Mediaboss Marketing

March 11, 2017 Sulaymaniyah, IraqThe joke did the rounds among Iraqi university students the day after President Trump ordered a travel ban in January on seven mainly Muslim nations including Iraq.

Hey, are you aware that we are banned from going to America? Congratulations, we are suddenly terrorists! recalls Mohammed Salh Qadir, a third-year international studies student at the American University of Iraq, Sulaimani (AUIS).

Iraq was removed from the revised executive order Mr. Trump signed this week, after legal challenges struck down the first version.

But the effect on students here has nevertheless been immense, from upending dreams of further study and travel in the United States, to raising questions about their perception of what America represents as an enlightened, diverse, and welcoming model. It has been felt across Iraq, where Iraqi and Kurdish security forces are integral to the US-led coalition now fighting to dislodge Islamic State (IS) militants from western Mosul, the jihadists last urban stronghold in the country.

The effect has been especially acute at AUIS, which was founded a decade ago in predominantly Kurdish northern Iraq, to impart American-style liberal arts values in the classroom. With its gleaming, newly built campus and lofty ambitions of producing Iraq's leaders of tomorrow, AUIS symbolizes the promise of what postwar building in Iraq can bring, in terms of US- and Western-style modernity.

It was a big shock, because so many people from here go to America to do their PhDs and masters degrees, and I was going to do that, says Mr. Qadir, whose minor subject is law.

What surprised him more, he says, is the irony that, even as Iraqi and Kurdish forces are fighting IS, the citizens they were defending are now [seen as connected] with terrorism, and are now on the same line as IS, while we are just fighting IS.

Were fighting; we say that America is our ally, says Qadir, who was volunteering this week at the Sulaimani Forum, an increasingly high-profile annual conference of regional politicians, officials, academics, and journalists hosted by AUIS.

I still think, and I still believe, and I still consider America to be the beacon of civilization, liberalism, freedom, and ideas that can change the world for the better, says Qadir, sharing, like other students, his personal views. But that [order] surprised me because we dont expect to be treated like that.

The blanket nature of the original order raised questions for Iraqis, as much as for citizens of the other nations affected.

You cannot label a nation a terrorist nation. There are good Americans, bad Americans. Good Iraqis, bad Iraqis. Good Kurds, bad Kurds, says Barham Salih, the founder of AUIS and a former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan and deputy prime minister of Iraq.

In fact, none of the terrorist incidents in the United States involved Iraqis, per se. It begs a lot of questions, says Mr. Salih, who spent years living in the US and UK.

People who come here to Kurdistan, we have to really exercise a lot of vigilance otherwise you dont have security, says Salih. But can you say, We will ban Arabs? No. So you have to look out for the bad guys; this is a matter for the Americans to decide.

The Trump decision transfixed Iraqis, as they heard stories of citizens some of whom had worked for US forces for years as interpreters and other jobs, during the post-2003 American military occupation of Iraq refused entry or denied visas.

All the city was watching TV, to know updates about the ban, to know if it was true or just a rumor, says Linda Karim Ghafor, a second-year international studies student at AUIS, and another Sulaimani Forum volunteer.

Her plans to get a masters degree in the US or Britain, focusing on gender inequality, childrens' rights, and the environment, are now less certain. The chaos of the initial travel ban, she says, affected her bid for a six-week summer visit to the US called the Iraqi Young Leader Exchange Program a course for which AUIS students are often given priority, because of the American links of the university. But they all must get visas, and go through an interview process, with the bar of success now raised much higher after the travel bans.

That makes questions in your mind: Is it because we are Kurds? Because we are Muslims? Because we are Shiites? Because we are Sunni? asks Ms. Ghafor, whose older sister is an AUIS graduate and who, like Qadir, is also pursuing a minor in law.

We have dreams, we have hope [to use] the education we get here to change our country, to travel [to the US] to have a lot of experiences, says Ghafor.

Because when you see diverse cultures different from yours you will take the good parts and try to do it in your country, she says. We want to change, and part of the change might come from our experience in Western countries. So if we are not allowed to see that, it will be a barrier to our education.

One concern is that the US ban might cause a knock-on affect, with other countries also shutting their doors. Still, as a student of international studies, Ghafor says she recognizes the US need to protect its own people.

If its for a short period of time, to solve the refugee problem, to stabilize the security of the country that is normal, though they are protecting their country in a way that we might not agree with, says Ghafor.

Rescinding the travel ban on Iraqis was a positive step for Qadir, and he intends to pursue further study in the US if he can. But reports of racist incidents including the February shooting of two Indian tech workers at a bar in Kansas, who were apparently mistaken for Iranians worry him.

The prospect of it, actually, I am afraid of, because anything can happen, says Qadir.

I am so pro-American. I support America and its efforts in bringing stability, and we are allies with them, he says. And suddenly if somebody doesnt like you because you look Middle Eastern, and Im suddenly perceived as someone who hates America, while Im not then it doesnt feel good.

