Mediaboss Marketing

Naveed Shah crisscrossed Iraq during his time in the United States Army, travelling from the capital Baghdad to the southern city of Basrah, on the banks of the Shatt Al Arab river.

Like many recruits, he had been inspired to enlist after the attacks on September 11, 2001, that killed nearly 3,000 people in the US.

That day had left him rattled. Shah was only a teenager at the time, but he remembers the day two hijacked aeroplanes slammed into the World Trade Center in New York City, with a third hitting the Pentagon building in Washington, DC, not far from where he lived. A fourth hijacked plane, believed to also be headed to Washington, DC, crashed in a field in Pennsylvania after passengers fought back.

I felt that my country was under attack, Shah, who now works with the veterans advocacy group Common Defense, told Al Jazeera in a recent phone call. And as a Muslim, I felt that my religion had been perverted to justify something terrible.

Shah ultimately joined the army in 2006, nearly three years into the US invasion of Iraq. It was a campaign that then-President George W Bush justified by evoking the September 11 attacks, warning that Iraq was harbouring terrorists and developing weapons of mass destruction, a claim that has since been disproven.

Shah, like many Americans at the time, said that he did not second-guess the decision to invade.

I didnt think much about how we ended up in Iraq, he said. At the time it looked like we were winning and we were going to leave the country on decent footing.

However, as the 20th anniversary of the Iraq war approaches, Shahs views have changed. Many veterans like Shah now wrestle with questions about the invasions purpose, as well as lingering combat-related medical challenges.

The war was based on a lie, Shah said. It was wrong for us to be there in the first place.

Among the hundreds of thousands of US service members who took part in the Iraq war, perspectives about the conflict are varied.

My year in Iraq was not pleasant, Kristofer Goldsmith, who served in Iraq from January to December 2005, told Al Jazeera. I cant say any American, much less any Iraqi, is better off for me having served there.

A 2019 poll by the Pew Research Center found that a sizable majority of US veterans about 64 percent believe that the Iraq war was not worth fighting, a rate slightly higher than the 62 percent of all US adults who agree with that statement.

In foreign policy circles, the war is increasingly described as a mistaken endeavour at best and, at worst, a conflict based on false pretences that brought death, destruction and instability to the region. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians died, and millions were displaced.

The years since the invasion have spurred Shah, who served as an army communications specialist during the war, to reconsider how the US approaches its foreign policy.

It sounded far-fetched when people said that there was an effort at the highest levels of government to lie us into a war, but thats what happened, he said.

Shah would like to see an end to what he calls the perpetual state of military activity that has defined the USs war on terror.

The US defence budget is nearing $1 trillion. With all of the issues we have at home, should we be getting involved in conflicts all over the world? he asked. I think the clear answer is no.

Another veteran, Oscar Olguin, lost his right leg due to an explosion early in the Iraq war, in 2003. He expressed ambivalence about the war and its legacy in a recent phone interview with Al Jazeera.

I wouldnt change anything that happened to me but I cant say whether the war was worth it, he said. Is it ever really worth it? In a fight, nobody really wins.

But like some Iraq war veterans, Olguin has found a way to channel his experience into advocacy work.

Through his job helping veterans access government services at the nonprofit Disabled American Veterans (DAV), Olguin said he has helped veterans of all ages and backgrounds, including a former Tuskegee airman, one of the Black fighter pilots who served during World War II. The work feels gratifying, Olguin explained.

Goldsmith, the veteran who served in Iraq in 2005, has also found a renewed sense of self through advocacy. He had been struggling with mental health issues during his enlistment.

I remember my squad leader asked me if I had ever heard of PTSD, he said, using an acronym for post-traumatic stress disorder. At the time, Goldsmith explained, it wasnt part of the lexicon.

Goldsmith was ultimately discharged after attempting to take his own life. When I left the military, I lost a big part of my identity, a big part of my community, he said. But outreach work stateside helped him rediscover a sense of well-being: Sharing my story and my experiences really helped me get out of a dark place.

He has since founded a group called Task Force Butler, which focuses on identifying neo-Nazis through intelligence gathering on the internet.

My experiences left an impact on me that cant be separated from who I am, Goldsmith said. I used to think about the war constantly. Now, when I think about my identity as a vet, its about using my skills to make my country a better place and fighting for democracy here at home.

