Veterans for Common Sense

Before World War I, casualties of armed conflicts were largely limited to battlefields and the soldiers upon them. Combat doctrine and equipment favored flat plateaus, fields or deserts removed from civilian populations. Unless the action took place in a populated area, civilians seldom tasted the bitterness of war.

News then traveled barely faster than the armies themselves, delivering polished, mostly censored summaries of heroics from “the front” and easy-to-swallow capsule summaries of the number of solders killed in action. Thus, the true destruction and misery wrought by the advance, retreat or occupation by an army could be handily concealed from the eyes of the world.

World War II was a watershed in which the number of civilian casualties almost equaled that of combatants. Technological advances extended the boundaries of the battlefield. Nations learned to take their fight deep into their enemy’s territory to disrupt war industries and factories.

Yet even as the media has widened its reach, shocking the world with dispatches of massacres and death camps, horrifying war-related crimes against women continue blatantly.

Of the worst of these crimes is rape, a most barbaric weapon of war.

According to a report prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross, titled “Women and War” and based on two years of research from 1998 to 1999, approximately 80 percent of war victims are women and children. This is mainly because military conflicts now more commonly engulf towns and cities instead of only frontline areas.

There are many in this world for whom the ravages of war – including arson, looting, murder and rape — are a way of life. These people have known little else than war all their lives, like their parents before them and their children (if they survive) after them. These generations of war face atrocities on a daily basis, and most of these go unnoticed by the rest of the world.

Tool of atrocity

While rape can be used to brutalize both sexes, it is usually committed against women during wartime — males are usually killed or captured. Ongoing conflicts in many countries, including Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan and Congo, have victims of war rapes running into the thousands.

In the August 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Iraqi soldiers raped an estimated 5,000 Kuwaiti women.

Reports reveal that both sides in the civil conflict in Colombia have horrifically attacked women. Hindu-Muslim clashes in the Indian state of Gujarat saw babies cut out of their wombs. In the conflict in Liberia, between 60 percent and 70 percent of women have suffered some sort of sexual assault.

Whether committed by an invading or militant force, rape is an effective weapon to punish, intimidate, coerce, humiliate and degrade. When committed against women, this inhumane act also punishes, intimidates, coerces, humiliates and demoralizes the men. Afghani, Iraqi and Kashmiri women have reportedly committed suicide to avoid being ravaged. Fathers have been known to kill their daughters themselves rather than suffer through their dishonor.

Rapes in Kashmir

In Kashmir, rapes became frequent when the government launched a crackdown against militants in 1990. Rapes by security personnel are more frequent now and used to degrade and intimidate the local people into submission. Several Kashmiri girls have jumped into the torrents of the Jhelum River, choosing certain death over the atrocities of these rapists.

These rapes in Kashmir occur usually during the search operations that are conducted by the Indian government to flush out militants, during which the security forces frequently engage in “collective punishment against the civilian population.” The punishments include frequent beatings and assaults and burning of homes. Rape is also committed during reprisal attacks, used as a ploy by to “extract information on the hideouts of the ‘militants.'”

Rapes in Congo

After the independence of Congo from Belgian authority, a mutiny caused irreparable damage to this mineral-rich area of Katanga, Congo. Prime Minister Lumumba appealed to the United Nations for help in its time of need and the Security Council deployed nearly 10,000 troops to the area. And now an armed conflict, which resulted in 3 million people dead in combat involving armies of seven countries, is now coming to an end.

But the war has not ended for the women, who are still be victimized by the rebel militiamen. An estimated 40,000 women have been raped by fighters in the Democratic Republic of Congo over the past six years. This civil war has exposed more women to the atrocities of war than ever before.

In a briefing last Tuesday before the U.N. Security Council, U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland said the use of rape as a weapon of war was at its worst in eastern Congo and the Darfur region of Sudan.

Egeland said the scale, prevalence and profound impact of sexual violence made it one of the most serious challenges facing those trying to protect civilians caught up in war.

Workers of Amnesty International have seen such brutal and horrific cases of rape as they have seldom witnessed before.

The brutality of these acts is tremendous and many victims, as young as nine have been killed in these acts of rape. The barbaric perpetrators are aware that they will face no charges and will get away with the most violent sex crimes during this conflict.

