BAGHDAD, March 30 (Reuters) - A surge of violence in Iraq in the past week demonstrated the ability of al Qaeda to strike virtually anywhere at will with a seemingly limitless supply of explosives and suicide bombers to wreak chaos.
The bombings claimed 300 lives, with one attack triggering mass reprisal killings by Shi’ites, making it the bloodiest week since the launch of a major U.S.-backed security crackdown in Baghdad in mid-February aimed at curbing sectarian violence.
The top U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, accused Sunni Islamist al Qaeda on Friday of barbarity and said it was trying “to ignite sectarian violence” between minority Sunnis and majority Shi’ites and derail efforts to unify Iraqis.
Amid fears the country is being dragged ever closer to the brink of all-out civil war, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki called for restraint, urging Iraqis not to allow themselves to be divided by “evil doers”.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
RUSSIAN INTEL SEES US MILITARY BUILD-UP ON IRAN BORDER
Global Research, March 28, 2007
MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.
"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched. He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."
He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003....
A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf. The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006. The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.
MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.
"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched. He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."
He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003....
A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf. The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006. The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.
Monday, March 26, 2007
AMBASSADOR KHALILZAD BIDS FAREWELL TO IRAQ
Ashley Gilbertson for The New York TimesBAGHDAD, March 25 — The senior American envoy in Iraq, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, held talks last year with men he believed represented major insurgent groups in a drive to bring militant Sunni Arabs into politics.
Mr. Khalilzad’s willingness even to approach rebel groups seemed at odds with the public position of some Bush administration officials that the United States does not negotiate with insurgents.... In general, Mr. Khalilzad was given great flexibility in making diplomatic decisions to try to rein in the spiraling violence, and his talks with insurgents reflected the practical view of Iraqi politics that the ambassador adopted throughout his nearly two-year tenure here.
In another sign of pragmatism, the ambassador reiterated in the interview his position that the American and Iraqi governments had to consider granting amnesty to insurgents. “This is something that we and Iraqis, the government, will do together, and there are various types of amnesties,” he said. “But the fundamental point, the goal of bringing the war to an end, the most important tribute we could pay to our soldiers who have lost their lives here would be that the cause they fought for would be embraced and accepted by their former enemies, by those who fought them.”
....Mr. Khalilzad’s efforts to woo the Sunni Arabs have infuriated many politicians in the ruling Shiite bloc, including Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. Shiite leaders increasingly see the Americans as trying to check the power of the majority Shiites. That could push them closer to Iran, which is ruled by Shiite Persians.
After the Samarra bombing of February 2006, Mr. Khalilzad began saying that killings largely attributed to Shiite militias were more destabilizing than violence by Sunni insurgents.
Displeased with the hard-line Shiite attitude of Ibrahim al-Jaafari, then the prime minister, Mr. Khalilzad helped engineer Mr. Jaafari’s ouster, only to see Mr. Jaafari replaced by a party deputy, Mr. Maliki, who is beholden to the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr.
Some Shiite leaders began calling Mr. Khalilzad by the Sunni nickname of “Abu Omar.”
“He didn’t transfer real power to the Iraqis,” said Hassan al-Sineid, a Shiite legislator and adviser to Mr. Maliki. “He wasn’t cooperative enough with the Iraqi government in any field.”
....Mr. Khalilzad and his colleagues, the critics say, were so fixated on meeting the political timetable laid out by the White House that they pushed through a document that may have inflamed the Sunni-led insurgency by enshrining strong regional control. The Constitution reaffirms Sunni Arab beliefs that Shiites and Kurds want oil and territory.
“The Constitution is the source of the problem,” said Fakhri al-Qaisi, a hard-line Sunni Arab politician who was among 15 Sunni advisers on the Constitution. “It’s a sectarian document.”
Western officials who have examined the Constitution say the Sunni Arabs have a right to be concerned: the document’s language skews authority vastly in favor of the regions.
http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=OTU5MTQ2NDY=
Khalilzad leaves Iraq with nation on knife edge
Published Date: March 26, 2007 By Steven R Hurst AP
On his first day as US ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad said Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Sunni insurgents wanted to start a civil war. He leaves his post this week with the US military and Iraqi security forces battling to prevent a sectarian conflagration in Baghdad.
"I have been very saddened and concerned that the level of violence has been as high, sectarian violence in particular has been a grave threat," said the 56-year-old envoy, who has been nominated by President George W Bush as the next US envoy to the United Nations. Khalilzad has deep conservative credentials and led the transition team at the Pentagon at the start of the first Bush administration.
US military deaths have fallen since the crackdown began Feb 14, but the percentage of US forces killed in Baghdad is up sharply as American troops vastly expand their presence on the streets of the capital.....Sunni and Al-Qaeda fighters have pulled off several spectacular bombings. The numbers are down slightly from pre-crackdown days, but the insurgents are still pulling off high-profile attacks. On Thursday, a Katyusha rocket slammed into the Green Zone about 50 yards from where UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was holding a press conference with Al-Maliki. There were no serious casualties but videotape of Ban, ducking and looking frightened by the explosion, dominated television screens.
A day later, an insurgent suicide bomber got within feet of one of Iraq's two deputy prime ministers, Salam Al-Zubaie, wounding the top Sunni official seriously and killing nine others during Friday prayers at the private mosque attached to his home. While Khalilzad was able to persuade Al-Maliki to give American forces a free hand in the security operation and to keep the Mahdi Army largely out of sight, the US envoy has had a difficult relationship with the Iraqi leader. A particularly rough patch arose in October when Khalilzad and then-US commander Gen. George Casey held a news conference in which the ambassador laid out a series of timelines for political reform. Al-Maliki publicly rebuked Khalilzad, claiming he had not been consulted and that Washington was trying to impose its will on his government. At one point during the dispute Al-Maliki declared that while he was a friend of the United States, "I am not America's man in Iraq". That angry period was papered over through Khalilzad's diplomacy while Washington and Baghdad hammered out the details of the latest security crackdown. During past efforts to curb violence in the capital, Al-Maliki had regularly intervened on behalf of the Mahdi Army. This time he didn't.
