Pakistan says Taliban beaten back in border region

Pakistan says Taliban beaten back in border region (AP)
KHAR, Pakistan – Pakistan has beaten the Taliban in a major stronghold close to the Afghan border, is close to victory in another and expects to pacify most of the remaining tribal areas before the end of the year, commanders said Saturday.
The upbeat assessment of conditions in the arid, mountainous regions of Bajur and Mohmand follows international criticism of Pakistan for accepting a cease-fire with militants behind a bloody campaign in Swat Valley, just next to the tribal regions.
Many analysts also fear that growing political turmoil between the government and opposition could distract attention from the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban just as Washington wants more concerted action.
The United States and independent analysts have praised the offensive in Bajur, saying it has helped stem the passage of militants from Pakistan into Afghanistan, where violence against American and NATO troops is running at its highest level since the U.S. invasion in 2001.
Pakistan's tribal regions are believed to be a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders. Foreign governments fear extremists there could be plotting attacks on the West.
Maj. Gen. Tariq Khan, commander of the paramilitary Frontier Corps, said the insurgency had been "dismantled" in Bajur after six months of battles between well-armed militants and soldiers backed by tanks and helicopter gunships.
He said 1,600 militants had been killed and 150 civilians had died. Both figures were impossible to verify independently.
"Their resistance has broken down. We control the roads," he told reporters flown to the northwestern region by helicopter. "They have lost."
Col. Saif Ullah, commander in the neighboring region of Mohmand, said troops had repelled insurgents from most of the territory and it would soon be cleared.
"There are no more no-go areas. The militants are running away," he said.
The army took reporters to witness a ceremony marking the victory over the militants conducted by tribal elders and military commanders close to a Bajur town that was the site of a major battle last week. Rows of shops selling household goods and furniture were destroyed, and tanks were parked amid the debris. Residents — most of whom fled before the battle — had not returned to the town in a valley leading to Afghanistan.
American commanders say the Afghan province of Kunar which borders Bajur is still one of the most treacherous areas for their soldiers. The U.S. has earmarked it for some of the thousands of reinforcements being deployed to Afghanistan this year.
Khan said the defeated insurgents were mostly Afghans and Pakistanis, with some Uzbeks and a few Arabs caught in the early days of the offensive.
He said the army had failed to capture any insurgent leaders and that they had most likely fled into Afghanistan. Asked why, he said it was the job of special forces or intelligence agencies — not the army — to capture individual suspects.
Khan said the army had done its job of restoring government rule to the region, predicting military operations in the five of the seven tribal areas under his command "would be over by the end of the year."
He did not discuss conditions in the North and South Wazirstan regions which are not under his command. Both areas are considered major al-Qaida and Taliban strongholds and are frequently hit by missiles fired by unmanned U.S. aircraft.
The display of Pakistan's military gains in the area came as it faces criticism for failing to dislodge militants from the nearby Swat region, where troops and insurgents are observing a cease-fire while the commander of the Taliban considers a proposed peace deal. The United States and NATO worry a deal could turn the scenic region into a militant haven.
Political developments in the desperately poor country of 170 million people have also concerned the West.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court banned opposition leader Nawaz Sharif from elected office, triggering violent protests by his supporters. Sharif says he will join demonstrations later this month by lawyers who helped bring down former military ruler Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
Aside from fears the confrontation will undermine the anti-terror fight, it is also raising worries about possible military intervention, a frequent result of political turmoil between civilian leaders in Pakistan.

REPLY:

I find it repulsive the media tells the Americans anyone who fights for there country over there without submitting to the American forces, is an insurgent or talliban ............Fact is most of them are common people who are trying to fight back an invading Devil.If thats how The world really defines a talliban or insurgent then count me in, because if the US gets invaded I will fight back also. No ones is just going to put me in there little metal boxes willingly.

Its about time Pakistani Officials finally realized the Tribal Areas were part of the Country. They've been busy enriching themselves, they've forgotten the the welfare of the people living outside the big cities.

