Costs of the 20-year war on terror: $8 trillion and 900,000 deaths

Thank you PNAC/Neocons - you have done wonders for the world. Great achievement. Bunch of genuine assholes who have helped destroy the world. Long live the military-industrial-congressional complex - fuck the people though. This is what our elected officials allow and perpetrate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex.

Some details on PNAC/Neo-cons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

“The Pentagon and the U.S. military have now absorbed the great majority of the federal discretionary budget, and most people don’t know that…The cumulative cost of military intervention in the Iraq/Syria war zone has risen to $2.1 trillion since 9/11, and about $355 billion more has funded military presence in other countries, including Somalia and a handful of African countries.

And when the wars do end, the costs of war will continue to rise, the report notes: A towering $2.2 trillion of the estimated financial total accounts for future care that has already been set aside for military veterans, the researchers said, and the U.S. and other countries could pay the cost of environmental damage wrought by the wars for generations to come.”

https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar

Vanquished book recommendation

I backed the comic book below on Kickstarter in 2016 and the supposed author Nikolas Lloyd took six plus years to write a script - embarrassing and a terrible person as well. And no the book is not finished at the time of this blog post. The artist Chris Steininger recommended one of my books at the 6’45” mark so I shall refrain from dishing out more grief.

Vanquished had a troubled editorial process but still came out well. It covers battles that annihilated one of the participants from ancient times (Cannae and Zama for example) to the modern battle of Qala-i-Jangi in 2001.

Cannae 216 BC

Zama 202 BC                         

Teutoburger Wald 9 AD      

Adrianople 378 by Odin Benitez                  

Pliska 811 by Odin Benitez                         

Hattin 1187                     

Tannenberg 1410   

Nördlingen 1634                    

Jena/Auerstedt 1806 by Matthew Rigdon             

The Alamo 1836                   

Jugdulluck (aka Gandamak) 1842 by Ethan Reiff

Cameron 1863

The Little Big Horn 1876    

Isandlwana 1879

Dingo, Operation 1976          

Grozny 1994                       

Qala-i-Janghi 2001

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., awards the Medal of Honor to Colonel Paris D. Davis, United States Army.

The Medal of Honor to Colonel Paris D. Davis, United States Army, Retired, for conspicuous gallantry.   
 
Then-Captain Paris D. Davis distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty while serving as Commander of Detachment A-321, 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne), 1st Special Forces, during combat operations against an armed enemy in the vicinity of Bong Son, Republic of Vietnam, June 17-18, 1965.  Captain Davis, commanding an inexperienced South Vietnamese regional raiding force, learned that a vastly superior North Vietnamese enemy force was operating in the area. Through surprise and leadership, he gained the tactical advantage, personally engaging and killing several enemy soldiers.  Wounded while leading the initial assault, Captain Davis continued moving forward, personally engaging the enemy in hand-to-hand combat.  Launching a counterattack, the superior enemy force separated Captain Davis from his main Regional Force Company.  Charging under the intense enemy fire, Captain Davis personally led four others in the destruction of enemy gun emplacements and captured more enemy personnel.  Afterwards, Captain Davis moved to regroup his forces and break contact with the enemy to allow his expertly guided tactical air and artillery fire to obliterate the foe.  However, the enemy again counter-attacked in superior numbers and Captain Davis was struck by automatic weapons fire.  So close was the charging enemy soldier that shot him, Captain Davis engaged him in close-quarter combat and was again wounded in the process of defeating this soldier.  Captain Davis then led his men to reorganize into abandoned enemy fighting positions as he continued to call for artillery and air support. Realizing two of his fellow Americans were incapacitated and unable to move while trapped by enemy fire, Captain Davis located their positions and moved to suppress enemy guns and personally rescue each to the safety of the friendly Company position.  While enacting the rescue of the first American, Captain Davis was shot in the leg.  In great pain he continued forward and dragged him to the Company perimeter. Captain Davis then exposed himself again to the intense enemy fire to rescue the second American, crawling 150 yards to complete the rescue while being hit by enemy grenade fragments.  After rescuing the second fellow American, Captain Davis then personally directed the helicopter extraction for the wounded, but refused medical extraction for himself.  Captain Davis continued to engage the enemy until all members of his Company were extracted.  He remained on the battlefield to continue personal coordination of tactical air and artillery fire, ensuring the destruction of the enemy force. 
 
