While Petraeus Testifies, U.S. Iraq Personnel Take Cover
Washington Dispatch: The general says progress is underway in Iraq. Meanwhile, in the increasingly bombarded Green Zone, embassy officials have been told to avoid going outdoors.
April 8, 2008
|
|
As General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker testify before Congress this week about the security situation in Iraq, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that the surge is working and progress is under way, U.S. embassy officials in Baghdad have been ordered to take heightened security precautions in light of stepped-up attacks on the Green Zone, including one on Sunday that killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded 17 others.
Under this new security boost, says a U.S. Embassy official who asked not to be identified, embassy personnel have been told to remain under "hardened cover." Instructed to avoid their trailers, some embassy staffers are now sleeping in reinforced buildings within the Green Zone, according to a source who has spoken with embassy officials in Baghdad. Embassy personnel have also been cautioned to limit their trips outdoors and, when they must leave the protection of reinforced structures, to wear flak jackets, protective eyewear, and helmets.
"This is the security posture as of right now," the official says. "Due to the situation they've advised us to stay inside. At this time, the U.S. Embassy is taking precautions and taking hard cover."
This is the second time in less than two weeks that insurgent rocket and mortar attacks on the Green Zone have forced the State Department to instruct its Baghdad personnel to adopt these measures. In late March, the embassy issued a "warden message" notifying U.S. citizens in Iraq that "until further notice, all personnel under the authority of the Chief of Mission are required to wear body armor, helmet and protective eyewear anytime they are outside of building structures in the International Zone" and were "advised to remain inside of hardened structures at all times, except for mission essential movements." A separate memo sent by the State Department to embassy staff noted that these precautions were "due to the continuing threat of indirect fire in the International Zone."
The warden message was issued as the Green Zone increasingly came under attack by insurgents, whose mortar and rocket fire killed two Americans, one a solider and the other a contractor, in late March. While the Green Zone has been a frequent target of insurgent assaults, attacks have escalated recently as Iraqi and U.S. forces launched a crackdown on Shiite militiamen loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr. "It's like a light switch," one Green Zone contractor told the Washington Post recently. "When Sadr gets pissed off, rockets rain in."
During his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Petraeus said U.S. military forces in Iraq had taken control of a base in Sadr City, the Baghdad neighborhood where some of the mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone originated.
The embassy official says that security restrictions in the Green Zone had been eased since the March 27 warden message was issued, but were ramped up again on Tuesday. She declined to say how frequent heightened-security restrictions had become in the Green Zone, but similar precautions have been imposed in the past, including during a spike in violence last May. In September, after Blackwater contractors fired on civilians in Baghdad's Nisour Square, the embassy issued a notice suspending "official U.S. government civilian ground movements outside the International Zone (IZ) and throughout Iraq."
The heightened violence has clearly caused embassy personnel, no strangers to the sound of gunfire or nearby explosions, to take security steps that aren't the norm in the Green Zone. "[We] don't walk around in flak jackets every day," the embassy official says.
Photo of U.S. Army soldier in Iraq in April from flickr user soldiersmediacenter used under a Creative Commons license.
Daniel Schulman is Mother Jones' Washington, D.C.-based associate editor.

All this as though the Americans were, not the aggressors, but the benefactors. Give me an honest enemy rather than such a benefactror any time. The f....g hypocrisy of it all.
This one's starting to make Nam look like a picnic.
Obviously General Betrayus and Ambassador Lyin' Crock are putting on their dog-and-pony show to convince enough gullible voters, at least until November, to elect John McCain to continue the same brilliant policies in managing the economy, foreign relations, the wars, the environment and health care that have made the Bush era the golden age of America. Only the comatose, chronically intoxicated, certifiably psychotic, severely mentally impaired and fundamentalist Christians now believe it.
How can lying and liars bring peace to the world. U r a corrupt bunch of liars who are lobbying for terrorists who pay you with oil nmoney. Talk of hypocracy. Disgusting.
1. Protecting Israel.
2. Keep the MONEY flowing to the military.
Of course this is not told to us by the lying "mainstream" media. You have to research for yourself.
Google 9/11 truth.
anyone cricizing america no. 1, has been considered unamerican.
only few dared criticise #1 america. and as the ruling classes go, american ruling class wasn't badder than many. the difference betwn US ruling class and other ruling classes, was in size/strenght and not in meaness. and folks, listen, this is important, ruling classes are not stupid and aimless. for how could they be stupid, if they have been ruling us for at least 15000 year?
don't be hoodwinked by such thoughts; it's us who had been stupid; so, let's cut it out. down with stupidity! OK, i take back what i said about us. we are not stupid; we have been rendered semantically blind to see the obvious. one does not flog blind horse for eating some dung along with weed and little hay. we' ve been eating it for at least 30,000 years. let us start eating meat!!
bush/cheney may not but SD or whoever guides US foreign policy, i educe, knows what it wants and how to obtain it. SD is not going to shout from rooftops what it wants but inference can be drawn that it wants all of asia. to SD, the 4,000 or even 50,000 might be a small price to pay to obtain asian riches. if SD isn't after the goodies, then what is this about?
it's not about democratization since US is not democratic but an oligarchic/plutocratic country. SD was not after saddam either. it wasn't after al qaida. the three wars i just mentioned also have another function; that of scaring nations into submission. thank you