By Liz Sly
The Chicago Tribune, 13 May 2007.
BAGHDAD—As Democratic leaders were pushing in the U.S. Congress to tie funding for the Iraq war to measurable signs of political progress in Iraq, the Iraqi parliament was having a typically fruitless week last week.
Tuesday's session was called off because of an electricity blackout. Wednesday's was dominated by a debate on whether to sue Al Jazeera TV network over comments deemed insulting to the top Shiite religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Thursday's was adjourned in an uproar after only 30 minutes when the speaker accused the parliamentarians of responsibility for the violence raging in Iraq, prompting an angry walkout.
At no point were any of the core issues on which U.S. officials are demanding progress addressed—because they haven't even been presented yet.
In the face of mounting pressure from Washington and threats by Congress to impose deadlines for so-called benchmarks on progress, Iraq's political process is deadlocked among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions that must reconcile deep and abiding differences before any progress can be made.
"When the Shiites agree, the Kurds say no. When the Sunnis agree, the Shiites say no. When the Kurds agree, the Sunnis say no," said Christian parliament member Yonadem Kanna. "This is the problem we have. Everything is stuck."
Draft laws languish for months
Laws governing oil, the distribution of government power and the rehabilitation of former Baathists excluded from public life are among the key measures that the Bush administration says must be implemented if Iraq is to be stabilized and U.S. troops brought home.
Congressional Democrats are now seeking ways to tie continued funding for the troops to a timetable for meeting the benchmarks.
But what Washington impatiently calls benchmarks address life-and-death issues to Iraqis—the essence of the conflict threatening to tear their country apart—and they aren't easily going to be resolved by setting deadlines or legislative timetables, Iraqis say.
That's why lawmakers bristled at the suggestion, pressed by Vice President Dick Cheney during his visit to Iraq last week, that parliament should postpone its scheduled two-month summer vacation in July and August.
"America's agenda is not our agenda," said Shiite lawmaker Jalaluddin Sagheer, who said he was sure the lawmakers would agree to postpone their vacation if the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki asked them to.
"But these are not simple issues," he added. "These are the issues that are the cause of all the problems in Iraq, and it's going to need time."
Since President Bush first spelled out the benchmarks in a speech announcing his new Iraq strategy in January, there has been little discernible progress on any of them. Draft laws languish in government offices, or on al-Maliki's desk, or in the office of the speaker of parliament, awaiting the still elusive consensus between Iraq's factions that would be required for them to be enacted.
Parliament members point fingers at a government that is paralyzed by factional differences and institutional incompetence, the government blames a parliament that is equally divided and inept, and both sides blame a system that was devised to share power but instead has only induced deadlock.
Some of the issues have been lingering for months. Though a draft oil law was approved by Iraq's Cabinet in February, it has yet to be presented to parliament. Sunnis and Kurds say they will oppose the law as it is written because of clauses attached later by the government to the draft.
A new de-Baathification law that went a long way toward meeting some of the chief grievances of Iraq's Sunnis by allowing former senior Baathists to resume their jobs was announced with much fanfare by al-Maliki and President Jalal Talabani in March. It too has dropped out of sight, amid an outpouring of opposition from Shiite parliamentarians who regard its clauses as too lenient on those they suspect of sympathizing with the former regime.
'A parliament coffee house'
A review of Iraq's Constitution, promised in 2005 as a means of persuading Iraq's Sunnis to participate in the political process, is already a year behind schedule. A new deadline of Tuesday is unlikely to be met.
Some parliament members are blaming al-Maliki, saying he lacks the muscle to force unpopular decisions past the powerful parliamentary blocs. Sunni leaders suspect he is deliberately delaying the legislation because he is reluctant to make the concessions to Sunni demands that they would require.
"This government is incapable of taking any serious measures to build confidence between the people and between the political groups, because they don't have the mentality," said Sunni lawmaker Saleh al-Mutlaq. "They are more for vengeance than reconciliation."
Others blame the finely tuned political system designed to ensure that no one group can force decisions past another, but which has served to cement the sectarian divide. For any bill to be presented to parliament, it must be signed by the Sunni speaker and by each of his Kurdish and Shiite deputies. Without a consensus, laws simply don't reach the legislature, Kanna said.
With little in the way of substantive business before it, Iraq's parliament has become little more than "a parliament coffee house," in the words of the Deputy Speaker Khalid al-Attiyah, addressing one recent session.
Grievances of peripheral relevance are raised at random, shouted about, and then set aside.
One recent debate focused on big salary raises for parliament members. Another discussion, unresolved, focused on a suggestion that legislators should sit in alphabetical order, rather than in political groupings, as a means of helping them to get to know one another.
