On Sat., Jan.11 at 11 am, Olympic and Broadway, Join the Coalition for World Peace, ANSWER, Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace, and NION for a major L.A. demonstration and rally against the war on Iraq. Program includes Martin Sheen, Jerry Quickley, Ron Kovic.

Additional sponsors include SEIU local 660 and KPFK. To send in endorsement, donation, volunteer or to get more info, please check out www.coalitionforworldpeace.org or email staff@coalitionforworldpeace.org.

Stop the War On Iraq! Stop the Detentions! Money for Healthcare, Jobs, and Schools, Not War!

Is this downtown LA?

Any info on bus routes to get there?

If you watched the news over the holiday, it is clear that the US and Britain are accelerating the movements of troops and equipment to the Middle East, obviously in preparation for a possible war with Iraq. Many of you reading this E-Letter are in favor of such a war and many are not. Regardless of your view, a war with Iraq is probably going to happen. In the last week, Stratfor.com published the analysis which follows. Rather than try to summarize it for you, I have chosen to reprint it intact. Stratfor is an excellent source for geopolitical intelligence and information. Here is their latest thinking on the war with Iraq.

The United States is under pressure to provide intelligence that shows Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. This leaves Washington with a problem. The main threat comes from Iraqi chemical weapons, which must be attacked early in a war. If Washington makes public information on where chemical weapons are located, Baghdad can move those weapons around. If the United States provides intelligence, it must follow up rapidly with attacks. For this and other reasons, the pressure to launch the war is growing as diplomatic pressure to avoid the war is beginning somewhat to abate.

When chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix delivered his report to the U.N. Security Council last Thursday, he took the U.S. position, saying that Iraq's 12,000-page weapons declaration contained serious omissions. He did not, as U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell had, use the term 'material breach,' which is the magic word for war. Blix was in no position to use that term: He is a technician reporting to the Security Council. He reports the facts. It is up to the Security Council to draw conclusions from those facts -- conclusions that are political in essence.

What was most striking was the quiet that followed Blix's report and Powell's evaluation. Russia pointed out that it was not up to the United States, but the Security Council to determine whether a material breach had occurred. Moscow focused on procedure, not on substance. As for the rest of the permanent Security Council members, there was mostly silence. That silence is ominous for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

The focus has shifted away from the question of Iraq's compliance with the inspection regime; it is now obvious that Baghdad is not compliant. The question now is whether Iraq actually has weapons of mass destruction, and the spotlight is on U.S. intelligence. First Blix, then Iraq, challenged the CIA to reveal information on Iraq's weapons program, but the CIA has a couple of reasons for hesitating:

1. The agency has an institutional aversion to revealing its sources and methods. Information comes from sources within Iraq, monitoring of telecommunications, penetration of Iraqi computer systems and so forth. Every bit of information provided can compromise a source.

2. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities are heavily focused in the area of chemical weapons. These chemicals, contained in drums and shells, can be moved easily and quickly. They will be one of the first targets of U.S. air attacks. Any report filed by the CIA would give Baghdad the opportunity to move them quickly. In fact, even if the inspectors find these chemicals and report them, the Iraqis still would have time to move them before the United States could act. Therefore, providing intelligence on the location of chemical weapons would undermine the United States' ability to destroy them.

Officials in Baghdad understand this. Having lost the first line of defense, they've moved to the second. Having been shown to be uncooperative, they are trying to shift the focus of the question to their actual possession of weapons. This creates a minor problem for the United States. If Washington provides accurate intelligence, it could lose a target. If it fails to provide accurate intelligence, a case could be made that Iraq has no WMD. The United States, therefore, will focus on the non-cooperation issue while trying to work through back channels with France and Russia, which know about Iraq's capabilities through their own intelligence and, of course, because they provided some of the production facilities themselves.

