The drama hanging over House and Senate Iraq bills is reaching a fever pitch, with all sides uncertain of the outcome of the upcoming vote.
Today's must-read for Iraq wonks comes from Timesman Ed Wong, who picks up on a report by a monitoring organization on the situation of Iraqis who fled to Kurdistan for safety, with some surprising results about their conditions there. Be sure also to catch Dana Hedgpeth's Post report on the newly released Bowen report, which will surely stoke the fires of the Iraq debate.
The picture is still unclear over Maj. Gen. Barbero’s allegations, which emerged yesterday, over the alleged use of children as decoys to evade checkpoints. Karin Brulliard and Salih Dehema of the Post write that an Iraqi Ministry of the Interior official “could not corroborate” the allegations. (They also write that the AP reported that the allegations were confirmed by Iraqi police, which is not quite true.) A detained senior member of al-Qa'ida in Iraq apparently did tell the Interior Ministry that there were plans to use children in such attacks, but did not say that any had been carried out. The reporters also write that many Iraqis ventured out into the Baghdad’s Zawra Park to observe Nawruz.
An underreported aspect of the internal displacement problem in Iraq gets some important coverage today. Ed Wong reports in the Times that the first comprehensive count of Iraqis who have fled to Kurdistan was made available in draft form yesterday. 160,000 Iraqis have left for the relative safety and stability of the Kurdish mountains, according to a draft report by Refugees International, obtained by the Times. As he notes, “That number is the first comprehensive figure for internal flight to Iraqi Kurdistan that has been released by any organization. It is also far higher than partial estimates previously disclosed by Kurdish officials” Moreover, for those who have arrived in Kurdistan, the report reveals that conditions can be very difficult, Wong writes. The report cites discrimination against Muslims in favor of Christians, lack of Arabic language instruction, housing shortages, high rents, and difficulties accessing services. Because of the bitter ethnic politics of Kirkuk and Khanqin, even Kurds who flee from these areas are not well received in the Kurdish regions, the draft report finds, because Kurdish authorities hope to make claims to these areas in the future, and would prefer that Kurdish residents there stay put. Iraqi refugees are languishing victims of the country’s strife, and this report, when released, should contribute to our understanding of the magnitude of the problem in an area of the country where good information is scarce.
US forces are conducting realistic mock raids of Iraqi businesses in order to “hide in plain sight,” i.e. to gain access to the businesses on the US payroll in order to take stock of the progress, without revealing that the business is working with the Americans. Yochi Dreazen reports on one such operation near Tikrit. While this makes for some dark comic effects (Don’t kick the door down like you would normally do), and maybe some short term gains, one has to wonder: How long before militants figure out this tactic? And then what?
Capitol Hill showdown
The vote on the House appropriations-pork-barrel-cum-Iraq-withdrawal-timetable bill has been pushed back one day to Friday, in order to buy a little more time for log-rolling, Shalaigh Murray reports for the Post. The outcome of the vote is still uncertain, and members of the House leadership admit they don’t know which way the vote will go. The Dems did pick up their first GOP House member to support the bill yesterday. On the Senate side, Democrats introduced to a very similar measure to the Appropriations Committee, including a timetable for withdrawal. The bill is expected to clear committee easily, but, as Murray writes, “it promises to be a similar cliffhanger. Under Senate rules, Republicans will need 60 votes to strip the withdrawal language from the bill -- and Democrats will need 60 votes to pass the package as is.”
The $124 billion bill includes $3.7 billion of appropriations not related to the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, Ken Dilanian writes in USAT. Much of the extra spending is targeted at farmers, such as support for spinach growers, funding for a peanut storage, dairy subsidies, and natural disaster relief for farmers.
With the Pentagon desperate for funding, the Bush administration needs a spending bill in order to finance the war at all, Michael Abromowitz writes in the Post. In some sense, the power of the purse is at work here in the Iraq debate, with Bush threatening to veto the bill in its current form, but unable to fund the war without reaching some agreement with the House over appropriations. The Senate is another wild card. “For all the expected theater on the House floor, the real action will come later behind closed doors, when House and Senate negotiators hammer out a compromise Iraq spending plan. With the military anxious for the funds, some Democrats think they can force the White House to join those negotiations in good faith, and to accept a date for the removal of troops -- a position Bush aides say the president will never accept,” Abromowitz writes. If, however, the White House stands firm, this game could go on indefinitely, until one side blinks, or until the Dems gather enough GOP support (and internal discipline) to put together a veto-proof majority.