Rape is a more effective weapon of war than killing. Many victims say they would prefer death over life after being raped.

Unfortunately many rape survivors in DR Congo are HIV-positive, and although actual figures are not available, data suggests that between 20 percent and 30 percent are infected. “Screening is difficult as there is no policy for voluntary testing and it is practically impossible for HIV patients to obtain basic drugs including antibiotics,” Amnesty says.

“Women and girls are not just killed, they are raped, sexually attacked, mutilated and humiliated,” said Irene Khan, secretary general of Amnesty International.

“By attacking the women you are attacking the honor of your enemy, you demoralize the men, you scare people into running away,” she said.

ICRC officials stress the importance of women’s role in bringing up new generations that “are more aware and capable of respecting laws and treaties.” That is one remedy to decrease such crimes from occurring. People with the respect for others, especially the women and young, will deviate from using such inhumane tactics like rape to win their point. There is a need to inculcate a respect for International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in times of wars with the strength to be enforced by local governments to punish such offenders within their boundaries.

Unfortunately the miserable ordeal of the raped women does not end with the traumatic experience. Victims are vulnerable to similar acts by other people as well. And more often they are shunned by their communities, families and husbands for a crime they did not commit.

An international committee needs to be formed to place these women back into the mainstream of life with their own people around them so that their mental wounds heal faster and they can lead a better life than they are destined to otherwise.

Rape in combat

Although not universal, women are slowly taking their places alongside the men as combatants, getting posted to far-away, often hostile lands and facing the threat of rape from both the enemy if captured and from their male comrades.

Women soldiers are exposed to threats of rape within their own ranks, as was seen in Kuwait in the 1990s. At least 37 female service members came back scarred from their duty from Iraq, Kuwait and other overseas stations. These women had to seek civilian sexual-trauma counseling and other assistance to deal with their trauma on duty.

The worst part is that the authorities, as the rest of the world, don’t seem to consider these war rapes or on-duty rapes as serious problems.

These are war crimes even if they are committed against combatants and should be awarded with exemplary punishment to curb its use as a tool for intimidation or human degradation.

Lubna Jerar Naqvi holds a LLB degree, is an assistant editor for the op-ed pages of The News International and writes on social, political and women’s issues.

US general says troops question support: Lawmakers grill officials on Iraq

By Bryan Bender, Boston Globe Staff, June 24, 2005

WASHINGTON — The top US military commander in the Middle East warned yesterday that troops are questioning whether the American public supports the Iraq war and implored political leaders to engage in a frank discussion about how to keep the country behind a mission that the armed forces believe is ”a war worth fighting.”

Army General John Abizaid said that without that support, the military’s ability to prevail against Iraqi insurgents and Islamic extremists will be at serious risk.

”When I look back here, at what I see is happening in Washington, within the Beltway, I’ve never seen the lack of [public] confidence greater,” Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he testified along with Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Army General George Casey, the commander of coalition troops in Iraq. The group also appeared before the House Armed Services Committee.

”I can tell you that when my soldiers ask me the question whether or not they’ve got support from the American people . . . that worries me,” Abizaid told senators. ”And they’re starting to do that. And when the people that we’re training, Iraqis and Afghans, start asking me whether or not we have the staying power to stick with them, that worries me, too.”

He warned lawmakers that ”American soldiers can’t win the war without your support, and without the support of our people.”

The head of the US Central Command delivered the unusual political advice as top Pentagon officials faced tough questioning on Capitol Hill that displayed vast differences over the direction of the Iraq war amid the recent surge in insurgent attacks and US casualties.

Abizaid’s testimony underscored the worsening political rancor in Washington amid growing concern from some lawmakers that the United States may be losing the war in Iraq.

Republicans and Democrats heard a fierce defense of the US effort yesterday from Rumsfeld, who said the progress that is being made on the ground, both militarily and politically, is being dismissed. Accusations by committee members that the Bush administration is falsely portraying the situation were met with countercharges from the military that the progress of the war and reconstruction are being misrepresented by politicians and the media. They also insisted that the United States is not losing and that a stable, democratic Iraq can be achieved.

”Any who say we have lost or are losing this war are wrong,” Rumsfeld told the Senate panel, resisting calls from both parties to set a timetable for a US withdrawal. ”We are not.”

