The fact that none of the marines involved will serve any time in prison provoked outrage in Iraq and across the world. And it’s done little to clarify the rules of war.

Victor Hansen, an expert in military law and former officer with the Army’s Judge Advocate General corps, says, he’s “frustrated like many who are observing it from the outside.”

But he’s also frustrated because the trial didn’t clarify the understanding of the Rules of Engagement—the criteria for using deadly force. They can change from deployment to deployment.

Sometimes it’s okay to “shoot first and ask questions later;” sometimes it’s not. So the question in this case was: Did Staff Sergeant Wuterich use proper procedures to identify his targets before ordering an attack?

“I don’t think there is a sense of clarity in terms of this case you know in terms of what you say positive identification what level of specificity should these Marines have had a when they went into the home,” says Hansen.

“If anything it’s enhanced ambiguity,” according to Gary Myers, who has been practicing military law for 43 years, and has been involved in the defense of the My Lai, and Abu Ghraib cases among many others. He defended Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt, whose charges for murder in the Haditha incident were ultimately dropped.

Myers worries that ambiguity can be deadly for servicemen. “My great fear from these prosecutions is that you have soldiers and marines in the field who because of fear of prosecution become reluctant to fire their weapons,” he says. “Which compromises their own safety and the safety of their buddies. So we have to be very careful about what we do in circumstances such as this.”

But what about the safety of civilians on the ground when the rules of engagement allow for ambiguity? After the Haditha incident became infamous, the Marine Corps changed their training for counterinsurgency operations, adding cultural sensitivity training, and in some cases encouraging that moment of hesitation that can actually put the lives of marines at risk.

Sarah Holewinski, the executive director of the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC), says she’s seen the change.

“In Afghanistan there’s a lot of talk now about courageous restraint which means if you’re going after a particular combatant in a community and it he is surrounded by civilians you actually do have an obligation to walk away for furtherance of the mission, instead of going after him.”

But Holewinski says civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq are much more aware of the Haditha verdict than the efforts at restraint. So while the Haditha incident might have transformed the Marine Corps, the outcome of the trials may mean they get little credit.

>>>
FRONTLINE Video: Heart and Minds Training: Inside Mojave Viper

Arraf tells host Marco Werman, “The politicians who are supposed to be leading this country cannot sit down in the same room and have a conversation.”

Arraf is in Erbil, in the autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq. In recent days, she spoke with Tariq al-Hashemi, Iraq’s Sunni Vice President. Hashemi fled into exile in Kurdistan several weeks ago. That was after Iraq’s government issued an arrest warrant, charging Hashemi with running death squads.

“He said the last time he really spoke to the prime minister was a year ago. They’ve been communicating through text messages,” she says. “And arrest warrants.”

Iraq is run by a coalition government, engineered in large part by Washington. Thus far the Kurds, notes Arraf, have been the “kingmakers.”

“They’re being looked at here as the people who could possibly solve this. But there are so many missing pieces, no one is entirely sure it can be solved,” Arraf notes.

She says the Kurds would like to convene a conference that would bring together the Kurdish president, along with Iraq’s Prime Minister, the head of the Sunni- backed party, and possibly Shia leader Muqtada al- Sadr.

Arraf says the President of Kurdistan Region, Masoud Al Barzani, believes that he actually handed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki his job.

“The Kurds backed al-Maliki when he didn’t have enough support to form a government, and now Barzani feels that al-Maliki has betrayed him. And a lot of people feel that. So what we’ve got really is a Prime Minister fighting for his job, a very polarized political system, and really not very much at all getting done in the country.”

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: Sectarian tensions in Iraq eased a bit today. Members of the Sunni political bloc, Iraqiya, ended their boycott of parliament. They had refused to attend the legislature since mid-December. That was when the government of Iraq’s Shiite Prime Minister ordered the arrest of a Sunni vice president on terrorism charges. The move, which came just days after the last US forces left the country, threatened to ignite a new round of sectarian violence in Iraq. But the end of Sunni boycott in parliament today doesn’t mean the political crisis is over in Baghdad, and the tensions between Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites is still very high. Reporter Jane Arraf is in Erbil, in the autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq. Jane, does the political crisis in Baghdad seem far away there in the somewhat autonomous north? What’s the mood in Kurdistan?

Jane Arraf: This is being seen as the biggest political crisis since Saddam Hussein was toppled. And the reason the Kurds are involved is that we ended up here with a coalition government engineered by the United States in part because nobody could really agree on who should form the government. Now, the coalition includes the Kurds, it includes the Sunnis, and it includes Prime Minister al-Maliki’s mostly Shia parties, and the Kurds have been the “kingmakers.” They’re being looked at again as the people who could possible solve this, but there are so many missing pieces in this puzzle that no one is entirely sure it actually can be solved.

Werman: Well, just a few examples of the political crisis in Baghdad, and then I want to ask you how the Kurds might solve it. I mean we’ve heard about the vice president’s arrest, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki trying to fire his deputy for calling him a dictator, no interior or defense minister for almost two years, so what exactly can the Kurds do?

Arraf: Well, the politicians who are supposed to be leading this country cannot sit down in the same room and have a conversation. I spoke with vice president Tariq al-Hashemi, who’s in exile here in northern Iraq, and he said the last time he really spoke to the prime minister was a year ago. They’ve been communicating through text messages and things like that, and also of course, through arrest warrants. So what the Kurds want to do is convene a conference that would bring together the Kurdish president, the prime minister, the head of the Sunni-backed party, possibly Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr, and actually have them hammer out beforehand how they’re going to solve this.

Werman: Now, Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, as you say, he went into exile in the north several weeks ago; that was after the Iraq government issued an arrest warrant against him. Tell us where he is.

Arraf: I would love to tell you where he is, but as I was leaving the interview they said, please don’t say exactly where he is. However, he is a guest of President Masoud Al Barzani, the Kurdish President here in the north of Iraq.

Werman: And Vice President al-Hashemi is taking it quite personally. Let’s hear how he characterized, for you, his treatment at the hands of Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki.

Tariq al-Hashemi: Arresting my bodyguard, not allowing and asking all my staff to leave, confiscating my private computers, and I am a vice president. I’m really shocked about the behavior of al-Maliki.

Werman: Jane, let me ask you first of all, is there any evidence supporting the notion that Hashemi was running death squads?

Arraf: That is the question and he says these are politically engineered charges that he will answer, but he won’t go back to Baghdad. He says he won’t receive a fair trial there, but what he does say and is well, interesting, is he’s an ex-army officer and he says he has imposed strict discipline, but at the same time he says he cannot swear that none of his guards were involved in this. What he does say is they’re not being given a fair trial.

Werman: Jane Arraf, can Iraq’s vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, a Sunni, now in exile, return to Baghdad to work with Iraq’s Shiite prime minister? I mean do you see any scenario where they and the factions they represent pull together?

Arraf: This has become so bitter and this has become very personal as well between President Barzani and Nouri al-Maliki. Barzani, the Kurdish president, believes that he actually handed al-Maliki his job. The Kurds backed Maliki when he didn’t have enough support to form a government. And now Barzani feels that Maliki has betrayed them, and a lot of people feel that way. So what we’ve got really is a prime minister fighting for his job, a very polarized political system, and really not very much at all getting done in the country, which is why a lot of Iraqis are really fed up.