Shane Liermann, who works on legislative issues with the DAV, credits Iraq war veteranswith pushing the US government to expand services like healthcare and education for military personnel, past and present.

One of the most high-profile fights was over exposure to burn pits, used inboth conflicts to dispose of waste on military bases. Advocates say plastics, electronics and even industrial chemicals were thrown into the rubbish fires, releasing toxic fumes and heavy metals.

But for years, the burden had been on veterans to prove that their health conditions were the result of their proximity to the pits.

Only in August 2022 did US President Joe Biden sign a bill expanding healthcare benefits for veterans exposed to toxins during their service, including from the burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thirteen thousand veteran claims had been denied since 2007, said Liermann. Under this bill, its no longer up to veterans to prove causation.

Still, Liermann noted, gaps in coverage persist, and some veterans struggle to access the help they need.

Veterans in rural areas can still have a hard time accessing benefits, he said. If you have to drive a few hours to a VA [Veterans Affairs] clinic in a big city, that can be a challenge.

Mental health issues remain a persistent concern: More than 6,000 veterans have died by suicide each year since 2001.

But that trend shows signs of improvement. According to a VA report released last year, the veteran suicide rate dropped by 9.7 percent between 2018 and 2020.

There are more resources available now than there were before, said Goldsmith, the veteran turned advocate. Theres still work to do but things have gotten better.

If you or someone you know is at risk of suicide, these organisations may be able to help.

Go here to read the rest:
We shouldnt have been there: US vets consider legacy of Iraq - Al Jazeera English

Sir, Although hundreds of reputable journalists supported the invasion of Iraq, Fintan OToole singles me out for criticism, especially for supporting Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress in the Sunday Independent (How journalists were complicit in one of the great con jobs of modern times, Opinion, March 25th). I want to make three points in reply.

First, as I regularly wrote in the Sunday Independent, for me the issue of weapons of mass destruction was irrelevant to the removal of Saddam Hussein, whom I believed should be deposed as a tyrant for using chemical weapons on the Kurds.

I still believe the invasion of Iraq was justified it was welcomed by most Iraqis at the start but that justification was destroyed by the aftermath when the incompetence and indifference of US forces lost that initial goodwill, mostly by disbanding Iraqs army.

Second, I met Mr Chalabi in Washington in 2001. I admired him and his secular Iraqi National Congress (who had convened in secret in Drogheda in 1998) and saw them as freedom fighters in exile.

I never took a penny for giving them television training, because I believed in their cause.

Finally, in 2005, when Irish journalist Rory Carroll was abducted by a Shia faction in Baghdad, his mother, Kathy Carroll, a neighbour, asked me to help. I called in my credit with Mr Chalabi, then deputy prime minister of Iraq, who secured his release. I cannot claim my influence was crucial but I believe the Irish link was important. Mr Carroll, writing after his release, credited Mr Chalabi with securing his freedom. Yours, etc,

EOGHAN HARRIS,

Blackrock,

Co Dublin.

Sir, Fintan OToole has written an appropriately stinging summary of the credulous and undisciplined behaviour of the media in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.

I would add another band of virile warriors: public intellectuals posing as tough guys. The most conspicuous of these may have been Christopher Hitchens, soi-disant man of the left.

He personified a wide swath of the American commentariat that embraced the opportunity to show off their Churchill chops. Yours, etc,

CONN NUGENT,

Washington DC,

US.

Here is the original post:
Journalists and the invasion of Iraq The Irish Times - The Irish Times

Russia eased to a 2-0 win over Iraq in a friendly on Sunday as they played their first international match on home soil since November 2021 after being barred from global competitions over Moscows invasion of Ukraine.

Substitute Anton Miranchuk fired Russia ahead shortly after halftime, pouncing on a rebound after Iraq goalkeeper Jalal Hassan Hachim parried Alexander Sobolevs low shot to his right.

Sergei Pinyaev then grabbed a stylish second, becoming Russias youngest goalscorer in the process at 18 years, four months and 24 days. The Lokomotiv Moscow winger exploited Iraqs high defensive line before cutting in from the left and squeezing a low shot to the goalkeepers right.

This could be due to a conflict with your ad-blocking or security software.

Please add japantimes.co.jp and piano.io to your list of allowed sites.

If this does not resolve the issue or you are unable to add the domains to your allowlist, please see this FAQ.