....Ali al-Alaq, a senior lawmaker from Al-Maliki's Dawa Party, said Khalilzad was biased in favour of fellow Sunnis: "We hope the new ambassador will be more even-handed with all Iraq's sects." But Barham Salah, one of two deputy prime ministers and a Kurd, whose people have benefited greatly from the American presence, saw it otherwise: "At times, he seemed to care for the success of the new Iraq more than some Iraqi leaders did and he leaves with the admiration of Iraqis, even those he disagreed with." -- AP
Thursday, March 22, 2007
TURKEY CONSIDERS ACTION IN IRAQ
(update note: On March 27 it is reported that Iraqi and Turkish authorities had direct meetings and Turkey was reassured that incursions would be stopped.)RAW STORY Published: Thursday March 22, 2007 Turkey says that 3,800 Kurdistan Workers' party (PKK) guerrillas are preparing for attacks in south-east Turkey, and that it is "ready to hit back if the Americans fail to act," reports the Guardian Unlimited. Senior Bush administration officials, meanwhile, have assured Turkey that the US will step up efforts in Northern Iraq to root out PKK fighters.
Faruk Logoglu, a former Turkish ambassador to Washington, warned that military intervention by Turkey in the region could be "disastrous" in terms of destabilizing the region. Speaking about US support for Iranian Kurds opposed to the Tehran he added, "Once you begin to differentiate between 'good' and 'bad' terrorist organisations, then you lose the war on terror."
US SENATE SETS WAR DEADLINE IN BILL
Pullout Deadline Moves With War Bill
Washington Post
WASHINGTON (AP) - A Senate committee approved a $122 billion measure Thursday financing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but also defies President Bush by calling on him to pull combat troops out of Iraq by next spring. The bill, approved by a voice vote, is similar to one the House began debating Thursday.
Both measures have drawn veto threats from the White House, which has said Congress must allow more time for the U.S. troop increase in Iraq to work.
Democrats, who have been trying to figure out how to pressure Bush to wind down the war, said the withdrawal language was necessary to force the Iraqi government to take more responsibility. It would require U.S. troops to begin leaving Iraq within four months of passage, and would set a nonbinding goal of March 31, 2008, for the removal of combat troops.
The New York Times:
Congress’s Challenge on Iraq
The House of Representatives now has a chance to lead the nation toward a wiser, more responsible Iraq policy. It is scheduled to vote this week on whether to impose benchmarks for much-needed political progress on the Iraqi government ù and link them to the continued presence of American combat forces. The bill also seeks to lessen the intolerable strains on American forces, requiring President Bush to certify that units are fit for battle before sending any troops to Iraq. Both of these requirements are long overdue. The House should vote yes, by an overwhelming, bipartisan margin.
....House Democrats have wisely moved beyond their earlier infatuation with mere deadlines. The benchmarks spelled out in this legislation, which also provides the next round of money for the war, require that the Iraqi government stop shielding and encouraging the Shiite militias that are helping drive the killing. United States and Iraqi security forces must be allowed to pursue all extremists, Shiite and Sunni, disarm sectarian militias and provide “evenhanded security for all Iraqis.” The benchmarks also require the Iraqi government to take measurable steps toward national reconciliation: equitably distributing oil revenues, opening up more political and economic opportunities to the Sunni minority and amending the constitution to discourage further fragmentation.
.... It would require the president to provide Congress, by July, with an initial detailed report on Iraq’s efforts to meet these benchmarks. By October, the Iraqi government would have to complete a specific set of legislative and constitutional steps. Failure to meet these deadlines would trigger the withdrawal of all American combat forces ù but not those training Iraqis or fighting Al Qaeda ù to be concluded in April 2008. If the benchmarks were met, American combat forces would remain until the fall of 2008.
The measure would also bar sending any unit to Iraq that cannot be certified as fully ready. It sets a reasonable 365-day limit on combat tours for the Army and a shorter 210-day combat tour limit for the Marines. As for how many troops can remain in Iraq ù until the House’s deadlines for withdrawal ù the legislation imposes no reduction on the level of roughly 132,000 in place at the start of this year.
Critics will complain that the House is doing the Pentagon’s planning. But the Pentagon and Mr. Bush have clearly failed to protect America’s ground forces from the ever more costly effects of extended, accelerated and repeated deployments. If Iraq’s leaders were truly committed to national reconciliation and reining in their civil war, there would be no need for benchmarks or deadlines. But they are not. If Mr. Bush were willing to grasp Iraq’s horrifying reality, he would be the one imposing benchmarks, timetables and readiness rules. He will not, so Congress must. American troops should not be trapped in the middle of a blood bath that neither Mr. Bush nor Iraq’s leaders have the vision or the will to halt.
Washington Post
WASHINGTON (AP) - A Senate committee approved a $122 billion measure Thursday financing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but also defies President Bush by calling on him to pull combat troops out of Iraq by next spring. The bill, approved by a voice vote, is similar to one the House began debating Thursday.
Both measures have drawn veto threats from the White House, which has said Congress must allow more time for the U.S. troop increase in Iraq to work.
Democrats, who have been trying to figure out how to pressure Bush to wind down the war, said the withdrawal language was necessary to force the Iraqi government to take more responsibility. It would require U.S. troops to begin leaving Iraq within four months of passage, and would set a nonbinding goal of March 31, 2008, for the removal of combat troops.
The New York Times:
Congress’s Challenge on Iraq
The House of Representatives now has a chance to lead the nation toward a wiser, more responsible Iraq policy. It is scheduled to vote this week on whether to impose benchmarks for much-needed political progress on the Iraqi government ù and link them to the continued presence of American combat forces. The bill also seeks to lessen the intolerable strains on American forces, requiring President Bush to certify that units are fit for battle before sending any troops to Iraq. Both of these requirements are long overdue. The House should vote yes, by an overwhelming, bipartisan margin.
....House Democrats have wisely moved beyond their earlier infatuation with mere deadlines. The benchmarks spelled out in this legislation, which also provides the next round of money for the war, require that the Iraqi government stop shielding and encouraging the Shiite militias that are helping drive the killing. United States and Iraqi security forces must be allowed to pursue all extremists, Shiite and Sunni, disarm sectarian militias and provide “evenhanded security for all Iraqis.” The benchmarks also require the Iraqi government to take measurable steps toward national reconciliation: equitably distributing oil revenues, opening up more political and economic opportunities to the Sunni minority and amending the constitution to discourage further fragmentation.
