Mediaboss Marketing

The House of Representatives on Thursday passed a bill that would greatly expand healthcare coverage for military veterans exposed to toxic chemicals and other materials.

The Honor our PACT Act would grant new disability benefits to 23 illnesses that have been linked to battlefield pollutants, most notably smoke from so-called burn pits that gained such notoriety in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bill passed the House with a 256-174 vote.

For too long, Congress and VA have been slow to act on toxic exposure but today, the House took a bipartisan vote to change that and finally make good on our promise to toxic-exposed veterans, said Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), the bills sponsor and Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman on Thursday.

The vote came two days after President Joe Biden delivered his State of the Union speech, where he called upon Congress to pass a law to make sure veterans devastated by toxic exposure in Iraq and Afghanistan finally get the benefits and the comprehensive health care they deserve.

During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military used open-air pits to burn waste everything from plastics, medical waste, computer equipment, tires, all doused with jet fuel and set ablaze. While the practice was supposedly curtailed in 2009, a 2010 report from the Government Accountability Office found that the military was still using unsafe protocols to burn waste, and Stars and Stripes reported in 2014 that the practice had made a resurgence in Iraq with the return of U.S. forces there.

As many as 3.5 million service members are thought to have suffered some exposure to toxic fumes and substances from burn pits since 2001.

Accessing health care for medical issues thought to be associated with that exposure has proven a challenge for many, as the effects of exposure to smoke and fumes from the burn pits was poorly understood.

The Department of Veterans Affairs had attributed a limited range of health effects to burn pit exposure and had placed the responsibility on individual veterans to prove that their adverse health effects were directly attributable to burn pit exposure. Nearly 78 percent of these claims have been denied since 2007.

In addition to burn pit exposure, the bill would also expand healthcare coverage to Cold War-era service members exposed to radiation, add hypertension and monoclonal gammopathy to the list of illnesses linked to Agent Orange exposure in the Vietnam War and require new medical exams for all veterans with toxic exposure claims.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill could cost $208 billion over the next decade. That price tag is also the major sticking point for those who have opposed the measure.

While the Senate has not indicated it would vote on the Honor the PACT Act, it did last month approve a bill that would create a one-year enrollment period for VA medical care for post-9/11 combat veterans who served after 1998 and never enrolled, and also extend the enrollment period for all formerly deployed post-9/11 combat vets from five years to 10. Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Sen. John Tester (D-Mont.) described it as a first step.

Nevertheless, at a Wednesday news conference, advocates for the bill encouraged the Senate to take up the bill as opposed to a more piecemeal approach.

If he [Senate Majority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)] does that, said advocate John Feal, Then I will make his life miserable.

Want to write for Task & Purpose? Click here. Or check out the latest stories on our homepage.

Read the original:
Congress takes step towards granting free health care to millions of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans - Task & Purpose

Iraq is starting to catch its breath. The Iraqi city of Hatra has suffered from damage and lost its beauty. However, after so much torment, the ancient city is getting restored and revived. With the recovery of three colossal sculptures, Hatra starts to undo the destruction it has faced!

The city of Hatra witnessed ISIS, taking its guns and pickaxes to its historical monuments that date back to the Roman and Parthian empires. Some sites were even destroyed during the battles to drive ISIS out. Their rule over the city has led to so much loss, with smashed historical pieces wasted.

However, the countrys efforts to regain its losses are going in the right direction. In association with the Italian International Association for Mediterranean and Oriental Studies, Iraqi experts are unveiling the countrys ancient heritage. Meanwhile, its all done with funding of the International Alliance for the Protection of Heritage in Conflict Areas.

The head of antiquities in Nineveh province, Khair Al-Din Ahmed Nasser, said, We recovered some pieces. Others which were missing, we replaced with the same type of stone. Furthermore, restored pieces include a Roman-style, life-size sculpture and faces on the side of the great temple.

The project of restoring the city is more than just reclaiming Hatras ancient history. It also provides training for the curators and archaeologists of Iraq, marking a positive change and what seems like a bright future for the country!

Nadine is a Faculty of Arts graduate who's into telling stories. She loves music, singing, and watches movies in her free time. Nadine is interested in handicrafts and creating. One day, she is going to have a number one bestseller novel.

See the original post here:
Iraq Is Celebrating the Restoration of Three Major Sculptures That Were Destroyed by ISIS - Scoop Empire

Nigel Ashton discusses Margaret Thatchers handling of the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and draws lessons for future prime ministers.

How far can an international crisis protect an embattled Prime Minister from political peril at home? Amid Russias war on Ukraine, the question remains relevant in 10 Downing Street. Precisely the same question faced Margaret Thatcher during her final months in office. Thatchers resignation is almost universally remembered as having resulted from her loss of Cabinet support due to differences over Europe and the poll tax. But look closer and her erratic handling of the crisis caused by Iraqs invasion of Kuwait was also a significant factor.