Werman: Correspondent Jane Arraf in Erbil in northern Iraq, thank you for speaking with us.

Arraf: Thank you, Marco.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

The incident seems to be part of a growing pattern of attacks on Shias since the US pulled out of Iraq last month.

Lisa Mullins gets the latest from reporter Jane Arraf in Iraq.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World. US troops have come home from Iraq, but the conflict there is far from over. In fact, the violence in Iraq has increased since the last American soldiers left last month. The latest attack came today in Baghdad. A suicide car bomber killed more than 30 people in one of the city’s Shia neighborhoods. Report Jane Arraf is in Iraq.

Jane Arraf: This was an attack that took place actually on a funeral procession, which is pretty horrific and fairly common at the same time. And the neighborhood it took place in, the southeast neighborhood called Zafarniyah is notable really because it’s an ordinary neighborhood, and that’s part of the horror of this that these attacks do tend to take place on easy targets.

Mullins: And it’s a hallmark of what kind of perpetrator? Do we know who is behind it?

Arraf: It’s believed to be al-Qaeda simply because when you have a suicide bomber or suicide car bombs it has traditionally been al-Qaeda in Iraq and affiliated groups that have taken responsibility. In addition, these are all Shia targets and that’s generally what we’re seeing these days as well, and that too is in line with the groups target of stirring up sectarian violence in an attempt apparently, to restart the civil war.

Mullins: From the figures that we’ve been getting, Jane, the amount of violent deaths within Iraq is double this month what it was last January. Is it believed that that’s directly tied to the US troop withdrawal from Iraq last month?

Arraf: Well, that actually was so political that some Iraqis will tell you it’s because the Americans left, although they’ll only tell you that privately. And many Iraqis say it would’ve been worse had the Americans stayed. As it is, what it really points to is that these attacks are going to exist and continue independently of whether foreign troops are here. Now, one of the things that’s missing in this equation is the help that the Americans were able to give the Iraqi security forces. You can’t really protect against somebody who wants to strap on a bomb and blow themselves up, but what you can do is find them first, and that actually requires an intelligence gathering capability, the ability to analyze a single intelligence — some of the things that they lost when the Americans left and some of the things they’re actually trying to work on getting back.

Mullins: Jane, you are in northern Iraq right now in Erbil. You’ve seen a fair amount of the country. Is the violence that we hear about in Baghdad happening elsewhere?

Arraf: Baghdad does tend to be more violent. Having said that, we seen lately a lot of attacks in the south, particularly on Shia pilgrims. Now, the north is a totally different story. It’s a bit like Switzerland here. It’s extremely stable, stable at a cost. They have kept out a lot of the groups that have been here and it’s also stable because it’s almost exclusively Kurdish, so we haven’t seen those attacks here by any means, but certainly there are areas that people are very concerned about outside Baghdad.

Mullins: Reporting from Erbil in northern Iraq, Jane Arraf, thank you.

Arraf: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Photo contained in Naval Criminal Investigative Service report obtained by The Washington Post shows a Marine inspecting a roadside scene near Haditha, Iraq (Photo: US government)

Sgt Frank Wuterich was one of eight Marines originally charged with murder or failure to investigate the killings.

The charges against six of them were dropped or dismissed, and one was acquitted.

Lisa Mullins talks with correspondent Jane Arraf in Baghdad.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World. A US Marine has pleaded guilty to dereliction of duty in connection with an incident in Iraq known as the Haditha Massacre. Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich was in command of a squad of marines in the western Iraqi city of Haditha on November 19, 2005. One of his men died when a roadside bomb exploded. What followed is still not clear, but 24 Iraqi civilians were killed by the marines. Now, as part of a plea deal, manslaughter charges against Sergeant Wuterich are being dropped. Cases against all other marines involved have collapsed. Reporter Jane Arraf is in Baghdad. You were in Iraq as well at the time of the incident, Jane. I know at some point you’ve been embedded with this particular marine unit. What was Haditha like at that time in November 2005?

Jane Arraf: Well, I was embedded with a wider unit and really it was an atmosphere all through that year in which they really did believe that everyone was their enemy. Haditha has become one of the tragedies of the war, not just because of the killing of these 24 people, including women and children, but really because it was a case that was seen by a lot of military people as one where they could never have an impact. It was a case where the marines came in. They were few and far between. And it was a huge area. And as people tried to help them, as officials tried to help them, they were assassinated. There were never enough troops to go around in that area. And by the time November 2005 rolled around they were really living in a kind of environment where they were being killed. They believed that they couldn’t trust anyone and everyone was a potential assassin.

Mullins: So as we said, what happened was a roadside bomb went off on this particular day, exploded right next to a marine convoy. One marine was killed. A couple of others were wounded. What’s your understanding based on what was said in court, happened next?

Arraf: According to the staff sergeant he was ordered to clear the houses. Now, when you go in and clear houses you don’t actually knock on the door. You clear a house because you believe that there’s danger there. So what they appear to have done is gone into two houses where they were looking for insurgents, apparently, the insurgents that blew up one of their buddies, and started shooting. Now at the end as we now know, 24 people were dead, including women, children and a 70-year-old man in a wheelchair, clearly no one who posed a threat to him. But again, it’s a case where under their rules of engagement at the time, and rules of engagement that were prevalent in places like that in Iraq, if a commander felt there was any sort of hostile threat, and that goes all the way down a squad leader and others, you could actually start shooting and that is what they did.

Mullins: And were they being shot at?

Arraf: They apparently were not being shot at. They believed at the time that they were under danger. They believed that they were under threat and that was the defense that they used all through this trial, which has we have to remember, lasted for several years. Now, we’ve reached one of the relatives of some of the people killed in Haditha, who also happens to be an Iraqi lawyer, and he says he believes that this is what was intended all along, that they’d just drag on the case until it went away. And that is what he believes has happened.

Mullins: Well, I don’t know to what extent other Iraqis are reacting the same way, but are there cases, maybe similar to this, that would contradict this thought that this would end up in a whitewash?

Arraf: There’s a really deep mistrust here and that’s putting it mildly of what happened during the war, of US motives and of really any attempt to bring people to justice. We have to remember that the milestones of this war aren’t really the schools that were opened, or the highways that were reopened, or security that was brought back to towns that were undergoing violence. Really what people will remember here are the horrible things like Haditha, like the rape and murder of a little girl named Abir, like the Blackwater killings, and those are the things that will remain in people’s minds for generations. This is not a country, not a community that forgets these things and it’s part of the reason why today there are no US soldiers here. It’s part of the reason why Iraq insisted that they be subject to immunity, and part of the reason why the US could never agree to that.

Mullins: All right, thank you, speaking to us from Baghdad, Iraq, reporter Jane Arraf, thanks.

Arraf: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

The bombings are the worst in months – and follow within days of the withdrawal of US troops.

They come amid fears of rising sectarian tensions as the unity government faces internal divisions.

Host Lisa Mullins talks with reporter Sahar Issa in Baghdad.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World. A series of bomb attacks shook the city of Baghdad today. More than 60 people were killed, nearly 200 were injured. Iraq’s interior ministry says there were 14 blasts across the city in a period of two hours. The bombings are the worst in months and they come at a sensitive time. The last US troops just left Iraq on Sunday. Since then, tension with in the country’s unity government has escalated rapidly. And now there are fears of renewed sectarian violence. McClatchy journalist, Sahar Issa, lives in Baghdad. What did you hear today?

