IRAQ

A Critical Stage in Iraq - David Ignatius, Washington Post opinion

Iraq hasn't gotten much attention recently in the American presidential campaign, thanks to the reduction in violence there, but US policymakers are increasingly worried about what's ahead.

The negotiations to complete a new status-of-forces agreement for US troops are deadlocked. With a Dec. 31 deadline approaching, Baghdad and Washington seem to be running out of bargaining room. The Iraqis are determined to assert their sovereignty through legal jurisdiction over US forces, while American officials are demanding broad protections from Iraqi law until US troops are gone in 2011.

US officials are warning that if the talks remain stalled, there isn't an easy Plan B, such as a new UN Security Council resolution to replace the one that expires at year's end and now provides the legal mandate for American troops.

"I've tried to make clear the consequences of not getting a SOFA agreement," Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, told me in a telephone interview yesterday. "The Iraqis should be under no illusion that a rollover of the UN resolution would be an easy option." He said the United States would refuse anything but a clean, one-year extension of the current UN mandate -- meaning that the Iraqis would lose the gains they have won in the new status-of-forces agreement.

More at The Washington Post.

Iraq

In Sadr City, a Repressed but Growing Rage - Washington Post
Iraqi Cabinet Urges Further Negotiation on Draft Accord - Washington Post
Iraq Leaving Pact's 'Backbone' Untouched - Washington Times
Blow to US-troop Withdrawal from Iraq - The Times
US Warns Iraq to Accept Security Deal - Daily Telegraph
Gates Warns Over Troops in Iraq Pact Delay - Agence France-Presse
Kuwait-Iraq Diplomacy Blooms Again - Los Angeles Times
Russia Backs Keeping US Force in Iraq - New York Times
Bomb Kills 9 People in Baghdad - Associated Press

QUOTE OF THE DAY

Twenty-five years ago a suicide bomb destroyed the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. We remember the 241 American Marines, soldiers, and sailors who lost their lives in that attack, and we pay tribute to their families and loved ones. The US forces in Lebanon were serving as part of the Multinational Force working to bring peace and security to that country, torn by years of civil war.

On the anniversary of this unconscionable attack, we honor the memory of those brave servicemen and women through our commitment to succeeding in the war on terror. We express our gratitude to those serving abroad to protect America and promote peace and freedom around the world. And we reiterate our strong support for the voices of moderation and justice in Lebanon.

IRAQ

Iraq Takes Over 12th Province From US - Voice of America

The US military has transferred control of Iraq's once-violent Babil province to Iraqi forces, making it the 12th of 18 provinces returned to Iraqi control.

During a handover ceremony Thursday, the number two US commander in Iraq, Lieutenant General Lloyd Austin said security gains in the central province, south of Baghdad have been remarkable, with attacks declining 80 percent over the past year.

Iraq's National Security Advisor, Mowaffaq al-Rubaie said the handover is proof Iraqi forces in Babil have reached self-sufficiency. The White House press secretary, Dana Perino said the transfer was another example of improving security.

More at Voice of America, Washington Post and Daily Telegraph.

Iraq

Iran's President Urges Iraqis to Reject US Security Pact - Voice of America
Rice Dismisses Iran's Concern for Iraq - Agence France-Presse
Bomber Kills 11 in Attack on Iraqi Official - New York Times
Iraq Takes Over - Daily Telegraph editorial
Casualty of the Surge - Washington Post opinion

US-Iraq pact seeks to enable 'pillage': Ahmadinejad
Tehran (AFP) Oct 23, 2008
The draft US-Iraq security accord aims to keep Iraq weak to help the United States "pillage" the country, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday. "The Americans have shown that they do not respect any agreement and, if their interests require it, they are ready to sacrifice their closest friends," he was quoted by state news agency IRNA as saying. "They do not distinguish ... read more

McCain raises specter of nuclear war
Moon Township, Pennsylvania (AFP) Oct 22, 2008
John McCain raised the specter of nuclear war as he struggled to overcome rival Barack Obama's widening lead in the polls with just 14 days left in the epic race to the White House. Warning voters that the United States faces "many challenges here at home, and many enemies abroad in this dangerous world," McCain returned to the attack line that Obama has poor judgment and is not ready to ... more

New Years Day in Iraq: Major Changes for GIs

Turkey: 25 Kurdish Rebels Killed in Air Strikes

Confusion in Iraq if Security Deal Fails

Doctor Laments Brush-Off of Iraqi War Dead

Rice Dismisses Iranian Opposition to US-Iraq Pact

Thursday: 23 Iraqis Killed, 43 Wounded

Iraq Seeks 'Self-Sufficiency'
in Military Operations

US Hands 'Triangle of Death' to Iraqi Troops

Wrecked Iraq
Post-"surge" Iraq is being touted in the United States as a "modest" success and returning to "normalcy". Yet Iraq has suffered quite another fate: what was once the most advanced Middle Eastern society - economically, socially and technologically - has become an economic basket case, rivaling the most desperate countries in the world. - Michael Schwartz (Oct

TIME 10/24/08

How Iraqi Democracy May Mean An Early U.S. Withdrawal

Tony Karon

Asked earlier this week by Wolf Blitzer whether he'd honor an agreement between the U.S. and Iraq to withdraw American troops by the end of 2011, presidential candidate John McCain chided the CNN anchor: "You know better than that, Wolf. You know it's condition-based, and that's what the big fight was all about," McCain said, referring to his difference with Barack Obama over when and how to withraw U.S. forces from Iraq. Whereas Obama has sought to set a 16-month deadline for U.S. withdrawal, McCain has denounced that as defeatist and insisted that any decision to withdraw should be based on U.S. commanders' assessment of security conditions on the ground.

But McCain seemed to ignore the fact that while Washington had certainly demanded a conditions-based formula for withdrawing U.S. troops, the Iraqi government has managed to walk the Bush Administration back to the point where it has accepted firm withdrawal deadlines. The current version, described by U.S. officials as a "final" draft, specifies that U.S. forces will withdraw from Iraq's cities "no later than June 30th, 2009", and from all Iraqi territory "no later than December 31st, 2011." There is certainly a provision for those dates to be subject to "review," but changing them would require agreement from both sides. Effectively, the draft agreement puts any "conditions-based" decision to extend the deadline into the hands of the Iraqi government. And on current indications, the Iraqis are unlikely to accept any extension. In fact, right now the Iraqi government appears unable even to accept the "final" draft agreement that contains those deadlines its negotiators demanded — for fear of enraging its electorate.

U.S. officials are signaling growing frustration over the fact that even after Washington has made substantial concessions to the Iraqi side on troop-withdrawal deadlines and other matters, the Iraqis have balked at closing the deal. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen warned this week that the failure of Iraq's government to pass the draft Status of Forces Agreement will have "dire consequences" for Iraq, while Secretary of State Robert Gates warned the absence of an agreement might result in U.S. forces being confined to base after January 1, when the current United Nations mandate legitimizing their operations in Iraq expires. But despite such warnings from Washington, all indications from inside the Iraqi political system are that the draft agreement is unlikely to be adopted. Iraq's Political Council for National Security, which brings together representatives of the major parties in Iraq's parliament, called for modifications of the deal when it met last Saturday, and Prime Minister Maliki's own cabinet has echoed that position even though it was his government that negotiated the draft. It appears highly unlikely, now, that Iraq's parliament will endorse the agreement in its current form — a prerequisite for it becoming law.

Some American officials see the hand of Iran at work in the deadlock: U.S. commander General Ray Odierno last Sunday suggested that Tehran had tried to bribe Iraqi leaders in order to deal a setback to the U.S. — charges the Iraqis angrily reject. Iran certainly opposes any agreement extending the U.S. military presence on its doorstep, and the dominant political parties in the U.S.-backed government are, in fact, the Iraqi factions closest to Iran. More important, however, may be the fact that the U.S. invasion has led to Iraq being turned into a democracy, where the will of the people can't be ignored. Opinion polls consistently show that a strong majority of Iraqis oppose the presence of American troops in their country. And it's fear of the Iraqi electorate, rather than the allure of any Iranian funds, that appears to be driving the Iraqi government's opposition to signing the deal. Iraqi political parties will face the voters in regional polls later this year, and in a national election next year, and that has made them extremely reluctant to publicly endorse the security deal. While government opponents such as the radical anti-American Shi'ite cleric Muqtada Sadr are making hay out of the issue, mounting huge public protest demonstrations, even Maliki's own cabinet has declined to endorse the draft agreement.