 
PERSONAL BACKGROUND:
 
Paris Davis was commissioned a Reserve Component officer on June 1, 1959, and received Airborne and Ranger qualifications in 1960, and Special Forces qualification in 1962.  His initial overseas tours included Korea, Vietnam (1962-1963), and Okinawa, Japan.  Then-Captain Davis performed multiple heroic acts during his second tour in Vietnam (April 1965 to October 1965), during which he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star Medal with “V” device, Purple Heart with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster, and the Air Medal with “V” device.  He received a Master of Science degree from Southern Illinois University in 1973, and a Master of Public Administration and Doctorate from Northern Virginia University in 1977.  After retiring from military service July 30, 1985, he went on to publish a small newspaper in Virginia.  A resident of Arlington County, Virginia, Colonel Davis was inducted into the Ranger Hall of Fame in 2019. 
 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
THE MEDAL OF HONOR:

The Medal of Honor is awarded to members of the Armed Forces who distinguish themselves conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of their own lives above and beyond the call of duty while:

  • engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States;

  • engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or

  • serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

The meritorious conduct must involve great personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his or her comrades and must have involved risk of life.  There must be incontestable proof of the performance of the meritorious conduct, and each recommendation for the award must be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit.       

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/01/president-joseph-r-biden-jr-to-award-the-medal-of-honor-2/

New Punic War book coming in 2024

A new Osprey Campaign Series No. 400 on the Punic Wars should be available for sale in 2024.

I received early sketches for the battle scenes drawn by Marco - https://marcocapparoni.com - and they look excellent. He replaced the great Peter Dennis -https://peterspaperboys.com/pages/about - who previously did the awesome battle scenes for Campaign Series 299 on the battle of Zama. You can take a closer look at it here: https://www.mirbahmanyar.com/blog/2020/6/23/hannibal-barca?rq=zama and https://www.mirbahmanyar.com/blog/2021/2/7/on-the-battle-of-zama-locations-and-pre-combat-positions-october-202-bc?rq=zama

Below are sketches Peter made before the final color plates. Lovely. I loved the originals so much I bought them where they now adorn my wall. Brilliant. Thanks Peter Dennis! And below those the Polish version of Zama - cool.

Looking forward to seeing the new book - a ton of research went into this one since it doesn’t cover just one battle or campaign. I know my long-time editor Nikolai will make it even better with his suggestions and attention to detail as he did with Zama.

US Strategies vis-a-vis Iraq and Iran

The United States was not as effective in dealing with threats posed by Iran and Iraq as it could have been. It created greater instability in the region with an ill-advised invasion of Iraq and a heavy-handed approach with Iran. Stability would have been better served with a less rigid diplomacy.

Iran’s threat to the stability of the region was the Islamic Republic’s desire to export its revolutionary ideals, notably in the American-protected oil-rich monarchies.[1] Threats included Iran’s hostility toward Israel, its support of the radical groups Hamas (1987) and Hizbollah (1982), and its drive for dual-technology nuclear power.

Iraq’s threat was driven by Saddam Hussein coveting disputed strategic ports and oil fields in Iran and Kuwait, his desire to be seen as the pre-eminent leader of the Arabic world, and his quest for weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, biological and chemical. The Iraqi military invaded Iran (1980) and Kuwait (1990), and launched SCUD missile attacks against Israel and Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm (1990-91). Iraq’s supposed link to terrorism was another threat. Having removed Hussein from power in 2003, the United States created a new crisis in the region - a weakened Iraqi state which was exploited by Sunni fundamentalists while Iran expanded its influence.