Sahar Issa: We woke up to the explosions. The house shook. One of the explosions was very close. It was not more than 100 meters down the road from where I live, and the other one was about 1/2 kilometer away. Iraqis have become quite skillful in determining whether the explosions are IEDs, roadside bombs, or car bombs from the way the vibrations are received. These vibrations we felt through the ground, telling us that these were car bombs, and so they were.

Mullins: In the aftermath of the explosions what happened?

Issa: We can hear the sirens, we can shootings, we can hear shouting, we can hear all sorts of sounds that were quite terrifying that we haven’t heard for quite a while. Roads were blocked, neighborhoods were shutdown, we couldn’t get to work.

Mullins: So when that happens and the roads are blocked, you say you can’t get to work, what do people do? What did you do?

Issa: People who have to go out will walk out. For me, I can work from my home, I have all the facilities, so I called into my boss and told him it is really too dangerous to go out, and the roads are blocked, especially our neighborhood.

Mullins: You’re lucky enough as a journalist to be able to do some of your work at home when it’s too dangerous to go out. What about some of your neighbors, those people who have children, can they go to school? Can people walk outside? Do they see this as possibly the start of more violence?

Issa: To tell you the truth it is difficult. Iraqis have been through so much, they have seen so much violence, it is difficult to say that this is the beginning of a new stage of violence like we once had in 2006 and 2007. People are hoping that this will be just a day of violence, a day where [inaudible 2:33] at each other, a day in which the other factions that you must know, Iraq is a battleground for power, regional powers from all Iraq, when they are fighting their own fight on Iraqi ground, just a day of violence. Iraqis hope that they can go to sleep today knowing the losses of today, hoping for a quick recovery for the injured, but nevertheless hoping that tomorrow will be just another day. And the people who did the violence today have had their fill.

Mullins: Sahar Issa is a reporter with McClatchy newspapers speaking to us from Baghdad. Thanks a lot.

Issa: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

More on the attacks from the BBC

He tells host Lisa Mullins about the effect it has had on his life.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: Bombing such as the ones today in Baghdad are life-changing events for those who survive them. Many of the American soldiers who served in Iraq these past nine years are all too aware of that. Ken Lee survived a suicide bombing in Baghdad in September of 2004. Dr. Lee, what happened?

Ken Lee: We were on a mission and we had to dismount because they found a roadside bomb on one of our routes. So we were pulling rear security. At that time a vehicle pulled out of the containment we had and we knew right away what his intentions were. As we’re pulling our weapons out he detonated the car bomb about maybe 20 yards from us.

Mullins: When you woke up what do you remember?

Lee: The only thing I remember was an orange ball and then my life basically passing by me. I mean you hear of it in the movies, but my whole life flashed by me — my kids, my younger days of my life and all that.

Mullins: You were pretty bad off physically then weren’t you?

Lee: Yes, I was. I had an open head injury. Both my legs and arms were in poor shape from multiple shrapnel injuries. I wasn’t able to move them all. And there was major bleeding due to some of the bigger shrapnel.

Mullins: This is seven years later. Do you feel the effects even now?

Lee: You know, bleeding eventually all stopped and things got taken care of. But functional-wise it’s really tough to deal with on a daily basis. My ankles, knees, thumbs, all the things I need on daily activity I’m having difficult time utilizing them. From the head injury itself you know, I have to constantly deal with the headaches as well as memory issues. I can’t retain stuff and so if I don’t write it down I lose it, and that’s become the problem medically.

Mullins: I don’t know how much pain you’re in, do you have much?

Lee: Yeah, pain is probably one of the biggest disabling factors for me. Functionally, during the end of the day my foot doesn’t lift so well, so everybody could hear me coming over by foot flapping on the floor. I can’t turn doorknobs anymore. And unfortunately, I can’t use chopsticks anymore. I might have to go to fork.

Mullins: Oh, no! After all this time you have to acquiesce. We should say that you’re originally from South Korea and moved to the United States with your family as a child. After you left Iraq you had multiple operations to try and regain what functionality you could. There were also of course, mental problems that you had to deal with. Can you just tell us a little bit about those and how you did deal with them?

Lee: First year was real nightmare and miserable for me. And I would say it’s more miserable for my family than I was because they were dealing with that effect. My threatened me with divorce. My family was telling me that I’m not doing too well. My kids were all scared of me and would hide from me when I come home. And none of these affected me until one day my daughter was playing a game with me and she just stopped playing and looked at me, and said, “Dad, you don’t smile anymore.” I don’t know what it was, but at that point I just broke and cried. My daughter ran away from me because she thought she said something wrong. And I just couldn’t stop crying. And that very next day I called a friend and asked can you hook me up with somebody who can help me with my PTSD.

Mullins: And here you were though trying to find help for yourself, but you were three things; you were a veteran, you were a patient, and you were a doctor.

Lee: Having multiple roles I have to put on a different face and different hat no matter where I go. It was easy for me to do that as a physician to take care of patients, put on a smile and hide everything. When I came home it wasn’t that easy. I took it out on the family pretty bad. I took it out in the basement actually a lot, and I’m glad I took it out in the basement physically rather than any member of the family.

Mullins: So you’re still married though?

Lee: Yes, actually after my treatments and things have gone well, my marriage is actually stronger than anyone else. We seem to be lot more close than when we first met or even got married.

Mullins: You are now working as a chief medical officer at the Wisconsin Medical Guard. Is that correct?

Lee: Yes, I’m the state surgeon, the title of the state surgeon for the Wisconsin Medical Guard.

Mullins: How has your work as a doctor changed?

Lee: You know, my entire life actually changed. From a physician standpoint my relationship to my patients and they respect that I have for them, and I think vice versa, it’s become so close where sometimes I wonder you know, if these are my patients or my colleagues. A lot of times I have to step back and look at what my role is and distance myself from them, but the respect that both patients and I have for each other I don’t think could be replaced by anything else.

Mullins: We wish you the best of luck, Dr. Ken Lee, and thank you very much for talking to us.

Lee: Thank you very much.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

That was the verdict Tuesday from the jury in the terrorism case of Tarek Mehanna.

The jury in Boston convicted him of conspiring to help al-Qaeda and plotting to kill US soldiers in Iraq.

After Tuesday’s verdict, the 29-year-old defendant could be sentenced to life in a prison.

Prosecutors in the case said that Mehanna was born and raised in a Boston suburb and traveled to Yemen to attend a training camp.

His defense lawyers said it was to study Islam.

Anchor Marco Werman talks to David Cole, professor of Law at the Georgetown University, about the verdict.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman, this is The World. Guilty on all counts — that was the verdict today from a jury in the terrorism case of Tarek Mehanna. The jury in Boston convicted him of conspiring to help al-Qaeda and plotting to kill US soldiers in Iraq. After today’s verdict, the 29-year-old defendant could be sentenced to life in prison. As we reported yesterday, Tarek Mehanna was born in the US and raised in a Boston suburb. Prosecutors said he traveled to Yemen to attend a terrorist training camp. His defense lawyer said it was to study Islam. Both sides agree that after returning to the US Mehanna began translating al-Qaeda documents and distributing them on the internet. David Cole is a law professor at Georgetown University. So the verdict of guilty came in part as we said as a result of Mehanna’s translating documents, and the prosecution said that was material support of terrorism. What’s your reaction to that?