Hopefully the American people will themselves understand that the reality is different, he says.

Continued here:
For students at an American university in Iraq, travel ban debate is keenly felt - Christian Science Monitor

John Wight has written for newspapers and websites across the world, including the Independent, Morning Star, Huffington Post, Counterpunch, London Progressive Journal, and Foreign Policy Journal. He is also a regular commentator on RT and BBC Radio. John is currently working on a book exploring the role of the West in the Arab Spring. You can follow him on Twitter @JohnWight1

There is nothing more despicable than those responsible for carnage and suffering on a grand scale not only escaping justice for doing so but seeking to ascribe something noble, honorable, and moral to that carnage and suffering. Step forward the British ruling class.

In advance of the anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq on March 20, 2003, the British government has unveiled a memorial to British servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan between 1990 and 2015.

The 682 British soldiers killed while serving in Afghanistan and Iraq in this period were victims of conflicts fought not in the name of democracy, liberty, or humanitarianism, as the apologists for these wars and occupations continue to maintain, but imperialism. As we know, imperialism is not and has never been driven by idealism or justice but by economic and strategic advantage. It is why the lack of any commemoration of the countless thousands of Afghans and Iraqis also killed in these wars is such a crying injustice.

Let us not mince words: the British ruling elite is drowning in the blood, not only of its own young men, sent to do its bidding in this part of the world and elsewhere over many years, but even more grievously it is an elite with the blood of countless thousands of Afghan and Iraqi men, women, children on its hands too - people killed in conflicts that were, in the last analysis, unleashed in the squalid cause of might is right.

Compounding the injustice visited on the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, people whose lives have been upended as a direct consequence of Britains military presence in both countries is the lamentable fact that those responsible, such as former Prime Minister Tony Blair, have yet to face anything even approximating to justice. With this in mind, it is impossible to view this particular commemoration and memorial as anything other than an attempt to whitewash the magnitude of what the vast majority of Iraqis and Afghans consider to have been war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against them and their countries.

Furthermore, the parlous state of Afghan and Iraqi society today, the explosion of terrorism and barbarism of Salafi-jihadism i.e. ISIS, Nusra Front, and other such terror organizations is inextricably linked to Britains role and presence in both countries, along with that of its US ally.

On a wider point, the commemoration of young men, and also increasingly women, who lose their lives serving their country in war is crucial to shaping a national consensus over the righteousness of the cause in which said wars are fought. It is why, though the courage of those who die in service to their country is indisputable, the courage and morality of those who sent them to their deaths certainly is.

Britains presence in the Middle East, dating back to the end of the First World War in the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, has been disastrous and calamitous for people living there. The carve up of the region in partnership with France under the terms of the infamous 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement involved the arbitrary imposition of borders with scant regard for historical, cultural, or regional specificities. Those artificial borders only entrenched sectarian and religious fissures that have plagued this part of the world ever since. They are fissures which, as we know only too well, have erupted in our time.

To repeat, this is not a criticism of the troops who died and whose deaths have been commemorated with this memorial. But to commemorate them while abstracting the innocent victims of the wars and occupations they were engaged in when they were killed is an insult to the truth and to justice. It constitutes the exploitation of their deaths on the part of a British ruling class, which despite the trumpets, ceremonial splendor, and rhetoric do not in truth care about the welfare of the troops who have fought to maintain their wealth and privileges. The sheer number of ex-British soldiers who are homeless, who lack healthcare or any meaningful care in the country they have served is a withering indictment in this regard.

In 1971 former US Secretary of State, John Kerry, went to Washington to testify in front of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on the Vietnam War, a war in which he served. He told the committee, The country doesnt know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.

Powerful words indeed, yet John Kerry could count himself fortunate that he was given the platform and opportunity to give vent to the injustice suffered by the US soldiers who were sent in their thousands to die for that biggest nothing he railed against. What about the Vietnamese who perished, and in far greater number than those American soldiers? Who spoke for them?

The same scenario holds true when it comes to the British war memorial recently unveiled in London by the Queen. In the official program published to mark the event, Britains head of state praised the troops for their role in bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Whoever wrote those words on Her Majestys behalf did her credibility no favors. On the contrary, only when those responsible for sowing carnage, chaos, and instability on a monumental scale in the Middle East find the integrity to acknowledge their responsibility in doing so will we know that lessons have been learned.

Until that day comes, justice will continue to be sacrificed on the altar of propaganda.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Original post:
British Iraq and Afghanistan war memorial sacrifices justice for propaganda - RT

Instead of directly deploying thousands of additional ground troops into Iraq or Syria, the sort of precipitous escalation that might get Congress voting on the war, the Trump Administration appears to have decided that the solution is to send thousands of US ground troops to Kuwait, and let the commanders in Iraq and Syria just take what they want.

