ThinkProgress Logo

Security

State Dept. Orders Site To Take Down Photos Of The $592 Million U.S. Embassy In Iraq

On Tuesday, ThinkProgress highlighted photos of the U.S. embassy in Iraq, which is set to open in September. Projected to cost $592 million, the embassy will have a staff of 1,000 people and operating costs will total $1.2 billion a year. The complex will be 104 acres, which is the size of approximately 80 football fields.

The architectural firm designing the embassy, Berger Define Yaeger, recently posted the designs for the colossus on its website (which is currently down). Today, the State Department ordered Berger to remove the images. AP reports:

Detailed plans for the new U.S. Embassy under construction in Baghdad appeared online Thursday in a breach of the tight security surrounding the sensitive project. [...]

The images were removed by Berger Devine Yaeger Inc. shortly after the company was contacted by the State Department.

ThinkProgress has captured several of the images:

The complex “will include two office buildings, one of them designed for future use as a school, six apartment buildings, a gym, a pool, a food court and its own power generation and water-treatment plants.”

According to news reports, “Some U.S. officials acknowledged that damage may have been done by the postings and used expletives to describe their personal reactions.” But it is unclear whether the damage was done to security or public relations. (Aerial images of the embassy can be easily obtained from sites like Google Maps.)

The real damage of these images comes from bolstering the perception of a long-term U.S. occupation. While Americans will be living in posh quarters, the citizens of Baghdad are currently surviving with just 5.6 hours of electricity a day. Baghdad was also recently rated the world’s worst city in which to live.

(HT: Arlen)

Digg It!

Yglesias

Human Rights Violation

Found on the MNF-Iraq website:

macarena

Sgt. Tierney Nowland teaches the Macarena dance with an Iraqi soldier of 2nd Battalion, 1st Brigade during a break with Soldiers from Company A, 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division out of Fort Lewis, Wash., on a cordon and search mission in Ameriyah, Iraq, May 16. Nowland is combat camera with the 982nd Signal Company, Wilson, N.C. U.S. Army photo by Spc. Elisha Dawkins.

Disturbing stuff.

Pentagon ‘Migrated’ Soviet Cold War Torture Techniques to Guantanamo, Iraq

dodreport.JPGSurvival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) is a program designed to train U.S. soldiers to withstand torture if they are ever captured as prisoners of war. Developed during the Cold War, U.S. solders are subjected to techniques based “on how the Soviet Union and its allies were believed to treat prisoners,” including “prolonged use of stress positions, exposure to heat and cold, sleep deprivation and even waterboarding.”

A recently declassified investigation from the Department of Defense’s Inspector General confirms “how the military training was ‘reverse engineered‘ for use by American interrogators,” training interrogators on more “effective” ways to elicit information:

Counterresistance techniques were introduced because personnel believed that interrogation methods used were no longer effective in obtaining useful information from some detainees. … On at least two occasions, the JTF-170 (interrogators) requested that Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (the agency conducting SERE training) instructors be sent to Guantanamo to instruct interrogators in SERE counterresistance interrogation techniques.

Those “counterresistance” techniques also migrated to Iraq, again at the orders of military officials:

The Joint Personnel Recovery Agency was also responsible for the migration of counterresistance interrogation techniques into the U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility. In September 2003, at the request of the Commander. … Joint Personnel Recovery Agency sent an interrogation assessment team to Iraq to provide advice and assistance to the task force interrogation mission.

Because the techniques were so extreme, several intelligence officers “vehemently objected to the use of the techniques, but their protests were ignored.” The report notes:

SERE team members and TF-20 staff disagreed about whether SERE techniques were in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. When it became apparent that friction was developing, the decision was made to pull the team out before more damage was done to the relationship between the two organizations. The SERE team members prepared After Action Reports that detailed the confusion and allegations of abuse that took place during the deployment. These reports were not forwarded to the U.S. Joint Forces Command.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) said he found the Pentagon report “very troubling” would hold hearings on how the SERE training methods “migrated” into Iraq and Guantanamo as the basis for interrogation. “They were put to a purpose that was never intended,” he said.