Committee members had some particularly tough words for Rumsfeld. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, ticked off a litany of what he called the administration’s ”gross errors and mistakes” and accused the Pentagon chief of leading the United States into a ”quagmire.”

Rumsfeld responded that Kennedy was engaging in a ”world-class stretch” of the facts.

”This war has been consistently and grossly mismanaged,” Kennedy said, repeating his calls for Rumsfeld’s resignation. ”And we are now in a seemingly intractable quagmire.”

”Well, that is quite a statement,” Rumsfeld responded. ”There isn’t a person at this table who agrees with you that we’re in a quagmire and that there’s no end in sight.”

He also said that President Bush had rejected his resignation offers and ”that’s his call.”

Later in the hearing, however, the Senate’s most senior member, Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, scolded Rumsfeld, telling him ”to get off his high horse” and stop lecturing the Congress.

”You may not like our questions, but we represent the people,” Byrd said. Pulling out a copy of the Constitution, he added: ”I’ve had my fill of the administration forgetting that this is a constitutional system in which there are three separate, but equal, branches.”

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, referring to repeated battles with insurgents in some Iraqi cities, said, ”Too often, we are seeing that we are going into the same places we have been in before.”

After the hearing, Kennedy took to the Senate floor to press his point. ”It is time for Rumsfeld to take off his rose-colored glasses,” Kennedy said. ”It is time to level with the American people instead of painting a rosy picture.”

Citing some of Rumsfeld’s assessments, Kennedy asked: ”What planet is he on? Perhaps he is still in the mission-accomplished world,” a reference to the banner behind Bush in May 2003, when the president declared major combat operations had ended.

In packed hearing rooms on both sides of the Capitol, Abizaid and Casey acknowledged that the overall strength of the insurgency remains at about the same level it was a year ago.

”I will tell you that there is sufficient ammunition stashed around Iraq purposely that is available to the insurgents that will be available to them for some time,” Casey, the commander of coalition troops, told the House panel.

Another worrisome trend, Abizaid said, is the greater number of foreign extremists coming into Iraq from nearby countries.

”There are more foreign fighters coming into the country than six months ago,” Abizaid said. ”We’ve also seen an influx of suicide bombers from North Africa, specifically Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco.”

Myers, the Joint Chiefs chairman, said that many of them are slipping into Iraq from Syria, and said that ”given the tight control the government there maintains, you have to assume that they have some knowledge of what is going on in their capitals and in their land. And I think that’s inexcusable; it disrupts stability in Iraq.”

Pressed by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee’s ranking Democrat, Abizaid declined to agree with recent comments by Vice President Dick Cheney that the Iraq insurgency was ”in its last throes.”

While portraying a difficult road ahead, the generals said the war is still winnable if Iraqis can move ahead with drafting a constitution, holding elections, and helping to create law and order. ”So when the political process takes hold here, I think you will see a gradual lessening of the insurgency,” Casey said.

The issue of US public support was a theme throughout the day, and the administration and congressional critics of the war received their share of the blame for overly politicizing the war.

When Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, remarked that public opinion appeared to be ”tipping away from this effort,” Rumsfeld — in a shot at critics of the administration — responded, ”I have a feeling they’re getting pushed myself.”

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, blamed the administration for fueling some of the divisions, saying some statements from the White House question the patriotism of those who raise concerns about the current strategy.

”I would not in any way question the resolve, the toughness, the patriotism of anybody who raises legitimate questions and has disagreements about how we are to pursue our objectives,” she said. ”And with due respect, I think it would be helpful if we would hear a little bit more of that tone from our president and from our vice president and from our other high-ranking officials in the administration.

”I’m old enough to remember how deeply divided our country was in Vietnam. I never want to see that again. We may have disagreements about how to engage in this conflict and how to win it, but I never want to live through that again. And I don’t think any of us do.” 

The Bush Administration’s Failed Leadership Leaves VA With Severe Shortfall RELEASED   June 23, 2005   PRESS CONTACTS
Barry Piatt (202/224-2551)
Senator Dorgan

The Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) announces a severe budget shortfall. Today, the VA informed members of Congress that its mid-year budget review revealed a $1 billion shortfall in meeting critical health care needs during the current fiscal year. As a result, VA officials say that they are forced to take $600 million away from funds to improve VA hospitals and other infrastructure and to borrow $400 million from funds already committed to provide health care during the next fiscal year. The end result is that the quality of veterans’ health care will suffer and essential services and programs are now at risk.