Early reports of this strategy emerged Wednesday, when officials said there were considerations of sending around 1,000 troops into Kuwait for this operation. Just two days later, the figure was up to at least 2,500, with signs that it is continuing to grow all the time.

While President Obama was micromanaging the escalations, particularly in Iraq, where every couple of weeks another hundred or two troops would be sent, the Trump Administration appears to be throwing the troops into a big pile and leaving the deployments up to the commanders.

This adds credence to the sense that President Trump is going to be a bit more hands-off on his escalations, giving the military commanders additional leeway on actions, and even on troop levels, which is likely to raise further questions about what those commanders intend to do in the war, if they no longer have to get permission first.

View post:
US Deploying Thousands More Ground Troops to Kuwait to Fight in Iraq, Syria - Antiwar.com

UNITED NATIONS Iraqi U.N. Ambassador Mohamed Ali Alhakim said on Friday there was "no evidence" that Islamic State had used chemical weapons in Mosul, where the militants are fighting off an offensive by U.S.-backed Iraqi forces.

Alhakim said he spoke with officials in Baghdad at midday on Friday and "there was really no evidence that Daesh has used this chemical weapon." Daesh is another name for Islamic State.

The United Nations said last Saturday that 12 people, including women and children, had been treated for possible exposure to chemical weapons agents in Mosul since March 1.

The United Nations Security Council was briefed behind closed doors on the situation in Mosul on Friday by U.N. aid chief Stephen O'Brien and U.N. High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Kim Won-soo.

British U.N. Ambassador Matthew Rycroft, president of the council for March, said the 15-member body believed that Iraq's investigation into possible chemical weapons attacks was ongoing.

"We expressed concern over reports of possible use of chemical weapons by Daesh and we look forward to the results of Iraq's investigation into those allegations," Rycroft told reporters after the briefing.

(Reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by Sandra Maler)

JERUSALEM U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday invited Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to the White House, in a first phone call between the two leaders since Trump took office.

ROTTERDAM/VIENNA Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu will not be allowed to campaign for votes among expat Turks during a visit to Rotterdam on Saturday, the mayor of the Dutch port said, joining a growing list of European cities that have blocked such rallies.

UNITED NATIONS Iraq is assessing what help it might need to collect and preserve evidence of Islamic State crimes, but has not yet decided whether it needs United Nations assistance, the country's U.N. Ambassador, Mohamed Ali Alhakim, said on Friday.

More:
Iraq says 'no evidence' of chemical weapons attacks in Mosul - Reuters

SOUTHWEST ASIA, March 10, 2017 U.S. and coalition military forces continued to attack the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, conducting 22 strikes consisting of 82 engagements against ISIS targets yesterday, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.

Officials reported details of yesterdays strikes, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.

Strikes in Syria

In Syria, coalition military forces conducted 14 strikes consisting of 21 engagements against ISIS targets:

-- Near Dayr Az Zawr, six strikes engaged an ISIS tactical unit; destroyed five barges, four wellheads and a weapons factory; and damaged an ISIS-held building.

-- Near Raqqa, 13 strikes engaged eight ISIS tactical units; destroyed four vehicles, a fighting position, a tactical vehicle, an ISIS headquarters and a vehicle-borne bomb factory; and damaged three supply routes.

Strikes in Iraq

In Iraq, coalition military forces conducted eight strikes consisting of 61 engagements against ISIS targets, coordinated with and in support of Iraqs government:

-- Near Beiji, three strikes engaged two ISIS tactical units and destroyed two fighting positions, two vehicles and a weapons cache.

-- Near Huwayjah, a strike damaged a tunnel.

-- Near Mosul, six strikes engaged five ISIS tactical units and an ISIS staging area; destroyed 11 vehicles, nine mortar systems, eight fighting positions, five vehicle-borne bombs, two medium machine guns, two roadblocks, two watercraft, an anti-air artillery system, a supply cache, an ammunition cache and a recoilless rifle; damaged 15 supply routes; and suppressed 10 mortar teams.

-- Near Sinjar, two strikes destroyed a weapons storage facility and an ISIS headquarters

-- Near Tal Afar, a strike engaged an ISIS tactical unit and an ISIS staging area.

Part of Operation Inherent Resolve

These strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The destruction of ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria also further limits the group's ability to project terror and conduct external operations throughout the region and the rest of the world, task force officials said.

The list above contains all strikes conducted by fighter, attack, bomber, rotary-wing or remotely piloted aircraft; rocket-propelled artillery; and some ground-based tactical artillery when fired on planned targets, officials noted.

Ground-based artillery fired in counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a strike, they added. A strike, as defined by the coalition, refers to one or more kinetic engagements that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single or cumulative effect. For example, task force officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIS vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against a group of ISIS-held buildings and weapon systems in a compound, having the cumulative effect of making that facility harder or impossible to use. Strike assessments are based on initial reports and may be refined, officials said.

The task force does not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target.

See the article here:
Coalition Strikes Continue in Syria, Iraq - Department of Defense