David Cole: Well, the statute under which he was prosecuted, the material support statute, is remarkably broad and defines material support to terrorist organizations to include not just the provision of arms and the provision of money, or the provision of any kind of tangible aid, but also through speech. So, under the statute you can be convicted and thrown in jail for merely engaging in speech that is provided to or done in coordination with a terrorist organization. It’s a very, very sweeping statute.

Werman: So legally what are the implications for free speech in this country if translating documents can be interpreted as support for terrorism?

Cole: Well, it’s very concerning. I mean there are many news organizations that have for example, put up links to some of Osama Bin Laden’s statements. Are they providing material support to al-Qaeda by doing so? We in this country have seen the dangers of government prosecuting people for speech. The history of the First Amendment is sort of built on a series of cases in which the government prosecuted people for advocating crime, but in fact what they did was criminalize descent. Prosecuted people who spoke out against WWI for example, prosecuted people in the McCarthy era for advocating communist ideas, and ultimately the Supreme Court recognized the danger of this sort of criminalization of descent by saying you’ve gotta prove when you’re prosecuting someone for their speech that their speech was intended and likely to produce eminent lawless action — very, very tough standard to meet. But the reason that that standard is tough is because of the danger of criminalizing descent. And in this case by using the material support statute the government avoided that test altogether. There’s no showing that any of his internet activity was intended or likely to produce any eminent action or ever lead to any illegal action whatsoever.

Werman: The jury in the case deliberated pretty quickly and came back with the verdict of guilty. What does the speed of the verdict indicate to you, if anything?

Cole: Well, I mean again, this is the danger. When you criminalize speech, that permits the government to put on all kinds of evidence about people’s political views and inclinations. And if those inclinations are ones that we the majority don’t like, there’s a real risk that juries will convict them not for engaging in or actually furthering any kind of violence, but for engaging in speech that we find profoundly troubling. And that’s what the First Amendment is designed to protect, but in this case doesn’t see to have done that work.

Werman: So, David Cole, how significant is this as a legal precedent?

Cole: As you may know, the Supreme Court took up a case involving the material support statute just a year and a half ago. In fact, I argued on behalf of a human rights group in the case. And the Supreme Court said there’s no First Amendment problem with prosecuting people for engaging in speech with or on behalf of a group that’s been labeled terrorists, even if that speech advocates nothing but peace and human rights. So…

Werman: What was their justification?

Cole: Their justification was that anything you say on behalf of a group might sort of burnish its legitimacy and it can then use that legitimacy to go out and raise other support. Then it could use that support to engage in criminal activity. I mean it’s a very attenuated chain of causation, not the kind of causation that the Supreme Court at least in the past has said is required when you make speech a crime. So we’ve now come to the point where we’re making pure speech a crime regardless of its actual connection to any concrete criminal conduct, and that’s a very, very dangerous place to be.

Werman: Law professor David Cole at Georgetown University, thank you very much.

Cole: Thanks for having me.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

The Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told troops the mission had been worth the cost in blood and dollars.

He said the years of war in Iraq had yielded to an era of opportunity in which the US was a committed partner.

Only about 4,000 US soldiers now remain in Iraq, but they are due to leave in the next two weeks.

At the peak of the operation, US forces there numbered 170,000.

As American troops are leaving Iraq, some Baghdad residents are breathing a sigh of relief.

Others are wary about what lies ahead, as Iraqi journalist Sahar Issa explains to host Marco Werman.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Werman: I’m Marco Werman. This is The World. Eight years and nine months, that’s how much time has passed since the US war in Iraq began. The initial assault, the explosion of shock and awe back in March of 2003 feels distant now. Today, a simple flag lowering ceremony in Baghdad marked the official end of the war in Iraq. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged the high cost to the US in blood and treasure, and he noted the challenges ahead for Iraq. For Americans and Iraqis alike it’s a day of mixed feelings. Iraqi journalist, Sahar Issa, is in Baghdad.

Sahar Issa: The Iraqi people never thought they would see the day, for good or for bad, today is important. It is the very last day of what is predominantly considered an occupation.

Werman: How was that manifested today? I mean as the Americans are kind of rolling their way out of town were people in the street? I mean I’m just trying to get a picture?

Issa: Not really, actually the event went past very cooly I would say. The only real reaction I think would have been found in Fallujah. There are celebrations in the streets of Fallujah.

Werman: And they were celebrating the Americans leaving?

Issa: Yes, yes.

Werman: Of course, Fallujah was the site of some very heavy combat.

Issa: Indeed. Yesterday around 5,000 people congregated. They were poems, there were applause, there were everything. And today, it was even a little bit stranger because the celebration took place in the Martyr’s Cemetery that used to be a football field. And all the families — wives, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons — they all came with photographs of their loved ones. It was very emotional.

Werman: I can imagine. And I mean the perspective on America and the Americans have fought I imagine is quite different in Fallujah than it is in Baghdad.

Issa: Of course, in Fallujah it’s a personal matter because there is no family in Fallujah that has not had a least one of its members killed by coalition forces.

Werman: For you personally, Sahar, is this moment, this day that the American troops finally go out, I mean is it one you’ve been waiting for?

Issa: There are two feelings. One feeling is that what is going to happen? Do you we have real politicians? Are they able to handle the situation and the security issues? This is one thing. And on the other hand the day must come. I mean Iraqis must stand up for themselves and begin. And I don’t see if this day came in 2-3 years that there would have been anything beneficial for Iraqis. So the quicker we start the quicker we’ll be on our feet.

Werman: Is there one image or an interaction you had with American troops that you’ll remember very clearly?

Issa: Yes, of course, one day at 6 o’clock in the morning the door was knocked on and there was a search, a house-to-house search. And they came into the house and were very afraid. Of course, there were Americans and Iraqis together. And they said can we search the house? They were very proper and we allowed them. And so these Americans go to the bookshelves that I have in my sitting room and they see English books. And so the man turns around and he says ma’am, you read a lot. And I said well, yes I do. And he goes on looking and he says hm, Grisham, hm…and all the writers that perhaps his family reads. And then he said do you have a weapon in the house? And I said in that cupboard, of course we do. And he opened the cupboard and he sees the video games that my sons play, and he said what, Auto Theft and the other one, their names, and he was grinning and he was laughing. And I felt inside me that for the first time he was able to see me as a person. And I think for him it was like a revelation, and I could see it in his eyes.

Werman: So Sahar, have you been to any of the bases or the barracks that the American troops have left behind? What’s it like there?

Issa: Well, it’s like a ghost town. It’s like a finality. Although to tell you the truth, with all these finalities around us, with all these camps being emptied of their soldiers, the Iraqi people still ask, the American Embassy is retaining 16,000 personnel…like are the Americans really leaving? And who are these 16,000 people who are staying behind? That’s a really big question.

Werman: Iraqi journalist Sahar Issa lives in Baghdad, works for McClatchy Newspapers there. Sahar, thank you very much.

Issa: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

He met Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Washington for talks on Iraq’s future as American troops prepare to complete their withdrawal.