The Status of Forces Agreement would mark the first time a representative Iraqi government formally declares that U.S. troops are on Iraqi soil as invited guests rather than as U.N.-sanctioned occupiers. And precisely because it is finally accountable to the Iraqi electorate, that's a step that the Iraqi government appears to remain unlikely to take. If, in fact, Iraq's government turns down the deal, it questions the very basis of the ongoing U.S. mission. (After all, enabling a democratically elected Iraqi government to take charge of the country is, ostensibly, the basic goal of the mission.)

The U.S. is in no mood to reopen negotiations, as Defense Secretary Gates and other officials have made clear. And given the political hurdles faced by any pact to extend the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, it may well be that no agreement can be reached before the current U.N. mandate expires. The Iraqis don't appear overly bothered by that possibility, suggesting that the U.N. mandate could simply be extended by the Security Council for another year. Washington has strongly discouraged that view, warning that following the summer's Georgia conflict, Russia may be in a spoiling mood and veto such an extension — although Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has since made clear that Moscow would, in fact, support an extension. (After all, the failure to achieve a Status of Forces Agreement would be enough of a setback for Washington to satisfy any Russian schadenfreude.)

Sure, the continuation of the U.N. mandate would deny the Iraqis the gains they have negotiated in the current draft agreement, giving the Iraqis less control over U.S. military operations on their soil. But it would expire after a year, and leave the Iraqis holding the cards. Then again, thanks to democracy, perhaps they already do.


.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default}

Iraq's PM Rejects US Troop Deal

Kurdish PM Predicts US Troops Will Remain in Iraq Until 2020

Report: US Would Determine When GIs Have Immunity From Iraq Courts

Iraqi Christians Flee Mosul After Death Threats

IRAQ / SYRIA / US

US Airstrike Allegedly Kills 8 Inside Syria - Ernesto Londoño, Washington Post

Four US helicopters flew into Syrian airspace Sunday afternoon and opened fire, killing eight people near the border with Iraq, the Syrian government said.

The reported operation in al-Boukamal, roughly six miles from the border with Iraq, occurred about 4:45 p.m., the Syrian Arab News Agency reported, citing an unnamed government source.

US attacks inside Syria are extremely rare, though the US military has stepped up security along Iraq's border with Syria in recent months to stem the traffic of fighters and weapons into Iraq. US officials say many insurgents, particularly suicide bombers, arrive in Iraq via the Syrian border.

More at the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Voice of America, BBC News and The Times.

A Warning Syria's President Assad Must Heed - James Hider, The Times analysis

The US airborne raid into Syrian territory marks the culmination of years of frustration with Damascus’s reluctance to police its own border with Iraq, the main point of entry for foreign jihadists.

Since the 2003 invasion, Syria, fearing that it could be the next target for regime change, has allowed Islamic militants to cross its desert borders freely. Significantly, the village of al-Sukkari farm, which US forces raided, is just over the border from the Iraqi city of al-Qaim, which, since 2003, has been a key funnelling point for jihadists entering Iraq on the so-called rat run to the Sunni cities of Ramadi, Fallujah and, finally, Baghdad.

But a raid into sovereign territory would have needed high-level US clearance and may have been intended as a warning to Syria at a time when America and Israel are trying to turn the regime of President Assad away from Iran and into peace talks.

More at The Times.

Iraq

Warzone Where Oil Prospects Outweigh Risks - The Times
Report Finds Water Treatment Project Late, Faulty - New York Times
$100-million Iraq Sewer Project a Failure - Los Angeles Times
Woes in Iraq Sewage Project - Associated Press

IRAQ
Status Uncertain
It looks increasingly likely that President Bush will leave office without having achieved one of his most significant goals: the signing of a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between the United States and Iraq. Iraq's Cabinet has delayed a decision on the draft security agreement that would provide a legal framework for the U.S. military presence in Iraq. "One prominent lawmaker suggested some parties may be stalling until after the U.S. election on Nov. 4," the AP reported on Sunday. The U.S. presence is currently authorized by a U.N. resolution that expires on Dec. 31. In the absence of an agreement, the U.S. government "has warned Iraq that it will shut down military operations and other vital services throughout the country on Jan. 1." Many Iraqi politicians consider this threat "akin to political blackmail." Explaining why the agreement would not be signed in its current form, Sheikh Jalal al-Din al-Sagheer, the deputy head of the Shiite Muslim Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, told McClatchy that "for this matter, we need national consensus." Sagheer said Iraq's political leaders are considering seeking an extension of the United Nations mandate.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES: The main points of disagreement are the target date for American military withdrawal and immunity of U.S. troops from prosecution under Iraqi law for acts committed while on duty. After declaring intention last year to get an agreement signed, the Bush administration and the Maliki government issued a statement of principles last November to guide a future agreement. In the interim, Maliki has become better established as an Iraqi leader, but has also become more acutely aware of Iraqi demands for a U.S. exit. Followers of popular Shi'a leader Muqtada al-Sadr have insisted for years on a firm commitment for U.S. withdrawal. Last weekend, tens of thousands of Sadr's followers, along with many Sunnis, demonstrated in Baghdad against the proposed agreement. It is also highly unlikely that Washington will budge on its insistence that U.S. troops enjoy immunity while performing their military duties. Unfortunately, by clinging to his goal of an extended U.S. presence in Iraq, Bush has squandered much of the U.S.'s leverage with Iraq's leaders. Rather than the use the prospect of American withdrawal to encourage those leaders toward a sustainable national unity agreement, the Bush administration has instead been bargaining with Iraq to allow the U.S. to stay. As a result, neither goal has been achieved.

SLEEPING ON THE SOFA: Two weeks ago, commander of U.S.-led forces in Iraq Gen. Ray Odierno blamed Iran for the trouble over the SOFA, telling the Washington Post that Iran was "working publicly and covertly to undermine the status-of-forces agreement." But no one should find it surprising that Iran would seek to influence an agreement that could potentially involve a significant U.S. force presence on its border for years to come. Iran enjoys to all levels of leading Iraqi Shi'a parties like the Da'wa and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a relationship derived both from shared traditions of scholarly activism between Iran and Iraq, and from the fact these parties were headquartered in Tehran during the reign of Saddam Hussein. Though Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has indicated that he would support the Iraqi government's decision on the SOFA -- having previously made his preferences clear -- other religious leaders have been less circumspect. Lebanon's Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, a source of guidance for many in the Da'wa Party, including Maliki, indicated very strict conditions for any agreement. Iran's Ayatollah Kazem Ha'eri -- a source of guidance for many Sadrists -- rejected the SOFA outright. The power of these ayatollahs to effectively scuttle an agreement of significant import to the security of the United States throws into stark relief what the Bush administration has created in Iraq: a government dominated by religious Shia parties who take their guidance and draw their legitimacy primarily from the edicts of a small handful of senior Shi'a clerics.

UNDER THE RADAR: The status of forces agreement represented a last ditch effort by the Bush administration to salvage something positive from the failed war in Iraq. Walter Pincus writes in this morning's Washington Post that the SOFA as written "would apparently tie the hands of the next U.S. president in some respects if it was ratified by the Iraqis before Jan. 20." Yale Law School professor Bruce Ackerman and University of California-Berkeley professor Oona Hathaway argue that "the Bush proposal undermines the constitutional powers of the next president as commander in chief" by "subject[ing] American military operations to 'the approval of the Iraqi government.'" But with the presidential campaign in the homestretch, Americans are hearing too little about an agreement which has serious and significant implications for America's future in the Middle East. Brian Katulis and Peter Juul of the Center for American Progress wrote last week that "the American people should be engaged in the debate every bit as much as the Iraqi people are today across their own country. ... Americans cannot afford to allow a lame duck administration to push through an 11th-hour agreement with Iraq that might not advance America's national security interests." It now looks like reaching an agreement on the status of U.S. forces in Iraq will fall to the next administration -- just like the rest of the Iraq mess.

Getting out


We need to legalize a short-term stay for our troops in Iraq

Wednesday, October 22, 2008


By Dan Simpson

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Although the economy has supplanted the Iraq war as the main issue in the presidential elections, the war continues.


It still costs at least $2 billion a week, although no one really knows how much. How does one estimate the long-term costs of providing medical services to returning veterans with physical and psychological damage? There is also the cost of putting American forces and their equipment, worn down by nearly nine years of war in a harsh climate, back into fighting shape?

Although more than 4,100 Americans have been killed in Iraq, the rate of casualties has dropped, although that is no comfort to families who have lost men or women in the conflict.

One of the worst aspects of the Iraq war now is the fact that, even if Sen. Barack Obama wins the election and moves promptly to bring the war to an end, as he has promised, there will remain the miserable job of withdrawing 147,000 U.S. troops from Iraq.