When President Bush issued his Fiscal Year 2005 budget request, veterans’ leaders called it “deplorable” and “inexcusable.” (Veterans of Foreign Wars, 2/2/04) Earlier this year, Senators Murray and Akaka revealed that regional VA health care networks were experiencing a shortfall of over $800 million. Today’s revelation by the VA validates these claims and demonstrates the inadequacy of President Bush’s Fiscal Year 2005 budget.

The Bush Administration knew of this shortfall and apparently misled Congress about VA funding needs. During consideration of H.R. 1268, the Fiscal Year 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, Senator Murray offered an amendment to add $1.9 billion in veterans’ health care funding. Republican Senators sought guidance from the Bush Administration on this proposal, and the Administration responded by stating that there was no emergency in the VA. In fact, VA Secretary Jim Nicholson wrote to Senator Hutchison, Chairperson of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, saying, “I can assure you that VA does not need emergency supplemental funds in FY 2005 to continue to provide the timely, quality service that is always our goal. We will, as always, continue to monitor workload and resources to be sure we have a sustainable balance. But certainly for the remainder of this year, I do not foresee any challenges that are not solvable within our own management decision capability.” (4/5/05) Given that the mid-year budget review was already underway on April 5, Secretary Nicholson may have misrepresented the VA’s knowledge of its budget needs and made assurances that he could not support with facts.

During the debate on the supplemental appropriations bill, the Bush Administration seemingly made other inaccurate statements to Republican Senators as well. For example, Senator Craig, the Chairman of Veterans Affairs Committee, said “according to VA, they have seen approximately 48,000 OIF [Operation Iraqi Freedom] and OEF [Operation Enduring Freedom] veterans since the war began.” Senator Craig used this statistic to make the case that Senator Murray’s amendment would provide “$41,000 per patient, an extraordinary amount by any measure.”

In fact, over 360,000 veterans have already returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, and over 86,000 have sought health care from the VA, twice the number cited by Senator Craig (House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing, 5/19/05). There are an additional 740,000 military personnel who have also served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and this next generation of veterans will also be eligible for VA health care, putting further strains upon the system.

Today’s revelation marks the third time during President Bush’s tenure that a VA funding shortfall has been exposed. Each year, the VA budget process has followed the same pattern: President Bush has put forth a budget request that falls billions of dollars short of veterans’ health care needs, veterans’ advocates and Democrats have fought for significant increases in funding, and the Republican-controlled Congress has passed a VA budget that is only marginally better than the President’s request. This pattern has left the VA with persistent budget shortfalls.

The budget shortfalls have been so persistent that, including today’s revelation, VA officials have now been forced to publicly admit shortfalls on three separate occasions in the past four years.

• In Fiscal Year 2002, Congress had to pass $417 million in supplemental funding because the VA announced that it was running a deficit of over $400 million. Even with the VA’s announcement, President Bush refused to spend $275 million of this funding, leaving the VA with insufficient funding and waiting lists for health care lasting several months.
• As Congress began consideration of the Fiscal Year 2005 budget, the President’s request was so inadequate that even VA Secretary Anthony Principi testified to Congress that the President’s request fell $1.2 billion below the amount he had requested for the VA.

Today’s request is simply more evidence of the fact that the President has failed to level with America’s veterans about his Administration’s lack of commitment to their care.

Democrats call for immediate action to support our veterans. As a result of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, now is probably the most critical time for the VA in the last two decades. Demand is skyrocketing: 360,000 veterans have already returned from these operations, and over 740,000 more are on their way. When the VA assembled its Fiscal Year 2005 budget request in 2003, it projected patient growth of 2.3 percent; instead, patient growth has been 5.2 percent. Democrats believe the federal government has a solemn commitment to provide the health care, treatment, and support that American veterans have earned with their service and sacrifice. Therefore, Senate Democrats call upon the President to provide a straightforward and honest assessment of the funding the VA needs to meet its commitments so that members of both parties in Congress can work together to provide these critical resources.