We humbly apologize for the inconvenience.

In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever.By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.

See original here:
Russia beats Iraq in first home friendly since Ukraine invasion - The Japan Times

Twenty years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the countryremains unstable, with one of the most corrupt and dysfunctional governments in the world. It is unable to provide Iraqis with many of the basic services previous generations had known. Rival militia groups are battling for influence, and serious human rights abuses are ongoing. Thousands of U.S. troops remain in the country to this day, ostensibly to counter the presence of ISIL/ISIS cells and Iranian militia groups, both of which emerged as a direct result of the 2003 invasion.

The cumulative cost of the war for American taxpayers will end up at well over$3 trillion, adding to the national debt and giving deficit hawks the excuse to resist needed expansions, and even to impose cuts in important domestic spending. On the environmental front, the war is estimated to have resulted in thereleaseof hundreds of millions of additional metric tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere, seriously undermining efforts to reduce emissions elsewhere.

Both the financial and environmental costs have been compounded further by the war against ISIS, a terrorist group founded and led by Iraqis radicalized by the U.S. invasion and occupation. The spread of ISIS beyond Iraq has led the United States to deploy additional forces and engage in air strikes and commando raids in no less than a dozen countries in Africa and the Middle East. In addition, massive arms shipments and additional troop deployments have been made in response to Irans strengthened role as a result of the rise of the pro-Iranian militia and the strong influence of pro-Iranian political parties in Iraqs government.

The predictable consequences of the U.S. invasion of Iraq are now being used to justify a bloated U.S. military budget and expanded overseas deployments in response to the threats the war created.

The Watson Institute at Brown Universityestimatesthat more than 300,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in direct violence from the invasion and its aftermath, and several times that from damage to systems that provide food, health care, and clean drinking water, resulting in fatal illnesses and malnutrition that could otherwise have been avoided or treated.

Many of us look at Biden and others who supported the war the same way climate scientists look at Trump and other climate change deniersas anti-intellectuals driven more by ideology than facts and reason.

In light of such tragic results, supporters of the invasion have attempted to rewrite history. Among the false claims was that virtually everyone supported the invasion. In reality, the majority of Congressional Democratsvotedagainst the war resolution, and the majority of registered Democrats nationallyopposedit as well. There certainly were prominent Congressional Democrats who backed itJoe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, Ed Markey, Maria Cantwell, and Dianne Feinstein, among othersbut they were a minority.

InThe Progressiveand other magazines and websitesas well as in scores of policy reports, newspaper articles, academic journals, and other sourcesthe likely tragic consequences of the incipient war, and a refutation of falsehoods being put forward by the Bush Administration to justify it, were made available to every member of the U.S. House and Senate. (See, for example, my September 2002 cover story inThe Nation, The Case Against War.) Despite this, both the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate voted to authorize the invasion anyway.

The 2002 vote authorizing the invasion was not like the vote on the 1964Tonkin Gulf Resolutionon the use of force against North Vietnam. For that vote, members of Congress had no time for hearings or debate, and most of those supporting it (mistakenly) thought they were simply authorizing limited, short-term retaliatory strikes in response to a specific series of alleged incidents.

By contrast, in regard to the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, Congress had many months to investigate and debate the administrations claims that Iraq was a threat, as well as the likely implications of a U.S. invasion; members of Congress also fully recognized that the resolution authorized a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and a subsequent military occupation for an indefinite period.

Nearly 80 percent ofU.S. international relations scholars, an estimated 90 percent of U.S. Middle East scholars, and an estimated 80 percent of State Department specialists on the region opposed the invasion, according to my research. Yet backers of the war insisted the experts were wrong and that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were right. This is why many of us look at Biden and other politicians who supported the war the same way climate scientists look at Donald Trump and other climate change deniersas anti-intellectuals driven more by ideology than facts and reason.

Indeed, members of Congress were repeatedly alerted by American academics, Middle Eastern political leaders, former State Department and intelligence officials, and others that a U.S. invasion would likely result in a long, bloody insurgency, a rise in Islamist extremism and terrorism, increased sectarian and ethnic conflict, increased Iranian influence, and related problems. Therefore, subsequent claims by war supporters that they were somehow unaware of the likely consequences of the invasion are completely false.