Obama confirmed no bases or troops would remain in the country next year.

“Those days are over,” President Obama said, adding that Iraq’s sovereignty should be respected.

Anchor Marco Werman speaks with Jane Arraf, Baghdad-based reporter for the Christian Science Monitor and al-Jazeera International.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman, this is The World. President Obama hosted Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki at the White House today. They met to discus what comes next in the relationship between the United States and Iraq. That relationship is entering a new phase as the last U.S. troops leave Iraq by the end of this month and that, as Obama noted after the meeting with Maliki, will end the Iraq war after almost nine years.

President Obama: A war is ending, a new day is upon us and let us never forget those who gave us this chance. The untold number of Iraqis who have given their lives, more than one million Americans, military and civilian who have served in Iraq, nearly 4,500 fallen Americans who gave their last, full measure of devotion. Tens of thousands of wounded warriers and so many inspiring military families, they are the reason that we can stand here today.

Werman: President Obama speaking at the White House earlier today. Jane Arraf reports from Iraq for the Christian Science Monitor and Al Jazeera International, she’s in Baghdad. President Obama spoke of a relationship as equal partners between the United States and Iraq. How does it look, Jane, from where you’re sitting in Baghdad?

Jane Arraf: Well, a little more equal, certainly, at the end of this month than it has been in more than eight years. Now this is because, of course, the U.S. military is actually out of here and that was one of the things that Obama and Maliki emphasize, they also emphasize that new relationship but it’s a very complicated relationship. It’s complicated mostly because what the United States wanted here, a democracy, is the very thing that led to U.S. troops actually not staying. The Parliament that said they would not allow U.S. forces to remain here so there are a lot of things to discuss, a lot of challenges, as the like to put it, diplomatically going forward and not quite sure how a lot of those issues are going to be resolved.

Werman: Well as we note, U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by the end of the year, I’m wondering though, who is left? What will be the U.S. presence in Iraq now?

Arraf: It is a huge footprint, it is going to be the biggest U.S. Embassy in the world. Now the U.S. Ambassador here said a few months ago publicly, that he expected the Embassy which currently had 8000 people in it, to double by next year so we’re talking 15,000 or 16,000 people, a number they don’t like to throw around anymore just because it sounds so huge. Essentially what that will be is foreign services officers, very small part of it, an awful lot of security, more than 5000 security contractors and that there, again, is one of the issues that still has not been resolved. Things that should be a matter of course such as security contractors ability to carry weapons is still an issue here and as soon as Maliki returns here he’s going to have to talk to Parliament and answers questions about why there’s such a big U.S. Embassy.

Werman: So a long term deal whereby U.S. and NATO advisors would continue to train Iraqi soldiers, that fell apart over the issue of providing legal immunity for U.S. troops, is there a serious threat of Americans getting caught up in the Iraqi legal system? And remind us of some of the charges Americans some Americans might have faced.

Arraf: Absolutely. This is a country where some of the worst incidents of the war are incidents where if U.S. soldiers had not had immunity they would be, certainly in jail here and they would be standing trial and subject to execution. Now we’re talking about cases where civilians have been killed and they found to have been killed deliberately. As well as things like security contractors opening fire in the famous case that killed more than a dozen Iraqi civilians, those are the things that haunt Iraqi’s and those are the reasons why there was such a backlash against immunity. Now the other thing about this is, that even though it is a new relationship, the U.S. troops are leaving, it still does remain a dangerous place. Violence is down but recently there was a kidnapping threat specifically against American diplomats and the green zone, which is at the best of times barricaded and a fortress, became even more of a fortress, their mobility is very limited.

Werman: With all the U.S. troops just about gone from Iraq and this visit by Nouri al-Maliki to the White House, feeling kind of like his Washington swan song, what’s the mood in Baghdad right now? How do Iraqis feel about this?

Arraf: Iraqis feel it’s a really uncertain time. The U.S. military is pulling out, a lot of people are happy about that but a lot of them also don’t believe that they’re really pulling out. We’ve spoken to some members of Parliament for instance, who say the U.S. forces are just pulling out to Kuwait and other countries, they’re just waiting in the wings to invade again. But the other part is that there are still killings going on. There are political assassinations, there is continued repression and all of the things that President Obama and Prime Minister Maliki spoke about are really things that Iraqis would like to see, a real democracy, transparent institutions that serve everyone but they’re not institutions that they have yet.

Werman: Jane Arraf who reports from Iraq for the Christian Science Monitor and Al Jezeera International, Jane, thanks very much indeed.

Arraf: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Hazim Jajo and his wife, Hanaa Ishaq (Photo: Jill Replogle)

Ishaq dictates a phone number to her husband from an address book. The two speak Chaldean, the language of Iraq’s largest Christian group.

They are trying to reach Ishaq’s mother, Shami, in Damascus. She’s 84-years-old and ailing.

Ishaq’s brother answers the call. He agrees to bring his cell phone to his mother’s apartment so she can get the call from San Diego; she doesn’t have her own phone.

“Okay, bye bye,” Jajo says, hanging up. He turns to his wife and says, “Her health situation now is very bad. Now she cannot see. She is suffering vision problems.”

Ishaq gasps, looking even more distressed than she did before they made the call. Her mother has been waiting in Syria for more than two years for the US to green light her refugee application. She lives by herself, surviving mostly on a small monthly stipend and food rations from the UN.

“I signed a sponsorship for her,” Jajo says. “Now it’s more than one year, and we are still waiting.”

Since 2007, the US has resettled more than 60,000 Iraqi refugees in this country. Many of them had already left Iraq; they fled to neighboring countries like Jordan and Syria with the hope of eventually moving to the US. But in the past year, the rate of resettlement has slowed dramatically.

Larry Bartlett, who heads the Office of Refugee Admissions at the US State Dept., says it typically takes six to nine months to process refugees, but the process has ground to a halt for Iraqi refugees in Syria since violence and unrest erupted there last spring. Bartlett says Homeland Security officers haven’t been able to enter the country to interview refugees, a requirement of the resettlement process.

“That program has been stalled for months,” Bartlett said, “and I think until that situation stabilizes we won’t be able to go back in and conduct interviews.”

Adding even more to the delays, the US government imposed additional security screenings last year. Now, US intelligence and other agencies run two background checks on most refugees; one when they first apply for refugee status, and one shortly before they board a plane.

Bartlett says it makes sense. “I have to say we have seen results. We’ve been able to deny people based on new information that’s cropped up just before travel.”

Bartlett wouldn’t give examples, but there have been reports in US media of suspected terrorists who entered the US as refugees before the new security measures.

Still, Hanna Ishaq wonders how her 84-year-old mother in Damascus could be considered a threat.

“Why she’s waiting long time? She’s an old woman and she doesn’t have to wait a long time for security clearance. What they want to check exactly I don’t know.”

People who work with refugees in the US say that the added security checks may mean that the Department of Homeland Security winds up denying asylum to some legitimate candidates. The number of Iraqis resettled out of Syria dropped by more than one-third in the past fiscal year — from 4,578 in FY2010 to 2,959 in FY2011.

Bob Montgomery, executive director of the International Rescue Committee in San Diego, notes that people who are fleeing their homes often don’t have time to collect documents like birth certificates and marriage licenses.