Democratic Policy Committee
Byron L. Dorgan, Chairman
419 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

It’s hard to disagree with Robert Kagan’s contention that an intellectually honest evaluation of the wisdom of invading Iraq involves considering the prospect of inaction. As the aims of the war shift, the chances of achieving them recede, and domestic support for Operation Iraqi Freedom accordingly diminishes, Kagan, one of the ablest defenders of the invasion, has written a calm challengeto opponents of the war to face up to this question: What costs would have resulted from a failure to act against Saddam in 2003? Some might contend that the burden is on advocates of the war to reconcile the costs of the invasion with its unclear benefits for U.S. national security. But Kagan’s reasonable invitation merits an answer.

His defense of the war is straightforward. Even knowing what we know now about Saddam’s lack of WMD, it is “entirely possible,” Kagan writes, that the United States “might have faced a more dangerous and daring Saddam Hussein later on and … [w]e might have wound up going to war anyway.” That’s because Saddam, by all accounts, never lost his impulse to dominate the Middle East, which few would contend was tolerable for U.S. interests. His principal obstacle to achieving his goal, international sanctions, was eroding, rendering–here Kagan cites Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger–containment untenable over the long term. And what would have made Saddam “more dangerous”? His ultimate possession of WMD following the ultimate collapse of the sanctions regime. Basing his assessment on the final reports of U.S. weapons hunters David Kay and Charles Duelfer, Kagan essentially argues that we would have found ourselves at some point at the same juncture President Bush contended we faced in March 2003: facing down an aggressive, WMD-armed Saddam.

But there are several problems with Kagan’s scenario. First and foremost is his conflation of Saddam’s intentions with Saddam’s capabilities. It’s reasonable to accept the argument that Saddam desired to control the Middle East. But it’s difficult to accept the argument that he could have. To be fair, Kagan doesn’t assert that in the absence of international pressure Saddam would have achieved anything he desired. But he does argue that Saddam would have “eventually succeeded” in acquiring WMD if international resolve diminished.

The Duelfer report gives reason to doubt this. First, the only WMD that could have truly changed the balance of power in the Middle East was a nuclear weapon–after all, the pre-war calculation of Saddam’s neighbors was that he already possessed chemical and biological weapons. And Duelfer’s findingsabout Saddam’s nuclear weapons program demonstrate how diminished his nuclear capability really was. According to Duelfer, after the 1991 Gulf War, the technological obstacles to Saddam acquiring a nuclear weapon became insuperable. Iraq’s chief remaining asset in the nuclear field was its cadre of scientists–and Duelfer found that the country’s nuclear-related “intellectual capital decayed” after 1995. Even before 1991, Duelfer discovered, Saddam’s clandestine nuclear-weapons program was not particularly advanced. When he pursued his famous “crash program” after invading Kuwait, “there were numerous obstacles–such as deficiencies in cascade development, uranium recovery capability, and weapons design and development–that prevented the Iraqis from succeeding.” What this means is that even when Saddam enjoyed relative freedom of action and was at the height of his interest in obtaining a nuclear weapon, his program could not provide him with one. And any hypothetical post-sanctions resumption of his nuclear program would have taken many years even to return to the fruitless condition it was in when it ceased in 1991.

Then there’s the question of what a breakdown in the international containment regime–what Kagan calls the “key issue” in deciding on war–really would have meant. Assume that at some point in 2003 United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) weapons inspectors finally certified that Saddam was weapons-free and that, as a result, his regime successfully persuaded the U.N. Security Council to lift sanctions. (This requires believing the United States and the United Kingdom would have acquiesced, but assume for the moment they would have.) Both UNMOVIC and the IAEA had mandates for continuous monitoring of Iraq’s weapons programs to determine enduring compliance with the disarmament terms of the lifted sanctions, as spelled out in 1991’s Security Council Resolution 687 and 1999’s Resolution 1284. That is, even if Saddam was otherwise out from under sanctions, the international inspections that proved successful in ending his weapons programs would have still represented a significant obstacle to restarting his programs and developing weapons.

