2010. Both figures reflect not only the $787 billion stimulus plan adopted in February but also the countercyclical impact of "automatic stabilizers": During recessions, tax receipts decline and transfer payments such as unemployment benefits increase. The previous postwar deficit record, set in 1983, was 6 percent of GDP. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve has driven its target interest rate to nearly zero, opened its discount window to a wider range of financial institutions and expanded its balance sheet by more than $2 trillion through purchases of government bonds and mortgage-backed securities. In other words, those calling for an additional stimulus package must explain why this is not enough. Yes, the U.S. unemployment rate hit 9.5 percent in June -- on its way toward 10 percent or more by the end of the year. Vice President Biden's admission that the administration might have "misread" the country's economic woes gave ammunition to those, including but not limited to the left wing of the Democratic Party, who always believed that $787 billion in stimulus was too little. Meanwhile, the contractionary effect of tax increases and spending cuts by cash-strapped states is working against the federal stimulus. So far, though, only about $99 billion of the stimulus bill has flowed, according to the administration; this is consistent with forecasts by the Congressional Budget Office, which suggested that a quarter of the $787 billion would be "on the street" by the end of 2009 and another half would be out by the end of 2010. Congress packed the bill with all sorts of slow-moving stuff from members' long-standing spending wish lists. But if you believe both that the economy will be weak through next year and that the stimulus money can help perk it up, this is not necessarily a bad pace. More fundamentally, the country may be testing the limits of its ability to borrow its way to recovery. Thanks to America's Triple-A credit rating, the federal government is tapping not only domestic savings but those of the entire world. Still, there is only so much capital to go around. If the United States claims an ever-increasing share of that pie, it may have to pay higher interest rates to get it. And higher interest rates would short-circuit economic recovery -- thus defeating the purpose of the stimulus.

Air National Guard to Congress: We Need F-22

Congressional Quarterly reports: The director of the Air National Guard, in a statement that has added afterburners to the case in Congress for continued production of F-22 fighters, has told lawmakers that the jet is the optimal choice for replacing aging aircraft that patrol U.S. airspace on homeland security missions. The battle over whether to keep building F-22s or to halt the program, as the Obama administration wants, is shaping up as the most contentious defense budget dispute this year. And the Air National Guard is slowly becoming a force in the gathering campaign for keeping the program alive. “While a variety of solutions abound, I believe the current and future asymmetric threats to our nation, particularly from seaborne cruise missiles, requires a fighter platform with the requisite speed and detection to address them,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III wrote in a June 19 letter responding to an inquiry from Sen. Saxby Chambliss , R-Ga., an advocate of additional F-22 production. Final assembly of the F-22 is handled at Lockheed Martin’s Marietta, Ga., facility. “The F-22’s unique capability in this arena enables it to handle a full spectrum of threats that the ANG’s [Air National Guard’s] current legacy systems are not capable of addressing.” You'll remember it was not long ago that the grounding of the Air Force's fleet of F-15s left the military with no choice but to ask the Canadian Air Force to assist in the defense of U.S. air space. Secretary Gates has made it pretty clear that any lobbying of Congress for funds not sought by this administration, in particular for the procurement of additional F-22s, will not be looked upon kindly. Apparently General Wyatt is off the reservation.

The Receding Economy, Surging Spending

By J.T. Young on 7.8.09 @ 6:08AM America's emerging policy issue is the federal budget deficit. According to the 7/2 released CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll of 1,026 adults (conducted 6/26-28 with a 3.1% +/- margin of error), the federal budget deficit ranked second only to the economy as "the most important issue facing the U.S. today." That's ahead of health care, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and energy policy. The public's concern is not surprising. While the U.S. economy has been shrinking, the U.S. government has been anything but. The recession's effect on the federal spending and the deficit can be painted in a few bold strokes. Even using the Congressional Budget Office's March estimates -- which do not include the effect of recent spending legislation -- it's not a pretty picture. Federal outlays, the true measure of the government's size, are estimated by CBO to be $3.853 trillion this year. This is greater than the entire U.S. economy was in 1984. The federal government now consumes more than America produced just a generation ago. Those federal outlays now account for 27.4 percent of all America produces today. Less than three-fourths -- 72.6 percent -- is left for all the nation's other uses. This ratio of spending to the total economy is higher than at any point since WWII. As a result of this spending, the deficit is 11.9 percent of the economy. The deficit too is higher than at any time since WWII and would pay for two-thirds of all America's health care spending. In nominal dollars, today's deficit measures $1.667 trillion. This is far and away the largest nominal deficit in our nation's history. That figure is 3.6 times greater than the previous record deficit of $459 billion, which was reached just last year. Total federal spending, did not reach the level of this year's deficit until 1999. In fact, today's nominal deficit is greater than the previous five years' deficits ($1.599 trillion from 2004 through 2008) put together! The previous eight years' net deficit of $2.005 trillion is just a fifth greater than this year's alone. Looking at the deficit from the revenue angle: the federal government is estimated to collect $968 billion in federal income taxes this year. If income tax revenues were doubled -- everyone paying twice as much -- the 2009 deficit would be cut by just over a half. And the remaining $699 billion deficit would still be the biggest deficit in U.S. history. The deficit is enormous because spending is even more so. The recession has fueled both and both have surged quickly: just two years ago, federal spending was $2.7 31 trillion and the deficit just $163 billion (a tenth of today's estimate). When the recession ends, it will be interesting to see if federal spending and deficits recede as quickly as they arose.