Yglesias

Rebranding America

Fred Kaplan and Price Floyd discuss the Bush administration’s catastrophic misunderstanding of how public diplomacy should work. In Floyd’s words, he resigned as head of media relations at the State Department because he got tired of trying to convince people “that we should not be judged by our actions, only our words.”

In essence, the Bush administration has tried to employ the same approach abroad as it has at home — ignore peoples’ real concerns and hope aggressive spin can check them. The trouble is that these tactics don’t work nearly as well abroad as they do at home, since the foreign press isn’t cowed by the American conservative movement, and foreigners don’t have Americans’ instinctive impulse to want to believe the best about the US government. Even at home, meanwhile, the White House’s positition has eventually collapsed in the face of overwhelming reality.

Yglesias

Too Little, Too Late

Iraq Tank

David Ignatius says the White House is adopting the ISG recommendations after all, and it’s a case of “better late than never.” But is it, really? It seems to me that to a very large extent we’ve gotten to the sorry position we’re in precisely through the Bush administration’s longtime habit of doing the right thing 6-12 months too late.

Sometimes, things just can’t be done too late. I keep trying to construct an analogy involving boats going over waterfalls, but the point is this. At each phase of the venture, suggests have been made of ways the US could lower our goals in the hopes of achieving something rather than just letting things get worse and worse and worse forever. The Bush administration then dismisses these critics as unduly pessimistic and things further deteriorate. Then, critics step-up their level of pessimism in response to the deterioration. At that point, the administration says the critics are being too pessimistic and adopts the policy recommendations they rejected months ago. But thanks to the continued deterioration of the situation, those old recommendations don’t work anymore.

The ISG, meanwhile, was already several shades too timid back in December. It was, however, at least cleared-eyed about the situation in Iraq. Months later, we’re further than ever from sectarian reconciliation, and the other points are essentially moot.

Yglesias

Say It Ain’t So, Joe

Joe Lieberman visits with the troops in Baghdad, and McClatchy Newspapers’ Leila Fadel is on hand to see what the troops weren’t willing to say to Lieberman’s face. Things like “We’re not making any progress. It just seems like we drive around and wait to get shot at.”

Lieberman himself endorses the Green Lantern theory. “I think it’s important we don’t lose our will. To pull out would be a disaster.” I hear willpower cures gunshot wounds these days.

Yglesias

Perpetual War

Bush’s decision to analogize the US presence in Iraq to the one in South Korea is truly telling. The two situations could hardly resemble each other less. If we take Nouri al-Maliki’s government to be something like Syngman Rhee‘s dictatorship at the core of the analogy, then who plays the role of the North Koreans? How do the Kurds and the Sunnis fit into the picture? Where’s the USSR? Approve of it or not, the decades-long American military presence in South Korea has a very clear-cut rationale — it was there to defend America’s South Korean client regime from the USSR’s North Korean client regime and now inertia keeps it there because the DPRK still exists even if the ROK doesn’t really need outside protection.

In Iraq, none of this stands up at all. It’s just a raw expression of a desire to keep our troops in Iraq more-or-less forever. For no real reason. In a country where they’re clearly not wanted by either the Sunni Arabs or the Shiites, and where our “allies” in the government are as much Iran’s proxies as ours.

Lieberman Confronted By Troops In Iraq: ‘When Are We Going To Get Out Of Here?’

nullSen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) made an unannounced trip to Iraq today, telling reporters, “what I see here today is progress, significant progress.” Hours later, he was confronted by U.S. soldiers with a very different message: “We don’t feel like we’re making any progress.”

McClatchy reports tonight on Spc. David Williams, who collected questions for Lieberman from 30 other troops.

At the top of his note card was the question he got from nearly every one of his fellow soldiers:

“When are we going to get out of here?”

The rest was a laundry list. When would they have upgraded Humvees that could withstand the armor-penetrating weapons that U.S. officials claim are from Iran? When could they have body armor that was better in hot weather?

Williams missed six months of his girlfriend’s pregnancy when he was given six days’ notice to return to Iraq for his second tour. He also missed his baby boy’s birth. Three weeks ago, he went home and saw his first child.

“He looks just like me,” he said. “I didn’t want to come back. . . . We’re waiting to get blown up.” [...]