The Iran-Iraq War (1980-88), launched by Iraq, resulted in the two hostile regimes exhausting themselves thereby preventing attacks on Israel and Western interests.[2] This was fortuitous for the US. Active American support to Iraq came after the Iran-Contra scandal of 1986 which saw the US selling arms to revolutionary Iran. In order to reassure its Arab allies, the US in effect created a second front by reflagging oil tankers, actively attacking Iranian vessels, and accidentally downing an Iranian civilian airliner.[3] This intervention led Iran to accept an UN-sponsored cease-fire. Iraq’s use of WMDs was contrary to international law, but was tolerated by the US and the UN. It compromised the values and morals of both.[4] The United States was able to prevent an Iranian victory and stunted the revolutionary zeal to export its Islamic ideals temporarily.[5]

The seemingly successful American strategy was premature. With the economic fall of the Soviet Union, Iraq looked for revenue for infrastructure and its war debt. It invaded Kuwait in 1990 to seize its wealth and disputed oil fields. The invasion surprised the US who depended on 50% of its oil imports from the region. Americans were concerned about a possible Iraqi seizure of Saudi oil fields.[6] By 1991, the US-led Operation Desert Storm saw the ejection of the Iraqis from Kuwait. The US did not seek a regime change in Baghdad because of potential post-war problems such as Iraq breaking into distinct ethno-religious lines.[7] President George H.W. Bush’s policy to curtail the rogue states of Iraq and Iran emerged successfully. The limited American strategic goal was met with Iraq’s retreat from Kuwait. As a result, the US increased its regional footprint and prestige in the region (a subsequent issue for al Qaeda) while becoming the dominant global power. Iraq under Hussein remained a curtailed threat.

Iran on the other hand was able to solidify its Islamic Republic because the Iraqi invasion awakened nationalism.[8] American support for Iraq did lessen Iranian revolutionary threats with the notable exceptions of Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Although Sharam Chubin proposes that solidarity with Palestine is in fact a ‘bulwark – a frontline – in Iran’s defence’.[9]

In 1993, President Clinton embraced the Dual Containment policy against Iran and Iraq, rejecting the traditional balance of power strategy as it had proven difficult. Iraq was to be contained, ideally leading to an internal regime change. This long-term strategy proved difficult for allies who by now had sanction fatigue. Hussein’s brinkmanship to end sanctions resulted in limited allied air strikes. The US looked for regime change by funding opposition groups with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.[10]

US frustrations with Iraq and the UN led to a unilateral decision by President George W. Bush after September 11, 2001, to invade Iraq in 2003. The official justification for war was Iraq’s possession of WMDs and its support of global terrorism. Both accusations were false. Poor post-war planning led to a violent insurgency, and an eventual rise in sectarian violence, resulting in greater allied casualties primarily caused by Sunni militias.[11] Iraq descended into a civil war as Shi’a, Sunni, and Kurd vied to fill the power vacuum left by the dissolution of Hussein’s Ba’athist government and army. Alastair Finlan argues that US counterinsurgency operations failed because of poor political conditions, a reliance on flawed Israeli COIN methods, and the lack of intelligence.[12]

A US study group’s recommendation to withdraw from Iraq and Syria, thereby permitting Iranian regional influence to increase, was instead replaced with a military surge. The surge, the rise of Sunni tribes against al Qaeda, and bribes yielded some success.[13] The sectarian violence and the outbreak of the Syrian civil war, however, allowed al Qaeda, later the Islamic State of Iraq (IS) and then the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS), to expand its footprint, creating greater instability. The US withdrew its forces in 2011 but returned in 2014. By 2019, ISIS seems defeated and the Syrian civil war over. Iran expanded its regional hegemony. The US and regional allies still view Iran with great apprehension and the Trump administration is in discussions to provide dual nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia to off-set Iranian gains. Recent American strategy in Iraq has been ineffective.