Thatchers earlier, successful handling of the Falklands War in 1982 is widely regarded as the watershed moment in her premiership. Her determination that Argentine aggression in the South Atlantic would not stand was vindicated as Britain emerged victorious. So, when the Kuwaiti crisis broke in August 1990, the prime minister found herself once more apparently in her element. Demonstrating her credentials as a war leader would surely help see off discontent over Europe and the poll tax. There was much in common between the Falklands and Kuwaiti crises, both of which involved clear breaches of international law by invading powers.

But there were also crucial differences. Whereas over the Falklands Thatcher had gritted her teeth and accepted the initial US attempt to seek a diplomatic resolution, over the Gulf she was much less restrained in highlighting what she saw as US weakness. So, in May 1982, her private rebuke to President Reagan, in which she reproached him that our principles are no longer what we believe, nor those we were elected to serve, but what the dictator will accept, was never sent. In 1990, by contrast, her reproach to President Bush this is no time to go wobbly, George was leaked as a public lesson. And it was not appreciated by the decorated former World War Two naval pilot. In his first message to John Major after he had succeeded Thatcher in Number 10 Bush pointedly observed that the United States was not to use Mrs Thatchers phrase going wobbly. It was just a question of being seen to be going the extra mile for peace.

In fact, as the crisis unfolded Thatcher showed herself to be fundamentally out of sympathy with Bushs approach of building multilateral support for action through the United Nations. The UN she believed was a diplomatic swamp and venturing into it would only sap the Wests resolve to act in defence of its own interests. Senior officials were astonished that she thought she could tell the Americans how to do this. More significantly, her Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd wrote privately that the PM, increasingly Boadicean, is now definitely of the war party.

When US Secretary of State James Baker told Thatcher of the USs intention to seek a UN resolution authorising the use of force, Thatcher told him: You dont need it politically. Bakers reply was even more withering for the courtesy with which it was delivered: With all due respect maam, I think you need to let us be the judge of what we need politically.

But perhaps the two most damaging features of Thatchers handling of the Gulf crisis which directly undermined her position with senior colleagues were her obsessive secrecy and her extraordinary advocacy of the use of chemical weapons against Iraqi forces.

During the crisis Thatcher evidently saw communication at the highest level with the United States as simply too important to be shared with the responsible ministers. So, when her Private Secretary Charles Powell asked her whether a discussion with the US National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft about war plans should be shared with Foreign Secretary Hurd and Defence Secretary Tom King, Thatchers response was telling: no need to say anything to others. It was an extraordinary state of affairs for the PM to instruct her Private Secretary not to brief the two key responsible ministers about preparations for war.

On the possible use of chemical weapons, her position was even more startling. Thatcher pressed the US repeatedly to be ready to retaliate with Chemical Weapons in response to any Iraqi use. The normally hawkish US Defence Secretary Dick Cheney must have been astonished to find himself significantly out-hawked on this issue by Thatcher who berated him that if we wished to deter a CW [chemical warfare] attack we must have CW weapons available. Once again, the put-down from the Americans was direct: the President had a particular aversion to chemical weapons Cheney shot back. But she remained undeterred: it would be justified for the United States to use CW against Iraqi armoured formations in Kuwait if the Iraqis used it first, she insisted. The Iron Lady had morphed into Chemical Maggie.

Throughout the crisis Thatcher kept senior colleagues at arms length. When her Chancellor John Major stepped into Number Ten at the end of November 1990, he had to start from scratch in building up a picture of Britains preparations for war. Normal decision-making processes were bypassed to such an extent that one senior official later confided: If things had gone wrong, we might have had difficulty in convincing a Franks-type inquiry that all the big decisions to commit UK forces were properly taken. This imperial style at a time of crisis was a significant factor in her demise.

So, what can Boris Johnson learn from the circumstances surrounding Thatchers fall? Not only does managing a major international crisis not insulate you from domestic threats, mishandling such a crisis can undermine a precarious position still further. Crisis management is about the careful calibration of response and the precise choice of words for maximum effect. Losing the confidence of allies, straying from the script for rhetorical effect, and bypassing proper processes can all prove politically fatal.

____________________

Note: the above draws on the authors latest book False Prophets: British Leaders Fateful Fascination with the Middle East from Suez to Syria(Atlantic Books, 2022).

About the Author

Nigel Ashton is Professor of International History at the LSE.

Featured image credit:Photo by Chris Beckett on Flickr via a CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 licence.

More here:
Chemical Maggie? Thatcher's handling of the crisis caused by Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait and lessons for Boris Johnson - British Politics and...