USAT editors, who have been generally supportive of the Democratic effort to change Iraq policy, print a staff editorial strongly disapproving of the bill’s heavy reliance on pork-barrel politics. Referencing Rep. Hoyer’s op-ed in their paper today, they ask: “A spinach emergency? A peanut storage emergency?”
Post and Monitor reporters seemed to be on the same embed for their assignments today. Ernesto Londoño of the Post and Sam Dagher of the Monitor both observed as troops from the Fourth Brigade’s First Batallion warily converted the Abu Jaafar al-Mansur sports club in Baghdad’s al-Amil into a local outpost. Both reporters note the uncertainty and danger of the deployment in the neighborhood, and the soldiers’ efforts to communicate with locals. They both close their reports with the same IED hit on the same vehicle.
Vets care
Scrutiny first fell on Walter Reed Hospital, then on US military hospitals generally, then on the VA system. Now, the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Northwest DC is under the microscope, after a GAO report warned the Pentagon of serious violations there, Steve Vogel and Michael Ruane report. The Pentagon is investigating the allegations. The home’s chief operating officer, Timothy Cox, called the allegations “without merit.” The facility, run by an independent federal agency under the jurisdiction of the Defense department holds 1,000 retired service personnel.
“Worn carpet, damaged floor tiles, leaking roofs and cockroach infestations” are among the problems found in an internal VA audit of its clinics and hospitals, Gregg Zoroya reports in USAT. The report, ordered in the wake of the Walter Reed scandal was released Wednesday. The VA did not find any health-threatening conditions in its facilities, and said that 90% of the damage was due to wear and tear.
A staff editorial in the Post supports 2005 the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) commission recommendation to close Walter Reed. The editors write that the move in Congress to postpone the closure is not the best option for providing care to service members, and will set a precedent that could undo the work of the BRAC and lead to costly decisions to keep other facilities open.
In other coverage:
NEW YORK TIMES
WASHINGTON POST
The US special inspector for Iraq reconstruction, Stewart Bowen, has released a “stinging wide-ranging assessment of US reconstruction efforts,” Dana Hedgpeth writes for the Post. The report, "Iraq Reconstruction: Lessons in Program and Project Management," provides “new details in a familiar story,” according to Hedgpeth. Bowen finds that the DoD had little plan for post-invasion Iraq, and moreover, had structures in place for how to make such a plan. The familiar themes of unclear lines of authority, lack of public oversight, lack of coordination, and inadequate planning apparently run through the report. Hedgpeth writes, “For the first time, the report lays out a timeline documenting the paucity of planning from the beginning of the war in Iraq, noting what was needed when and describing how the scale of reconstruction grew once the United States was in Iraq. It details how Congress provided vast amounts of money with little idea of how it was being spent. The push to get things done quickly meant turning much of the reconstruction over to contractors with little oversight from the government, as security worsened. And the lack of coordination magnified every shortcoming.” Bowen will present the report today to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
WALL STREET JOURNAL
A noteworthy letter to the editor appears today’s Journal. The CEO of Steyr-Mannlicher, the Austrian gunsmith, chastises the WSJ for its editorial last month that accused Steyr of impropriety in selling its rifles to Iran. In his letter, Franz Holzschuh says that his company has not received any proof that rifles it sold to Iran are used in Iraq. He says that Iran assured the company at the time of purchase three years ago that the weapons would be used against the illicit drug trade over its border with Afghanistan.
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
The term “support our troops” is in danger of losing its meaning, Monitor editors write. While praising the many grassroots efforts to send good wishes and supplies to GIs, the editors write that the politicization of the term in the context of the Iraq debate serves no one. The debate about Iraq policy among the civilian leadership should be separate from the idea of supporting the troops, they write.
