Since the American invasion of Iraq, more than 5 million Iraqis have been driven from their homes by violence and terror.  One of these Iraqis is Ahlam Ahmed.  This is her story.

In this statement Clinton pointed to five cases: the three American hikers who crossed into Iran from Iraq in late July; a US-Iranian scholar; and a private detective and former FBI agent who went missing in Iran in 2007.

She said, Washington “is deeply concerned about the welfare of our American citizens who have been detained or are missing in Iran.” continuing with, “We once again urge Iran’s leadership to quickly resolve all outstanding American citizen cases.”

The three American hikers — Joshua Fattal, Shane Bauer and Sarah Shourd — went missing on July 31 after setting out on a hike from Iraq’s northern Kurdistan region, on the poorly marked border with Iran.

In wasn’t until Tuesday that Iran officially notified Washington about the arrest through Swiss channels, which represent US interests in Iran. But US officials say they still do not know where the hikers are being held.

“We once again call on the Iranian government to live up to its obligations under the Vienna Convention by granting consular access and releasing these three young Americans without further delay,” Clinton said.

She also brought up the case of American scholar Kian Tajbakhsh, “who has spent his career working to enhance mutual understanding between Iran and the United States.”

Clinton demanded Iranian authorities “immediately release Mr. Tajbakhsh from detention and allow him to depart Iran to continue his academic pursuits,” she said.

Tajbakhsh was put on trial two weeks ago with the near 100 Iranians on charges of rioting after the disputed re-election in June of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

And Clinton said Washington also continues to be “concerned about the case of Robert Levinson,” a former FBI agent who has been missing in Iran since March 2007.

She called on Iran “to assist in providing any information on his whereabouts and in ensuring his prompt return to the United States.”

The US goal “is to ensure the safe return of all our missing or unjustly detained American citizens to the United States as quickly as possible so that they can be reunited with their families,” Clinton said.

According to Iranian law, any president who fires 11 members of his cabinet must face a vote of confidence before the Iranian parliament. The two firings, according to CNN.com, would put Ahmadinejad past this threshold.

However, it is unclear whether both men will remain dismissed, or if one will return to avoid the vote of
confidence. The Iranian state media is claiming that only one person was really let go.

Back in the U.S., Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held firmly to the White House’s position on Iran’s protests saying that the country’s future “is really for the people to decide.”

Read CNN.com’s: Ahmadinejad may face vote of confidence in parliament

This move reflects a shift in strategy, similar to what we saw in Iraq, where soldiers are now concentrating on protecting the Afghan people rather than finding and wiping out insurgents. Now the military will only release general estimates. “We send the wrong message if all we talk about is the number of insurgents killed. It doesn’t demonstrate anything about whether we have made progress,” Navy Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, who decided on the new policy, told the Los Angeles Times.

Smith has asked commanders to issue fewer news releases and to focus on improvements in security where international forces are operating, according to the Times.

Throughout the Vietnam War, the American military was notorious for inflating Vietcong bodycounts in an attempt to boost perceptions of success in that conflict.

But the Obama administration must also worry about perceptions of success.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said this month that U.S.-led forces must show progress by next summer to avoid the public perception that the conflict has become unwinnable.

This policy change in the Pentagon comes as the Obama administration is adjusting the U.S. role in Afghanistan. A troop “surge” is expected to boost the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to 68,000 by year’s end.

Read the Los Angeles Times article: U.S. stops giving militant death tolls in Afghanistan

Ecemaml/Flickr

In an opinion piece featured in Forbes, Anne Bayefsky addressed this contrast:

Before the Muslim world Obama donned the role of apologist-in-chief. Over and over again his examples of shortfalls in the protection of rights and freedoms were American: the “prison at Guantanamo Bay,” “rules on charitable giving [that] have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation,” impediments to the “choice” of Muslim women to shroud their bodies.

Christian Africa was to be treated to no such self-flagellation. In a rare tongue-lashing for Africans from any American president, he chastised: “It’s easy to point fingers and to pin the blame of these problems on others. Yes, a colonial map that made little sense helped to breed conflict … But the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy … or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants … tribalism and patronage and nepotism … and … corruption.”

He might equally have said to the Arab and Muslim world: “It’s easy to scapegoat Israel and blame your problems on the presence of Jews–albeit on a fraction of 1% of the territory inhabited by the Arab world–but Israel is not responsible for poverty, illiteracy, torture, trafficking, slavery and oppression rampant across your countries.” But he did not.

]]> http://www.jessica-harbin.com/mid-east-meets-midwest/2009/07/13/difference-between-obamas-stance-on-africa-v-middle-east-is-stark/feed/ 0 http://www.jessica-harbin.com/mid-east-meets-midwest/2009/07/05/what-obamas-stance-in-iraq-means-for-the-region/ http://www.jessica-harbin.com/mid-east-meets-midwest/2009/07/05/what-obamas-stance-in-iraq-means-for-the-region/#comments Mon, 06 Jul 2009 02:39:48 +0000 admin http://jessicaharbin.wordpress.com/?p=47 With the so-far successful withdrawal of American troops from select Iraqi cities and Vice-President Joe Biden’s trip to Iraq topping the week’s headlines, it may appear that Obama has Iraq under control. But experts are warning Obama that taking his eyes off Iraq could jeopardize American relations with the whole region and earn him an unflattering comparison with George W. Bush.

BBC News reports:

[The Obama] administration has… shifted a considerable amount of its attention further east – many have described the conflict in Afghanistan as “Obama’s war”.

But in light of the recent uptick in violence in Iraq, there were growing concerns that the new president risked making the same mistake as his predecessor, albeit in reverse.

George W Bush was criticised for not paying enough attention to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taleban and while he tried to fix Iraq, al-Qaeda regained strength both in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“Barack Obama cannot afford to lose Iraq,” warned Kenneth Pollack recently.

Mr Pollack, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, added that there was a feeling that the administration’s policy on Iraq was adrift.

He said the regional consequences of instability in Iraq would undermine whatever else Washington was trying to achieve in the Middle East, from peace between Israelis and Arabs to dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Click here to see full article: Has Obama taken his eye off Iraq?

]]> http://www.jessica-harbin.com/mid-east-meets-midwest/2009/07/05/what-obamas-stance-in-iraq-means-for-the-region/feed/ 0