What’s more, had Saddam obstructed the ongoing inspections, he would have provided the U.S. with a pretext for action–either to push for renewed international pressure (admittedly an uphill battle under this hypothetical, especially given what the Oil-for-Food scandal has shown about Saddam’s relationship with French and Russian interests) or to take unilateral military action, as in 1998’s Desert Fox bombing campaign. After all, it’s extremely unlikely that any U.S. administration would have ruled out the prospect of military action as long as Saddam was still in power. The U.S. Fifth Fleet would have still patrolled the Persian Gulf, and even if the Saudi royal family ultimately decided it could no longer host U.S. forces on its territory, we would have found more receptive hosts like Qatar (as we ultimately did anyway). Finally, the domestic political cost to an administration that removed its military options from the region with Saddam still in power would have been unbearable; and it’s hard to imagine any prominent member of the U.S. foreign-policy community advising such a course of action.

In short, Saddam, 65 at the time of the invasion, was unlikely to develop the weapons that would have made him more than a manageable threat. Without such weapons, the only other way for Saddam to have advanced his ambition would have been to launch another invasion; but the ease with which the United States repelled a much-stronger Iraq from Kuwait in 1991 suggests that he would have met an overwhelming military response at tolerably low cost to his opponents. Kagan is surely right that historians will have to weigh the wisdom of the war against several counterfactual scenarios–as well as against the very real and very high costs of invading, which include, according to a recent CIA assessment, the creation of a more effective incubator of jihadists than Afghanistan and possibly even long-term damage to U.S. military capabilities. What they probably won’t credit is the idea that Saddam posed an intolerable threat to U.S. national interests.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that setting a timeline for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq would give a “lifeline for terrorists.” And in a spirited defense of the war, he invoked Abraham Lincoln and the American revolution.

But several Democratic members of the Senate Armed Services Committee questioned the progress of the war effort and the Bush administration’s handling of the war. During a particularly dramatic sequence, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, called the war a “quagmire” that had been “consistently and grossly mismanaged” by Mr. Rumsfeld. He also accused the defense secretary of making a series of misleading comments before and during the war.

“In baseball, it’s three strikes you’re out,” Mr. Kennedy said. “Isn’t it time for you to resign?”

After pausing to take a breath, Mr. Rumsfeld said, “Senator, I’ve offered my resignation to the president twice.” President Bush did not accept the resignations, the defense secretary said.

The Senate hearing took place against the backdrop of escalating violence in Iraq, including four car bombs detonated in Baghdad today, that killed at least 17 people and wounded 68 others. In recent days, several members of Congress have demanded an exit strategy and a scheduled withdrawal of American forces. But in his prepared testimony today, Mr. Rumsfeld said presenting a timeline “would be a mistake.”

“It would throw a lifeline to terrorists who in recent months have suffered significant losses and casualties, been denied havens and suffered weakened popular support,” said Mr. Rumsfeld. “Timing in war is never predictable. There are no guarantees. And any who say we’ve lost this war or that we’re losing this war are wrong. We are not.”

“Less than 140,000” American troops are in Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld said, down from a high of 160,00 during the Iraqi elections in January. He said the priorities of the remaining troops have shifted “from conducting security operations, essentially, to a heavier focus on training, equipping and assisting the Iraqi security forces.”

When asked about the strength of the insurgency, American commanders told the committee that the insurgents were at least as strong now as they had been six months ago. Gen. John P. Abizaid, who is in charge of multinational forces in Iraq, told the senators, “I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago.”

Mr. Rumsfeld, General Abizaid and the other commanders who testified today declined to endorse the position of Vice President Dick Cheney, who said recently that the insurgency in Iraq was in its “last throes.””Those words, though, I didn’t use them, and I might not use them,” said Mr. Rumsfeld, who did allow that insurgents might believe they are in their last throes.

Responding to pointed questions from Sen. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, General Abizaid said he would not criticize the vice president, but added, “there’s a lot of work to be done against the insurgency.”

But Mr. Rumsfeld gave a relatively positive picture of the war.

“Iraqis are building an economy and it’s growing,” Mr. Rumsfeld said. “The insurgency remains dangerous, particularly in several parts of Iraq, but terrorists no longer can take advantage of sanctuaries like Falluja. And coalition and Iraqi forces are capturing or killing hundreds of violent extremists on a weekly basis and confiscating literally a mountain of weapons.”

But he acknowledged that Iraqi forces are not ready to fight the war by themselves, and none of the officials said they could say how many are actually “combat ready.”