Next to him, Spc. Will Hedin, 21, of Chester, Conn., thought about what he was going to say.

“We’re not making any progress,” Hedin said, as he recalled a comrade who was shot by a sniper last week. “It just seems like we drive around and wait to get shot at. … It’s just more troops, more targets.”

In the past two months, the unit has lost two men. In May alone, at least 120 U.S. troops died in Iraq, the bloodiest month in 2007 and the highest number since the battles of Fallujah in 2004.

liebglasses.jpg

Spc. Kevin Krasco, 20, of Medford, Mass., and Spc. Kevin Adams, 20, of Moosup, Conn., chimed in with their dismay before turning the conversation to baseball.

“It’s like everything else in this war,” Adams said, referring to Baghdad. “It hasn’t changed.”

Later, Lieberman walked in to see the soldiers “wearing a pair of sunglasses newly purchased from an Iraqi market that the military had taken him to in southeast Baghdad.” In response to their questions about leaving Iraq, Lieberman said it would be a “victory for al-Qaida and a victory for Iran.

Digg It!

Natsios On Bush’s Darfur Strategy: ‘The Purpose of These Sanctions Is Not Sanctions’

Yesterday, President Bush announced a new set of economic sanctions on the Sudanese government, pledging to help the victims of the genocide. “I promise this to the people of Darfur. The United States will not avert our eyes from a crisis that challenges the conscience of the world,” he said.

But Bush conviently “averted” his eyes from the role of oil in the Darfur crisis. “The sanctions will do little to stem Sudan’s oil exports, which are the main source of the country’s wealth, analysts said.”

Those companies excluded from the sanctions include China National Petroleum Corp and Gum Arabic Co., one of the world’s largest exporters of an ingredient used in soft drinks and makeup. In creating these loopholes, Bush effectively exonerated the Chinese government, which is investing heavily in Sudan’s oil industry and selling weapons to its army.

Yesterday, U.S. ambassador to Sudan Andrew Natsios offered this explanation for the toothless sanctions:

The purpose of these sanctions is not sanctions. [Their] purpose is to send a message to the Sudanese government to start behaving differently when they deal with their own people.

Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/05/natsiossanctions22.320.240.flv]

In the briefing, Natsios claimed sanctions on large oil firms would be “extreme” and even “militant.”

John Prendergast has more at the Enough Project.

  • Comment Icon

Why They Hate Us: Mexico/Miss Universe Edition

whytheyhateus.jpgThe right wing is seething over the widely-circulated video showing Rachel Smith, the U.S. representative in the Miss Universe competition, being booed by an audience in Mexico after she fell during the evening gown competition. A sample of the outrage:

Michelle Malkin: “Yeah, we’re the nativists. Next, they’ll tell us the mob at the Miss Universe pageant was simply ‘doing the booing Americans won’t do.’ Will President Bush speak out against the treatment Miss USA received in Mexico?”

Sweetness & Light: “Let’s face it. Many Mexicans simply seem to hate the US. And yet they insist on coming here in droves. Why is that?”

Freedom Folks: “Neighbors? Unfortunately, and these are the lawn mower borrowing and never returning mooch neighbors that everybody hates to live next to.”

Here’s the video:

It’s a shame that Smith was booed, but we think she’ll manage to overcome this international scandal without (as Malkin suggests) President Bush “speaking out” in her defense. Instead, Bush should take a look at counterproductive U.S. policies that are breeding resentment in Mexico and around the globe. From the latest BBC/PIPA/WorldPublicOpinion poll from January 2007:

Mexican views of the US have remained consistently negative in recent years, with a slight majority (53%) seeing the US as a mostly negative influence in the world. Only 12 percent believe that the US is having a mainly positive influence.

The issue of US handling of the Iraq war earns the highest level of disapproval (80%), followed by a large majority (70%) that disapproves of the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo and other prisons. Two-thirds (67%) disapprove of the US on the issue of global warming… Four in five (80%) in Mexico view the US military presence in the Middle East as a destabilizing force.