Refugees and displacement

Refugees and displacement

MILLIONS UPROOTED BY FEAR AND VIOLENCERefugees are often in the headlines yet the reality of their lives is frequently misunderstood.
Tens of millions of people have been uprooted from their homes because of violence or persecution.
But not all these people are refugees. Villagers in Sudan's violent Darfur region who have fled to camps within Darfur are strictly speaking known as internally displaced people because they haven't left Sudan. Darfuris in camps in neighbouring Chad are refugees because they've crossed an international border.
The definition of a refugee is someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality..." (1951 Refugee Convention)
Although the convention doesn't specifically deal with people fleeing war, or conflict-related conditions such as famine, the United Nations considers them refugees.
ARE NUMBERS RISING OR FALLING?Contrary to many media reports, the global refugee population has fallen dramatically since the early 1990s when it hit a peak - over 17.8 million - partly due to the break-up of the former Yugoslavia.
However, this is not quite the good news it seems. The mass exodus from the Iraq war saw figures begin to creep up again in 2006 and 2007.
And with more and more internal conflicts replacing interstate wars, the number of internally displaced has risen significantly in recent years.
By the end of 2007, there were around 11.4 million refugees, according to the U.N. refugee agency, UNHCR - the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.
Roughly 26 million others were displaced within their own countries because of violence or persecution, according to a U.N.-backed report by the Norwegian Refugee Council. And UNHCR says another 25 million were uprooted because of disasters like quakes and floods.
Aid workers call these internally displaced people "IDPs" for short, sometimes distinguishing between conflict IDPs and disaster IDPs.
The media often employs the term refugee incorrectly to describe economic migrants or illegal immigrants.
Economic migrants leave a country voluntarily to seek a better life. If they returned home they would continue to receive the protection of their government. Refugees would not.
REFUGEES AND IDPS - WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?Refugees and IDPs have often fled for the same reasons, but there are crucial differences in how the two groups are treated.
Once they cross an international boundary refugees will normally receive food, shelter and a place of safety. They are protected by international laws and conventions.
The U.N. refugee agency and other humanitarian organisations work within this legal framework to help refugees restart their lives or eventually return home.
By contrast, IDPs have little, if any, of the protection and help that refugees get. The domestic government, which may view them as enemies of the state, retains control of their fate. They may also fall prey to rebels and militias operating inside or outside the camp.
There are no specific legal instruments relating to IDPs and no U.N. body dedicated to their needs. Donors may also be unwilling to offer help if it means intervening in internal conflicts.
There's widespread debate on who should be responsible for IDPs. UNHCR is not specifically mandated to cover their needs, but as they face many of the same problems as refugees, the agency oversees their protection and shelter in some places.
REFUGEE CRISESIn a crisis most refugees do not head to the West - they head over the nearest border. For many years Pakistan has hosted the largest number of refugees, taking in millions of people who have fled violence in Afghanistan.
However, large numbers have returned since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Refugee experts say it is likely that Afghanistan will soon be overtaken by Iraq as the source of the greatest number of refugees.
Rough U.N. estimates at the end of 2007 suggested at least 4.4 million Iraqis had been forced to flee their homes. Around 2 million of these had fled to Syria or Jordan, whose schools, hospitals and public services are becoming seriously overstretched.
Developing countries host far more refugees than Western countries do. For example, Chad, one of the world's poorest countries, is home to hundreds of thousands of refugees from conflicts in Darfur and Central African Republic. The influx is putting pressure on scarce water and food resources.
People who apply for refugee status normally need to establish individually that their fear of persecution is well-founded.
However, individual screening may be impossible during mass exoduses sparked by crises like Darfur or Kosovo. In such circumstances, it may be appropriate to give everyone in the group refugee status in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
IDP CRISESThree conflicts in Sudan - the recently ended civil war in the south, fighting in Darfur in the west and unrest in eastern Sudan - have resulted in massive internal displacement of over 5.3 million, according to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre.
That's nearly twice as many people as the number living in the U.S. city of Chicago. Or the combined populations of Paris and Madrid.
Conflicts in Colombia, Somalia and Sri Lanka have also created massive internal displacement. For figures have a look at the IDMC's table.
There can be large discrepancies in figures for displacement. The Colombian government estimates almost 2 million have been displaced while some human rights groups put the figure at nearly 4 million.
Governments may give lower numbers for political reasons while pressure groups may bump them up.
DANGERSArriving at a camp for refugees or IDPs does not ensure safety. Violence may come from militias and rebels operating inside or outside the camps.
After the 1994 Rwandan genocide large numbers of Hutus fled into Democratic Republic of Congo. It took a while for aid organisations to realise that Hutu militia leaders blamed for the massacres of Rwandan Tutsis virtually controlled the camps.
Another example is the camps in West Timor for refugees who fled the violence sparked by East Timor's independence vote in 2000. These camps were teeming with pro-Jakarta militia. Attacks and intimidation got so bad that UNHCR was forced to suspend its work. The militia also stopped refugees who wanted to return home to East Timor from leaving the camps.