.... It would require the president to provide Congress, by July, with an initial detailed report on Iraq’s efforts to meet these benchmarks. By October, the Iraqi government would have to complete a specific set of legislative and constitutional steps. Failure to meet these deadlines would trigger the withdrawal of all American combat forces ù but not those training Iraqis or fighting Al Qaeda ù to be concluded in April 2008. If the benchmarks were met, American combat forces would remain until the fall of 2008.
The measure would also bar sending any unit to Iraq that cannot be certified as fully ready. It sets a reasonable 365-day limit on combat tours for the Army and a shorter 210-day combat tour limit for the Marines. As for how many troops can remain in Iraq ù until the House’s deadlines for withdrawal ù the legislation imposes no reduction on the level of roughly 132,000 in place at the start of this year.
Critics will complain that the House is doing the Pentagon’s planning. But the Pentagon and Mr. Bush have clearly failed to protect America’s ground forces from the ever more costly effects of extended, accelerated and repeated deployments. If Iraq’s leaders were truly committed to national reconciliation and reining in their civil war, there would be no need for benchmarks or deadlines. But they are not. If Mr. Bush were willing to grasp Iraq’s horrifying reality, he would be the one imposing benchmarks, timetables and readiness rules. He will not, so Congress must. American troops should not be trapped in the middle of a blood bath that neither Mr. Bush nor Iraq’s leaders have the vision or the will to halt.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
A NEW GOVERNMENT IN IRAQ?
Despite denials from Washington, there are growing signs that the Bush administration has issued threats to its puppet government in Baghdad to meet US-dictated “benchmarks” or face the consequences. The White House aims not only to end the military disaster in Iraq and open up the country’s oil for exploitation, but to fashion an Iraqi regime more supportive of US preparations for aggression against Iran.
Associated Press reported on Wednesday that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki feared the Bush administration would “torpedo” his government if it failed to meet US demands. The article highlighted a US threat to withdraw support from the government if it failed to pass a draft hydrocarbons law by the end of June that would open up Iraqi oil and gas fields to American corporations.
Associated Press reported on Wednesday that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki feared the Bush administration would “torpedo” his government if it failed to meet US demands. The article highlighted a US threat to withdraw support from the government if it failed to pass a draft hydrocarbons law by the end of June that would open up Iraqi oil and gas fields to American corporations.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
A HAPPY SAINT PATRICK'S DAY AT THE PENTAGON
Today we joined the marchers at the Pentagon. It was a very cold and blustery day, but folks were sticking it out and strong in spirit. We met some folks who had been in the Peace movement for a long time, but the most significant meeting was with folks who were older Americans, registered Republicans and military men, who were joining in protest for the first time or who had just recently become active in the Iraq anti-war movement. Everyone we saw was well-behaved and attentive to the speakers. They had spent a long time marching and it was very cold. Many had been at the Cathedral the night before and had protested at the White House. One man we spent time with was arrested at the White House. It was his first act of civil disobedience. He is a life-long Republican, a veteran, and from Minnesota. He is a veterinarian who came to question the war when he saw a report from his congressman about the plight of Afghanistan(is) two years after the war. He believes the President has been wrong in taking us into Iraq. Another man is a Naval Academy graduate and veteran of many years' experience. He is working hard to get the war stopped. The two men pictured together did not know each other, but we asked them to pose for a joint picture. We had struck up conversation with both of them.
THIS WAR IS BRINGING OUT ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE WHO QUESTION ITS MORALITY AND MERITS. IT HAS BEEN FORTY-TWO YEARS SINCE I TOOK PART IN A WASHINGTON PEACE MARCH. IT FELT SCARY AGAIN, WITH THE HELICOPTERS OVERHEAD AND THE POLICE EVERYWHERE, BUT I AM GLAD I WAS ABLE TO BE THERE.
Friday, March 16, 2007
FRIENDLY FIRE BLOWS COVER: PLANE...FLAMES
...On Friday, Plame, 43, finally offered her inside account, testifying before a congressional committee that she felt like she had been "hit in the gut" when her once-secret identity appeared in the media, and she accused the Bush administration of "recklessly" blowing her cover.
Plame answered lingering questions about her husband's role in investigating one of the Bush administration's most alarming prewar claims about Iraq and provided new details on the maneuvering between the White House and the CIA in the run-up to the war.
....'We in the CIA always know we might be exposed by foreign enemies," Plame said. "It was a terrible irony that administration officials were the ones who destroyed my cover."
Plame said she was at home when she learned her name had been published in a column by Robert Novak. She said her husband threw a copy of the newspaper on the bed and said, "He did it," meaning Novak had printed her name. "I felt like I had been hit in the gut," she said.
Plame also said she immediately recognized and was subsequently informed by a superior -- that her clandestine career was over.
Plame answered lingering questions about her husband's role in investigating one of the Bush administration's most alarming prewar claims about Iraq and provided new details on the maneuvering between the White House and the CIA in the run-up to the war.
....'We in the CIA always know we might be exposed by foreign enemies," Plame said. "It was a terrible irony that administration officials were the ones who destroyed my cover."
Plame said she was at home when she learned her name had been published in a column by Robert Novak. She said her husband threw a copy of the newspaper on the bed and said, "He did it," meaning Novak had printed her name. "I felt like I had been hit in the gut," she said.
Plame also said she immediately recognized and was subsequently informed by a superior -- that her clandestine career was over.
..."My name and identity were carelessly and recklessly abused by senior officials in the White House and State Department,'' Plame testified. "I could no longer perform the work for which I had been highly trained.''
Plame said she had no role in sending her husband on a CIA fact-finding trip to Niger. Wilson said in a newspaper column that his trip debunked the administration's prewar intelligence that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa.
"I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority,'' she said.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
ANNIVERSARY PROTEST OF THE WAR IN IRAQ MARCH 17, 2007
By Sarah KarushASSOCIATED PRESS 4:06 p.m. March 16, 2007 WASHINGTON – Thousands of people gathered for a Christian anti-war worship service Friday night at the Washington National Cathedral, kicking off a weekend of protests around the country to mark the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq. The service was to be followed by a candlelight march to Lafayette Park, across from the White House. Organizers of the event said more than 700 people have volunteered to risk arrest by crossing the street and demonstrating on the sidewalk in front of the White House. “Millions of people around the world sadly believe this is a Christian war,” said the Rev. Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners/Call to Renewal, one of the groups sponsoring the event. “We have to clear up the confusion.”