The legislature has proved it can be decisive on matters of core concern to the biggest bloc, the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance. When U.S. troops launched a raid near a Shiite shrine in Baghdad, parliament swiftly voted to ban U.S. troops from approaching the shrine. A decision to sue Al Jazeera for insulting Sistani was overwhelmingly approved after a brief debate.
But simple majority voting wouldn't resolve the so-called benchmark issues, even if a majority of votes could be mustered to pass the required laws, Iraqis say. Because the purpose of the laws is to stop the violence, consensus between all the factions is required for the laws to have a chance to succeed.
Most of the decision-making is therefore taking place behind closed doors, in bargaining sessions between the political and religious leaders who wield real power.
Will public accept compromise?
Many lawmakers say they are growing frustrated, too, and welcome the pressure from Washington as a means to hurry along the factions.
"Pressure from Washington is important and essential, but deadlines give the wrong message to Iraqis and terrorists," said Shiite lawmaker Abbas Bayati. "They tell the Iraqis the Americans will abandon them in the middle of nowhere, and they give the wrong message to terrorists, that they won this war. That is why the question of deadlines is a sword over our heads."
The Iraqi government, concerned at the prospect that the U.S. Congress could withdraw its support and force U.S. troops to be pulled home, has dispatched senior figures to Washington to try to persuade lawmakers there not to abandon Iraq.
Legislators also are starting to realize that they have to unite and overcome their differences or risk losing U.S. support altogether, said independent Shiite legislator Shatha al Musawi.
But the lawmakers also have to look to their constituents—the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds who are dying daily on the streets and who also may be unwilling to accept the tough compromises required of their leaders if the laws are to be passed.
"The real obstacle is how to transfer this understanding to the street," Musawi said. "All the sides are going to have to admit they were wrong, and this is something that is very difficult for them."
Citation: Liz Sly. "U.S. Benchmarks Elude Iraq," The Chicago Tribune, 13 May 2007.
Original URL: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070513benchmarks-story,1,2810344.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
This site is designed for use by researchers, educators, and students who seek access to its 2000+ military policy articles for research and/or educational purposes. Provided on a not-for-profit basis per 'fair use' rules.
30 November 2007
Iraq: Armed Groups Urge Participation in Referendum
ADN Kronos International, 22 August 2005.
Baghdad, 22 August (AKI) - One of the main groups involved in the Sunni insurrection, Ansar al Sunna, has urged its supporters to register to vote for the referendum set for October 15 on the future Iraq constitution, in order to vote "no".
The radical Shiite imam Moqtada al-Sadr has also urged Iraqis to register for the referendum, though he has not indicated which way he would prefer people to vote, waiting instead for the draft of the constitution to be presented to parliament.
"Rejecting the constitution will defeat American plans in Iraq," said a statement from Ansar al Sunna, which stated that voting is a form of "jihad against America". Another statement issued by six of the seven Ansar groups promised that there will not be attacks against Americans on the day of the referendum, "to protect those who go to vote."
"Voting is a jihad of words and is no different from the jihad of the sword," the statement said. "There are no objections to participation in the referendum to show the world our strength and to defeat federalism."
Moqtada al-Sadr, whose militants fought against American troops before agreeing to a ceasefire last year, is also opposed to the federalism the Kurds are pushing for. The Shiite preacher urged his followers to register, but warned them to wait for an order on whether to take part in the vote or not.
If the constitution is rejected with two thirds of the votes in at least three of the Iraqi provinces, it will fail. The Sunnis, who boycotted the elections in January, appear determined to take part in this consultation exercise. The two appeals come while the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish political leaders try to reach agreement over the text of the new constitution, which is due to be presented to the Iraqi parliament by midnight on Monday night, though this deadline looks set to be put back a second time. As well as federalism, the main sticking points are distribution of Iraq's oil wealth, power-sharing among the provinces and the role of Islam.
Citation: "Iraq: Armed Groups Urge Participation in Referendum," ADN Kronos International, 22 August 2005.
Original URL: http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.199451272&par=0
Baghdad, 22 August (AKI) - One of the main groups involved in the Sunni insurrection, Ansar al Sunna, has urged its supporters to register to vote for the referendum set for October 15 on the future Iraq constitution, in order to vote "no".
The radical Shiite imam Moqtada al-Sadr has also urged Iraqis to register for the referendum, though he has not indicated which way he would prefer people to vote, waiting instead for the draft of the constitution to be presented to parliament.
"Rejecting the constitution will defeat American plans in Iraq," said a statement from Ansar al Sunna, which stated that voting is a form of "jihad against America". Another statement issued by six of the seven Ansar groups promised that there will not be attacks against Americans on the day of the referendum, "to protect those who go to vote."
"Voting is a jihad of words and is no different from the jihad of the sword," the statement said. "There are no objections to participation in the referendum to show the world our strength and to defeat federalism."
