The myth of sovereignty Imagine the president of the United States flying to Russia, China, England, France or just about any other nation on the planet, landing at an airport on supposedly sovereign territory, being driven under heavy U.S. military protection to the U.S. Embassy, and then with some five minutes notification, summoning the highest elected official of that nation to the U.S. Embassy for a meeting. It would never happen, unless of course the nation in question is Iraq, where Iraqi sovereignty continues to be hyped as a reality when in fact it is as fictitious as any fairy tale ever penned by the Brothers Grimm. For all of the talk of a free Iraq, the fact is Iraq remains very much an occupied nation where the United States (and its ever decreasing "coalition of the willing") gets to call all the shots.

Iraqi military policy is made by the United States. Its borders are controlled by the United States. Its economy is controlled largely by the United States. In fact, there simply isn't a single major indicator of actual sovereignty in Iraq today that can be said to be free of overwhelming American control. Iraqi ministers continue to be shot at by coalition forces, and Iraqi police are powerless to investigate criminal activities carried out by American troops (or their mercenary counterparts, the so-called "Private Military Contractors"). The reality of this myth is that the timeline for the departure of American troops from Iraq is being debated (and decided) in Washington, D.C., not Baghdad. Of course, as with everything in Iraq, the final vote will be made by the people of Iraq. But these votes will be cast in bullets, not ballots, and will bring with them not only the departure of American troops from Iraq, but also the demise of any Iraqi government foolish enough to align itself with a nation that violates international law by planning and waging an illegal war of aggression, and continues to conduct an increasingly brutal (and equally illegitimate) occupation.

The myth of Zarqawi I have said all along that the poll figures showing Americans to be overwhelmingly against the war in Iraq were illusory. Only 28 percent of Americans were against the war when we invaded Iraq. The ranks have swelled to over 60 percent not because there has been an awakening of social conscience and responsibility, but rather because things aren't going well in Iraq, and there is increasing angst in the American heartland because we seem to be losing the war in Iraq, and no one likes a loser. So when the word came that the notorious terrorist, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, was killed by American military action, the president suddenly had a "good week," and poll numbers adjusted slightly in his favor. However, the facts cannot be re-written, even by a slavish American mainstream media. Zarqawi was never anything more than a minor player in Iraq, a third-rate Jordanian criminal whose exploits were hyped up by a Bush administration anxious to prove that the insurgency that was getting the best of America in Iraq was foreign-grown and linked to the perpetrators of the 9/11 terror attacks nonetheless. The reality of just how wrong such an assessment is (and was) has been pounded home in blood. Since Zarqawi's death, the violence has continued to spiral out of control in Iraq, with Americans continuing to die, Iraqis still being slaughtered, and Zarqawi and his organization, successor and all, still as irrelevant to reality as ever. The war against the American occupation in Iraq is being fought overwhelmingly by Iraqis. The insurgency is growing and becoming stronger and more organized by the day. This, of course, is a reality that the Bush administration cannot afford to have the American people know about in an election year, as a compliant media, having sold its soul to the devil in hyping of the virtues of an invasion of Iraq back in 2002-2003, continues to dance with the party that brought them by supporting the Republican position, by and large, that the conflict in Iraq is a winnable one for America. Good ratings, more dead Americans (and Iraqis, but who is counting?) and a war that will never end until the United States finally slinks out, defeated, its tail tucked firmly between its legs.

The myth of WMD Regardless of what Sen. Rick Santorum and the lunatic neoconservative fringe want to think, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. Citing a classified Department of Defense report that claims some 500 artillery shells have been found in Iraq by U.S. forces since the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq in March 2003, Santorum and his cronies in the right-wing media have been spouting nonsense about how Bush got it right all along, that there were WMD in Iraq after all. He conveniently fails to report that there is nothing "secret" about this data, it has all been reported before (by the Bush administration, nonetheless), and that the shells in question constitute old artillery munitions manufactured well prior to 1991 (the year of the first Gulf War, and a time after which the government of Saddam Hussein stated -- correctly, it turned out -- that no WMD were produced in Iraq). The degraded sarin nerve agent and mustard blister agent contained in the discovered munitions had long since lost their viability, and as such represented no threat whatsoever. Furthermore, the haphazard way in which they were "discovered" (lying about the ground, as opposed to carefully stored away) only reinforces the Iraqi government's past claims that many chemical munitions were scattered about the desert countryside in remote areas following U.S. bombing attacks on the ammunition storage depots during the first Gulf War. Having personally inspected scores of these bombed-out depots, I can vouch for the veracity of the past Iraqi claims, as well as the absurdity of the claims made today by Santorum and others, who continue to hold personal political gain as being worth more than the blood of over 2,500 dead Americans.