Militias are not the only problem. Camps may also come under attack from troops targeting rebels they think are sheltering inside. This has happened in Darfur.
Refugees may also end up in a country that is itself far from safe. In a horrifying case in 2004, armed men attacked a camp for Congolese refugees in Burundi, setting huts ablaze and killing around 160 people, mostly women and children.
Cross border attacks are another danger. Agencies often try to make sure camps aren't too close to borders, but refugees may want to be near the border so that they can go home as soon as it seems safe.
WOMENWomen face particular dangers when forced to flee their homes. They are at risk from sexual and physical violence both inside and outside camps.
Often separated from their husbands, they may be forced to take on the responsibility of providing for their families on top of their traditional roles.
Without agricultural land, they may have to leave camps to forage for food. In Darfur they have often been raped while on long trips to look for firewood.
And they may be forced to resort to prostitution to support their children. This is happening with Iraqi women who have fled to Syria. Some may have been tricked into the sex trade but many say they have no other means of supporting their family.
Many Iraqi refugee households are headed by women, their menfolk having been killed or stayed behind. Often women refugees will have used up all their savings just trying to get out of the country. They have no source of income and their bodies may be the only thing left they have to sell.
In Iraq itself there are reports of militants demanding sex in return for delivering clean water to camps.
Women may not even be safe within their families. There is strong evidence that domestic violence rises with displacement. Depression, unemployment and other stresses can lead men to take out their anger and frustration on women.
CHILDRENDisplaced children also face many dangers, especially if they have become separated from their families.
They risk abduction and recruitment by rebels or government forces, enslavement and sexual exploitation.
Displaced children also miss out on education. Experts estimate that about 45 percent of Colombia's displaced are school-age children and that most never return to the classroom.
Malnutrition levels are often high among displaced children and healthcare limited or lacking altogether.
HEALTHPoor nutrition, sanitary conditions, dirty water and lack of access to health services mean refugees and IDPs are prey to a host of diseases, most of them preventable.
Common ones include diarrhoea, acute respiratory infections, tuberculosis, malaria, cholera, measles and meningitis. Overcrowding in camps contributes to the spread of illness.
Many people displaced by a conflict or disaster also suffer trauma-related problems. Children may be particularly affected.
It is often forgotten that people fleeing war may have been tortured, raped or witnessed atrocities. Humanitarian agencies are increasingly recognising the importance of providing psycho-social help but support remains limited.
GOING HOMEMost refugees eventually hope to return home. But not everyone starts packing their belongings the minute a peace deal is signed.
Mass repatriations can create more problems than they solve if the home country doesn't have the capacity to absorb them.
Pakistan is keen to repatriate all remaining Afghan refugees as soon as it can, but Afghanistan lacks shelter, jobs, infrastructure and security.
If people return only to discover they have no house or job, analysts say they may join the Taliban out of resentment or be forced to join in order to survive. Others will simply return to Pakistan.
UNHCR has asked the international community to invest in infrastructure, shelter and livelihoods for returnees to prevent this happening.
Going home is rarely as straightforward as it sounds.
Returning refugees may find other people have taken over their land and/or home while they've been away. Ownership records may have been destroyed or never have existed.
And there may be nowhere to grow crops - after years of conflict the land may be overgrown or littered with landmines. Most Liberians returning home in 2005 after the end of the country's 14-year civil conflict arrived after the onset of the rainy season when it was too late to plant crops.
Public healthcare, schools, roads, water supplies and sanitation may all have fallen into disrepair or be non-existent.
Returns can also rekindle ethnic animosities and land disputes. And just because there's a peace deal doesn't mean the bloodshed is over. Look at Congo and East Timor.
Some people may not want to go home. Some residents in the camps in Pakistan have been there more than 25 years. The camps have clinics, schools and jobs; many of the villages they'd be returning to in Afghanistan have nothing.
Refugees may have no land or shelter to go back to and no means of immediately supporting themselves. Many of the younger people in the camps were actually born there - they've never set foot in Afghanistan.
RESETTLEMENTIn some cases refugees can't go home because they would face continued persecution. In such cases UNHCR tries to resettle them in the asylum country where they are living or in a third country.
Sixteen countries have established annual resettlement quotas whereby they take a certain number of refugees each year. Countries without quotas may consider individual cases, often because of family or cultural links.
Refugee experts say the U.S.-led global "war on terror" and tightened immigration procedures have hampered resettlement programmes.
THE FUTUREDespite massive repatriation operations in West Africa, South Sudan and Afghanistan, the number of refugees is rising as many conflicts deteriorate.
But the number of people fleeing violence could soon be dwarfed by those displaced because of global warming and environmental changes.
Rising sea levels, deforestation and desertification are just some of the reasons that will force people to move.
A predicted rise in natural disasters such as floods, droughts and landslides is also likely to increase displacement.
Mass migration will raise the chances of conflict over shrinking land and resources like fresh water.
British relief and development organisation Christian Aid forecasts there will be 250 million people permanently displaced by climate change by 2050.