Digg It! | Reddit

  • Comment Icon

Petraeus Adviser Says Escalation ‘Is Likelier To Fail Than Succeed At This Point’

Over the weekend, Fox News pundit Fred Barnes claimed that in September, Gen. David Petraeus will report “great progress and say [Baghdad] is heavily pacified.” That optimistic assessment is not shared, however, by one of Petraeus’ key advisers.

On CBS Evening News last night, Stephen Biddle, an early proponent of the escalation, argued that Bush’s strategy in Iraq is “likelier to fail than succeed at this point.” Biddle assessed that there is “maybe a one in ten” chance the escalation will succeed. “Maybe it’s a one in five longshot, if we play our cards right,” he said. Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/05/BiddleSyrge.320.240.flv]

Biddle is right to be cautious about the escalation’s success. Despite a brief lull at the beginning of the surge, sectarian murders in Iraq are on the rise again. Car bombings, chlorine bombs, and the use of children as bombers have all also increased. On Tuesday, May became not only the deadliest month for U.S. troops in 2007, but also the third deadliest month in the entire war.

Digg It!

Transcript: Read more

  • Comment Icon

Yglesias

When All Else Fails

Experts note that the Bush administration’s reliance on “enhanced interrogation methods” hasn’t worked: “a group of experts advising the intelligence agencies are arguing that the harsh techniques used since the 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable.”

And of course they are. These are the methods that have historically been deployed by authoritarian regimes looking to generate false confessions (think the Spanish Inquisition or Stalin) for the purpose of cowing the population into submission, they’re not real investigative techniques.

  • Comment Icon

Yglesias

Training

What Harold Meyerson said:

One of the mysteries of the current discussion of how best to get out of Iraq is that so many otherwise clear-eyed critics of administration policy say we should withdraw our combat troops but leave units behind to train Iraqi forces. As rational policy, it’s vastly preferable to leaving combat forces there as well, but it leaves unanswered the question of which Iraqi forces, exactly, we should train. Those of the current Shiite-dominated Nouri al-Maliki government, which has employed Shiite forces to terrorize Sunni areas? What exactly would we train these forces to do? Be more tolerant of the Sunnis? Would that we could, and would that we could train Sunnis to be more tolerant of the Shiites, but these are matters not subject to training.

I think there’s a kind of remarkable derangement among the sort of people — in both parties — who imagine themselves running the country’s foreign policy that makes it impossible for them to ever just admit that situations arise where the United States can’t be involved in a useful way. It’s vanity, maybe, or just timidity — perhaps a desire to distance oneself from the damn dirty hippies — but while this is merely an annoying trait in a opposition party, it’s going to be potentially deadly if the Democrats actually find themselves in the White House.

  • Comment Icon

VIDEO FLASHBACK: Two Year Anniversary Of Cheney’s ‘Last Throes’

On May 30, 2005, Vice President Cheney declared that the insurgency in Iraq was in its “last throes” and predicted “the level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline.”

Virtually every administration national security official publicly defended his statement. Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed that “last throes” could be “violent,” and told critics of Cheney’s phrase to “look it up in the dictionary.” Cheney insisted 10 months after his statement that it was “basically accurate” and “reflected reality.” One year later, he again stood by his words.

All the while, violence in Iraq has continued unabated. Since Cheney’s statement two years ago, 1,799 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq, roughly half of all U.S. fatalities. At least 12,378 U.S. soldiers have been wounded.

Watch a compilation of Cheney and the reaction to his remarks (you’ll have to adjust the volume, the video quality is mixed):

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/05/lastthroes2years.320.240.flv]

Seventeen months later, in October 2006, Cheney finally acknowledged, “I would have expected that the political process we set in motion…would have resulted in a lower level of violence than we’re seeing today. It hasn’t happened yet. I can’t say that we’re over the hump in terms of violence, no.

But new versions of “last throes” continue to emerge. On May 10, 2007, President Bush said, “The level of sectarian violence is an important indicator of whether or not the strategy that we have implemented is working. Since our operation began, the number of sectarian murders has dropped substantially.” Two weeks later, new figures showed that sectarian murders in the first three weeks of May had already surpassed numbers from January, before the escalation policy was launched.

Digg It!