Moqtada al-Sadr, whose militants fought against American troops before agreeing to a ceasefire last year, is also opposed to the federalism the Kurds are pushing for. The Shiite preacher urged his followers to register, but warned them to wait for an order on whether to take part in the vote or not.
If the constitution is rejected with two thirds of the votes in at least three of the Iraqi provinces, it will fail. The Sunnis, who boycotted the elections in January, appear determined to take part in this consultation exercise. The two appeals come while the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish political leaders try to reach agreement over the text of the new constitution, which is due to be presented to the Iraqi parliament by midnight on Monday night, though this deadline looks set to be put back a second time. As well as federalism, the main sticking points are distribution of Iraq's oil wealth, power-sharing among the provinces and the role of Islam.
Citation: "Iraq: Armed Groups Urge Participation in Referendum," ADN Kronos International, 22 August 2005.
Original URL: http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.199451272&par=0
Kurds, Shi'ite agree on leadership positions
By Sharon Behn
Washington Times, 04 March 2005.
The son of Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani said yesterday the Kurds and Ibrahim al-Jaafari have agreed on who will be president and prime minister in a new government, but have yet to decide on the status of Kirkuk, a contested northern Iraqi city with significant oil wealth.
Under the deal, the Kurdish chief would assume the presidency while Mr. al-Jaafari, a Shi'ite, would lead the government as prime minister.
Qubad Talabani, Washington spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, said "intense negotiations" also were under way on the details of Kurdistan's federal status and distribution of the nation's oil riches.
Another source familiar with the negotiations said the Kurds had demanded 25 percent of all oil revenues, and were constantly raising the stakes in the ongoing political discussion.
"Nobody can give them what they want right now, nobody can. Only an elected government, a constitutional government can," said a source inside Mr. al-Jaafari's Shi'ite electoral slate, suggesting that the various demands can be resolved only after the new Cabinet is formed.
"This is everybody playing games right now," he said.
Both Kurdish and Shi'ite sources said Kurdish leaders also were holding closed-door meetings with current Prime Minister Iyad Allawi to see whether forming an alliance with the secular Shi'ite might win them more concessions.
The Kurds hold a deal-breaking 77 seats in the 275-member national assembly. The Shi'ite United Iraqi Alliance holds 140 seats and Mr. Allawi's party has 44. The rest of the seats are held by a variety of small Sunni, Islamist and secular parties.
The makeup allows for a range of political alliances to form the necessary two-thirds bloc needed to approve the new president and two vice presidents, who in turn will form Iraq's new Cabinet.
"If the Shi'ites don't do anything, we will possibly arrange something with Allawi and the [smaller] Sunni parties," one Kurdish party member said on the condition of anonymity.
"We have to get something from the oil revenue, we have to get Kirkuk back, and we have to have at least part of the Peshmerga army" protecting Kurdistan, a three-province area in northern Iraq, he said.
The Kurdish Peshmerga are fierce fighters who battled Saddam Hussein for decades and form a large part of the new Iraqi army. Iraqi leaders are loath to allow the Kurds their own standing army.
Oil-rich Kirkuk is a multiethnic city that Saddam tried to empty of Kurds, who have since come flooding back, claiming the return of their old homes or some form of compensation.
The party member added that Mr. Allawi, who was in Kurdistan two weeks ago, had promised the Kurds more than Mr. al-Jaafari.
Marathon negotiations on key governmental positions and policies have been taking place behind the scenes in Iraq since the National Assembly was elected on Jan. 30.
"If they don't give us what we are asking for, then we are not going to be part of the government," the party member said.
Mr. al-Jaafari, a Shi'ite leader whose candidacy for chief of government has been blessed by the revered Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, also recently spoke with Massoud Barzani, head of the Kurdish Democratic Party.
Sources say that as part of the negotiations Mr. Barzani likely will become the Kurdish regional president and that his nephew would be regional prime minister.
Qubad Talabani said the talks -- the first between Mr. al-Jaafari and the Kurdish leadership -- left many details unresolved.
"The key issues are the role of religion in the state, and the details of federalism: What do we mean by this? Who has power where? Where are the political boundaries? How much does Baghdad interfere in Kurdish affairs?" Mr. Talabani said.
"Kirkuk obviously is critical, we need to rectify the injustices of the past regime," he said.
"And oil is critical. It is an indicator of how the new government is going to be. Is it going to decentralize the oil policy and distribute the oil wealth, or will it all be centralized? We want decentralization in every sphere," Mr. Talabani said.
As the politicians wrestled over the formation and direction of Iraq's first democratically elected government, terrorist car bombs killed six policemen and wounded 15 in new attacks on the country's security services yesterday.
Citation: Sharon Behn. "Kurds, Shi'ite Agree on Leadership Positions," Washington Times, 04 March 2005.