Similarly, throughout the country and across the world, trade unions, human rights, racial justice, and environmental groups, and others came out in opposition. Millions of Americans took to the streets in the largest series of demonstrations at that point in U.S. history. Yet the Bush Administration, Congressional Republicans, and more than one-third of Congressional Democrats ignored them.

What is striking is how forgiving many Democrats are of their leaders who supported the war. For example, theCatholic Churchand virtually everymainline Protestant denominationalso came out against the invasion, noting how it did not meet traditional Christian teachings regarding a just war. Only the rightwing evangelical fundamentalist churches voiced their support. It is hard to imagine that any Democrat who would side with the fundamentalists on abortion or LGBTQ+ issues would become a Congressional leader or be nominated for President. Yet regarding the critically important moral and theological issue of war and peace, Democratic voters have been quite tolerant of their leaders siding with the fundamentalists.

Part of the reason may be that many Democratic supporters of the invasionsuch as presidential nomineesJohn Kerry, Hillary Clintonand Joe Bidenhave subsequently misled the public on their role. Each has insisted that the October 2002Authorization for Use of Military Force was somehow not really an authorization for the use of force, but simply a tool to convince the Iraqi regime to finally allow United Nations weapons inspectorswhom President Bill Clintonordered removed in 1998back into the country to engage in unfettered inspections.

It would be nave to think that those in Washington have somehow learned a lesson, given their efforts to rewrite history and claim that the invasion was at worst a mistake rather than a war crime.

However, Saddam Hussein had agreed to allow inspectors back in several weeks earlier. In addition, the resolution gave President Bush the authority to launch a war at a time and under circumstances of his own choosing, rejectingthe Levin Amendment, which would have linked authorization to approval by the U.N. Security Council. And all three of these future Democratic presidential nominees publicly supported Bushs decision to invade the following March, four months after the arrival of U.N. inspectors, who had beenunable to find anyof the proscribed weapons or weapons systems the Bush Administration claimed Iraq possessed. Even after acknowledging that they didnt really exist, all three of these Democrats defended the decision to have invaded anyway.

Both Kerry and Hillary Clintonlostvery close elections they might have otherwise won due to the large numbers of progressive voters, bitter at their support for the Iraq invasion, who stayed home or voted for a third-party candidate. Had they done otherwise, there would have been no second Bush term and no Trump presidency.

There have been other political impacts of the lies by Bush and his Congressional supporters as well. Some elements of the left, including some anti-war writers and activists who came to the fore during the Iraq War, have become so jaded that they doubt U.S. government claims of atrocities or weapons procurement by adversarial governments even when they are true, such as the terror bombing of cities and the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime. Regarding Ukraine, the Biden Administrations accurate warnings of an imminent Russian invasion early last year were dismissed by many as propaganda and, subsequently, the United States and other Western nations are being falsely blamed as somehow being responsible.

Meanwhile, in light of Bidens support for the invasion of Iraq, many governments in the Global South and elsewhere assume that his support for Ukraine now is simply about weakening Russia rather than defending international law.

With the absence of weapons of mass destruction, the Bush Administration and its supporterssubsequently defendedthe invasion and occupation as a necessary act of regime change in order to promote democracy. As a consequence, from Belarus to Iran to Myanmar and beyond, autocratic governments and their apologists have cited Bushs policy as the basis for falsely claiming that popular, homegrown, pro-democracy movements are part of some kind of U.S.-sponsored soft coup.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was opposed by virtually the entire international community, including Iraqs closest neighbors, who presumably had the most to be concerned about in terms of any possible Iraqi military threat. However, the Bush Administration and members of Congress who voted to authorize the invasion were determined to make the case that the United Stateswith the strongest military the world has ever knownwas so threatened by Iraq that it had to launch an invasion, overthrow its government, and occupy that country for an indefinite period.

This shows a frighteningly low threshold for effectively declaring war, especially given that in most cases, these members of Congress had been informed by knowledgeable sources of the widespread human and material costs that would result from a U.S. invasion. It also indicates that they would likely be just as willing to send American forces off to another disastrous war again, also under false pretenses.

It would be nave to think that those in Washington have somehow learned a lesson, given their efforts to rewrite history and claim that the invasion was at worst a mistake rather than a war crime. It is up to the American public to remember how the war came about and be determined to ensure that it does not happen again.