“The Department of Homeland Security has to take their story based on what they say. And I fear that if they’re unsure, they’re probably denying,” Montgomery said.

For Hanna Ishaq, and her mother Shami, their only option is patience.

Ishaq finally manages to reach her mother by phone. Shami tells her worried daughter that her faith keeps her going. Her daughter tells her to keep that faith until they are reunited.

American troops are due out of Iraq by the end of next month.

Washington had lobbied hard, and publicly, for a new agreement that would have allowed it to keep military bases in the country.

But the government in Baghdad would not agree to the conditions set by the Pentagon.

And it seems neighboring Iran was a factor in those failed negotiations.

Marco Werman talks with the BBC’s Gabriel Gatehouse is in Baghdad.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I am Marco Werman. This is The World. The war in Iraq is coming to an end, or at least the US military intervention there is wrapping up. American troops are due out of Iraq by the end of next month. Washington had lobbied hard, and publicly, for a new agreement that would have allowed it to keep military bases in the country. But the government in Baghdad would not agree to the conditions set by the Pentagon. And it seems neighboring Iran was a factor in those failed negotiations. The BBC’s Gabriel Gatehouse is in Baghdad. Welcome to the program Gabriel.

Gabriel Gatehouse: Good to be with you.

Werman: So, you spoke with Saad Youssef al-Mutalabi who is a close personal adviser to the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Let’s hear a part of your conversation first of all.

Gatehouse: You must admit that Iran’s influence having been practically zero before in this country under Saddam Hussein is now really quite strong and quite widespread.

Saad Youssef al-Mutalabi: Oh, definitely. Yeah, Iranians are very, very close to the political scene here in Iraq now and they have influence. We see Iran as a big important neighbor. We do not need a war with them again, but we know that they were very much worried with the presence of the American troops in Iraq.

Gatehouse: We know that the Americans practically begged the Iraqi government to let them keep a certain number of troops, and yet the answer was no. Was that Iran?

al-Mutalabi: [Laughs] No. It’s not Iran, but it is taking Iran in consideration. We understand that there’s a certain sensitivity. And we do not want an excuse for the Iranians to intervene in Iraq on the pretext that you have American troops.

Gatehouse: For the Americans, it’s not a great result, is it?

al-Mutalabi: No, it isn’t. [Laughs] No, it is definitely not. The Americans made a number of mistakes and they are paying the price for it.

Werman: The BBC’s Gabriel Gatehouse in Bagdad speaking with an adviser to the Iraqi Prime Minister. Gabriel Gatehouse is joining us now from Bagdad. From your whole conversation with Mr. Mutalabi, what sense did you get of Iranian influence in Iraq today relative to the U.S. influence?

Gatehouse: Well, I mean, if Mr. Mutalabi’s account is credible, then the situation would appear to be as follows: The United States wanted to stay – Iran wanted them out, and Iran prevailed. Now, I think that is not a good scenario for the Pentagon, for Washington, because that basically means that in the sort of geo-political battles that are going on here in the region, they’ve lost out to Tehran.

Werman: Now you also spoke with U.S. Embassy spokesman Michael McClellan. How did he respond to those suggestions that the Iraqi government is more influenced by Iran than the U.S.?

Gatehouse: Well, Washington’s very, very sensitive State Department, very sensitive to any sense that U.S. aims may have failed strategically in the region, he flatly denied that it was an Iranian decision. He said it was a sovereign Iraqi decision and he was trying to spin that into a positive thing. He was saying, “Look, what we are leaving behind here is a sovereign country that is able to make its own decision. It’s one that can’t be pushed around by any country, not even the United States.” Now that is certainly an argument but I think many people, certainly here – Iraqis, would see that as Washington putting a positive spin on something that isn’t really terribly positive for them.

Werman: Right. Well let’s take a listen to that optimistic view on things from Embassy spokesman McClellan. Here’s another part of that conversation you had with him.

Gatehouse: I have not met a single Iraqi who would agree with your assessment that the past 8 1/2 years has been a huge success. Do you get out?

Michael McClellan: Yes, I get out quite a bit. And I would have to question your guest list if you are not talking to other people who don’t share that same opinion. There are problems in the country, nobody argues that.

Gatehouse: And you are becoming the scapegoat, rightly or wrongly, for every single problem. Isn’t that the case?

McClellan: Yes, and I would say a lot of that is wrongly. We have become the scapegoat for it because…

Gatehouse: But the perception is there.

McClellan: Yeah, that’s why we need to correct those perceptions.

Gatehouse: What are you doing to correct that?

McClellan: We have done a tremendous amount of good in this country and, frankly, it has touched the lives of almost every single person in this country. You are kind of looking at this as today is the end result of the project, if you will. And, are we satisfied with it? Well, no. We don’t see this as the end result. We are moving into a new phase of U.S./Iraqi relations. We are gonna see continued progress on this as more investment comes into the country, as democratic institutions are strengthened. So, I see this as a successful project.

Werman: A very lively interview there between Michael McClellan, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Bagdad and the BBC’s Gabriel Gatehouse. Gabriel, McClellan is talking about the start of a new chapter in the relationship with Iraq and hope for future progress. What do Iraqis make of that?

Gatehouse: Well, I think Iraq… I was just speaking to a very, very thoughtful man just literally a few hours ago, here in Bagdad. He’s the director of the national archive and I met him in a room full of books that once belonged to Saddam Hussein. And I put to him that this is incredible negativity out the American presence here pretty much across the board in Iraq. And he said one very interesting thing. He says, “You’ve got to distinguish between the invasion and the toppling of Saddam Hussein which the overwhelming majority of people here think was a good thing, and the subsequent what is seen here as an occupation, which is widely regarded as a disaster.” And then I asked him, I said, “Well, given the violence that followed the years of really terrible heartache and tragedy for so many people here, was it in the end worth it, do you think?” And he said, “Yes, without a shadow of a doubt.” I said, “Why?” He said, “Five minutes of freedom is better than a lifetime of oppression.”

Werman: You know, given everything that’s happened in Iraq in the last 8, 10 years, that comment is really the best that the United States could hope for, in a way.

Gatehouse: I think it really is. And perhaps, that spokesman for the Embassy is right. Perhaps, once the soldiers pull out which will take away that scapegoat, because at the moment Iraqis are quite misguidedly blaming Americans for everything, from all the explosions that still go on here on a weekly basis, from the sectarianism to the corruption that is rife in the government. They blame the Americans for all of that. Now once the American military leaves, the Iraqis will see whether or not America really is responsible and perhaps they will change their mind. So, perhaps there will be an opportunity for some kind of rapprochement, a new era of relations between America and Iraq.

Werman: The BBC’s Gabriel Gatehouse in Bagdad; thanks so much.