I have seen the withdrawal of foreign forces from a hostile environment in Somalia. By 1994 the United Nations had decided that some 18,000 Pakistani, Indian, Egyptian, Zimbabwean and other forces there had outlived their usefulness: They were not going to achieve peace among Somalia's warring factions. Their continued presence in Somalia meant only that they would continue to cost the United Nations money as they increasingly would become a target for the Somalis.

The Somalis made it harder by insisting that the weapons that U.N. forces had brought into Somalia, including tanks, artillery and helicopters, were now their property and had to be left behind.

There was no reason to believe the Somalis would leave the U.N. troops alone as they withdrew unless effective force protection measures were put in place. Nor is there any reason to believe that some of the armed elements in Iraq will leave U.S. forces alone as they withdraw. The Iraqis want us gone, but many are unlikely to see any reason to let us depart in peace.

The line will run something like, "We need those weapons for our own army and police. We need all the buildings and gear as contributions to rebuilding the Iraq that you destroyed."

But please do not mistake this description of the difficulty the United States will encounter in withdrawing from Iraq as an argument for staying. Whether we are out under the timetable that Mr. Obama is putting forward or whether we stay "until victory" as Sen. John McCain is advocating, we will need to leave sometime. Iraq will not become Puerto Rico.

To withdraw 18,000 U.N. troops from Somalia took six months and a 5,000-man U.S. Marine force to bring about. If one looks at the question proportionately, the United States would have to "surge" by another 40,000 troops just to get our forces out of Iraq in one piece.

In the meantime, the United States and the Iraqi occupation government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki continue to wrangle over an agreement that would make legal the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. They are currently there under a U.N. Security Council resolution. It expires Dec. 31 and it is very unlikely that the Security Council would extend it or issue a new mandate. (Russia and China both hold veto power and Russia is still one cross bear over U.S. support of the Georgian government of Mikhail Saakashvili and the Bush administration's insistence on deploying parts of an intercontinental missile shield on Russia's border in Poland and the Czech Republic.)

Thus, if the United States wishes to maintain the pretense that Mr. Maliki's government is independent and that a formal agreement is necessary to keep U.S. troops in Iraq, the United States is obliged to continue to try to negotiate a status-of-forces treaty.

There are at least two bones of contention. The first is that the United States wants to assure that U.S. troops do not fall under the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts for crimes they might commit, on duty or off duty. This does not necessarily relate to bombing villages or accidentally killing civilians. As has become an issue in Japan, it also can apply to charges of rape or murder against U.S. soldiers off duty.

Iraqi opposition to that part of the proposed agreement turns on the question of sovereignty. Some of the Iraqis can live with the idea that whatever U.S. soldiers do on duty is done in pursuit of military combat, but most of them can't stomach the idea of U.S. soldier impunity under Iraqi law while carousing.

Iraqis also want an unconditional commitment by the United States to withdraw its troops by a set date. One version has the United States out by 2012. Another has weasel-like language to the effect that U.S. troops will leave, unless conditions suggest otherwise.

Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr turned out an estimated one million Shiites in the streets of Baghdad last weekend calling for the United States to agree to a total withdrawal of its forces, as soon as possible.

The impact of this impasse on the Iraqi side is multiplied by the fact that elections are now scheduled there for January. No one -- least of all Mr. Maliki -- wants to take on Mr. Sadr and his people. And then there is the outcome of the upcoming U.S. elections, which Iraqis are watching closely.

The U.S. elections in November and Iraqi elections in January make the Dec. 31 deadline unlikely to be met, with no party, including the U.N. Security Council, likely to cut anyone a break at this point. My guess is that the Security Council would extend the mandate if Mr. Obama won, knowing he would seek to withdraw U.S. troops at a steady rate. If Mr. McCain won, it wouldn't, and my guess is that he would simply ignore the question of the legality of a continued U.S. presence in Iraq and stay with no international cover, a great start for a new administration.

IRAQ / SYRIA / US

US Calls Raid a Warning to Syria - Ann Scott Tyson and Ellen Knickmeyer, Washington Post

US troops in helicopters flew four miles into Syrian territory over the weekend to target the leader of a network that channels foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq, killing or wounding him and shooting dead several armed men, US officials said Monday.

US officials have long complained that the Syrian government has allowed Arab fighters to pass through the country to enter Iraq, but since last year, top military leaders have praised Syrian efforts to curb the flow. In recent months, officials have estimated that as few as 20 fighters a month have been crossing into Iraq, down from more than a hundred a month in 2006.

But officials said the raid Sunday, apparently the first acknowledged instance of US ground forces operating in Syria, was intended to send a warning to the Syrian government. "You have to clean up the global threat that is in your back yard, and if you won't do that, we are left with no choice but to take these matters into our hands," said a senior US official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the cross-border strike.

More at The Washington Post.

Strike Kills Senior al Qaeda Leader - Sara Carter, Washington Times

A rare US military strike into Syria on Sunday killed a senior al Qaeda leader who helped smuggle weapons and foreign fighters into Iraq, US defense officials and military experts said Monday.

The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, identified the victim as an Iraqi named Abu Ghadiya and said he had eluded US forces for years.

Anthony Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the smuggler also went by the name of Sulayman Khalid Darwish and that another senior smuggler was captured.

While Syria has cracked down on foreign fighters in recent years, Syria is "still the key source of support for al Qaeda in Iraq," Mr. Cordesman said. "Jordan and Saudi Arabia have done a pretty good job of keeping things under control, but the rat lines still go through the Syrian border."

More at The Washington Times and:

Senior Al Qaeda Member Killed in US Raid - Los Angeles Times
Officials Say US Killed an Iraqi in Raid in Syria - New York Times
US Raid in Syria Said to Hit Top Al-Qaida Smuggler - Voice of America
Syria Raid 'Killed Major Target' - BBC News
Syria Protests Alleged US Raid on Syrian Border Town - Voice of America
Syrian Minister Condemns US 'Terrorism' - The Times
Syrian Ire Follows Border Raid - Christian Science Monitor
Syria Accuses US of Using 'Terrorist Aggression' - Agence France-Presse
US Acknowledges Syrian Protest of Alleged Raid - Voice of America
Raid into Syria Complicates Iraq's Ties - Associated Press
Mr. Assad's Medicine - Washington Post editorial
Hitting Syria, Five Years Late - Wall Street Journal editorial
Bush's Parting Shots at Syria - Los Angeles Times editorial

IRAQ / IRAN / US

Iraq Security Pact Highlights Battle Between US, Iran - Mary Beth Sheridan, Washington Post

A deal to authorize the presence of American forces in Iraq beyond 2008 is forcing Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to choose between two influential powers in this country: the United States and Iran.

US officials had hoped Iraq would quickly approve the accord put before the cabinet this month, which would give 150,000 American troops legal authority to remain in Iraq after Dec. 31. But Iraqi political leaders have balked. Maliki has not openly supported the agreement forged by his negotiating team.

As the US ponders withdrawal, it is clear that American political capital in Iraq is waning as Iran's grows. Maliki "is in a dilemma. He cannot antagonize the Iranians, he cannot antagonize the Americans," said Ghassan al-Attiyah, a prominent Iraqi intellectual and political analyst based at the Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy in London.

Gen. Ray Odierno, the top US commander in Iraq, has accused Iran of conducting what he called a covert and overt campaign to torpedo the agreement, including attempting to bribe Iraqi lawmakers.

More at The Washington Post.

IRAQ

Fractures in Iraq City as Kurds and Baghdad Vie - Sam Dagher, New York Times

A new Iraqi military offensive is under way in this still violent northern city, but the worry is not only the insurgents who remain strong here. American commanders are increasingly concerned that Mosul could degenerate into a larger battleground over the fragile Iraqi state itself.

The problems are old but risk spilling out violently here and now. The central government in Baghdad has sent troops to quell the insurgency here, while also aiming at what it sees as a central obstacle to both nationhood and its own power: the semiautonomous Kurdish region in the north and the Kurds’ larger ambitions to expand areas under their control.

The Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is squeezing out Kurdish units of the Iraqi Army from Mosul, sending the national police and army from Baghdad and trying to forge alliances with Sunni Arab hard-liners in the province, who have deep-seated feuds with the Kurdistan Regional Government led by Massoud Barzani.

More at The New York Times.

Iraq Seeks Changes to Security Pact - Mary Beth Sheridan and Karen DeYoung, Washington Post

The Iraqi cabinet decided Tuesday to reopen negotiations on a security pact intended to give US forces the legal authority to stay in the country beyond Dec. 31, further delaying an agreement that American officials had hoped to conclude by now.