  • Comment Icon

Yglesias

Tit for Double-Tat

Martin Peretz:

What does Dugard mean by that? If the Palestinians aim eight untargeted rockets vaguely at Sderot and kill one person the Israelis should do the same. No more, maybe to a standstill. The aim of any society under assault is to use as much force–yes, within the rules of war–to stop the enemy’s attack. My guess is that Israel will soon respond to the addiction of Hamas to random rocket fire with very much more force, and it will be justified in doing so.

The implicit assumption here is that Hamas is a highly pragmatic institutional actor that’s deeply concerned about Palestinian civilian casualties. In the Peretz worldview, if a Hamas rocket that kills 8 Israelis is responded to with an Israeli bomb that kills 8 Palestinians, Hamas will say “let’s go another round.” But if Israel kills 16 Palestinians in response, maybe Hamas will say “we’ve had enough.” Or maybe 16 isn’t enough and it needs to be 64. Or 160. Or 800. Who knows?

I think it’s obvious that things don’t work that way. Indeed, it’s pretty obvious that Hamas doesn’t really fear Israeli retaliation at all. Not because Israeli retaliation is insufficiently fearsome, but because Hamas’ institutional incentives are to favor death, disorder, and disruption in the Occupied Territories as this increases the political appeal of their rejectionist agenda. Part of the reason that Israel could use a less “pro-Israel” policy from the United States of America is that refusing to respond to provocations is one of the absolute hardest things for a democratic government to do. When something bad is happening to your citizens, the pressure to “do something” in response, whether or not that something will actually make things worse, is hard to withstand. A foreign patron leaning on you to resist the pressure can be very helpful.

  • Comment Icon

Yglesias

Sweet Mediocrity

Robert Zoellick, who doesn’t seem to have done the country any good as US Trade Representative or as Deputy Secretary of State, but who also has the rare distinction of having served at a high level of the Bush administration without directly causing any major fiascos is set to head the World Bank.

A record of solid mediocrity and basic lack of distinction seems like the best we can reasonably hope for from this president, so I’ll consider it a reasonably strong pick. Zoellick even has some background in financial and economic issues, unlike his predecessor. Nevertheless, I still feel that Bush should consider appointing Jim Leach to some kind of job at some point rather than endlessly relying on the team of Khalilzad and Zoellick when called upon to give a position to a non-discredited person.

  • Comment Icon

Yglesias

Waiting for the Movie

Regarding Russian (though possibly grassroots rather than state-sponsored) virtual attacks on Estonian web infrastructure, Robert Farley remarks that “lots of work has been done on “cyber war”, the promise and vulnerability of networked military organizations” but:

Less attention has been paid to the economic prospects of cyber warfare, and to the ability of states to exert power and coercion through a new set of tools. When Russia tries to coerce its neigbors through threatening to destroy their economic and governmental activity, it becomes a problem for NATO and consequently the United States.

Of course, like many things all this could be anticipated by close readers of William Gibson‘s sprawl trilogy which clearly has just such a clash (between the US and Russia, even) as part of its backstory. I’m fairly confident that if this Neuromancer movie ever happens it’s going to suck, though.

  • Comment Icon

Yglesias

Internal Critique

I decided to skip to the end of Paul Berman’s monster essay and I see he winds up talking about Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She, of course, is every western secularist’s favorite Muslim precisely because she’s, well, not a Muslim. And, of course, from the point of view of western secularists it would be great if we could just partner up with secularists born in Muslim countries and together quash the menace of radical Islamist terrorism.

The trouble, of course, is that politics is the art of the possible, and history shows that it’s frequently not possible to do very much of anything with secularist politics. That’s why, for example, seeking arguments against Female Genital Mutilation in the Koran seems like an obviously smart move. In countries where large numbers of people believe FGM is required by Islam, arguments of the form “Islam requires FGM, FGM bad for women, therefore Islam should be abandoned” aren’t going to get off the ground. Arguments of the form “FGM is not required by Islam” or, even better, “FGM is condemned by Islam” are, pragmatically speaking, much more useful. But an argument like that is only going to be credible coming from a serious Muslim, probably one whose general beliefs are wildly too culturally conservative for my taste or that of any western feminist.

  • Comment Icon

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up