These three myths -- WMD, Zarqawi and Iraqi sovereignty -- are what members of Congress should be debating in their halls of power, the American media should be discussing either in print or across the airwaves, and that discussion should constitute the foundation of a movement towards accountability, where the citizens of the United States finally point an accusatory finger at those whom they elected to represent them in higher office, and who have failed in almost every regard when it comes to Iraq. But then again, silly me for thinking this way, believing that there was an engaged constituency within America that knows and understands the Constitution of the United States and seeks to live each day as a true citizen empowered by the ideal and values set forth by that document. I had overlooked the Fourth Myth -- that American citizens are engaged in our national debate.

Scott Ritter served as chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until his resignation in 1998. He is the author of, most recently, "Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the U.N. and Overthrow Saddam Hussein" (Nation Books, 2005).

Miller and his wife, Jessica Holbrook, were initially married at a county building in June 2005, but Miller had said in a Jan. 29 story in the San Francisco Chronicle that he wished he could give his wife the wedding she had always wanted. Readers responded by contributing toward a $15,000 wedding June 3 at a golf course clubhouse near his hometown of Pikeville.

But by June 12, Miller and his bride were living apart, according to court papers. Miller filed for divorce on June 20, saying the marriage was "irretrievably broken."

Miller was discharged from the Marines in 2005 and has spoken in newspaper interviews about suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, which is often characterized by flashbacks, nervousness and nightmares.

"I'm just sad for them," said Eunice Davis of Pleasanton, Calif., who spearheaded the contributions, which included a pair of wedding rings from a jeweler. "It must be a very difficult time and a very difficult decision."

Miller and his wife have unlisted numbers and could not be reached for comment by The Associated Press on Monday. Miller's attorney, Michael de Bourbon, declined to comment.

In Sunday's Appalachian News-Express of Pikeville, Miller said he had filed for divorce, "but I'm still trying to resolve my problems with my wife."

"I would like to start by saying I'm trying to take things one day at a time," he continued. "I can't stress enough what it's like to deal with PTSD and every other day problems."

Pikeville wedding planner Missy McCoy, who helped with the arrangements, said she was saddened by the news.

"They've been through a lot," McCoy said. "They're a sweet couple I hope they can work it out."

"Your release today is part of the prime minister's national reconciliation plan," Iraq's national security advisor Muwaffaq al-Rubaie told them. "This is not a political game, it is a sincere attempt of reconciliation and to unite Iraq."

A US military spokesman in charge of detainee operations said all those released since Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki first spoke of a national reconciliation initiative on June 6 are suspected of being involved in the insurgency but have committed no violent crimes like bombing, killing, torture and kidnapping.

One of the items in Maliki's 24-point reconciliation programme presented to parliament Sunday promises amnesty to detainees who have committed no crimes.

Senator Carl Levin, the senior Democrat on the armed services committee, said Americans would be outraged by any suggestion that those involved in killing US soldiers would be forgiven.

"This would just be unconscionable," he said. "For heaven's sake! We liberated the country. We got rid of a horrific dictator. We've paid a tremendous price."

Following Mr Maliki's announcement, US news bulletins ran interviews with families of some of the soldiers killed in Iraq (at least 2500 since the start of the war in 2003), all of whom expressed outrage that these killers might be pardoned.

The White House cautiously welcomed the reconciliation plan, which urges insurgents to lay down their arms and join the political process. It promises amnesty to those opponents who have not targeted civilians and have not committed war crimes.