The call for changes in the proposed accord came as the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki criticized an attack by Iraq-based US forces on alleged al-Qaeda operatives inside Syria last weekend. The cabinet now wants the agreement to include language to "confirm that Iraqi land would not be the center for aggression" against its neighbors, said Planning Minister Ali Baban, who attended Tuesday's meeting.

Ministers also want the pact to grant Iraq more legal authority over US soldiers accused of crimes, to harden a tentative 2011 departure date for US troops and to allow Iraqi inspection of US military shipments. The inspection demand, along with an explicit ban on attacks on neighboring countries, reflects concerns that the United States might launch an attack on Iran from Iraqi territory.

More at The Washington Post.

Iraq Proposes Changes to US Troop Pact - Voice of America
Iraq Condemns US Assault on Syria - Los Angeles Times
Iraq Court Convicts Killer of 2 Soldiers - Washington Post
Iraqi Court Sentences Man to Die for Killing 3 GI’s - New York Times
Iraqi Security Forces Increase Footprint in Southern Baghdad - AFPS
Iraq's Blast Walls Become Canvases - Los Angeles Times
Report on Iraq Security Lists 310 Contractors - New York Times

US's Syrian raid sets Iraq on fire

The United States raid into Syria has upset every key actor in Iraq. The government, beyond being embarrassed at not being consulted, has come under even more pressure from Shi'ite parties not to sign a security agreement with the United States. The Sunni Awakening Councils are reconsidering their cooperation in fighting insurgents, while powerful tribes which virtually control the border are overnight turning anti-American. As for Syria, it has the power to cause havoc in Iraq. - Sami Moubayed (Oct 31,'08)

A bumpy ride for the US over Syria
The United States raid into Syria marks another twist in the George W Bush administration's policy towards Damascus, which has been dominated by threats and coercion, with only a few glimpses of cooperation. At the same time, the policy of isolation has failed. (Oct 31,'08)

Iraq / OIF

Iraq Expects Answer on Security Deal After US Vote - Associated Press
In Iraq's Diyala Province, US Forces Anticipate Exit - Christian Science Monitor
Death Toll Down for US Troops in Iraq - Voice of America
For Family in Iraq, Drop in Deaths Is Not Enough - New York Times
Questions Raised Over Syrian Complicity in US Raid - The Times
Syrian Raid a Favor to the Next US President - Westhawk blog
Sneaking Around In Syria - Strategy Page blog
Iraqi Troops Find EFP Factory in Sadr City - Long War Journal blog
Really, Really Trusting Iraqis - Strategy Page blog

The U.S. Doesn't Know How Alone It is in Iraq
Friends Like These

By PATRICK COCKBURN

Over the past five years, America and its Iraqi allies have pointed triumphantly at a series of spurious milestones meant to mark turning points on the road to stability and security. But the ongoing stalemate over a new Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which the Iraqi government refuses to sign despite intense American pressure, marks a true turning point in the conflict: it is a clear sign that American political influence in Iraq is weaker than ever.

It is the first time that an Iraqi government has rebuffed the US on a crucial issue since the invasion of 2003. The agreement, the subject of prolonged and divisive negotiations since March, was rejected by the Iraqi cabinet and is unlikely to be submitted to parliament in its present form. The Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al Maliki, who could not have obtained nor held his job without American backing, says he will not sign it as it is.

Meanwhile the US is increasingly desperate to conclude the status agreement before the UN mandate that legalises the US occupation runs out at the end of the year. The US ambassador Ryan Crocker petulantly threatened that without an agreement “we do nothing – no security training, no logistical support, no border protection, no training, equipping, manning checkpoints, no nothing.” President Bush has himself pushed hard for the accord over the last eight months without success. His failure to secure the pact shows that the US is unable to get its way despite exaggerated claims of military success by the White House and the Pentagon.

The accord that has been rejected is markedly less favourable to the US than the original draft that was first discussed in March. The Americans, who could have presented the agreement to the Iraqis as a means of bringing the occupation to an end or eliminating its most objectionable aspects, instead produced a blank cheque that suggested no limit to the number of American troops in the country and no date for eventual withdrawal.

The March draft was a typical example of the US tendency to overplay its hand in Iraq, where the agreement was denounced as a successor to the 1930 Anglo-Iraqi treaty that gave Britain de facto control over a nominally independent Iraq. The draft provoked a nationalist backlash, and many Iraqi politicians who supported the agreement did so covertly for fear of being labelled American pawns.

The final draft of the accord agreed by negotiators on October 13 was very different. By then the Bush administration had been forced to concede a timetable for an American military withdrawal: combat troops were to leave Iraqi cities, towns and villages by the end of June 2009, and all American forces were to depart by the end of 2011. Contractors lost their immunity from Iraqi law. The US tried to make the military retreat from Iraq conditional on the security situation at the time, but by the end of the negotiations even this had been conceded.

Nothing better illuminates the real political landscape in Iraq – and the absurdity of the fantasies pumped out in Washington and broadly accepted in the US – than the concessions forced on the Americans. The American problem in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has always been political rather than military. Simply put, the Americans have had too few friends in Iraq, and their allies have sided with the US for tactical reasons alone. The majority Shia community initially co-operated with the US in order to achieve political domination, and it needed American military force to crush the Sunni Arab uprising of 2004-7. But the Shia leaders always wanted power for themselves and never intended to share it with the Americans in the long term. The Sunni guerrillas did surprisingly well against the American army, but their community was decisively defeated in the bloody battle for Baghdad fought by government death squads and sectarian militias. It was this defeat – and not simply hostility to al Qa’eda in Iraq – that led the Sunni rebels to seek their own alliance with the US.

I was in Baghdad during the first half of October and then flew to New York. Never has there been such a deep gap between what Americans think is happening in Iraq and the reality on the ground. Senator John McCain keeps celebrating the supposed triumph of the “surge”, and seems to imagine that “victory in Iraq” is now in sight. His exotic running mate Sarah Palin sneers at the “defeatist” Barack Obama. And Obama, afraid to appear unpatriotic, has recanted his earlier doubts about the surge and attempted to avoid discussion of Iraq in general. With American voters understandably absorbed by the financial crash and coming depression, attention to events in Iraq has evaporated: the American media have barely mentioned the rejection of the SOFA.

In New York I found it strange that so many people believed the surge had brought an end to violence in Iraq. It was a curious sort of military victory, I observed, that required more troops in Iraq today – 152,000 – than before the surge began. The best barometer for the real state of security in Iraq, I kept telling people, is the behaviour of the 4.7 million Iraqi refugees inside and outside the country. Many are living in desperate circumstances but dare not go home. Ask an Iraqi in Baghdad how things are, and he may well say “better”. But he means better than the bloodbath of two years ago: “better” does not mean “good”.

Driving around Baghdad I tried to avoid particularly dangerous areas like Tahrir Square in the centre of the city. This turned out to be very sensible: a few days after I left, a suicide car bomb attack there on the convoy of the Labour and Social Affairs minister killed 12. The suicide bomber had reached Tahrir Square despite the fact that there are military and police checkpoints every hundred yards and gigantic traffic jams throughout the city. There is now a little more activity after dark, particularly in Karada and Jadriyah districts, but Baghdad is still the most dangerous city in the world.

The government should be able to do better. It has money. Reserves total $79 billion. The state is vast and employs some two million people. But it is also dysfunctional. Government employees like teachers and army officers are better paid but half the population is unemployed. The Labour and Social Affairs Ministry, the head of which was so nearly assassinated, is meant to help millions of impoverished Iraqis but has only spent 10 per cent of its budget. The private sector is languishing. One sure sign of economic activity is cranes, but in Baghdad I do not recall seeing a single one of them aside from those rusting beside Saddam Hussein’s uncompleted mosques.

The inability of the Iraqi government, many of whose members have long co-operated with the US, to reach a new accord with the US underlines a simple truth about Iraqi politics. The occupation has never been popular. The only part of the country where it is acceptable is Kurdistan, which has never been occupied by US forces. Some Sunni Arabs, under pressure from the Shia, may now look to the US as their protectors, but overall Iraqis blame the occupation for their present miseries. Dislike of the occupation is so great that many Shia politicians think they would be signing their political death warrant to go along with it – though they are also nervous about coping without American military support.

The Kurds say privately that Maliki is overconfident. This may be so, but he has a strong hand. It is too late for the Americans to try replace him. He owes his greatest triumph – facing down the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al Sadr in Basra, Sadr City and Amara earlier this year – as much to Iranian restraint of the Sadrists as to American military support. It would be dangerous for him to make an enemy of Iran by signing a deal to which they are vehemently and openly opposed.
Maliki seems to have been of two minds about the SOFA: uncertain whether the greater danger is signing or not signing. He is looking ahead to the provincial and parliamentary elections next year when he will want to present himself as a patriotic Iraqi leader who stood up to the Americans. If he does not then the Sadrists and possibly the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq will denounce him as an American pawn.