The 1979 Iranian Revolution and Hostage Crisis surprised President Carter.[14]  When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1980, the Carter Doctrine emerged, guaranteeing its Arab allies’ security against Soviet encroachment and Iranian revolutionary threats.[15]

President Reagan viewed Iran an outlaw government given the 1983 Beirut bombings, and launched an international arms embargo which was circumvented by his administration with the Iran-Contra affair in 1985-86. Because of the scandal, the US had to commit to Iraq in the war with Iran to repair relations with its Arab allies.

Iran’s decision to oppose an Arab-Israeli settlement in 1991 (Madrid Summit) ended with President George H.W. Bush identifying Iran as a rogue state, one which seeks WMDs and supports global terrorism. The US issued a 1992 non-proliferation treaty banning technological exports to Iran and Iraq.

By 1993, the US policy of Dual Containment under President William Clinton sought to modify Iran’s behavior. As Lawrence Freedman notes, dual containment was to create an environment suitable for Arab-Israeli peacemaking.[16] However, Congress funded regime change. Iran’s continued support of radical groups and its possible involvement in the 1996 Khobar Tower bombing led to greater sanctions.

President George W. Bush’s 2002 speech labeled Iran as one part of an ‘Axis of Evil’.  His neoconservative administration wanted regime change. Iran, seeking nuclear technology and delivery systems, became a renewed concern for the US which was now struggling with insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq. After the 2003 Iraq invasion, it became difficult to sell a war on Iran to the international community. A concern was a nationalist backlash in Iran, strengthening its government. Another was international condemnation in the aftermath of the invasion of 2003. Additionally, any attack on Iran could unleash a wave of global terror attacks.

President Barack Obama intensified sanctions in 2008. In an effort to curtail Iranian nuclear advances, covert operations, including cyber-attacks and assassinations, were launched.[17] The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan for Action, saw Iran agree to halt parts of its nuclear development in exchange for partial sanction relief. President Trump withdrew from the agreement in 2018. The renewed sanctions have strengthened hard-liners in Iran who had opposed the deal. US policy against Iran has had some success but Iran exploited American regional failures.

American policy in the Middle East consists of the protection of Israel, control of access to oil and regional stability.[18] Israel is safe, oil is secure and Saddam Hussein was overthrown. Iraq was ejected from Kuwait and no longer threatens its neighbors. That is considered a success. But a by-product of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an unintended destabilization resulting in brutal campaigns spearheaded by Islamic fundamentalists which also unsettled Syria. Iran has been successful in Lebanon and expanded its influence in Iraq and Afghanistan but Arab regimes were not toppled. Iran and Iraq have only been partially contained. Overall, US policies have been too rigid and Sisyphean, perhaps a more nuanced approach would have yielded better results.[19]


 

Bibliography

 

BOOKS

Axworthy and Michael. 2008. Iran: Empire of the Mind. London: Penguin Publishing.

Calvocoressi, Peter. 2009. World Politics since 1945, edited by Peter Calvocoressi. 9th ed. Harlow: Longman.

Freedman, Lawrence. 2009. A Choice of Enemies: America Confronts the Middle East. Paperback ed. London: Phoenix.

Harkavy, Robert E. and Stephanie G. Neuman. 1985. The Lessons of Recent Wars in the Third World. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

Razoux, Pierre. 2015. The Iran-Iraq War, edited by Nicholas Elliott Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

 

JOURNALS

Aarts, Paul and Michael Renner. 1991. "Oil and the Gulf War." Middle East Report (171): 25-47. doi:10.2307/3013071. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3013071.

Bennis, Phyllis. 2000. "And they Called it Peace": US Policy on Iraq." Middle East Report (215): 4-7. doi:10.2307/1520145. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1520145.

Bensahel, Nora. 2006. "Mission Not Accomplished: What Went Wrong with Iraqi Reconstruction." Journal of Strategic Studies 29 (3): 453-473. doi:10.1080/01402390600765876. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390600765876.

Biddle, Stephen, Jeffrey A. Friedman, and Jacob N. Shapiro. 2012. "Testing the Surge: Why did Violence Decline in Iraq in 2007?" International Security 37 (1): 7-40. doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00087. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23280403.