The point here is that the situation is shifting perceptibly from a diplomatic to a military issue. The United States has, with some real skill, gone a long way in defusing opposition to an attack. There is no enthusiasm for it and most nations will not participate, but there is now a sense that war no longer can be resisted. The standard position that is emerging, from France to Syria, is that (1) war is coming, (2) other countries don't want to be deeply involved, yet (3) they don't want to be left out of the spoils. That's about as good as it's going to get for the United States this time around.
Which brings us to timing. Blix is supposed to file a definitive report by Jan. 27. The United States will push to make that a negative report. Washington also will use the interim period to perpetuate the atmosphere of resignation that has gripped most third parties in the last few weeks. We expect the U.N. Security Council will declare Iraq in breach of the resolution and will develop some vague language under which the United States can launch an attack without an actual U.N. endorsement. That will do for the United States.

All forces for a ground assault have not yet moved into place. Britain still is moving equipment in, as is the United States. U.S. reservists and National Guardsmen are being told that they will be mobilized around mid-January. Many of these will replace regular troops that are going overseas and others will be providing increased security in the United States. But others, particularly Marines, will be sent overseas, including to Iraq. If they are mobilized in mid-January, they will not arrive for several weeks -- and they will need several more weeks of training in-theater for acclimation and integration into the war plan.

The United States on several occasions has made it clear that an air war can begin before all forces are in place. That appears to be the strategy. As long as the U.S. Air Force is ready in Turkey, Qatar, Diego Garcia and other air bases from which strategic bombers can operate, and as long as both carriers and platforms capable of firing cruise missiles are ready, the air war can be launched. The current speculation is for the air war to begin within days of the Jan. 27 deadline. We expect that to be the case: The days from Jan. 29 through Feb. 3 will provide excellent conditions for air strikes.
An air war would take four to six weeks. The issue is not early suppression of enemy air defenses or disruption of communications; both undoubtedly can be achieved on a strategic and operational level within the first week of operation. However, in anticipation of a ground war, the United States first will attack Iraqi ground formations, including armored, mechanized and infantry units. Attacking large formations is inevitably a time-consuming process involving the delivery of munitions to targets. Also, a large number of missions will need to be carried out, battle damage assessments made and targets revisited. The goal will be to render Iraqi formations incapable of resisting.

We would estimate a minimum of four weeks for the anti-ground force mission. That would move us into March for the ground war, with March 3-5 providing a reasonable window of opportunity. The weather in early March remains acceptable, with increasing possibilities of spring rains and flooding. Washington would like to have the operation completed by mid-March.

It should be noted that the actual commencement of ground operations need not be as clean as in 1991. There are persistent reports of Israeli and other special forces operating in western Iraq, which is lightly held. There are similar reports of U.S. forces operating in northern Iraq, where Turkish forces are ever-present. Thus, the war could include effective operations in western and northern Iraq while the air war goes on in January.

The real issue will be in the south, where the British are leaking promises of an amphibious attack. Stratfor's war plan, 'Desert Slice,' which appears to be the model being pursued here, views an amphibious attack at the Shatt al Arab as likely, if the United States cannot squeeze enough force into Kuwait. However, during Desert Storm, an amphibious assault was not carried out but was merely threatened in order to hold Iraqi troops in place along the coast. In either case, the attack in the south must take place before any flooding is possible.

Allied forces must develop a multi-axis line of attack, including a swing to the west to supplement any movement north along river lines. Air power will be critical in breaking up Iraqi formations on already unpleasant terrain. That means that the southern attack is likely to be the last axis implemented.

This returns us -- as it has over and over again -- to Baghdad and the fundamental imponderable in the war: morale. There is little that is less quantifiable, less predictable and more critical in war than morale and its twin, training. It cuts both ways: An enemy's morale and training sometimes are wildly overestimated, sometimes wildly underestimated, but rarely are they correctly evaluated.

The battle of Baghdad depends on morale and training more than on any other single factor. If even a relatively small force decides to stand and fight and has basic fighting skills, then taking Baghdad will become a brutal, bloody process. If the Iraqi army shatters under the bombing and ground assault and simply fails to resist, then taking Baghdad still will be complex but will not be a problem.
In 1991, the United States overestimated the morale and training of the Iraqi army, assuming that the blooded force that fought Iran would put up a better fight. Of course, the forces deployed in Iraq were cannon fodder, deployed for destruction. The United States did not engage Republican Guard units in Baghdad. The current assumption is that the victory of 1991 in Kuwait will be replicated throughout Iraq, using the same basic combination of forces. That might well be true, but it will not be known until after the battle is won.