Heavy price: the battle for Raqqa, Syria, August 2017

Delil Souleiman AFP Getty

In June 2014 the United States launched an aerial bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria to destroy the military forces of ISISs self-proclaimed caliphate and a few months later formed a now 83-member international coalition to pursue this aim. In September 2015 Russia began providing military support to Bashar al-Assads regime, which was on the point of being overwhelmed by a popular opposition movement the Syrian government regarded as terrorist even before it fell under the control of jihadist groups. US and Russian interventions would in time lead to some 75,000 air strikes against Iraq and Syria.

However much the coalitions actions against ISIS (Daesh) and Russias support for Assad differ in intent and context, both have been disastrous for people on the ground; the bombing campaigns alone have killed between 20,000 and 55,000 Syrian and Iraqi civilians. How can such a figure, which remains an unofficial estimate, be reliably established and how does it break down? In a multi-dimensional conflict involving foreign forces, counting civilian casualties is especially hard, as it relies on declarations by military actors and on information gathering by NGOs, whose work depends on consent.

The US-led alliance reports on its air operations each month, but civilian casualties are sometimes accounted for only long after the event. For example, in July 2021 the coalition said it had conducted 34,984 strikes the preferred term in Iraq and Syria since August 2014. Its public affairs office reported, During this period, based on information available, CJTF-OIR [Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve] assesses at least 1,417 civilians have been unintentionally killed by Coalition actions since the beginning of Operation Inherent Resolve.

The same justification always features in these documents: We follow a rigid targeting process for all of our strikes to ensure strict adherence to the Law of Armed Conflict while(...)

Full article:3350words.

(1)Sources: US-led coalition, Airwars, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR).

(9)See Antonin Amado and Marc de Miramon, Syrias propaganda war, Le Monde diplomatique, English edition, September 2012.

(11)Le Monde, 8 January 2018.

(12)Le Figaro, Paris, 27 December 2015.

(13)Syria: Deplorable violence in Idlib against civilians, humanitarian workers must stop immediately: UN Coordinator, UN News, United Nations, New York, 21 June 2019.

(14)The White Helmets: Terrorist accomplices and a source of disinformation, The Foundation for the Study of Democracy, Moscow.

Link:
Iraq and Syria, the true cost of war - Le Monde diplomatique

Soccer fans on the internet are up in arms after FIFA and UEFA announced the ban of Russia's national and club soccer teams from international competition, including the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

Following the invasion of Russia's military forces into Ukraine on February 24, FIFA released a statement on Monday with UEFA stating that "Football is fully united here and in full solidarity with all the people affected in Ukraine," the statement read.

However, an influx of calls claiming hypocrisy followed as fans called out FIFA's differing treatment of other teams such as the United States and Israel, and the support FIFA has shown Qatar despite reports of human rights issues.

Several called out the double standard shown for the Israel and U.S. teams, referencing the Israel/Palestine conflict in 2021 and the actions of the U.S. military during the Iraq War.

One Twitter user in response to the news wrote, "Then Israel, China, the UAE and Saudi Arabia should also be banned by FIFA, as they [are] all participating in projects that impact World peace at the moment. Let's not be hypocritical."

"Useless, hypocritical and corrupt FIFA, why haven't they suspended the United States for invading many countries over the years? Isn't football supposed to be the beautiful game and a uniting factor in these tensed moments?" one user said.

Others pointed out the discrimination against Zimbabwe and Kenyan teams, which were banned on Thursday for reported government interference in the running of their national soccer bodies, according to the Miami Herald.

"So fifa doesn't want governments to be involved in it's business, but it wants to be involved in theirs? Hypocritical," wrote one user on Twitter.

Another tweeted, "[I]t's hypocritical of fifa to recognize govt and football are not independent on each other...they [should] unban Zimbabwe and Kenya."

Several more found hypocrisy by way of FIFA's silence after a World Cup worker was arrested in Qatar, and human rights groups have warned that there are "serious issues" to be aware of ahead of the 2022 World Cup, which is scheduled to take place in November.

"They see little wrong with Qatar, which makes this a hypocritical stance by FIFA," a Twitter user wrote.

The extent of the Russian soccer teams' involvement was called into question, while more than 5,000 Russian civilians have been arrested since President Vladimir Putin launched the invasion.

"Russian football teams have nothing to do with what is happening. FIFA is being hypocritical," wrote a Twitter user.

However, there are a few on the internet who have commended FIFA's move to bar Russia from participating, as one said, "Well done @FIFAcom. The right call," adding several clapping hands emojis.

Newsweek reached out to FIFA for comment.

See original here:
FIFA Slammed as Internet Compares Treatment of Russia to U.S. in Iraq War - Newsweek