“A year ago, six Iraqi army battalions were in training,” Mr. Rumsfeld said. “Today, dozens of trained battalions are capable of conducting armed anti-insurgent operations, albeit with coalition support. Sections of the country are relatively peaceful and essentially under the control of Iraqi security forces at the present time.”

Later, in questioning by Mr. Kennedy, the defense secretary said, “they’re not like U.S. forces, they’re never going to be like U.S. forces.”

Mr. Rumsfeld said he did not favor a six-month extension for the Iraqi government to write and ratify a constitution. Despite prodding from Mr. Levin, he did not agree that the Bush administration should pressure the Iraqi government to accelerate its pace by threatening a withdrawal of American forces.

Perhaps referring to declining support for the war, Mr. Rumsfeld mentioned the dark days of the American revolution in 1776, and quoted President Lincoln, who told Americans during the Civil War in 1864: “There may be mistakes made sometimes, and things done wrong, while the officers of the government do all they can to prevent mistakes. But I beg of you as citizens of this great republic, not to let your minds be carried off from the great work we have before us.”

Mr. Rumsfeld added, “That was good advice.”

U.S. House puts ‘Doomsday’ bill on fast track

Wed Jun 22, 2005 7:18 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Members of the House of Representatives approved legislation on Wednesday to quickly replace themselves if they are killed in a Sept. 11-type attack.

The House voted 268-143 to retain the plan, which was attached to a spending bill likely to be sent to President Bush within several months.

The measure, dubbed the “Doomsday” bill, requires special elections within 49 days if more than 100 of the House’s 435 members are killed. Currently it can take 75 days or more for some states to hold special elections to replace a member who dies in office.

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a Florida Republican, noted the possibility that Congress could have been a target in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

“We could have been faced with a situation where Congress would not have been able to function and we have to do everything possible to prevent this from being a possibility in the future,” he said during a debate on the provision.

Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, called the measure “an invitation to one man-rule and dictatorship” because at least seven weeks could elapse before the House would be reconstituted, leaving major decisions to the president.

Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California said the legislation was “a plan that will lead to martial law at exactly the time when we need Congress functioning to represent the interests of the American people.”

Congress has been debating the need for new procedures since the Sept. 11 attacks when two hijacked airliners slammed into New York’s World Trade Center the Pentagon. Another airliner, thought to be headed to the Capitol or White House, crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

It was the third time the House has passed the legislation, but this time supporters, frustrated by inaction in the Senate, attached it to a bill that funds Congress’ operations, hoping to speed passage.

Under the Constitution, House members are always elected, while Senators who die in office or resign can be replaced by home-state governors.

A variety of ideas have been floated for dealing with a catastrophic attack on the Capitol. They include a constitutional amendment authorizing Congress to enact laws on succession or allowing representatives to designate temporary replacement, when they are elected.

WASHINGTON, June 21 – American casualties from bomb attacks in Iraq have reached new heights in the last two months as insurgents have begun to deploy devices that leave armored vehicles increasingly vulnerable, according to military records.

Last month there were about 700 attacks against American forces using so-called improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.’s, the highest number since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, according to the American military command in Iraq and a senior Pentagon military official. Attacks on Iraqis also reached unprecedented levels, Lt. Gen. John Vines, a senior American ground commander in Iraq, told reporters on Tuesday.

The surge in attacks, the officials say, has coincided with the appearance of significant advancements in bomb design, including the use of “shaped” charges that concentrate the blast and give it a better chance of penetrating armored vehicles, causing higher casualties.

Another change, a senior military officer said, has been the detonation of explosives by infrared lasers, an innovation aimed at bypassing electronic jammers used to block radio-wave detonators.

I.E.D.’s of all types caused 33 American deaths in May, and there have been at least 35 fatalities so far in June, the highest toll over a two-month period, according to statistics assembled by Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, a Web site that tracks official figures.

In a sign of heightened American concern, the Army convened a conference last week at Fort Irwin, in the California desert, where engineers, contractors and senior officers grappled with the problems posed by the new bombs. One attendee, Col. Bob Davis, an Army explosives expert, called the new elements in some bombs “pretty disturbing.” In a brief interview, he declined to discuss the changes, but said the “sophistication is increasing and it will increase further.”

Although the number of bombs using the refinements remains low, their appearance underscores the insurgents’ adaptability and the difficulty the Pentagon faces, despite a strong effort, in containing the threat. Improvised explosives now account for about 70 percent of American casualties in Iraq.