Civil rights historian Taylor Branch, who planned to participate, said it is important for churches to be leaders in the anti-war movement. “It seems to me sad that Christians so easily have put aside our core beliefs, that we love our enemies and we do not believe in violence,” said Branch, a Presbyterian elder. Other organizations behind the event include the American Friends Service Committee, Lutheran Peace Fellowship, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas and two dozen Protestant and Catholic groups. The Friday night events mark the beginning of a weekend of protests. On Saturday the group will join others and stage a protest and march to the Pentagon.
MISERY OF LIFE FOUND IN SADR CITY
US soldiers stunned by misery of life in Sadr City
RYAN LENZ IN SADR CITY, BAGHDAD
UNITED States soldiers sent to Baghdad's notorious Shiite stronghold of Sadr City arrived ready for a fight with the al-Mahdi Army militia.
Yet instead of violence, they are facing an even bigger problem - a vast, crowded slum where years of misery and government neglect have created conditions for the militias to thrive.
....In a capital where public services barely function and five straight hours of electricity is a cause for celebration, Sadr City stands out. Some 2.5 million people, nearly all of them Shiites, live in the northeastern Baghdad community. Many of them lack running water and proper sewerage. Hundreds of thousands have no jobs and subsist on monthly food rations, a throwback to the international sanctions of the Saddam Hussein era.
Streets in some parts of Sadr City run black with sludge. Damaged power lines provide, at best, only four hours of electricity a day.
Many US soldiers were unprepared for what they found. During a patrol last week, troops brushed flies from their faces as they drove through rotting heaps of refuse and excrement that were piled outside houses. One soldier opened his Humvee's door and vomited.
Improving the quality of life for Iraqis - including those in Sadr City - is part of the American strategy, articulated by the new US commander, General David Petraeus. Once areas have been rid of insurgents, criminals and death squads, the US hopes to pump in cash to encourage small businesses and revive the local economy.
RYAN LENZ IN SADR CITY, BAGHDAD
UNITED States soldiers sent to Baghdad's notorious Shiite stronghold of Sadr City arrived ready for a fight with the al-Mahdi Army militia.
Yet instead of violence, they are facing an even bigger problem - a vast, crowded slum where years of misery and government neglect have created conditions for the militias to thrive.
....In a capital where public services barely function and five straight hours of electricity is a cause for celebration, Sadr City stands out. Some 2.5 million people, nearly all of them Shiites, live in the northeastern Baghdad community. Many of them lack running water and proper sewerage. Hundreds of thousands have no jobs and subsist on monthly food rations, a throwback to the international sanctions of the Saddam Hussein era.
Streets in some parts of Sadr City run black with sludge. Damaged power lines provide, at best, only four hours of electricity a day.
Many US soldiers were unprepared for what they found. During a patrol last week, troops brushed flies from their faces as they drove through rotting heaps of refuse and excrement that were piled outside houses. One soldier opened his Humvee's door and vomited.
Improving the quality of life for Iraqis - including those in Sadr City - is part of the American strategy, articulated by the new US commander, General David Petraeus. Once areas have been rid of insurgents, criminals and death squads, the US hopes to pump in cash to encourage small businesses and revive the local economy.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
MORE TROOPS, MORE TROOPS, DEJA VU, DEJA VU
By Peter Baker, Washington Post Staff Writer. Sunday, March 11, 2007; Page A01 ANCHORENA PARK, Uruguay, March 10 — President Bush approved 8,200 more U.S. troops for Iraq and Afghanistan on top of reinforcements already ordered to those two countries, the White House said Saturday, a move that comes amid a fiery debate in Washington over the Iraq war.
The president agreed to send 4,700 troops to Iraq in addition to the 21,500 he ordered to go in January, mainly to provide support for those combat forces and to handle more anticipated Iraqi prisoners. He also decided to send a 3,500-member brigade to Afghanistan to accelerate training of local forces, doubling his previous troop increase to fight a resurgent Taliban.
Although officials had foreshadowed the additional forces for Iraq in recent days, the latest troop increase in Afghanistan had not been known and will bring U.S. forces there to an all-time high. The deployments underscore the challenges facing the United States in both countries and further stretch an already strained military. In Iraq particularly, the moves could fuel suspicions that a troop increase initially described as a temporary “surge” may grow larger and last longer than predicted.
The president agreed to send 4,700 troops to Iraq in addition to the 21,500 he ordered to go in January, mainly to provide support for those combat forces and to handle more anticipated Iraqi prisoners. He also decided to send a 3,500-member brigade to Afghanistan to accelerate training of local forces, doubling his previous troop increase to fight a resurgent Taliban.
Although officials had foreshadowed the additional forces for Iraq in recent days, the latest troop increase in Afghanistan had not been known and will bring U.S. forces there to an all-time high. The deployments underscore the challenges facing the United States in both countries and further stretch an already strained military. In Iraq particularly, the moves could fuel suspicions that a troop increase initially described as a temporary “surge” may grow larger and last longer than predicted.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
MALIKI DOES NOT WANT IRAQ TO BE A BASE FOR PROXY WARS; NEW BASE FOR US IN SADR CITY
In his opening speech, Maliki said all those with a stake in peace of the Middle East should stand firm against terrorism in Iraq. "We call on all to take moral responsibility by adopting a strong and clear stance against terrorism in Iraq and cooperate in stamping out forces of terror," Maliki said. "Confronting terrorism means halting any form of financial support and media or religious backing, as well as logistical support and the flow of arms and men who transform themselves into bombs that kill our children, women and elders, and destroy our mosques and churches," he added.
...(US Ambassador) Khalilzad urged Iraq's neighbours to do more to stop the flow of fighters, weapons and sectarian propaganda contributing to the violence, saying the future of Iraq and the Middle East was the defining issue of the moment. -20-
MEANWHILE IN SADR CITY ..........Al-Melaf cites a senior security official that said U.S. troops are in the process of building one of the largest military bases in Baghdad in the middle of Sadr City, the Mahdi Army's stronghold. The source said that U.S. military officers met with city elders who overwhelmingly approved the U.S. decision, which they said would largely improve security in their district. According to the website, construction of the base will start soon and will employ a large number of the city's impoverished youth.