Chubin, Shahram. 2009. "Iran's Power in Context." Survival 51 (1): 165-190. doi:10.1080/00396330902749772. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396330902749772.

Divine, Robert A. 2000. "The Persian Gulf War Revisited: Tactical Victory, Strategic Failure." Diplomatic History 24 (1): 129-138. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24914159.

Dobransky, Steve. 2014. "Baghdad at the Crossroads: Why the U.S. Failed in Iraq." Middle East Quarterly 21 (1): 1B. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1698285617.

Dodge, Toby. 2014. "Can Iraq be Saved?" Survival 56 (5): 7-20. doi:10.1080/00396338.2014.962795. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2014.962795.

Finlan, Alastair. 2005. "Articles: Trapped in the Dead Ground: US Counter-Insurgency Strategy in Iraq." Small Wars & Insurgencies 16 (1): 1-21. doi:10.1080/0959231042000322530. https://doi.org/10.1080/0959231042000322530.

Freedman, Lawrence and Efraim Karsh. 1991. "How Kuwait was Won: Strategy in the Gulf War." International Security 16 (2): 5-41. doi:10.2307/2539059. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539059.

Karsh, Efraim. 1987. "Military Power and Foreign Policy Goals: The Iran-Iraq War Revisited." International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) 64 (1): 83-95. doi:10.2307/2621495. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2621495.

Sick, G. 1998. "Rethinking Dual Containment." Survival 40 (1): 5-32. doi:10.1080/00396338.1998.9688522. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.1998.9688522.

Takeyh, Ray. 2010. "The Iran-Iraq War: A Reassessment." Middle East Journal 64 (3): 365-383. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40783105.

Woods, Kevin M. and Mark E. Stout. 2010. "Saddam's Perceptions and Misperceptions: The Case of ‘Desert Storm’." Journal of Strategic Studies 33 (1): 5-41. doi:10.1080/01402391003603433. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402391003603433.

 

MULTIMEDIA

Analysis: The Iran-Iraq War's Legacy. Anonymous BBC, 2015. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06fkm3g.

Iran-Iraq War 1980 to 1988 - Part 3 of 3. Anonymous ITN Pro Video, 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmepR8seo0U.

Witness: Fighting in the Iran-Iraq War. Anonymous BBC, 2013. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01pnltd.

Cirincione, Joseph. 2003. Origins of Regime Change in Iraq. https://carnegieendowment.org/2003/03/19/origins-of-regime-change-in-iraq-pub-1214.

Coats, Daniel R. 2019. Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/2019-ATA-SFR---SSCI.pdf.

Faux, Jeff. 2016. "Why is Iran our Enemy?" The Nation, June 13. https://www.thenation.com/article/why-is-iran-our-enemy/.

BBC Iran and the West: The Man Who Changed the World. Directed by Delphine Jaudeau. BBC, 2009. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91xuueQ7RmI&feature=related.

Katzman, Kenneth. 2019. Iran: Internal Politics and U.S. Policy and Options. CRS Report: Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL32048.pdf.

Toossi, Sina. 2015. "Deciphering Iran's Strategic Vision." Lobe Log, January 15. https://lobelog.com/DECIPHERING-IRANS-STRATEGIC-VISION/.

 

 

 

 


[1] Axworthy (2016), p.266 Iranian revolution was rooted in economics and corruption, not religion. Harvaky (1985) p.211 and Karsh (1987-88), p.88 Iran’s attempts to overthrow the Iraqi government was reason for invasion and Freedman (2008), p.159 perception of Iran as threat to Arab allies

[2] Razoux (2015), p.82

[3] Takeyh (2010), p.381 the downing of the civilian aircraft possible catalyst for peace