Mr Maliki's plan does not spell out what constitutes a terrorist, nor does it spell out which groups would be eligible for a pardon, but merely says that "to those who want to rebuild our country, we offer an olive branch".

A White House spokesman, Ken Lisaius, said he could not comment on which insurgents would be "forgiven" because those plans were still being developed. "Reconciliation must be an Iraqi process, led by Iraqis," he said. "We stand ready to assist this effort if the Iraqis request our help."

But Democrats made it clear that they were united in their opposition to any amnesty for insurgents who had killed US soldiers, with even the most anti-war and liberal among them, such as Senator Russ Feingold, condemning any reconciliation with "killers of Americans".

While the White House remained silent, Bush Administration officials told reporters that it had been made clear to the Iraqi Government that any reconciliation process that pardoned insurgents who had targeted US soldiers but not those who killed Iraqi forces would be unacceptable.

On the one hand, given the pressure the Administration is under to hand over carriage of the war against the insurgency to the Iraqi Government and security forces, it is keen to support Mr Maliki's plan and not be seen to be interfering with the elected government of Iraq.

On the other hand, it knows that Americans will be outraged if the lives of US soldiers are seen to be worth less than the lives of Iraqi soldiers and police.

Meanwhile, military officials confirmed a report in The New York Times that General George Casey, the US commander in Iraq, had presented the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and President George Bush with a plan that could see the US force of 127,000 in Iraq cut by more than half by the end of next year.

But they made it clear that implementation of the plan, which could start with the withdrawal of 8000 soldiers in September and another 28,000 by the end of the year, was contingent on "events on the ground".

The grim assessment came two days after Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki unveiled a reconciliation plan aimed at tackling the Sunni Arab insurgency and easing sectarian bloodshed.

In fresh violence, a car bomb exploded at a petrol station in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk, killing at least three people and wounding 21, police said.

Police said the death toll climbed to 18 from a blast on Monday near a market in the Shiite village of Khairnabat, near Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) northeast of Baghdad.

Three policemen were killed and three wounded when a roadside bomb exploded near their patrol in southeastern Baghdad, Interior Ministry sources said.

SYSTEMATIC BLOODSHED

While bombings claim lives nearly every day, systematic sectarian killings force Iraqis to flee their homes, causing demographic upheaval in a country where many districts are a mix of Shiites and Sunnis and other communities.

The figure of 150,000 displaced does not include those who have sought refuge with relatives or fled abroad.

Already a problem due to the post-war anarchy, the refugee crisis worsened after the February 22 bombing of a Shiite shrine in the town of Samarra. That set off reprisals and pushed Iraq close to a full-blown communal conflict.

"Displacement since the February 22 bombing of the Samarra shrine has equally affected all of Iraq's diverse communities on a nationwide basis," said UNAMI.

The problem has been likened to the "ethnic cleansing" of the Balkans in the 1990s.

Sectarian violence, which kills 30-50 people a day in Baghdad alone, has forced Sunnis to flee north and Shiites to head south, finding safety in numbers in areas heavily populated by their own sectarian groups.

Some fear the Tigris River, between mainly Shiite east and Sunni west Baghdad, could become a frontline like Beirut's 1980s "Green Line" if Maliki fails to stop the killings.

U.S. and Iraqi military operations in the western Sunni insurgent stronghold of Ramadi also forced families to flee.

"In the last fortnight alone, 3,200 families have fled Ramadi to neighboring towns as a result of the military operations there," said UNAMI.

That bombing followed a blast in a marketplace in the city of Hillah, south of Baghdad, government officials said. The market, near the site of ancient Babylon, was full of shoppers at the time of the blast.

The bomb was reportedly left in a bag.

Several people who survived the blast threw stones at police to express their anger over the lack of security in the predominately Shia city.

Hillah has been targeted before. On Feb. 28, 2005, a suicide car bomb targeting police and national guard recruits killed 125 people.

It is still unclear how many people were killed in this blast.

Interior Ministry sources in Baghdad, citing Hilla police, told Reuters that 17 people had been killed and 25 were wounded by the bomb. But a Hilla police spokesman said only six were dead, and hospital sources said 56 were wounded.

Police officers at the scene said at least 30 people were killed, Reuters reported.