The danger in Iraq is that neither McCain nor Obama seem to understand how far the US position in Iraq has weakened this year or why Iraq refuses to sign the security accord. The overselling of the surge as a great victory means that few Americans see that they are increasingly without allies in Iraq. The US no longer makes the political weather there. No matter who inherits the White House, American military retreat is now inevitable. The only question that remains is who will hold power in Baghdad after they have gone.

Patrick Cockburn is the Ihe author of "Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq.

A version of this article originally appeared in The National (www.thenational.ae), published in Abu Dhabi.
http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick11032008.html

Lessons of The Surge - Michael O'Hanlon, Washington Times opinion

Many Americans and Iraqis think of the recent surge in Iraq as simply the temporary addition of more US troops to the war effort in 2007 and the first half of 2008. This is incorrect. It is also dangerous.

Partly because they misunderstand the true nature of the surge, many American and Iraqi political leaders now seem to want American forces out of Iraq as fast as possible. Iraqi leaders also now seem unwilling to accept a reasonable Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) to govern the actions of US troops in their country after the current UN Security Council mandate expires at the end of the year.

In fact, the basic logic of the surge continues - and must continue - even now that the increase in US combat formations in Iraq has come to an end. At its core, the surge has been about cooperatively protecting the Iraqi civilian population. This is the central point policymakers in Baghdad, Washington and other capitals around the world need to appreciate.

More at The Washington Times.

IRAQ

US May Accept Some Iraqi Changes to Forces Agreement - Al Pessin, Voice of America

US officials are denying reports that they are abandoning efforts to negotiate an agreement on the future of U.S. forces in Iraq, saying they will soon respond to Iraqi proposals for changes in the draft, and that some changes may be possible.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said US negotiators in Baghdad could be in touch with Iraqi officials this week with a response to their proposed changes, and she said some of the Iraqi requests might be accepted. "There might be some that we can support. There might be some that we would not be able to support. I will just let the negotiators work that out with them privately."

US officials have not confirmed what the Iraqis are asking for, but news reports said a firm date for a full US troop withdrawal is among the requests.

Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said US officials are eager to hand over full responsibility for security to the Iraqis, but he said that can not be done on a firm timetable.

More at Voice of America.

Iraqi Lawmakers OK Provincial Council Quotas for Minorities - Tina Susman, Los Angeles Times

Iraq's parliament Monday approved quotas guaranteeing minorities a handful of seats on the governing bodies of Iraqi provinces, a move that helped pave the way to regional elections but angered Christians who had demanded greater representation.

In Baghdad, three bombings killed at least seven people, most of them at a busy square where twin blasts exploded seconds apart during morning rush hour. Another bomb north of the capital killed one person and contributed to a day of violence that underscored the ongoing tensions in Iraq even amid a period of relative tranquillity.

No date has been set for the provincial vote, but it is supposed to take place by Jan. 31 and has been heralded as key to rectifying lopsided power structures blamed for fueling sectarian violence. The minority quota formula approved by lawmakers would guarantee a total of six seats spread across three provincial councils to Christians and three smaller minority groups: Yazidis, Sabians and Shabaks.

More at The Los Angeles Times.

Lessons of The Surge - Michael O'Hanlon, Washington Times opinion

Many Americans and Iraqis think of the recent surge in Iraq as simply the temporary addition of more US troops to the war effort in 2007 and the first half of 2008. This is incorrect. It is also dangerous.

Partly because they misunderstand the true nature of the surge, many American and Iraqi political leaders now seem to want American forces out of Iraq as fast as possible. Iraqi leaders also now seem unwilling to accept a reasonable Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) to govern the actions of US troops in their country after the current UN Security Council mandate expires at the end of the year.

In fact, the basic logic of the surge continues - and must continue - even now that the increase in US combat formations in Iraq has come to an end. At its core, the surge has been about cooperatively protecting the Iraqi civilian population. This is the central point policymakers in Baghdad, Washington and other capitals around the world need to appreciate.

More at The Washington Times.

Iraqi Military Builds Up Combat Power, Logistics - AFPS
9 Killed, Dozens Hurt in Iraq Blasts - Washington Post
Iraq Attacks Include One on Oil Official - New York Times
Twin Bombings Kill Six in Baghdad - Voice of America
The War That Didn't Bark - Washington Post editorial
A Bold Step for US Good Will in Iraq - Christian Science Monitor opinion

Newspaper: Washington OKs most Iraq's proposed changes over SOFA: Iraqi officials said that Washington has agreed on most of Iraq's proposed changes to a draft security agreement that would allow U.S. troops to stay in the country until 2011, an Iraqi newspaper reported on Monday.

No US bases in northern Iraq without Baghdad nod: Talabani: Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has said that American troops can set up bases in northern Iraq's Kurdish region only if the Shiite-led government in Baghdad gives its approval.

Dramatic Consequences in Iraq? by Immanuel Wallerstein

1 Nov 2008
"Dramatic consequences" are what U.S. Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, predicts if, on Jan. 1, 2009, there is no agreement concerning the rights of U.S. troops to operate in Iraq, either via a so-called Status-of-Forces Agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States or, second best, an extension of the United Nations mandate that is at the moment the juridical basis of the presence and rights of U.S. military activity there, but which expires on Dec. 31, 2008.

The negotiations between the United States and Iraq have reached an impasse, as almost everyone now acknowledges. There could be a last-minute breakthrough, but it seems unlikely. It seems more probable that the U.N. Security Council will meet at the very end of December to authorize a time-limited extension of the present mandate. This would throw the question into the hands of the next U.S. president to negotiate. This is not at all what the Bush administration had wanted or ever expected to happen.

A year ago or so, the Bush administration was confident that it could negotiate a SOFA agreement with a presumed-to-be friendly al-Maliki government in Iraq. It wanted an agreement that would more or less renew the current rules governing U.S. military operations in Iraq and one that would also thereby tie the hands of the next U.S. administration for at least several years. The U.S. negotiators proposed an agreement at the level of the two governments, one that would not have to be ratified by the legislatures of either country.

Everything went wrong with this plan. First of all, the legislatures insisted that they wanted to be part of the arrangements, especially the Iraqi legislature. Secondly, there were important political voices within Iraq who were against any arrangement that would keep U.S. forces in Iraq. These included, of course, the group led by Moktada al-Sadr, who has consistently raised the banner of Iraqi nationalism against a continued U.S. presence.

But al-Sadr was not alone. It turned out that there were serious reservations among all three groups on whom the United States had counted to be sympathetic to an extension -- the two main Shi'a parties other than the Sadrists (SCIRI and al-Maliki's party, Dawa), the so-called moderate Sunnis, and of course the Kurds. The rumblings on all sides led Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to take a far tougher line in the negotiations than the United States had anticipated. He started to act as though his greatest worry was that he might be outflanked as an Iraqi nationalist leader by others, and in particular by Moktada al-Sadr.

Al-Maliki therefore made two primary demands in the negotiations. He wanted a firm date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. And he wanted to submit U.S. troops and civilian contractors to Iraqi jurisdiction, whenever they were accused of serious crimes committed outside of legitimate military activity. Both demands were totally anathema to the United States.

But al-Maliki held firm. And after many months he got concessions. There was agreement on a terminal date of 2011 for U.S. combat troops, and there was agreement on Iraqi jurisdiction on behavior in the non-military arena. But the wording of each concession also included escape clauses. The withdrawal in 2011 was to be subject to "conditions on the ground." And Iraqi jurisdiction was to be subject to someone (presumably the United States) deciding that the alleged behavior was indeed outside of legitimate military activity.

The escape hatches turned out to be too much for Iraqi politicians to accept. As one of them recently put it, "they have given with the right hand what they have taken away with the left hand." So, one after the other, they said they would not vote to approve the present "compromise" draft. The most important voice along these lines was Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani who indicated that the present proposal was unacceptable. The largest Shi'a party, SCIRI, refused the draft. The moderate Sunnis and the Kurds indicated that they wanted changes. The entire Iraqi cabinet then voted to insist on amendments. It then indicated that one of the amendments would be to give the Iraqi (and not the U.S.) government the power to decide on whether behavior of Americans was outside legitimate military activity. It doesn't seem that such amendments are at all acceptable to the United States.

In this situation, Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have tried to issue careful diplomatic comments. Other Americans were not as restrained. The commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, said that Iraqi reluctance was due to Iranian bribes. Al-Maliki immediately said that Odierno had "risked his position."