...(US Ambassador) Khalilzad urged Iraq's neighbours to do more to stop the flow of fighters, weapons and sectarian propaganda contributing to the violence, saying the future of Iraq and the Middle East was the defining issue of the moment. -20-
MEANWHILE IN SADR CITY ..........Al-Melaf cites a senior security official that said U.S. troops are in the process of building one of the largest military bases in Baghdad in the middle of Sadr City, the Mahdi Army's stronghold. The source said that U.S. military officers met with city elders who overwhelmingly approved the U.S. decision, which they said would largely improve security in their district. According to the website, construction of the base will start soon and will employ a large number of the city's impoverished youth.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
PUSH FOR NEW GOVERNMENT IN IRAQ BEGINS
BAGHDAD -- The secular former prime minister and U.S. favorite Ayad Allawi is leading a new push to replace the Shiite-led administration of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki with a broad-based government that would focus on restoring order.Amid deepening concerns among Sunnis and secularists about al-Maliki's performance, Allawi has emerged at the center of an initiative to create a "national salvation front," which his supporters say would be able to secure the backing of Iraqi insurgents, reunite the country and end the sectarian conflict that has prevailed for more than a year. Petraeus reiterated the view expressed by military commanders in the past that, ultimately, a resolution of the conflict in Iraq will require political reconciliation between the factions. "That is what will determine in the long run the success of this effort. And again, that clearly has to include talking with and eventually reconciling differences with some of those who have felt that the new Iraq did not have a place for them," he said."Prime Minister Maliki clearly believes that it does, and I think that his actions will demonstrate that," Petraeus added.
Amy Goodman interviews Wesley Clark
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.
I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”
I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Iraq’s Draft Petroleum Law: Two Perspectives
(this) paper was presented by Tariq Shafiq at a conference for Iraqi oil technocrats in 'Amman on 17 February. Mr Shafiq, a principal drafter of the petroleum law, is director of Petrolog & Associates, Chair Fertile Crescent Oil Company, and a former Executive Director and Vice Chairman of Iraq National Oil Company....
Iraq may prove to have one of the largest petroleum resource bases in the world, with potential oil reserves in excess of 215bn barrels and proven reserves in the region of 115bn barrels, which puts it on par with Saudi Arabia. Moreover, its exploration and development costs are amongst the lowest in the Middle East....
The law is investment friendly. It encourages private enterprise and welcomes international oil companies (IOCs) to work in partnership with the Iraq National Oil Company (INOC). The IOCs have a recognized role to play in the transfer of up-to-date state-of-the-art technology, the technical and managerial training of Iraqis, and in providing investment capital.
Iraq may prove to have one of the largest petroleum resource bases in the world, with potential oil reserves in excess of 215bn barrels and proven reserves in the region of 115bn barrels, which puts it on par with Saudi Arabia. Moreover, its exploration and development costs are amongst the lowest in the Middle East....
The law is investment friendly. It encourages private enterprise and welcomes international oil companies (IOCs) to work in partnership with the Iraq National Oil Company (INOC). The IOCs have a recognized role to play in the transfer of up-to-date state-of-the-art technology, the technical and managerial training of Iraqis, and in providing investment capital.
The third draft also stipulates that oil and gas exploration and development programs need to be distributed geographically. However, while social justice may require this, nature unfortunately does not, as oil and gas are not equally distributed in all the provinces. The checks and balances in the third draft are now insufficient to cope with Iraq’s internal political complications, leaving the jurisdiction of the authorities and the processes for granting rights open to political manipulation....
.... Further, and critically for the future of Iraq’s oil and gas industry, the draft would shift balance of power in the management of Iraq’s oil and gas resource alarmingly from the center to the regions. .... The critical items that have been removed in the third draft are fundamental to professionalism, transparency and accountability. The principles are still there, but the mechanisms for enforcing them in Iraq’s current turbulent situation have been removed or circumvented.
Iraqi Oil Law Gives Cover for Corporate Profit
By Emad Mekay, IPS News. http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/48605/
The U.S.-backed Iraqi cabinet approved a new oil law Monday that is set to give foreign companies the long-term contracts and safe legal framework they have been waiting for, but which has rattled labour unions and international campaigners who say oil production should remain in the hands of Iraqis. For example, it specifies that up to two-thirds of Iraq's known reserves would be developed by multinationals, under contracts lasting for 15 to 20 years.
This policy would represent a u-turn for Iraq's oil industry, which has been in the public sector for more than three decades, and would break from normal practice in the Middle East.
According to local labour leaders, transferring ownership to the foreign companies would give a further pretext to continue the U.S. occupation on the grounds that those companies will need protection.
Union leaders have complained that they, along with other civil society groups, were left out of the drafting process despite U.S. claims it has created a functioning democracy in Iraq.
Under the production-sharing agreements provided for in the draft law, companies will not come under the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts in the event of a dispute, nor to the general auditor.
The ownership of the oil reserves under this draft law will remain with the state in form, but not in substance, critics say.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
US ARRESTS 500+ IRANIANS IN IRAQ
U.S. Has Arrested More Than 500 Iranians In Iraq And Pursued Others Into Iran
By Sherwood Ross
The Cold War between the U.S. and Iran is heating up.
U.S. military and special-operations teams "have escalated their activities in Iran to gather intelligence" and reportedly "have also crossed the border in pursuit of Iranian operatives from Iraq," according to investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in an article in the March 5 issue of "The New Yorker" magazine.
"The U.S. military also has arrested and interrogated hundreds or Iranians in Iraq," Hersh reported, including humanitarian aid workers mistakenly scooped up and released after interrogation.
Hersh quotes a former senior intelligence aide stating: "The word went out last August for the military to snatch as many Iranians in Iraq as they can. They had five hundred locked up at one time. We're working these guys and getting information from them."
The intelligence source added, "The White House goal is to build a case that the Iranians have been fomenting the insurgency and they've been doing it all along--- that Iran is, in fact, supporting the killing of Americans."
By Sherwood Ross
The Cold War between the U.S. and Iran is heating up.
U.S. military and special-operations teams "have escalated their activities in Iran to gather intelligence" and reportedly "have also crossed the border in pursuit of Iranian operatives from Iraq," according to investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in an article in the March 5 issue of "The New Yorker" magazine.
"The U.S. military also has arrested and interrogated hundreds or Iranians in Iraq," Hersh reported, including humanitarian aid workers mistakenly scooped up and released after interrogation.