[4] Takeyh (2010), p.370

[5] Takeyh (2010), p.365

[6] Calvocoressi (2008), p.392

[7] Divine (2000), p.134

[8] Axworthy (2016), p.278

[9] Chubin (2009), p.171

[10] Calvocoressi (2008), p.398

[11] Axworthy (2016), p.292 and Bensahel (2006), p.453

[12] Finlan (2003) pp.1, 13

[13] Biddle (2012) p. 36

[14] Freedman (2008) p.83 hostage crisis poisoned US-Iranian relations

[15] Razoux (2015), p. 75

[16] Freedman (2008) p.302 and Sick (1998) p.8

[17] Axworthy (2016) p.296 November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate - Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program and Chubin (2009) p. 169

[18] Bennis (2000) p.215

[19] Sick (1998) p. 26

A Palestinian perspective - the impact of occupation and apartheid

There’s no cycle of violence in Jerusalem – only Israel’s lethal oppression of my people

Jalal Abukhater

From house demolitions to military detention, the violence we Palestinians face daily reflects the power imbalance of occupier and occupied

Tue 7 Feb 2023 16.14 GMT

lmost every day, the bulldozers are on the move. In the Palestinian neighbourhoods of Jerusalem, my city, Israeli forces are demolishing homes on an almost daily basis. Dispossession and discrimination have been a longstanding reality here in the eastern part of the city, under Israeli military occupation for 56 years, but under the new far-right Israeli government, Jerusalem has seen a spike in demolitions – more than 30 structures were destroyed in January alone.

The news from our region in western capitals and media outlets tends to be dominated by bloodshed – and the Palestinian people are going through some of the most violent, destructive and lethal days in recent memory. The year 2022 was the deadliest in nearly two decades in the occupied West Bank. In January a further 31 Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire. Hopelessness, frustration and despair hover over us all like a dark cloud. But the numbers alone do not express the extent of this cruelty.


The rest of the articles can be found at the Guardian website: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/07/jerusalem-israel-demolitions-palestinians

Why we are screwed - Exxon posts record $56bn profit for 2022 in historic high for western oil industry

Is there anything else to write? Perhaps we should nationalize oil? And then there is their bribing of universities - good to know I’m Number One - well UC Berkeley is… shameful what the school has become, this and the torture layer John Yoo…

The face of evil, corporate greed and liar-in-chief - Darren Woods - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Woods

An article about him lying to congress.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/28/exxon-ceo-accused-lying-climate-science-congressional-panel

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/mar/27/fossil-fuel-firms-us-universities-colonize-academia

No soup for you, next!

Saudi Arabia - No soup for you, next!

Apartheid Israel - No soup for you, next!

US Congress - No soup for you, next!

Great Thunberg - all the soup for you!

FIFA - No soup for you, next!

Qatar - No soup for you, next!

NSO Group - No soup for you, next!

Hunters - No soup for you, next!

Trump and GOP - No soup for you, next!

All pro-war people and orgs - No soup for you, next!

Pentagon - No soup for you, next!

Wall Street - No soup for you, next!

Billionaires - No soup for you, next!

Incels - No soup for you, next!

Anti-woke cry-babies - No soup for you, next!

Iranian government - No soup for you, next!

Religions and its child abusers - No soup for you, next!

Kids and animals - all the soup for you!

Navy SEALs - No soup for you, next!

Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi - all the soup for you

Snowden, Manning et al - all the soup for you!

NRA - No soup for you, next!

A general is fired from the scandal-plagued California National Guard

The Pentagon needs a good cleaning up as well but with our pro-war congress that ain’t gonna happen. Shameful and disgusting - our military leaders, never mind our civilian ones, have done a disservice to our country for far too long.

You may not be able to read the entire article unless you subscribe but here is some of it. Full article https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-01-07/a-top-general-is-fired-from-the-scandal-plagued-california-national-guard

In yet another ouster of a top commander for the troubled California National Guard, a brigadier general has been fired after internal inquiries found that he inappropriately used military personnel for personal tasks, had a subordinate complete part of his cybersecurity training and otherwise engaged in conduct that seeded distrust in the ranks.

Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Magram will be “involuntarily transferred” next week to the U.S. Air Force retired reserve, an action that is “parallel” to a firing, California National Guard spokesman Lt. Col. Brandon Hill said Friday.