Gatehouse: My pleasure.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

US Army Photos From Iraq

• Follow Global Cartoons on Twitter @globalcartoons
• Find Global Cartoons on Facebook

US Infantryman Colin Kilcoyne in Iraq (Photo courtesy of the Kilcoyne family)

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World, a co-production of the BBC World Service, PRI, and WGBH in Boston. A new report out this week focuses on a very serious problem facing the U.S. military: suicide. The report is titled “Losing the Battle”. It highlights not only the personal costs to families, but also the risks for the military and the nation. We’re going to speak with one of the report’s authors in a few minutes. First, though, we’re going to hear one soldier’s story. Colin Kilcoyne from Northborough, Massachusetts joined the military when he was 17 years old; he volunteered for the infantry, and in 2007 he was deployed to Iraq as part of President Bush’s surge. But when Colin returned 15 months later, he was a changed man. He was troubled by what he had seen and done. In January of this year Colin took his life. He was just 25 years old. Colin’s mother Kathy is in the studio with us now. Thank you for coming in. And I am eager to hear what Colin was like when he was young before he went to Iraq. It sounds like he was a pretty ambitious guy to join the military at age 17.

Kathy Kilcoyne: He always liked the military and he was always fascinated by history and he constantly read about. You know, we’d have to tell him to turn off the History Channel. He was one of those kids who was never in front of other programs. It was like, œJust turn off the History Channel for a while. But the thing is, he loved history, he loved reenacting, it was a big part of his life.

Mullins: Reenacting being?

Kilcoyne: Actually, he was a British footguard, one of her Majesty’s first footguards. He started that when he was 12 years old. He used to reenact living history. He had a wonderful time with it and he made great friends in it and a lot of them ended up in the military with him. He continued on to National Guards with a member Chris Cunningham. They ended up in Iraq together, too. They ended up going full military.

Mullins: I’ve got to say that it sounds like he was a pretty serious guy, but I’ve seen the pictures. He was pretty funny.

Kilcoyne: Oh, he had a wonderful sense of humor. He was a character. I mean, he was your normal kid, I mean, he was not a saint. You know, he was a good person, had a wonderful heart.

Mullins: Not a saint meaning?

Kilcoyne: He would get in trouble; he was a devil at times, and he would joke. He was an all-around boy. He loved life. He had a wonderful time.

Mullins: One of the things that guys and women that go over there want immediately is the Combat Medal.

Kilcoyne: Yes.

Mullins: Especially for infantry. And he and his comrades got it after the first night. They first landed¦

Kilcoyne: They landed in a firefight. Yes, a direct fire. And he was very proud of that medal. In fact, to tell you the truth, that’s the only military item we buried him with, was his Combat Infantry Badge.

Mullins: Tell us what happened that night?

Kilcoyne: You mean the first night when they landed? They were in a firefight and he was a machine gunner at that point, and what he did was he saw was explosive devices were being planted, and so he was actually in a battle and he did fire and kill the man that was planting the explosives. And the next day they had to go off base and justify why it was done. He actually said he went and got the shovel and brought it back and said this is why he was killing them. But one of the things that Colin told me at the time was, later when he was home, was he felt very badly because when he went out the first man he killed he said, “Mom, I felt so bad. It wasn’t a clean shot.” He said, “That poor guy didn’t die right away.” He felt so badly about that thinking he must have suffered that night. And he said to me later that it was a big regret of his. He said, “ wish I got a clean hit.” And I never understood what he meant at the time and then he just said to me, “Mom, he bled to death.” You know, and even though it was enemy forces that were shooting at him, he still felt bad about thinking the other way. What this man went through. And one of the other great things he talked about later was he felt terrible about the children of the parents he had killed. He said, in terms of how they survive in that dark, poor country.

Mullins: Colin came back to Fort Stewart on July 4th of 2008. How about in terms of the help they needed psychiatrically, mental health counseling? Was any available there?

Kilcoyne: Not at the time. What they did was they brought these kids home and guys that had a place or had family off base were allowed to go off base, and these kids were left here to sort of unstructured, no schedule for a few days, and unfortunately, what I think it was was self-medicating with beer, booze, whatever, in terms of they were supposed to take classes the following week and they referred to them all jokingly as ‘Don’t Beat Your Wife Classes’. And what it was is it was just supposed to be post-traumatic stress, guidance counseling, and they spoke about things, but the one thing that they were told was “Don’t forget, if you want to stay in the army and you want to be an officer and be promoted, these things don’t look good on your record, so don’t”

Mullins: You mean getting counseling?

Kilcoyne: Getting counseling.

Mullins: Before the day that Colin took his life this past January was there any kind of spiral down or did this seem to come out of nowhere for you?

Kilcoyne: The cycles were off and on. I mean, in terms of, at one point, a few months before, what he had said was, he worked as a mechanic days, and what he said was, “My days are great. I just can’t stand the nights. I can’t take the nightmares.” So as far as when he was busy and working, things were better, and when he kept focused. But he had moments where he’d get a thing on his Facebook or whatever, and he’d go into a spiral and you’d see, “Oh, my God. It was the anniversary of when the four guys got killed. I can’t believe I forgot it was today. How could I ever forget? It was the worst day!” And when he was with my son in law at that point he mentioned, “Well, I think that’s a sign of improvement, Coll, that you didn’t think about it right away today. That shows improvement.” And he said, “No, no one ever should forget a day like that.” So that went into a spiral at that point, when he remembered the four friends that were killed.

Mullins: Where – do you mind if I ask how he died?

Kilcoyne: He shot himself in the lower level of Caitlin’s home. She went out that night with her husband and he had been living with his sister. She was wonderful to him, and he lived there, had a great time. He loved them. He stayed there basically for the last year, a full year. He just moved in with her and they sort of joked about it. They gave my husband a surprise birthday party, sort of told her that day when it was a year ago that summer, “Oh, by the way, Cate, I think I’m going to give my formal notice. I’m moving into your basement today.” And she had a living room downstairs and a bedroom and things like that, and that’s where he stayed.

Mullins: How are you and your husband doing now?

Kilcoyne: You have good days and you have bad days. I mean, in terms of we have a lot of wonderful memories, and like I said, the last two years were a blessing; we were lucky to have them. And that gives us strength. But the frustration level when the President’s speaking on TV and talking about different things and I just think, “Oh, you don’t have a clue. You know, they don’t understand.” Or they talk about look at these vets, these poor guys. Even when I go down the street and see the homeless now, I keep looking and thinking we have a whole new generation of homeless vets coming up. We’re looking at our friends that were in Vietnam still struggling. Or at Colin’s wake we had soldiers come that were Green Berets in Vietnam, men that we really respect, and they said, “We’ve been getting counseling for the last few years,” and these were guys that served 30 years ago.

Mullins: Does it get you upset that you make the sacrifice he made the sacrifice? Your family has and others don’t?

Kilcoyne: Well, I don’t think it has upset me as much as the fact that I think we’ve gotten to realize that it was a privilege in some ways. That he was that good, and that we really didn’t quite understand the depth of his loyalty at times. But I think in terms of that’s what makes this country continue. It’s the boys just like him. All of his friends were the same way. They all volunteered for the infantry. This is not a draft army. They all knew what they were walking into and they accepted it. At times they were angry at how things were going, but it was their choice. And I’m sure if we could do it all over again, it would be the exact same path.

Mullins: Okay. Kathy Kilcoyne whose son Colin served 15 months in Iraq from 2007 to 2008. He took his life in January of this year. It was very good to have you here and talk to you. Thank you.

Kilcoyne: Oh, thank you for listening. Thank you, Lisa.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

You can listen to our interview with Dr. Margaret Harrell, one of the authors of “Losing the Battle: The Challenge of Military Suicide” here.