That is why the United States needs to fight earlier rather than later. After mid-March, rains turn some of the country into a quagmire. Later still, the temperature rises, frequently making operations in MOP-4 chemical protection suits unbearable. The temperature in July can reach as high as 120 degrees Fahrenheit. Whoever said that summer is not a problem either has never worn a MOP-4 suit at Fort Benning or Fort Bragg on an ordinary summer day or knows that the Iraqi chemical weapons stash doesn't exist or won't be used. You do not fight in the Iraqi summer if you don't have to.
So, given that no one knows how long the battle for Baghdad might last or if the United States and Britain will have to pull into siege positions for an extended period, launching the battle of Baghdad as early as possible is a military necessity. Its very unpredictability requires that the battle be waged as early as possible. That means that the commencement of the war cannot be put off much past Feb. 1. If it is, the entire war could start to slide into April and May -- and that means that if the Iraqi army doesn't simply crumble in Baghdad, the war could extend beyond what the United States wants. Given other requirements, follow-up operations in the region and the intensification of activity in Afghanistan, the last thing the United States wants is to tie forces down around Baghdad.

All of this argues for an air war beginning in late January or early February, operations in the west and north beginning a week or so later and an attack launched from Kuwait by early March. A lot of slippage will not be a good idea here."

Olympic and Broadway is a cinch to get to. walking distance from Pershing Square, etc.

Los Angeles MTA Trip Planner

(more than ten bus lines go to Olympic and Broadway, more than 20 stop within walking distance)

...of all the crappy things festering in this city, you gotta admit that the MTA is actually a very effective and useful tool. Could be better, for sure, but there are too many cities with absolutely abhorrent mass transit systems.

January 03, 2003
By Jonathan Serrie
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — They fled to the United States to escape Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. A decade later, dozens of Kurdish immigrants may be going back to Iraq to settle the score.

Titan Corp., a major defense contractor, has been actively recruiting Kurdish speakers to serve as civilian translators for the U.S. Army.

"I hope that from this war we will eliminate the Saddam regime and all people in Iraq will live in freedom," said Sakvan Bamerni, an American citizen of Kurdish descent currently living in Nashville.

Bamerni recently submitted an application for a translator post. His brothers Adris and Diyar have already flown to Washington, D.C. for the week-long interview and screening process.

The Army would not confirm how many translators are being hired, but officials say the global war on terror has created a large demand for linguists to gather intelligence and help U.S. troops out in the field.

"The linguists are absolutely crucial," said Lynn McCann, a U.S. Army linguist specialist.

Recent advances in computer technology have made it easier for the military to translate foreign languages.

"But these are not very well developed," McCann said. "They can not replace a person, a linguist."

If America goes to war in Iraq, it is likely Kurdish translators will follow U.S. troops into the country they once fled.

"It’s going to be dangerous," Sakvan Bamerni said. "But we’re going to be around U.S. troops and we hope we’re going to be safe."

Either way, the Bamernis say liberating Iraq is worth the risk and they are eager to help.

"We were dreaming for a day like this," said Sakvan Bamerni, "for us to go there and do something and make a difference."

For the Bamernis, who now have American citizenship, working with the U.S. army in Iraq would be a way of serving their adoptive country while helping the people of their homeland.

Memories of Saddam’s oppression of Iraqi Kurds are still strong in their minds.

"A lot of people suffered from him," Diyar Bamerni said. "We lost a lot of loved ones, family members, friends."

In 1987, when Diyar Bamerni was 15-years-old, he spent two months in an Iraqi prison after his eldest brother Sabri refused to join Saddam’s army.

Systematic attacks on Kurdish villages forced the family to flee the country. After spending four years in Turkish refugee camps, Sabri Bamerni moved to Germany and the other three brothers were allowed to come to America.

They moved to Nashville. A combination of economic opportunity and word of mouth has attracted a Kurdish population of 8,000 — the largest of any American city. Kurds worldwide often refer to Nashville by its nickname "Little Kurdistan."

It is here that Titan Corp. is making some of its most active recruiting efforts, faxing and mailing job notices to Kurdish community organizations.

The city known for country music may soon develop another reputation as a significant player in the war on terror.