Picture: (Tamil refugees search for their belongings after fire broke out in a Tamil refugee camp in Vavuniya, northeast Sri Lanka, February 28, 2009. The fire broke out in one of the camps).

Sudanese local officials meet refugees in Uganda; urge them to return home

Sudanese local officials meet refugees in Uganda; urge them to return home

Source: UNHCR
Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.
ADJUMANI, Uganda, January 28 (UNHCR) – The UN refugee agency has been helping local officials in South Sudan reach out to refugees in north-western Uganda who are considering returning home after years of enforced exile. And it seems to be working, with many of the refugees asking to go back.
Earlier this month, Emilio Igga Alimas, the commissioner of Magwi County in South Sudan's Eastern Equatoria state, visited the Adjumani and Moyo settlements and discussed the situation back home with several hundred refugees. He was accompanied by three village chiefs on the so-called "come-and-tell" visits, which were organized by UNHCR and the government of Uganda.
Alimas discussed the security situation and stressed how important it was for the future of South Sudan that people return home before elections due to be held in July under a January 2005 peace agreement, which ended the 21-year south-north war and allowed organized repatriation to begin. He also noted that UNHCR will downsize its assisted return programme from neighbouring countries during the course of this year.
The visit helped persuade people like Justine to return, but in some cases Alimas and the village chiefs were preaching to the converted. In Moyo, refugee representative Francis Igga told the visitors: "We have already made up our minds. Be ready to welcome us."
Justine, who works as a community health worker in Adjumani, fled South Sudan in 1989. She has endured her fair share of tragedy over the past 20 years – her father and first husband died. But she has been longing to return home ever since the fragile peace was signed between the Sudanese government and the rebel Sudan People's Liberation Movement.
But until now, she was not sure that the time and conditions in South Sudan were right. The "come-and-tell visit" has helped her make up her mind. She told UNHCR that she would go home with her mother, six children and second husband because, "The time is right." She said that if they went now, they could build a house and sow crops before the rainy season began in April. They could also prepare the kids for school in April.
The refugees who met Commissioner Alimas and his delegation were mainly concerned about vital reintegration issues such as land, security, food and employment. The Magwi official assured them that peace had returned to South Sudan and that the government was taking action to address their other concerns.
"We need you to [help] rebuild our country," Alimas said, adding: "UNHCR is ready to assist you." But Kazuhiro Kaneko, head of the UNHCR office in the Sudanese border town of Nimule, warned the refugees that they would face some tough challenges back home. "It is your determination that starts a new life," he said.
Similar visits have also taken place recently at camps in Kenya and Ethiopia, and more are planned. "They are an excellent means of putting the South Sudan authorities in touch with their citizens," said Geoff Wordley, deputy head of UNHCR operations in South Sudan.
Eastern Equatoria was one of the hardest hit states during the long civil war, but it is now one of the highest return areas in the south. This year, UNHCR plans to expand projects aimed at easing and improving reintegration of the returnees in South Sudan, where infrastructure and services were devastated by the years of conflict and neglect. The agency has implemented almost 700 reintegration projects since 2005.
Some 300,000 refugees have returned to South Sudan since 2005, with about 140,000 of them helped back by UNHCR. Almost half of the latter were repatriated from Uganda. This year, the refugee agency plans to assist 54,000 voluntary returns. There are currently 22,000 Sudanese refugees in Adjumani and 12,000 in Moyo.