See the rest here:
The Lingering Effects of Iraq War Lies - Progressive.org

Erbil -- On March 26, the Directorate for Survivors Affairs and eight NGOs from across Iraqi Kurdistan and Ninewa Governorate signed an Agreement of Cooperation for the establishment and activation of a formal referral system through which beneficiaries of the Yezidi Survivors Law (YSL) -- individuals who survived the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant's (ISIL, also referred to as Daesh) genocide -- can receive referrals for mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) services in their areas of residence.

Under the Agreement, Directorate staff will refer survivors to and follow up with these organizations, which have committed to the ethical provision services according to their respective capacities. Located in areas of displacement and return, the eight organizations include: Dialogue Organization for Development and Relief, Farida Global, Free Yezidi Foundation, Hope Makers, Jesuit Rescue Services, Jiyan Foundation, SEED Foundation and Yazda.

"Iraq is showing the world what commitment to transitional justice looks like -- first with the passage of the YSL in March 2021 and establishment of the Directorate for Survivors Affairs; then with the opening of the application process last September for survivors to begin receiving reparations; this month with the first distribution of monthly salaries promised to survivors under the YSL; and now through the activation of the MHPSS Referral System," said Chief of Mission for the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in Iraq, Mr. Giorgi Gigauri. "IOM Iraq is proud to have been able to support every step along the way, and we remain committed to a trauma-informed, survivor-centred transitional justice process."

The aim of the Directorate's MHPSS Referral System is to bridge the institutional gap in the MHPSS services available to survivors in Iraq as they undergo rehabilitation in the genocide's aftermath; Indeed, the need for such services and care among genocide survivors is immense, but state facilities and resources for MHPSS provision are almost non-existent, with local and international organizations acting as the main providers of such services for survivors.

"Many survivors who escaped ISIL in 2014 have not seen any MHPSS providers at all," said Khawla, a Yezidi survivor and member of the Survivors Voices Network. "It is very important for survivors to know that there are people who think about them, there are people supporting them to rebuild their lives. And it is crucial that the MHPSS services are sustained because many survivors will need MHPSS support over a long period to be able to overcome their trauma, heal and rebuild their lives."

The Referral System will function as the main framework through which beneficiaries of YSL can access MHPSS services, until the official MHPSS institutional framework is properly equipped and effective. IOM Iraq will help to strengthen the Referral System over the course of 2023 through capacity building, in-kind support and funding. In parallel, the Directorate will initiate work to build a specialized MHPSS facility for YSL beneficiaries in collaboration with the Ministry of Health.

Director General of the Directorate for Survivors Affairs, Ms. Sarab Elias Barakat, said, "This is an important step in the implementation of the YSL. We are happy with this cooperation with NGOs to provide MHPSS services to the survivors who have been suffering greatly and are in desperate need of this support. This referral mechanism will enable survivors to have access to MHPSS services in their own areas of residence."

"The UK continues to champion the rights of survivors and remains a strong advocate for the implementation of the Yezidi Survivor's Law. We are delighted by the launch of the referral system -- the atrocities committed by Daesh have had a profound impact on minority communities; mental health and psychosocial support remains essential. We look forward to continuing our close cooperation with IOM and the Directorate for Survivor Affairs to further help survivors," said British Ambassador to Iraq, H.E. Mark Bryson-Richardson.

"The Dutch Government is a very proud partner of IOM for their advert support in the making and implementation of the Yezidi Survivors Law. We are very pleased to see this step -- hopefully one in line of many -- to have a direct effect on the lives of those impacted so devastatingly nine years ago. This is really a strong sign that successful steps are being made in the pursuit of transitional justice and a major step towards a more hopeful future for those who were affected," said Mr. Jelle-Jochem Duits, Second Secretary of the Dutch Consulate General.

The YSL represents a key institutional framework for addressing the legacy of ISIL's genocidal crimes against Yezidis, Shabak, Turkmen and Christians, and also stipulates a variety of rights and benefits -- including monthly pension, rehabilitation support and a plot of land -- for women and girls who survived conflict-related sexual violence and children who survived abduction at the hands of ISIL.

For more information, please contact:

IOM Iraq's Public Information Unit, iraqpublicinfo@iom.int

Sarah Gold at IOM Iraq, sgold@iom.int

Originally posted here:
Toward Comprehensive Rehabilitation: Mental Health Service ... - ReliefWeb