Magram, who was once director of the Guard’s air staff, is the fifth general to resign, retire or be fired in the wake of scandals exposed by Times investigations of the organization over the last four years.

Most of the allegations against Magram were first disclosed in a Times report in June. Weeks later, the longtime head of the Guard, Maj. Gen. David Baldwin, retired.

Skipping forward:

In early 2019, a Times report disclosed internal complaints of reprisals against whistleblowers and allegations of a cover-up of misconduct among the Guard leadership. The complaints focused on the organization’s Fresno air base and included an incident in which someone urinated in a female Guard member’s boots. Baldwin later removed the commander of the Guard’s air side, Maj. Gen. Clay Garrison. The commander of the 144th Fighter Wing at the Fresno base was also removed.

Harvard, University of Toronto and others ban critics of Israel's Apartheid regime - sad times are these

Most of us know Harvard stands for corporations and some terrible people like Alan Dershowitz, George W. Bush, Barack Obama (yes him too) and even money from Jeffrey Epstein so it does not come as a surprise to seem them knuckle under pressure from Israel, and pro-Israeli groups… shameful really. More on the breaking story here: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/hrw-harvard-israel-kennedy-school/

Withholding of Fellowship is Reportedly Linked to Roth’s Critiques of Israel’s Human Rights Record - more on this below and also for background: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/08/kennedy-school-human-rights-watch and this https://www.thenation.com/article/society/hrw-harvard-israel-kennedy-school/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE from https://pen.org/press-release/pen-america-expresses-dismay-over-harvards-denial-of-fellowship-to-former-human-watch-executive-director-ken-roth/

January 5, 2023

(NEW YORK)—PEN America expressed dismay today over the Harvard Kennedy School of Government’s decision to deny a planned fellowship for Ken Roth, reportedly due to Roth’s criticisms of Israel’s human rights record.  Over his decades-long career as a leading global human rights advocate Ken Roth has excoriated many dozens of governments for their abuses; this goes with the territory of building and leading a human rights organization credited with having advanced respect for rights and freedoms the world over. It is the role of a human rights defender to call out governments harshly, to take positions that are unpopular in certain quarters and to antagonize those who hold power and authority.  There is no suggestion that Roth’s criticisms of Israel are in any way based on racial or religious animus. Withholding Roth’s participation in a human rights program due to his own staunch critiques of human rights abuses by governments worldwide raises serious questions about the credibility of the Harvard program itself.

Roth, who joined Human Rights Watch in 1987, stepped down as executive director last August. He conducted numerous human rights investigations and missions around the world.

NOTE: Suzanne Nossel, PEN America CEO, was chief operating officer at Human Rights Watch from 2007-2009.

Did a University of Toronto Donor Block the Hiring of a Scholar for Her Writing on Palestine?

Activists refer to a “Palestine exception to free speech” at North American universities.

In late April, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, which unites a majority of college faculty in the country, took the extraordinary step of censuring the University of Toronto, Canada’s top-ranked institution of higher learning. The move amounts to a boycott: the association is asking members not to accept job offers or attend conferences at the school. The censure vote came at the end of a nearly eight-month controversy, which centers on a single rescinded job offer from a tiny program at a small school within a very large university. The entire affair, however, resides at the precise intersection of scholarly freedom, the place of the university in broader political conversations, and the influence that financial donors wield over academic institutions.

Last summer, a search committee at the University of Toronto interviewed Valentina Azarova, a human-rights lawyer and scholar based in Germany, for the director job of its International Human Rights Program (I.H.R.P.), which is housed in the law school. Azarova has worked in the academy and in the field. Early in her career, she focussed primarily on the Israeli occupation of Palestine, writing papers on a variety of legal issues such as the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the legal responsibilities of Israel’s diplomatic and trade partners. Azarova’s more recent work looked at migrant rights, structural violence at international borders, and the use of European Union funds by war criminals.

Entire article https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/did-a-university-of-toronto-donor-block-the-hiring-of-a-scholar-for-her-writing-on-palestine

For Human Rights Watch and Roth