PEACE ELUSIVE AS SECURITY WORSENS

The United Nations has described Sudan's western Darfur region as one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.
Over 2.9 million uprooted
World's biggest relief operation
2006 peace deal failed to improve security
The conflict flared in 2003 when rebels in Darfur took up arms, accusing the government of neglecting the region.
Since then, civilians have come under attack from government troops, nomadic militia and rebel groups. The United Nations says as many as 300,000 people may have died. Khartoum puts the figure at 10,000.
The violence has also forced some 2.9 million people - mostly farmers and villagers from non-Arab groups - to flee their homes.
Khartoum denies accusations it has used Arab militias, known as Janjaweed, to crush the revolt.
But the International Criminal Court's prosecutor has charged Sudan's president with masterminding a campaign of genocide in Darfur.
The government and one rebel faction signed a peace deal in May 2006, but two others refused, and many new rebel groups have since formed. Relief agencies say the violence makes it difficult to deliver aid in parts of Darfur.
A combined United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force began deploying in 2008, taking over from a small, overstretched AU force. The deployment follows protracted wrangling between the international community and Khartoum.
The conflict has also spilled over Sudan's borders into Chad and Central African Republic.

KEY FACTS:

(Unless otherwise stated, data is for October 2008, taken from the Darfur Humanitarian Profile series issued by the United Nations)
Total no. of people affected by conflict in Darfur:
4.7 million
No. of internally displaced people in Darfur:
2.7 million
No. of Darfur refugees in Chad:
240,000 (UNHCR, December 2007)
Residential population affected by conflict:
2 million
No. of people receiving food aid:
3.4 million
Percentage of affected population accessible according to U.N. security standards:
65 percent
No. of humanitarians on the ground (national and international):
16,370
No. of humanitarian agencies supporting Darfur population:
85 NGOs (including Red Cross/Red Crescent); 16 U.N. agencies
Malnutrition (acute):
16.1 percent (2007) (U.N. report, Jan 2008)
Mortality:
0.29 per 10,000 people per day (2007) (U.N. report, Nov 2007)

HSUS Issues Interim Policy on Individual Evaluation of Rescued Dogs

HSUS Issues Interim Policy on Individual Evaluation of Rescued Dogs

Best Friends Animal Society announced today that "the Humane Society of the United States on February 23 issued an interim policy recommending all dogs be evaluated as individuals, and is calling a meeting of leading animal welfare organizations concerning dogs victimized by dog fighting."
Some of you may have noticed a recent update to the second of the North Carolina pit bull posts on this blog in which I noted that a group of welfare organizations, including Best Friends, which had fought to stop the killing, were publicly asking HSUS to rethink its policy regarding pit bulls rescued from fighting operations (that is, its 20-year-old policy that all dogs bred for fighting, even those not ever trained to fight, should be killed). Best Friends' post on the matter, titled "Coalition Challenges Outdated Policy" began,
Dear readers, we know that this story is difficult. Best Friends feels as you do that animal welfare organizations are more effective when we get along and work together. In this case we felt it was important to draw public attention to HSUS's policy on dogs from fighting busts because its clout and its relationships with law enforcement informs and justifies state and local animal control policies.
It then went into a recap of what happened in North Carolina and into the problems with the well-known national organization's current policy and actions in NC. I won't summarize that call-to-change now, but you can read it yourself here if you'd like to make sure you're up to speed.
Back to the more recent post, Best Friends explains what has happened since the emotional outrage over all this boiled over last week:
-Continue reading after the jump-
Wayne Pacelle [HSUS CEO]. . . suggested the meeting of major stakeholders in Las Vegas to work through the associated issues. This meeting is in response to concerns expressed by Best Friends Animal Society in December 2008 regarding HSUS policies related to animals confiscated in dog-fighting busts. . . .
The new interim policy announced by the HSUS, pending the outcome of the meeting, recommends that local law enforcement and animal control evaluate such dogs as individuals rather than as a category before any decision is made regarding their future.
“We expect government, corporations, and individuals to constantly re-evaluate how they deal with animal issues,” Pacelle said. “Likewise, we regularly review our own policies and procedures here at HSUS, and we think it is important to talk with professional colleagues in the movement to examine issues related to the disposition of fighting dogs. . . ."
Julie Castle, director of Community Programs and Services for Best Friends said, “There had been more than enough airing of feelings and outrage that the dogs were not evaluated prior to being summarily euthanized. It was time to hit the reset button on this in order to move things forward in a constructive way. Mr. Pacelle was open and receptive to what we had to say and we are looking forward to our meetings in April.”
There have been no stated apologies or regrets as far as I know, but the planned meeting and the interim policy are a very good step and--I'll be honest--more than I expected. Beyond the plea from the group of animal welfare orgs, a number of concerned people have been, on an individual basis, contacting HSUS and participating in various online petitions and such, asking for a change, in the hopes of preventing another Wilkes County-like tragedy in the future. If you're one of those people who voiced your concerns and spoke for these dogs, you contributed to this first step being taken. Thank you. Your voice does matter. When leading (or prominent) groups or activists in a movement are taking actions or moving in directions that you feel are more hurtful than helpful for the animals we're all trying to protect and save, it is your right to speak up, with your voice and your dollars both.
This is only an interim policy, and we don't know what's going to happen next. And it's no secret that I've been a periodic critic of the nation's best-known welfare group, on fronts beyond this dog-fighting issue, but I believe that organizations as well as people can change course, and there is a possibility for change here, on this issue. There is a real chance that the next time there's a bust, this tragedy won't be repeated, and at least some of the dogs will be saved. Let's hope so.