Hersh quotes a former senior intelligence aide stating: "The word went out last August for the military to snatch as many Iranians in Iraq as they can. They had five hundred locked up at one time. We're working these guys and getting information from them."
The intelligence source added, "The White House goal is to build a case that the Iranians have been fomenting the insurgency and they've been doing it all along--- that Iran is, in fact, supporting the killing of Americans."
WAR AND INSURGENCY CONTINUES IN IRAQ
NEW YORK TIMES:
IN BAGHDAD SECTARIAN LINES TOO DEADLY TO CROSS
BAGHDAD, March 3 — After centuries full of vibrant interaction, of marrying, sharing and selling across sects and classes, Baghdad has become a capital of corrosive and violent borderlines. Streets never crossed. Conversations never started. Doors never entered.
Sunnis and Shiites in many professions now interact almost exclusively with colleagues of the same sect. Sunnis say they are afraid to visit hospitals because Shiites loyal to the cleric Moktada al-Sadr run the Health Ministry, while Shiite laborers who used to climb into the back of pickup trucks for work across the Tigris River in Sunni western Baghdad now take jobs only near home.
Sybaa Street used to be wall-to-wall people: sidewalks were crammed with shoppers, and roads were snarled with cars. In the heart of central Baghdad, Sybaa was known as the road to get from the automotive shops on one side of the market district to the hardware stores on the other. Back then — as recently as two years ago, residents said — no one seemed to care that it was the border between the mostly Sunni neighborhood of Fadhil and the largely Shiite areas to the south, Sadriya and Sheik Omar.
But that has all changed. After six months of fighting between Sunnis and Shiites, Sybaa Street is now deserted and forsaken. On a recent afternoon, the only sign of life was a lone mechanic working inside a dark garage, his efforts lighted by a single bulb. Bullets from earlier battles punctured nearly everything — buildings, utility poles, even rusted mufflers hanging outside shuttered shops.
Um Shaima, 48, a garrulous Sunni widow who used to sell yogurt in the Sadriya market, lives just north of Sybaa Street in Fadhil. She said she used to visit the stores there for clothes. Her cousin Samir worked for years on the Sadriya side of Sybaa Street as a mechanic without any trouble.
Then a few months ago, Ms. Shaima said, he received a threat. “They told him, ‘You are a Sunni, and all Sunnis are infidels and their women are prostitutes, so stop coming to Sadriya or you will be killed,’ ” she said.
“He didn’t listen,” she added. The next day, he was kidnapped. Witnesses said Shiite militants yanked him off his motorcycle and threw him in the trunk of a sedan. “They called his wife at 9 a.m. the next day,” Ms. Shaima said, “telling her that they will kill all the Sunnis, and your husband is dead.”
“He didn’t listen,” she added. The next day, he was kidnapped. Witnesses said Shiite militants yanked him off his motorcycle and threw him in the trunk of a sedan. “They called his wife at 9 a.m. the next day,” Ms. Shaima said, “telling her that they will kill all the Sunnis, and your husband is dead.”
Insurgents strike as Iraq vows to avenge slain cops and March 10 conference is planned published: Saturday March 3, 2007:
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Insurgents_strike_as_Iraq_vows_to_a_03032007.html
A suicide car bomber killed 12 people in an attack on a checkpoint in western Iraq on Saturday, as the embattled government vowed to avenge the murder of 14 kidnapped policemen. South of Baghdad, suspected members of another Sunni faction shot dead six men who dared to attend local reconciliation talks between Sunnis and Shiites.
Shortly afterwards, a coalition of insurgent groups led by Al-Qaeda said in an Internet message that the hostages would be killed to avenge the alleged rape of a Baghdad Sunni woman by Shiite police. Late on Friday, a second message said the killings had been carried out and promised that a video of the murders would be released.
A suicide car bomber killed 12 people in an attack on a checkpoint in western Iraq on Saturday, as the embattled government vowed to avenge the murder of 14 kidnapped policemen. South of Baghdad, suspected members of another Sunni faction shot dead six men who dared to attend local reconciliation talks between Sunnis and Shiites.
Shortly afterwards, a coalition of insurgent groups led by Al-Qaeda said in an Internet message that the hostages would be killed to avenge the alleged rape of a Baghdad Sunni woman by Shiite police. Late on Friday, a second message said the killings had been carried out and promised that a video of the murders would be released.
In the village of Al-Mshahda, just south of Baghdad, a defence official said suspected members of the Islamic Army of Iraq, a Sunni group linked to members of Saddam Hussein's former regime murdered six men who in January had braved death threats to attend peace talks between local Shiite and Sunni factions.
Lieutenant General Thamer Sultan, a Sunni who serves as an adviser Defence Minister Abdel Qader Jassim Mohammed, was snatched in the Jamiaa district of western Baghdad, a defence official said.
US and Iraqi officials confirmed that this week Iraqi and American troops will build their first permanent base in the Baghdad Shiite militia bastion of Sadr City, a joint security station at the edge of the slum district. It was a similar story in Ramadi, which Al-Qaeda has declared to be the capital of an "Islamic Emirate of Iraq," where residents reported that US forces had sealed all entrances to the city.
"The Americans have recently contacted Iran through different channels requesting talks about Iraqi issues and in particular that country's security. We are studying these proposals," he said on state television. There was no initial confirmation of this from Washington, but the White House has previously said it will send envoys to a March 10 conference of Iraq and its neighbours, including Iran, and has not ruled out contacts. The move is seen as a potential policy shift for the United States, which also accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons and of supporting terrorists and illegal militias in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere.
U.S. forces enter Sadr City
Associated Press, http://www.startribune.com/722/story/1032838.html
Last update: Sunday, March 04, 2007 – 7:33 AM
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Hundreds of U.S. soldiers entered the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City on Sunday in the first major push into the area since an American-led security sweep began last month around Baghdad. Soldiers conducted house-to-house searches, but met no resistance in a district firmly in the hands of the Mahdi Army militia led by radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, said Lt. Col. David Oclander.
A spokesman for Sadr's bloc in parliament, Falah Hassan, said there was "no reason" for such a "provocative act." "We told (Prime Minister Nouri) al-Maliki that if there is an arrest operation against anyone, it should be done by Iraqi forces," Hassan said. "We understood that Iraqi forces only would conduct the search and if they faced resistance, then U.S. forces could intervene," he said. "But that was not the case with today's operation." Sadr City presents one of the most difficult steps in the security sweeps that began Feb. 14.