Then the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, opined that, without U.S. troop support, Iraqi forces would not "be ready to provide for their own security." The Iraqi government's spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, immediately responded angrily that "it is not correct to force Iraqis into making a choice and it is not appropriate to talk with the Iraqis in this way." Other Iraqis were more blunt. They called Mullen's comments about ending all U.S. assistance if a SOFA agreement was not signed a form of "blackmail."

When the United States launched its recent raid against presumed al-Qaeda elements located on Syrian soil, and did this from a base in Iraq, it threw further cold water on the proposed agreement. A prominent Kurdish politician said that the raid was made without the knowledge of the Iraqi government and would give Iraqi's neighbors "a good reason to be concerned about the continued U.S. presence in Iraq." Another amendment the Iraqi cabinet now wants in one forbidding attacks on neighbors by U.S. forces located in Iraq.

Russia's Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, has made it clear that Russia would not oppose an extension of U.N. authorization, provided it is the government of Iraq that requests it. Lavrov added that Russia supports "the government of Iraq as far as the need to ensure the sovereignty of Iraq on its own territory is concerned." Why should Russia not do this? Russia is quite happy to see U.S. troops tied down in Iraq for the time being. It constricts U.S. ability to use them anywhere else. In any case, there is a question whether the Iraqi government, if and when it requests an extension of the U.N. mandate, would ask that the new provisions the United States is opposing in the SOFA agreement be included in the extension, in which case the United States might veto the extension.

The person who is quietly relishing what is going on is Moktada al-Sadr. His mere existence as a voice on the Iraqi scene has forced all other Iraqi political forces to express Iraqi nationalist demands more openly and more aggressively. The tide is moving in his direction. It is now quite probable that the Iraqi government will ask the United States to withdraw entirely even before the hypothetical date of 2011 in the present proposal, and very long before the 100 years of which John McCain once spoke.

Will there be "dramatic consequences"? The world will judge. So of course will the Iraqis. And so will U.S. public opinion. But dramatic or not, it is probably going to happen.

IRAQ

US Gives Iraq Final Text of Draft Forces Agreement - David Gollust, Voice of America

The Bush administration says it has sent Iraq what it says is the final text of an agreement on a continued presence of US troops in Iraq beyond the end of the year. US officials say they accepted some Iraqi-proposed amendments, but that as far as the United States is concerned the negotiating process has ended.

Officials here say the final text was conveyed in a letter from President Bush to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and that while the US side may provide further clarifications it considers the negotiations over.

The two sides have struggled for weeks to reach agreement on a status-of-forces agreement that will govern the presence of US troops in Iraq beyond December 31, when the UN Security Council mandate for foreign forces in Iraq expires.

The draft accord would allow US forces to remain in Iraq for as long as another three years. The parties have struggled to agree on details such as legal jurisdiction over American soldiers who might commit off-duty crimes.

A senior US diplomat said Iraq late last month proposed scores of amendments to a tentative draft. He said the text the United States has sent back to Baghdad accepts many of the proposed changes, but rejects a number of others.

More at Voice of America.

Iraq Repeats Insistence on Fixed Withdrawal Date - Ernesto Londoño, Mary Beth Sheridan and Karen DeYoung, Washington Post

Two days after the election of Barack Obama, Iraq's chief spokesman said with unusual forcefulness Thursday that his government will continue to insist on a firm withdrawal date for US troops, despite American demands that any pullout be subject to prevailing security conditions.

"Iraqis would like to know and see a fixed date," spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in an interview in which he also reiterated Iraq's position that American forces be subject to Iraqi legal jurisdiction in some instances.

Iraqi officials, who see President-elect Obama's views on the timing of a US withdrawal as consonant with their own, appear to be leveraging his election to pressure the Bush administration to make last-minute concessions. Dabbagh said negotiations to reach a status-of-forces agreement, which would sanction the US military presence in Iraq beyond 2008, would collapse if no deal is reached by the end of this month.

More at The Washington Post.

Obama Victory Alters the Tenor of Iraqi Politics - Alissa Rubin, New York Times

Barack Obama may have been elected only three days ago, but his victory is already beginning to shift the political ground in Iraq and the region.

Iraqi Shiite politicians are indicating that they will move faster toward a new security agreement about American troops, and a Bush administration official said he believed that Iraqis could ratify the agreement as early as the middle of this month.

“Before, the Iraqis were thinking that if they sign the pact, there will be no respect for the schedule of troop withdrawal by Dec. 31, 2011,” said Hadi al-Ameri, a powerful member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a major Shiite party. “If Republicans were still there, there would be no respect for this timetable. This is a positive step to have the same theory about the timetable as Mr. Obama.”

Mr. Obama has said that he favors a 16-month schedule for withdrawing combat brigades, a timetable about twice as fast as that provided for in the draft American and Iraqi accord.

More at The New York Times.

Iraq / OIF

Iraq Orders F-16s, Helicopters - United Press International
In a Desert Camp, Iraqis Find Aid and Zone of Trust - Christian Science Monitor
Coalition Troops Target al-Qaida in Iraq Networks, Detain 17 - AFPS
Soldiers in Iraq Focus on Restoring Infrastructure - AFPS
Shell Secures 25-year Access to Iraq's Oil, Gas - United Press International

Self-Sufficiency Still Eludes Domestic Security Forces - Mary Beth Sheridan and Ernesto Londoño, Washington Post

Lt. Col. Kadhem Jabar Kadhem, a veteran of Saddam Hussein's army, has the swagger of the top cop in the sprawling Dora market, one of Baghdad's most dangerous areas until US soldiers ousted insurgents last year.

"Ever since we came here, we've controlled the security by ourselves," boasted the corpulent, mustachioed national police commander, surrounded by a dozen Iraqi officers in new gray-blue uniforms.

And yet, even as he spoke, a US Army unit with a crane was lowering concrete barriers into place to protect his police station, at the market's edge. Kadhem looked startled when asked about the prospect of a US withdrawal, which could pick up speed given President-elect Barack Obama's plan to remove most combat troops within 16 months of taking office.

"Personally, I need the American forces to stay," Kadhem said softly, fingering his string of orange worry beads and describing how US forces helped with equipment and services. "The Iraqi government is still weak."

More at The Washington Post.

Iraq Gives Religious Minorities Fewer Seats Than the UN Suggested - NY Times
Iraq Approves Minority Quotas on Provincial Councils - Los Angeles Times

Many Killed in Twin Baghdad Bombs - BBC News
Baghdad Double Bombing Kills 25 - Reuters
Suicide Blast in Emergency Room Near Fallujah Kills 3 - Washington Post
Five Dead in Baghdad Blast - The Australian
Date Set for Iraq Provincial Poll - BBC News

Muqtada Sadr's Followers Struggle for Relevance - Ned Parker, Los Angeles Times

Once the mightiest of Shiite militias, the Mahdi Army finds itself on the run as rivals benefit from government ties and US backing. Efforts to reorganize into a socio-religious group may not help.

At the height of Iraq's civil war, the Mahdi Army was arguably the mightiest group in the country, revered as a protector of Iraq's Shiite majority and feared for its death squads and criminal activities. The militia functioned as a state within a state, its members collecting protection fees from businesses, its fighters intimidating the Iraqi security forces that were supposed to police them.

In a telling measure of the militia's power, the US military credits Sadr's decision more than a year ago to call a cease-fire as one of the chief reasons for the sharp drop in violence in Iraq.

But Sadr's fortunes have also plummeted, and his followers now contemplate a world where they are on the run and their Shiite rivals have the upper hand.

More at The Los Angeles Times.

IRAQ

Iraq After Action Report - General Barry R. McCaffrey USA (Ret)

The United States is now clearly in the end game in Iraq to successfully achieve what should be our principle objectives:

• The withdrawal of the majority of our US ground combat forces in Iraq in the coming 36 months.
• Leaving behind an operative civil state and effective Iraqi security forces.
• An Iraqi state which is not in open civil war among the Shia, the Sunnis, and the Kurds.
• And an Iraqi nation which is not at war with its six neighboring states.

The security situation is clearly still subject to sudden outrage at any moment by Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) or to degradation because of provocative behavior by the Maliki government. However, the bottom line is a dramatic and growing momentum for economic and security stability which is unlikely to be reversible. I would not characterize the situation as fragile. It is just beyond the tipping point.