One step in the right direction is much better then none. If we keep our voices and stance they will listen.

Officials: US troops to leave Iraq by August 2010 (AP)

Officials: US troops to leave Iraq by August 2010 (AP)

WASHINGTON – The United States plans to withdraw most of its troops from Iraq by August 2010, 19 months after President Barack Obama's inauguration, according to administration officials. The withdrawal plan would fulfill one of Obama's central campaign pledges, albeit a little more slowly than he promised. He said he would withdraw troops within 16 months, roughly one brigade a month from the time of his inauguration.
The officials said they expect Obama to make the announcement this week. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan has not been made public.
The U.S. military will leave behind a residual force, between 30,000 and 50,000 troops, to continue advising and training Iraqi security forces, the two officials said. Also staying beyond the 19 months will be intelligence and surveillance specialists and their equipment, including unmanned aircraft, they said.
A further withdrawal will take place before December 2011, the period by which the U.S. agreed with Iraq to remove all American troops.
A senior White House official said Tuesday that Obama is at least a day away from making a final decision. He further said an announcement on Wednesday was unlikely, but he said that Obama could discuss Iraq during a trip to North Carolina on Friday.
About 142,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq, roughly 14 brigades, about 11,000 above the total in Iraq when President George W. Bush announced in January 2007 that he would "surge" the force to put down the insurgency. He sent an additional 21,000 combat troops to Baghdad and Anbar province.
Although the number of combat brigades has dropped from 20 to 14, the U.S. has increased the number of logistical and other support troops. A brigade is usually about 3,000 to 5,000 troops.
Obama's campaign promise to withdraw troops in 16 months was based on a military estimate on what would be an orderly pace of removing troops, given the logistical difficulties of removing so many people and tons of equipment, a U.S. military official said.
The 19-month strategy is a compromise between commanders and advisers who are worried that security gains could backslide in Iraq and those who think the bulk of U.S. combat work is long since done.
The White House considered at least two other options to withdraw combat forces — one that followed Obama's 16-month timeline and one that stretched withdrawal over 23 months, the AP reported earlier this month.
Some U.S. commanders have spoken more optimistically in recent months about prospects for reducing the force. Maj. Gen. Michael Oates, who commands U.S. forces in central and southern Iraq, told reporters earlier this month that he believed the gains in stability in that area were now irreversible.
According to officials, Obama had requested a range of options from his top military advisers, including one that would have withdrawn troops in 16 months. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had recently forwarded withdrawal alternatives to the White House for Obama's consideration.
In addition to the U.S. troops to be withdrawn, there is a sizable cadre of contractors who provide services to them who would pack their bags as well. There were 148,050 defense contractor personnel working in Iraq as of December, 39,262 of them U.S. citizens.
There are more than 200 U.S. military installations in Iraq. According to Army officials interviewed by the Government Accountability Office, it can take up to two months to shut down small outposts that hold up to 300 troops. Larger entrenched facilities, like Balad Air Base, could take up to 18 months to close, according to the GAO.
As of Monday, at least 4,250 members of the U.S. military had died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. More than 31,000 have been injured.
Congress has approved more than $657 billion so far for the Iraq war, according to a report last year from the Congressional Research Service.