At a briefing on Tuesday for reporters at the Pentagon, General Vines, who spoke by telephone from Iraq, said that the insurgents’ tactics “have become more sophisticated in some cases,” and that they were probably drawing on bomb-making experts from outside Iraq and from the old Iraqi Army. He added that the insurgency was “quite small” and “relatively static,” a view not shared by all his colleagues.

Car bomb attacks against American forces – both suicide attacks and attacks with remotely detonated devices – reached a monthly high of 70 in April and fell slightly in May, according to figures provided by the United States military in Iraq.

“For a period of time we felt we were pushing them away from us, and now it looks like they are back to targeting coalition forces,” said a Pentagon official involved in the anti-I.E.D. effort. “And they’ve learned that in order to attack us, they need to get more sophisticated.”

The next highest two-month period was in January and February, around the time of the Iraqi elections, when 54 Americans were killed by bombs, according to the official statistics assembled by the casualty-count Web site. Iraqis suffer the most casualties by far, though reliable figures are not available.

The insurgents “certainly appear to be surging right now,” Brig. Gen. Joseph L. Votel, who leads the anti-I.E.D. task force, said in an interview at Fort Irwin. “Time will tell about their ability to sustain this.”

American officials also worry that the increase in attacks threatens to disrupt Iraq’s fledgling government further and could threaten the Bush administration’s strategy for maintaining public support for the American presence in Iraq by holding down American casualties.

“We’re in a very, very dangerous period,” said a senior military official at the Pentagon. “To be a successful insurgent you need to be able to create spectacular attacks, and they’ve certainly done that in the past several weeks.”

In addition to technical improvements in their bombs, insurgents, especially in rural areas, are resorting to packing more explosives into the devices to disable armored vehicles, Army experts at the Fort Irwin conference said.

Hundreds of armored Humvees have been rushed to Iraq over the past year, and Pentagon officials say unarmored vehicles are now confined to bases. Still, five marines were killed this week near Ramadi, about 70 miles west of Baghdad, when their vehicle hit an I.E.D. Earlier this month, five marines were killed after their vehicle struck a bomb in Haqlaniya, about 150 miles northwest of Baghdad.

A senior Marine officer with access to classified reports from the field said that the vehicles involved in the two fatal attacks were armored Humvees but that the bombs “were so big that there was little left of the Humvees that were hit.”

Insurgents have long been able to build bombs powerful enough to penetrate some armored vehicles. But the use of “shaped” charges could raise the threat considerably, military officials said. Since last month, at least three such bombs have been found, Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, the director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at a Pentagon briefing this month.

The shaped charge explosion fires a projectile “at a very rapid rate, sufficient to penetrate certain levels of armor,” General Conway said, adding that weapons employing shaped charges had caused American casualties in the last two months. He did not give details.

A Pentagon official involved in combating the devices said shaped charges seen so far appeared crude but required considerable expertise, suggesting insurgents were able to draw on well-trained bomb-makers, possibly even rocket scientists from the former government. Shaped charges and rocket engines are similar, the official said.

Infrared detonators are an advance over the more common method of rigging bombs to explode after an insurgent nearby presses a button on a cell phone, a garage-door opener or other device that gives off an electric signal. That approach is vulnerable to jammers, however, and a shift to infrared detonators, which rely on light waves, underscores the insurgents’ resourcefulness.

BucksCounty – Iraq war veteran and lawyer Patrick Murphy, a Democrat, announced on Monday that he plans to challenge Mike Fitzpatrick for the 8th District Congressional seat.

“These are defining moments for our nation and our community,” Murphy said on his campaign Web site, www.murphy06.com.

Murphy must first capture the Democratic nomination next spring if he wants to face Fitzpatrick in November of 2006.

Born and raised in Northeast Philadelphia, Murphy is the youngest of three children of a Philadelphia police officer and career legal secretary.

He attended BucksCountyCommunity College, moving on to King’s College in Wilkes-Barre, where he became a cadet in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps.

After earning a law degree from the Widener University School of Law in 1999, Murphy became a judge advocate for the U. S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps.

He now works at Cozen O’Connor Attorneys, which has 504 attorneys in 23