The genius of the leadership team of Ambassador Ryan Crocker, General Dave Petraeus, and Secretary of Defense Bob Gates has turned around the situation from a bloody disaster under the leadership of Secretary Rumsfeld to a growing situation of security. Ambassador Crocker will be very, very difficult to replace in February 2009. We are fortunate that General Ray Odierno has stepped in to take Joint command of MNF-I. He is very experienced, knows all the players and has sophisticated situational awareness. The Iraqis trust him enormously--- they refer to him as the “big man with the quiet voice.”

More at Iraq AAR.

Bombing Shows Fragility of Iraq's Security Gains - Mary Beth Sheridan and Qais Mizher, Washington Post

For years, as car bombs rocked Baghdad, a wall of three-foot-high concrete barriers closed off the road next to Imad Karim's restaurant in a northern district.

Walls define much of this historic city - slabs of concrete erected by US soldiers or residents that have turned neighborhoods into mazes aimed at frustrating attackers. Only recently, as security improved, did someone wedge open the barriers by Karim's Abu Wael restaurant. No one noticed when someone drove a white Volkswagen Passat through the opening and parked.

At about 8 a.m. Monday, explosives in the Passat's trunk detonated, just as a minibus packed with 20 people passed by on the busy road on the other side of the barriers, witnesses and US officials said. The minibus was engulfed in flames. Minutes later, two roadside bombs exploded near the mangled Passat, showering the occupants of Abu Wael and another nearby restaurant with shards of glass and blowing in their corrugated-metal roofs, according to witnesses.

More at the Washington Post and New York Times.

Latest US Security Draft Offer 'Not Enough' - Associated Press (Washington Times)

Iraq's government spokesman said Monday that the US offers of changes to a draft security agreement were "not enough" and asked Washington to offer new amendments if it wants the pact to win parliamentary approval.

The comments by spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh were the first by the Iraqis since the US submitted a response last week to an Iraqi request for changes in the draft agreement, which would keep US troops here until 2012 and give Iraq a greater role in the management of the US mission.

More at The Washington Times.

Iraq's Sunni Fighters Leave US Payroll - Ned Parker and Tina Susman, Los Angeles Times

So began the final step Monday in an important transition for the Sunni paramilitary fighters known as the Sons of Iraq, who previously had been paid by the US military.

As they lined up outside Baghdad military bases, a triple bombing in the eastern part of the capital killed 31 people and wounded 72, police said. A female suicide bomber also killed two civilians and two Sunni paramilitary fighters in the eastern city of Baqubah, police said. The bloodshed was a reminder of the suicide attacks that plagued Iraq before many Sunni fighters chose to forsake radical militant groups for an alliance with the Americans in 2007.

Iraq's ruling Shiites still view the fighters with suspicion. The hostility reflects the deep mistrust between the country's newly assertive Shiite majority and the onetime Sunni elite, who are angry about their fall from power. If the government alienates the Sunni paramilitary fighters, who number nearly 100,000 countrywide, the fighters could restart their insurgency.

But as the US military prepares to start pulling out of the country, responsibility for the Sons of Iraq was transferred to the Iraqi army. The payments Monday marked the last step in the transition.

More at The Los Angeles Times.

Iraq / OIF

Triple Bombing in Iraqi Capital Kills 28 - Voice of America
Triple Bombing in Baghdad Deadliest in Months - Christian Science Monitor
Iraq's Largest Shiite Party Faces Tough Choice - Associated Press
Marines Encouraged by Iraqi Progress in Anbar, General Says - AFPS
Residents See ‘Light at End of Tunnel’ in Iraqi City - AFPS
Coalition Dismantles Bomb Networks in Iraq, Captures 11 - AFPS

Baghdad Bridge Reopens, Restitching a Divided Area - Stephen Farrell, New York Times

Shiites walking east and Sunnis walking west met at the midpoint of a newly reopened bridge on Tuesday, seeking to reclaim a landmark that had long symbolized the divide between Baghdad communities similar in name but polar opposites in sectarian makeup.

For three years Shiites from one, Kadhimiya, and Sunnis from the other, Adhamiya, had been unable to use the crossing, the Aimma Bridge of the Imams in northern Baghdad. It was closed after one of the worst disasters of the post-invasion era: in August 2005, rumors of a suicide bomber provoked a frenzied stampede in a procession of Shiite pilgrims. Nearly 1,000 people died; most were crushed, but many others drowned when they fell or jumped into the Tigris.

More at the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Voice of America.

Take a look at this little girl...

An Iraqi girl waves a banner during a video

There are so many like her!

It is such an ideal to spread American values to the whole world...

When I hear of some of the things that middle easterners do to their little girls....

(Aka female circumcision for one)

Makes me very very angry.

Further comments like:



It is very sickening...



It's times like this I look at George W. Bush as a John Wayne solution to the backward practises of the middle east.

I look into the face of that little girl and all I want to do is protect her.

Oil might be one reason for going to the middle east, but basic human decency is a much bigger one!

Something the veterans should be proud to say they were trying to accomplish.

IRAQ

In Iraq, a Sudden Spurt of Violence - Raheem Salman, Usama Redha and Tina Susman, Los Angeles Times

Since Monday, according to police statistics, roadside bombs, car bombs and suicide bombers wearing explosive belts have killed 58 people in the capital. Deaths elsewhere included two Christian women who police said were killed by unidentified gunmen in the northern city of Mosul, where Christians say they have been caught in the middle of a war for power between Kurds and Arabs.

Several Iraqis who witnessed the violence noted the heavy presence of Iraqi security checkpoints near Saadoun Street, in the eastern part of the capital, and elsewhere and said it showed that nobody could be trusted to keep them safe. Some also said it was a sign that Iraqi forces were not ready to protect the city if US troops withdrew.

US military officials said that this week's violence, coming after a steady downward trend in attacks, does not mean insurgents are staging a comeback, and they disputed the casualty figures provided by Iraqi sources.

More at The Los Angeles Times.

Iraq / OIF

2 U.S. Troops Killed by Iraqi Soldier - Washington Post
Iraqi Soldier Reportedly Kills 2 GI’s - New York Times
Slapped Iraqi Kills Two US Soldiers - The Australian
Iraq Soldier Kills at Least Two Americans - Los Angeles Times
Abandoning Iraq? - Washington Times opinion

Iraqi Urges Passage of US Deal - Ernesto Londoño, Washington Post

Iraq's interior minister has criticized the country's politicians for not approving an agreement that would allow US troops to operate in Iraq after the end of the year, and called their continued presence crucial.

"The security agreement is important for Iraq to ban and stop foreign influence and interference," minister Jawad al-Bolani said in an interview Wednesday. "The Iraqi people need this security agreement."

Bolani, one of the few top Shiite leaders to speak publicly in favor of the deal, said Iraqi politicians should declare their stances on it.

More at The Washington Post.

Militants Turn to Small Bombs in Iraq Attacks - Katherine Zoepf and Mudhafer Al-Husani, New York Times

They are usually no bigger than a man’s fist and attached to a magnet or a strip of gummy adhesive - thus the name “obwah lasica” in Arabic, or “sticky bomb.”

Light, portable and easy to lay, sticky bombs are tucked quickly under the bumper of a car or into a chink in a blast wall. Since they are detonated remotely, they rarely harm the person who lays them. And as security in Baghdad has improved, the small and furtive bomb - though less lethal than entire cars or even thick suicide belts packed with explosive - is fast becoming the device of choice for a range of insurgent groups.

They are also contributing, in the midst of an uptick in violence, to a growing feeling of unease in the capital.

“You take a bit of C4 or some other type of compound,” said Lt. Col. Steven Stover, a spokesman for the United States military in Baghdad. “You can go into a hardware store, take the explosive and combine it with an accelerant, put some glass or marble or bits of metal in front of it and you’ve basically got a homemade Claymore,” a common antipersonnel mine.

More at The New York Times.

Coalition Forces Target al-Qaida Networks, Capture 10 Suspects - AFPS
Azerbaijan to Withdraw Troops from Iraq - Associated Press

IRAQ

Iraq Prime Minister Backs Security Pact - Ned Parker and Saif Hameed, Los Angeles Times

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has agreed to support a contentious security agreement with the United States and plans to urge his Cabinet to back the recently revised pact, two senior Shiite Muslim officials said Friday.

The move would be a huge step toward ratifying the deal, which sets out conditions for US military conduct in Iraq as well as a timeline for troops' withdrawal from the country by the end of 2011. It has encountered strong opposition from several Iraqi political parties and factions.

Maliki had declined to openly back the new security agreement. Close advisors said the prime minister changed his position after US officials accepted two key conditions: the removal of any language from the text that might allow U.S. troops to remain in Iraqi cities past June 2009, and specifying that US military personnel must request permission from the Iraqi government to search homes.