REPLY:

In part I'm happy that they will be comeing home (we shouldn't have been there in the 1st place but what's done is done). As far as leaving these troops 30,000 or so behind is insane. Either they will be slaughtered or when they start to become so they will just send back our troops to a far even worse war. Seeing as how the technololgy is growing (albeit slow) there Obama is setting up a WWIII. If it doesn't start before then. At this point its a lose, lose situation either way. Yes, Bush had this plan and Obama is taking cedit but he's pushed out the date. Makes me wonder why? Does he hope that they will become a peaceful nation by then or that some how we will become BBF with them?

ADDED NOTE:

I feel for the people of this country that has been torn apart by war. I don't think I could ever know how it would feel to live everyday in fear. Not just fear for myself but for my family, friends and home. How they have managed to hold on is beyond something I can understand. Everyday they wake to this and every night they fall asleep wondering if they will see tomorrow. Seems that everyday brings bad news to these people. My heart goes out to them.

The deaths of 146 Pitt Bulls, Incl. 79 Puppies, 19 of them born after the rescue PART 2

So heres the letter I was sent from HSUS. after I wrote to them.

Thank you for contacting us regarding a county judge’s decision in North Carolina to euthanize fighting dogs seized from the property of notorious dogfighting kingpin Ed Faron. We understand your concern about the judge’s order to euthanize the dogs, and it is always a tragic outcome when healthy animals meet such a fate. But the blame lies with Mr. Faron, and not with county officials or The Humane Society of the United States. While we may not endorse every action of the county, we are grateful to them for working with The HSUS to bust a man who is responsible for an enormous amount of cruelty to dogs, and to bring him to justice.

No organization has done more to attack and harm the dogfighting industry than The HSUS. We’ve probably invested more in combating dogfighting than all other humane groups combined, and to great effect. We are principally responsible for the strong state and federal laws that make the practice a felony and ban possession and sale of fighting animals, and we have trained thousands of law enforcement personnel on investigating and raiding fighting operations. What’s more, it is our training, investigations, and rewards programs that are resulting in the arrest of countless dogfighters and the seizure of thousands of fighting dogs (which are, according to the dogfighters, an asset they lose upon seizure).

We are involved in dogfighting busts on almost a weekly basis, and the handling of Mr. Faron’s dogs raises the same questions that confound us constantly. With approximately 600,000 pit bulls killed in shelters each year, why should fighting dogs, which obviously require more resources to manage and which pose an obvious threat to other animals, get placed in favor of other equally deserving pit bulls and other breeds slated for euthanasia? In a local jurisdiction that has perhaps hundreds of other pit bulls waiting for loving homes, why not save them in favor of fighting dogs that will cost far more to handle on a per dog basis? How do we solve the larger pit bull problem in the nation, since we have an epidemic of dogfighters and others breeding them for aggression and for uses other than as companions?

We conducted a long-term investigation that led to the arrest of Mr. Faron and the seizure of his fighting dogs. He is considered one of the “Godfathers” of dogfighting, and it was our goal to put him out of business, just as it is our goal to target other industry leaders, in order to prevent thousands of dogs for use in fighting pits. Had it not been for our investigation, most of his dogs would have suffered immensely in a fighting pit in the weeks and months ahead. And who knows how many other dogs he would have bred to face this same fate.

It is now an HSUS policy to recommend an evaluation of all fighting dogs. In this case, The HSUS offered to pay for an additional professional evaluator to assess the dogs, even though we were skeptical that these dogs could be safely rehabilitated. The county did not take us up on that offer. Without an affirmative professional evaluation to indicate that the dogs could be safely placed in a new setting, we could not recommend adoption of these dogs who had been bred for generations for their instinct to kill.

While separate evaluations were not done, it is safe to say Faron’s dogs have been bred to produce animals with an unstoppable desire to fight, even in the face of extreme pain and fear. Professional dogfighters typically “cull” the dogs that don’t exhibit gameness or aggression, and only keep and breed the ones that exhibit the desired traits. For proof of that, we can refer to Faron himself, from his book about dogfighting:
“His face had only just healed from that fight with the Wreckers’ dog and he got his nose chewed half off again, that night.”

“The gamest dog I ever saw in my life was King David. At ten minutes, his right leg was broken. At twenty-three minutes, his left leg was broken. At thirty-seven he scratched on stumps, and at forty-eight minutes when he scratched he scratched down one wall and down the other ….until he got to Beau again.””
“ I mean, he broke muzzles, crushed skulls- we saw him bite dogs in the chest and their chest would literally collapse. That was Beau…”

Game-bred dogs pose a risk to other dogs not just because of training, but more importantly because of breeding for aggressive characteristics. Even no-kill shelters typically recommend euthanasia of obviously dangerous dogs.