David Hamod (left) of the National US-Arab Chamber of Commerce and Naufel Al-Hassan, commercial counselor with the Iraqi embassy (Photo: Seattle Trade Alliance)

In a conference room 25 floors above downtown Seattle, about 40 business people in suits are looking at a map of the Middle East, learning about business opportunities in the region.

David Hamod, president of the National US-Arab Chamber of Commerce, stands in front of the group making the case for investing in Iraq.

He talks about consumer spending, a booming youth culture, “mega projects” moving forward, and internationally-educated Arab leaders.

Add it all up, and Hamod says within two years Iraq will be the fourth largest Middle Eastern market for US goods.

I heard Hamod speak at the first of several business roundtables focused on investment opportunities in Iraq that the US-Arab Chamber is putting on across the country. The speakers talked about things like the need for a million new housing units in Iraq, and all the doorknobs, windows, and bolts that come with that.

After the presentation, which was hosted by several Washington state business groups including the Trade Development Alliance of Greater Seattle, I asked Hamod: Why would an American business consider Iraq? After all, there are easier places to make a buck.

“Well, the short answer is that if the oil is flowing, it’s a guaranteed source of revenues for the government,” said Hamod.

The Iraqi government will make some purchases directly. For example, the government has already ordered 40 planes from Boeing.

With all that oil money sloshing around, some of it’s bound to get in the pockets of the middle class, argues Bhaskar Chakravorti, the senior associate dean for international business and finance at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. And he said, those Iraqis want American products.

“This is one of the biggest business opportunities that exist anywhere in the world today.”

Iraq sits on the fifth largest oil reserves in the world, up to 150 billion barrels. But Chakravorti said those estimates are 30 years old.

“A lot of geologists believe that the real number is somewhere close to 300 billion barrels, which would make Iraq the largest source of oil, bigger than Saudi Arabia.”

And it’s not just oil money that Iraq has going for it.

“Iraq is a country with people who are actually quite entrepreneurial, a reasonably large middle class, and no royal family. All these things are good,” said Chakravorti.

Sounds promising. But this is Iraq we’re talking about. It’s still an extremely violent place. And there won’t be any US troops there by year’s end. Chakravorti is well aware of all this.

“The problems are going to be there. And anybody who goes in has to be aware of those problems, has to be aware of the fact that you have to navigate a maze of complexities that range all the way from violence, to corruption, to risk of all kinds. And not even understanding the local mores and customs.”

This seemed to somewhat undermine what Chakravorti was saying about huge business opportunities. So, bottomline: Should an American company consider working in Iraq?

“Bottomline? I would say the answer is yes,” said Chakravorti. “And this kind of goes back to the principle rules of investing: With high risk, comes high reward.”

In Seattle, Jim Seymour was intrigued by that message. He’s the owner of Key Pharmacy Compounding, a Washington state drug manufacturer. He’s exported drugs to South Africa and the United Kingdom and is looking to expand.

“I never would’ve dreamed Iraq, but we’re interested in wherever the market is.”

I asked Seymour though: Wasn’t he concerned about safety?

“No.”

Enough said.

Companies doing business in Iraq can take out insurance, hire locals to handle business, and contract with private security guards.

Iraqi officials are hoping more people are thinking like pharmacist Jim Seymour.

Naufel Al-Hassan, commercial counsellor with the Embassy of the Republic of Iraq in Washington DC, said, “Many American companies, or international companies, when they look at the Iraq market, they probably view Iraq 2011 in the eye of 2005 or 2006 when we were in a very difficult time.”

Al-Hassan says he understands that Iraq is not in a perfect position, but violence has ebbed. And the economy has stabilized.

“The Iraqis (are) making more money than they used to probably 10 years ago or 20 years ago, so there is a lot of liquidity within the consumers. People start making a lot of money and start asking to purchase a lot of products.”

It’s not exactly a time of certainty though in Iraq. Nobody knows what will happen once the last US troops leave.

Still, investment analysts remain upbeat about the long-term prospects. Looking out 10 or 15 years, there’s a lot of money to be made in Iraq.

He ordered a complete withdrawal from the country, nearly nine years after the invasion under President George W Bush.

About 39,000 US troops remain in Iraq, down from a peak of 165,000 in 2008.

The US and Iraq were in “full agreement” on how to move forward, Mr Obama said, adding: “The US will leave Iraq with its head held high.”

Before the speech the White House said: “This will allow us to say definitively that the Iraq war is over,” and said the US and Iraq would work as two sovereign nations.

Anchor Lisa Mullins discusses the announcement with former New York Times Baghdad bureau chief John Burns.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World. President Barack Obama today announced that all US troops in Iraq will leave the country by the end of this year. The president made the announcement after speaking through video conference with Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad. Mr. Obama left open the possibility of future US military help for Iraq, but he made clear that he’s set on plans to pull American troops out of Iraq completely by the end of December.

Barack Obama: After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over. Over the next two months, our troops in Iraq, tens of thousands of them, will pack up their gear and board convoys for the journey home. The last American soldier will cross the border out of Iraq with their heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops. That is how America’s military efforts in Iraq will end.

Mullins: President Obama speaking earlier today. John Burns has spent over twenty years covering Iraq. He’s the former New York Times Bureau Chief in Bhagdad. He’s now in London. John, about President Obama’s announcement today, how do you look back on all that’s transpired since 2003 and how are you hearing this announcement?

John Burns: Well it’s a momentous occasion of course. An occasion which America has longed for, I think, in it’s great majority. It’s fought, of course, with danger and complications, not the least of which is getting the troops out.

Mullins: Maybe talk, John, as well about the enterprise itself. When we look at how many American troops alone, I think it’s about a million troops have passed through Iraq since 2003. A forty thousand remain. We’re talking about more than four thousand at least US troops that died in Iraq. What are we left with right now as President Obama makes this announcement of the final withdrawal?

Burns: Well, it struck me that the President did leave the door open in his remarks by talking, saying that they would be continuing discussions about the training program and that suggests that there might be some residual presence. Not, obviously, the three to five thousand troops that have been in discussion and not combat troops and it seems to me that Iraq will enter into a new phase of great danger when the last American troops go because, in effect, those diminishing number of US troops, and they have been out of major combat operations now for some time, were the tripwire. They were the guarantee against real political mayhem in Iraq. Nothing political has been resolved in Iraq. Let’s remember that. The fissures which bedeviled the American occupation from the beginning have never been resolved. Your listeners will be very familiar what the, with what those are. Sectarian, political, ideological, you name it. It’s a very fractured society. It hasn’t mended and there is a grave danger that Iraq could slide back into the sort of situation that we saw in 2005, in 2006 when Iraq, as you know, was plummeting towards an all-out civil war. We may hope that the Iraqis have learned that the lessons of that time and will not wish to return to it. The vast majority of them don’t, but there are some very sinister characters on the Iraqi political scene. Not the least of them is Muqtada al-Sadr, the very man who has made it impossible for the present Iraqi government to make an arrangement with Washington to keep a residual troop presence there. So I think that we have to be alert to the possibility, not perhaps immediate, but certainly within a matter of months of the political center in Iraq beginning to disintegrate.

Mullins: John Burns, former New York Times Bureau Chief in Baghdad. He’s now in London. Nice to speak with you.

Burns: It’s a pleasure.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.