Maliki has reluctantly accepted that he could not expect any guarantee that a US soldier suspected of wrongdoing during a mission would be tried in an Iraqi court, said confidant Sami Askari, a prominent Shiite lawmaker.

More at The Los Angeles Times.

Cleric Calls for Resistance to US Presence in Iraq - Campbell Robertson and Suad Al-Slahy, New York Times

As the Iraqi cabinet prepares to vote on a security agreement for American troops, the anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr called Friday for armed resistance against any agreement that allowed a continued United States presence in Iraq.

“I repeat my demand to the occupier to leave our land without keeping bases or signing agreements,” Mr. Sadr said in a statement read to thousands of supporters at Friday Prayer. “If they keep bases, then I would support honorable resistance.”

Tension is rising here over the agreement as the vote nears, even if few oppose it to the extremes of Mr. Sadr and his followers. An aide to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most revered Shiite cleric in Iraq, also indicated that he would intervene in some way if the draft did not enjoy the full support of the Iraqi people. But Ayatollah Sistani, who far outranks Mr. Sadr, has consistently advocated nonviolence.

Iraqi officials expect the coalition cabinet of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to vote Sunday on whether to send the current draft to Parliament for approval. It is unclear whether it will pass through either body, though some officials are optimistic. “Most of the blocs agree, and there is no bloc that entirely refuses the pact except for the Sadrists,” said Sami al-Askari, a Shiite lawmaker and member of Mr. Maliki’s Dawa Party.

More at the New York Times and Washington Post.

Iraq / OIF

Iraq Moves on SOFA - United Press International
British to Pull Out by 2010, Says Iraqi Official - The Times
Muslim Scholars Hail Deaths of US Troops - United Press International
Kurdish Tensions Boon for al-Qaeda? - United Press International
Troops Detain 11 Suspected Terrorists in Iraq - AFPS

Iraq Head, Top Cleric Back 2011 Exit by US - Mary Beth Sheridan, Washington Post

Iraq's prime minister and its most influential Shiite cleric have decided to support a security agreement that would allow US troops to remain in the country until the end of 2011, sharply increasing its chances of passage in the Iraqi parliament, officials said Saturday.

Approval of the so-called status of forces agreement would be a cause for relief among Bush administration officials, who have grown increasingly concerned that US forces would begin the new year with no legal basis to remain in Iraq. A UN mandate authorizing their presence is set to expire Dec. 31.

A delegation of Shiite lawmakers and government officials met Saturday with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani to review the latest changes to the agreement, and the cleric "gave the Iraqi side the green light to sign it," according to an official in Sistani's office who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Sistani's views carry great weight among members of the Shiite parties that dominate Iraq's government.

More at The Washington Post.

Shiite Bloc Fails to Go to Meeting on Iraq-US Pact - Katherine Zoepf and Atheer Kakan, New York Times

Iraq’s political leaders held a high-level meeting on Saturday to gauge support for a security agreement that will determine the future role and presence of American forces in Iraq before crucial votes in the cabinet and Parliament.

But the most powerful Shiite bloc in Parliament, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, did not attend, and the meeting ended without any clear public resolution.

The agreement, which Iraq and the United States have been negotiating for months, faces a vote by the cabinet, which is expected on Sunday, and then a vote in Parliament, which has not set a date for it. The agreement will replace the United Nations mandate authorizing American military operations in Iraq, which expires on Dec. 31.

The unexpected no-show of the Supreme Council, a close ally of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, was confirmed by two Iraqi lawmakers, one of whom attended the meeting. Other lawmakers expressed concern and said they were puzzled by what it meant.

More at The New York Times.

Agreement Extends US Presence in Iraq - Qassim Abdul-Zahra, Associated Press (Washington Times)

US and Iraqi negotiators have agreed on a draft of a security pact that would allow US troops to stay in Iraq for three more years after their UN mandate expires Dec. 31, a senior aide to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday.

The aide said the draft could be put to a Cabinet vote in an emergency meeting Sunday or Monday. Transport Minister Amir Abdul-Jabbar said he had been notified by the Cabinet secretariat that a Cabinet meeting was scheduled for Sunday to vote on the agreement. If adopted by the Cabinet, it would then require parliamentary approval.

In Washington, National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe described the final document on the security pact as beneficial to both nations.

More at The Washington Times.

Troops to Leave Iraq by 2011 - Daily Telegraph
Friends Fight for ‘Forgotten’ Hostage in Iraq - The Times
Metalheads Defy Baghdad Militias - The Times

US wins early round over Iraq[/color]

The Iraqi cabinet's approval on Sunday of a draft agreement with Washington on the United States presence in Iraq is a key landmark in the struggle for influence in the country between Iran and the US. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his allies lost this battle, but they have not lost the war - this showdown takes place in the Iraqi parliament in a week's time. - Sami Moubayed [color="#999999"] (Nov 17,'08)

THE ROVING EYE
A pact with the devil
Influential Shi'ite leader Muqtada al-Sadr is already threatening fire and brimstone over the Iraqi cabinet's approval of a draft security agreement with the United States. But Muqtada, currently studying in Iran, is in a difficult position: he has to confront the problem that in strategic terms, Tehran subscribes to not attacking US troops as the best way for the Americans to eventually leave. - Pepe Escobar (Nov 17,'08)

Staurday: 14 Killed by Iraq car bombs : A car bomb has killed 11 people and wounded 36 others in the northern Iraqi town of Tal Afar, Iraqi police and the US military say.

Iraqi cleric calls for peaceful mass protest against U.S. occupation: In a letter, al-Sadr called for a pan-Muslim Friday prayer sermon in central Baghdad's Firdous Square next week, instead of separate services in individual mosques.

Lawmakers meet with top cleric on U.S.-Iraq pact: - Two senior Iraqi lawmakers have been meeting with the country's top Shiite cleric, hoping to win his support for a U.S.-Iraq security pact. - . An aide to al-Sistani has said he would "intervene" in the discussions if the agreement's final draft infringed on sovereignty

Iraq: Shi'ites call for Basra to be a mini-state: Two Shi'ite lawmakers have called for a referendum on turning the southern oil-rich province of Basra into a mini-state.

New Blackwater Iraq Scandal: Guns, Silencers and Dog Food: Ex-employees Tell ABC News the Firm Used Dog Food Sacks to Smuggle Unauthorized Weapons to Iraq. .

U.S. Task Force Found Few Iranian Arms in Iraq: Only 70 weapons believed to have been manufactured in Iran had been found in post-invasion weapons caches between mid-February and the second week in April.

IRAQ

Iraq's Cabinet Approves Security Pact With US - Edward Yeranian, Voice of America

The Iraqi government's council of ministers has voted to approve a three-year military pact with the United States, despite the bitter opposition of several hardline Shi'ite leaders. The agreement, which replaces a UN mandate that expires on December 31, must be ratified by the Iraqi parliament.

The Iraqi Cabinet voted overwhelmingly to approve a new military pact with the United States, after weeks of bitter debate and fiery opposition from several influential shi'ite leaders.

The new three-year pact will be put to a parliament vote on November 24, according to the legislative body's deputy speaker. The new pact, which calls for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq completely by the end of 2011, replaces the UN mandate that expires December 31.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali Debbagh underscored the proviso in the text that all US forces would withdraw from the country by the end of 2011, although he said it is up to the government, at that point, to reach a new agreement.

More at Voice of America, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Times, Christian Science Monitor, BBC News, The Times, Daily Telegraph, Associated Press and Agence France-Presse.

Mask Ban Upsets Iraqis Hired as US Interpreters - Ernesto Londoño, Washington Post

The US military has barred Iraqi interpreters working with American troops in Baghdad from wearing ski masks to disguise themselves, prompting some to resign and others to bare their faces even though they fear it could get them killed.

Many interpreters employed by the US government and Western companies in Iraq do everything they can to avoid being recognized on the job because extremists have tortured and killed Iraqis accused of collaborating with the enemy.

"The terps are the number one wanted here," said A.J., a 36-year-old military interpreter, using the shorthand for his profession. "More than the Americans. More than anyone."

The interpreters have come to symbolize the bravery of Iraqis who have aided the American project in Iraq. About 300 US military interpreters have been killed since 2003, said Kirk W. Johnson, a former official in Iraq with the US Agency for International Development who has fought to make it easier for interpreters and other Iraqis to come to the United States.

More at The Washington Post

Troops in Iraq Kill Two Suspected Terrorists, Capture 14, Seize Weapons - AFPS
Hip, New Baghdad Hangout is a Byproduct of War - Christian Science Monitor
Being Shown the Door is Probably the Best Way Out - The Times opinion