These fighting dogs do not compare with the dogs from amateur “street fighters,” who typically take any, random pit bull and try and force them to fight. If pit bulls have not been bred for generations to have a “fight crazy” instinct, even if they have been exposed to dogfighting, they have a chance of being rehabilitated. This is why a substantial number of Michael Vick’s dogs were candidates for rehabilitation, after the court ordered Vick to pay $1 million as a set-aside to provide care and retraining for the dogs.

Once game-bred dogs are confiscated from a fighting situation, there are very few good options. There are no sanctuaries that exist for the thousands of game-bred dogs confiscated each year, and as a nation, there are hundreds of thousands of pit bulls awaiting adoptions in shelters every year. The resources that would be required to confine or rehabilitate fighting dogs could save many more dogs in shelters every year. So, in that sense, it is not a zero-sum game when it comes to euthanasia; it is a negative-sum game, and an inordinate focus on these few pit bulls would result in more euthanasia of other dogs. And if you impose upon rural counties – where most fighting busts occur – the burden of long-term holding of fighting pit bulls, then they may decline to intervene in criminal fighting cases, allowing the dogfighters to continue to operate.
There are tough choices to be made, and the only morally clear act is to attack the dogfighters where they live. We are the only national organization that has an entire unit devoted to this work on a national scale. That’s what we’ll continue to do.
###

MY REPLY:

Please I don't need your lies and sorry excuses. Don't you think I'd do my homework before writing to you? Here are some thing's for you to read. MANY of them HSUS stated that they animals were beyond saving. This truly is the lowest of the low. I once had respect for HSUS this is no longer true. If you had sent a letter saying that you had made a mistake and will take better care in new cases I could have said "ok yes I'm still upset but at least they learned and are willing not to write off an animal or 200 just because it takes to much of their time and money".

The deaths of 146 Pitt Bulls, Incl. 79 Puppies, 19 of them born after the rescue "Humane Society, others back the court's decision." Yes, that's right. The same group that garnered attention (and quite possibly donations) for rescuing the dogs officially recommended that all 146, 60 of them puppies, be killed--no individual assessments, no consideration of the likelihood that many of them could be rehabilitated. Just cheap, fast death. For all of them. It's the same recommendation that both the Humane Society of the United States". Was a intro from Animal Law. Did you know that 19 of these were puppies that were born AFTER you so called saved them? Or did you even care?


Best Friends tried to save the dogs. They even offered to pay for the assessments and the spaying and neutering of the adoptable dogs and to work with other rescue groups on the placement of the dogs. And with Best Friends and other rescue organizations having helped as many adult, longtime fighting dogs as they have, why couldn't we have given them a chance to at least perform individual assessments, especially where the puppies were concerned? Why did you let them????

See the following for stories of dogs (and roosters) who have been and are being rehabilitated.
Meet the Rescued Michael Vick Pit Bull Dogs Now (narrated slideshow from Bad Rap; begins with image below)
Vick's Dogs: The Good News Out of the Bad Newz Kennels (Sports Illustrated)
The Vicktory Dogs (Best Friends)
Pit Bulls--The Real Story (Best Friends)
mid-winter blues: all the good news, on (quickly!) rehabilitated fighting roosters, and heartbreak, 39-8=31, on the rescue of those roosters (Invisible Voices)

That "in some cases" part? Because the moment the organization removed those dogs from the dogfighting operation, it did so knowing it would advocate for their deaths. The positions of HSUS and others is that dogs who have been forced into fighting are beyond rehabilitation and that attempted rehabilitation is a misappropriation of resources when there are so many other animals in need. But it has been shown that many of these dogs can be rehabilitated, so why don't they deserve a chance as much as other dogs do? Why don't we want to fight harder to give happy lives to those who can be rehabilitated and adopted, to try to make up for the hell humans put them through, instead of deciding arbitrarily that all of them should die?
And let's remember that in the case of the Vick dogs, not nearly all of them even had to go to Best Friends for that more serious rehabilitation--25 of them, after careful assessment, went straight into loving, experienced foster homes.



Until HSUS says sorry to the people, sorry to the Best Friends, sorry to those willing and wanting to give these animals a home, sorry for writing off puppies born after "the rescue" and sorry for giving up on lives that could have been saved. They have lost the support and respect of many (and not just 200 people).

Andrea M.