Also Sunday, a kidnapped Iraqi defense official was freed after Iraqi security forces stormed a house where he had been held, a government spokesman said. Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Mousawi said Iraqi agents were acting on a tip when they raided a house in western Baghdad near where Lt. Gen. Thamir Sultan, a Defense Ministry adviser, was abducted a day earlier. He was freed, and all four of his captors were arrested, al-Mousawi said.
Lieutenant General Thamer Sultan, a Sunni who serves as an adviser Defence Minister Abdel Qader Jassim Mohammed, was snatched in the Jamiaa district of western Baghdad, a defence official said.
US and Iraqi officials confirmed that this week Iraqi and American troops will build their first permanent base in the Baghdad Shiite militia bastion of Sadr City, a joint security station at the edge of the slum district. It was a similar story in Ramadi, which Al-Qaeda has declared to be the capital of an "Islamic Emirate of Iraq," where residents reported that US forces had sealed all entrances to the city.
"The Americans have recently contacted Iran through different channels requesting talks about Iraqi issues and in particular that country's security. We are studying these proposals," he said on state television. There was no initial confirmation of this from Washington, but the White House has previously said it will send envoys to a March 10 conference of Iraq and its neighbours, including Iran, and has not ruled out contacts. The move is seen as a potential policy shift for the United States, which also accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons and of supporting terrorists and illegal militias in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere.
U.S. forces enter Sadr City
Associated Press, http://www.startribune.com/722/story/1032838.html
Last update: Sunday, March 04, 2007 – 7:33 AM
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Hundreds of U.S. soldiers entered the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City on Sunday in the first major push into the area since an American-led security sweep began last month around Baghdad. Soldiers conducted house-to-house searches, but met no resistance in a district firmly in the hands of the Mahdi Army militia led by radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, said Lt. Col. David Oclander.
A spokesman for Sadr's bloc in parliament, Falah Hassan, said there was "no reason" for such a "provocative act." "We told (Prime Minister Nouri) al-Maliki that if there is an arrest operation against anyone, it should be done by Iraqi forces," Hassan said. "We understood that Iraqi forces only would conduct the search and if they faced resistance, then U.S. forces could intervene," he said. "But that was not the case with today's operation." Sadr City presents one of the most difficult steps in the security sweeps that began Feb. 14.
Also Sunday, a kidnapped Iraqi defense official was freed after Iraqi security forces stormed a house where he had been held, a government spokesman said. Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Mousawi said Iraqi agents were acting on a tip when they raided a house in western Baghdad near where Lt. Gen. Thamir Sultan, a Defense Ministry adviser, was abducted a day earlier. He was freed, and all four of his captors were arrested, al-Mousawi said.
Friday, March 2, 2007
INSURGENTS POWER RISING, WHILE US REALIGNS ITS IRAQI COALITIONS
written by Michael Roston
....Evan Kohlmann, who produces the "terrorist communique clearinghouse" GlobalTerrorAlert.com, spoke to Salon's Kevin Berger in an interview published this morning. The failure of the US after the bombing of the Samarra mosque to try to control the rise of Shi'a militias caused them to go "on a rampage," and cemented the power of the insurgent groups among the Sunni population of the country, he argued.
February 26, 2007 Weekly Commentary from empirenotes.com: A Truly Frightening Development
....Once again, Seymour Hersh has uncovered a remarkable and frightening story about the shadowy netherworld of U.S. military and intelligence operations. It’s not about war with Iran. It is about something almost equally dangerous – a strategic realignment of the United States against Shi’a groups throughout the region, which involves working closely in concert with Saudi Arabia to help numerous extremist Sunni groups. According to Hersh, Secretary of State Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the division between “moderates” and “extremists” in the Middle East pits Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia on one side and Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah on the other – a not very subtly coded way of dividing between Sunni and Shi’a (the Syrian Alawites are an offshoot of Shi’ism and, though a minority, have been in political control for over four decades). Apparently, with Saudi Arabia’s help, the United States is helping extremist Sunni groups in Lebanon, including some with al-Qaeda-type ideologies and quite possibly affiliations in order to undermine Hezbollah and in Syria is considering flirting with the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandfather of modern Sunni extremism, which was brutally crushed in 1982 by Hafez al-Assad but has seen a resurgence in recent years. Iraq is a more complicated case and the picture is murkier. The ill-considered shift to a colonial occupation followed by the ill-considered shift to nominal sovereignty has left the United States fundamentally dependent on cooperation with the Shi’a organizations that form the ruling coalition in the government. In recent weeks, the United States has managed to severely antagonize both the Sadrists and their main Shiite allies, Abdulaziz al-Hakim’s Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, but things will remain in a state of partial belligerence and partial cooperation.It is a mistake to take the view of reality held by Hersh’s typical sources – dissidents and mavericks within the U.S. “national security” establishment – as reality, but, on the other hand, there are times when there is no other way to get information about clandestine U.S. operations.So take this with a grain of salt, but it does appear very credible and it makes at least some sense of the administration’s current stance in Iraq – although that “sense” conceals a vast stupidity verging on insanity. It is particularly funny to consider the past month’s muddled and garbled claims regarding Iran by the Bush administration in light of this “redirection” that Hersh writes of. Somehow, Iran was the source of “explosively formed penetrators” that are killing U.S. soldiers, even though if Iran is giving weapons to anyone in Iraq it is to the Badr organization associated with SCIRI, which doesn’t fight U.S. soldiers. Somehow, in the fevered imaginations of Bush administration officials, Iran was arming its deadly enemies, the Salafi extremist (i.e., Sunni) groups fighting the United States in Western Iraq, Baghdad, and a few other areas, and also creating mass carnage among Shi’a civilians with spectacular suicide bombings. Well, Iran is probably not crazy enough to be deliberately aggrandizing groups that are its own sworn enemies and the enemies of Iran’s allies in Iraq. The only country crazy enough, it seems, to repeatedly fund and arm groups that are virulently opposed to it is the United States. In the 1980’s, this happened in Afghanistan. Working closely with the Saudis, the United States helped to create tens of thousands of extremist militants, spread across the Arab world, many of whom were caught up in a jihadist ideology and were extremely anti-American; among the Afghans, they also gave the most funding to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s faction, the most ideologically anti-American of all (he is currently an ally of the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan).20 years later, apparently the United States is doing exactly the same thing all over again, assured that this time there will be no untoward consequences like the creation of al-Qaeda, because the Saudis have assured them that they “can control it.” Although I remain inclined to believe a serious military attack on Iran is not in the cards, this clandestine lunacy based still on the profound American ignorance of the people and societies of the region bids fair to further polarize and destabilize a very troubled region, lead to much loss of life, and increase the longstanding legacy of hostility toward the United States. A fitting strategy for a group that has been characterized as the “Mayberry Machiavellis.”
