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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