....Evan Kohlmann, who produces the "terrorist communique clearinghouse" GlobalTerrorAlert.com, spoke to Salon's Kevin Berger in an interview published this morning. The failure of the US after the bombing of the Samarra mosque to try to control the rise of Shi'a militias caused them to go "on a rampage," and cemented the power of the insurgent groups among the Sunni population of the country, he argued.
February 26, 2007 Weekly Commentary from empirenotes.com: A Truly Frightening Development
....Once again, Seymour Hersh has uncovered a remarkable and frightening story about the shadowy netherworld of U.S. military and intelligence operations. It’s not about war with Iran. It is about something almost equally dangerous – a strategic realignment of the United States against Shi’a groups throughout the region, which involves working closely in concert with Saudi Arabia to help numerous extremist Sunni groups. According to Hersh, Secretary of State Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the division between “moderates” and “extremists” in the Middle East pits Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia on one side and Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah on the other – a not very subtly coded way of dividing between Sunni and Shi’a (the Syrian Alawites are an offshoot of Shi’ism and, though a minority, have been in political control for over four decades). Apparently, with Saudi Arabia’s help, the United States is helping extremist Sunni groups in Lebanon, including some with al-Qaeda-type ideologies and quite possibly affiliations in order to undermine Hezbollah and in Syria is considering flirting with the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandfather of modern Sunni extremism, which was brutally crushed in 1982 by Hafez al-Assad but has seen a resurgence in recent years. Iraq is a more complicated case and the picture is murkier. The ill-considered shift to a colonial occupation followed by the ill-considered shift to nominal sovereignty has left the United States fundamentally dependent on cooperation with the Shi’a organizations that form the ruling coalition in the government. In recent weeks, the United States has managed to severely antagonize both the Sadrists and their main Shiite allies, Abdulaziz al-Hakim’s Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, but things will remain in a state of partial belligerence and partial cooperation.It is a mistake to take the view of reality held by Hersh’s typical sources – dissidents and mavericks within the U.S. “national security” establishment – as reality, but, on the other hand, there are times when there is no other way to get information about clandestine U.S. operations.So take this with a grain of salt, but it does appear very credible and it makes at least some sense of the administration’s current stance in Iraq – although that “sense” conceals a vast stupidity verging on insanity. It is particularly funny to consider the past month’s muddled and garbled claims regarding Iran by the Bush administration in light of this “redirection” that Hersh writes of. Somehow, Iran was the source of “explosively formed penetrators” that are killing U.S. soldiers, even though if Iran is giving weapons to anyone in Iraq it is to the Badr organization associated with SCIRI, which doesn’t fight U.S. soldiers. Somehow, in the fevered imaginations of Bush administration officials, Iran was arming its deadly enemies, the Salafi extremist (i.e., Sunni) groups fighting the United States in Western Iraq, Baghdad, and a few other areas, and also creating mass carnage among Shi’a civilians with spectacular suicide bombings. Well, Iran is probably not crazy enough to be deliberately aggrandizing groups that are its own sworn enemies and the enemies of Iran’s allies in Iraq. The only country crazy enough, it seems, to repeatedly fund and arm groups that are virulently opposed to it is the United States. In the 1980’s, this happened in Afghanistan. Working closely with the Saudis, the United States helped to create tens of thousands of extremist militants, spread across the Arab world, many of whom were caught up in a jihadist ideology and were extremely anti-American; among the Afghans, they also gave the most funding to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s faction, the most ideologically anti-American of all (he is currently an ally of the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan).20 years later, apparently the United States is doing exactly the same thing all over again, assured that this time there will be no untoward consequences like the creation of al-Qaeda, because the Saudis have assured them that they “can control it.” Although I remain inclined to believe a serious military attack on Iran is not in the cards, this clandestine lunacy based still on the profound American ignorance of the people and societies of the region bids fair to further polarize and destabilize a very troubled region, lead to much loss of life, and increase the longstanding legacy of hostility toward the United States. A fitting strategy for a group that has been characterized as the “Mayberry Machiavellis.”
deja vu: PENTAGON WANTS MORE TROOPS IN IRAQ
Officials: Iraq surge needs more troops
WASHINGTON, Mar. 2 (UPI) -- Pentagon officials told a U.S. Senate committee as many as 28,500 troops will be needed for the Bush administration's planned Iraq surge.
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told the Senate Budget Committee Thursday that 6,000 to 7,000 additional troops will be needed to support the 21,500 Bush plans to send to Iraq, USA Today reported Friday. England said it will be apparent in the space of a few months whether the troop surge helps to secure the war-torn country.
"By this summer we would have a much better indication in terms of the success of the program," England said. "And so at that time we would adjust however is appropriate to do so."
Adm. Edmund Giambastiani, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said requests for 2,400 support troops to supplement the surge have been granted and requests have been filed for 4,000 more.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated in February that 28,000 additional troops will be needed to support the escalation.
WASHINGTON, Mar. 2 (UPI) -- Pentagon officials told a U.S. Senate committee as many as 28,500 troops will be needed for the Bush administration's planned Iraq surge.
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told the Senate Budget Committee Thursday that 6,000 to 7,000 additional troops will be needed to support the 21,500 Bush plans to send to Iraq, USA Today reported Friday. England said it will be apparent in the space of a few months whether the troop surge helps to secure the war-torn country.
"By this summer we would have a much better indication in terms of the success of the program," England said. "And so at that time we would adjust however is appropriate to do so."
Adm. Edmund Giambastiani, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said requests for 2,400 support troops to supplement the surge have been granted and requests have been filed for 4,000 more.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated in February that 28,000 additional troops will be needed to support the escalation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