Original URL: http://washingtontimes.com/world/20050303-115731-4197r.htm
Washington Times, 04 March 2005.
The son of Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani said yesterday the Kurds and Ibrahim al-Jaafari have agreed on who will be president and prime minister in a new government, but have yet to decide on the status of Kirkuk, a contested northern Iraqi city with significant oil wealth.
Under the deal, the Kurdish chief would assume the presidency while Mr. al-Jaafari, a Shi'ite, would lead the government as prime minister.
Qubad Talabani, Washington spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, said "intense negotiations" also were under way on the details of Kurdistan's federal status and distribution of the nation's oil riches.
Another source familiar with the negotiations said the Kurds had demanded 25 percent of all oil revenues, and were constantly raising the stakes in the ongoing political discussion.
"Nobody can give them what they want right now, nobody can. Only an elected government, a constitutional government can," said a source inside Mr. al-Jaafari's Shi'ite electoral slate, suggesting that the various demands can be resolved only after the new Cabinet is formed.
"This is everybody playing games right now," he said.
Both Kurdish and Shi'ite sources said Kurdish leaders also were holding closed-door meetings with current Prime Minister Iyad Allawi to see whether forming an alliance with the secular Shi'ite might win them more concessions.
The Kurds hold a deal-breaking 77 seats in the 275-member national assembly. The Shi'ite United Iraqi Alliance holds 140 seats and Mr. Allawi's party has 44. The rest of the seats are held by a variety of small Sunni, Islamist and secular parties.
The makeup allows for a range of political alliances to form the necessary two-thirds bloc needed to approve the new president and two vice presidents, who in turn will form Iraq's new Cabinet.
"If the Shi'ites don't do anything, we will possibly arrange something with Allawi and the [smaller] Sunni parties," one Kurdish party member said on the condition of anonymity.
"We have to get something from the oil revenue, we have to get Kirkuk back, and we have to have at least part of the Peshmerga army" protecting Kurdistan, a three-province area in northern Iraq, he said.
The Kurdish Peshmerga are fierce fighters who battled Saddam Hussein for decades and form a large part of the new Iraqi army. Iraqi leaders are loath to allow the Kurds their own standing army.
Oil-rich Kirkuk is a multiethnic city that Saddam tried to empty of Kurds, who have since come flooding back, claiming the return of their old homes or some form of compensation.
The party member added that Mr. Allawi, who was in Kurdistan two weeks ago, had promised the Kurds more than Mr. al-Jaafari.
Marathon negotiations on key governmental positions and policies have been taking place behind the scenes in Iraq since the National Assembly was elected on Jan. 30.
"If they don't give us what we are asking for, then we are not going to be part of the government," the party member said.
Mr. al-Jaafari, a Shi'ite leader whose candidacy for chief of government has been blessed by the revered Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, also recently spoke with Massoud Barzani, head of the Kurdish Democratic Party.
Sources say that as part of the negotiations Mr. Barzani likely will become the Kurdish regional president and that his nephew would be regional prime minister.
Qubad Talabani said the talks -- the first between Mr. al-Jaafari and the Kurdish leadership -- left many details unresolved.
"The key issues are the role of religion in the state, and the details of federalism: What do we mean by this? Who has power where? Where are the political boundaries? How much does Baghdad interfere in Kurdish affairs?" Mr. Talabani said.
"Kirkuk obviously is critical, we need to rectify the injustices of the past regime," he said.
"And oil is critical. It is an indicator of how the new government is going to be. Is it going to decentralize the oil policy and distribute the oil wealth, or will it all be centralized? We want decentralization in every sphere," Mr. Talabani said.
As the politicians wrestled over the formation and direction of Iraq's first democratically elected government, terrorist car bombs killed six policemen and wounded 15 in new attacks on the country's security services yesterday.
Citation: Sharon Behn. "Kurds, Shi'ite Agree on Leadership Positions," Washington Times, 04 March 2005.
Original URL: http://washingtontimes.com/world/20050303-115731-4197r.htm
Controversial U.S. Groups Operate Behind Scenes on Iraq Vote
Washington-funded organizations are hard at work providing assistance to political campaigns in the lead up to next month?s nationwide elections, but critics suggest their participation is anything but benevolent.
By Lisa Ashkenaz Croke and Brian Dominick
The New Standard,, 13 December 2004.
Dec 13 - Even as the White House decries the ominous prospect of Iranian influence on the upcoming Iraqi national elections, US-funded organizations with long records of manipulating foreign democracies in the direction of Washington?s interests are quietly but deeply involved in essentially every aspect of the process. "As should be clear, the electoral process will be an Iraqi process conducted by Iraqis for Iraqis," declared United Nations special envoy, Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, in a September 14 statement to the Security Council. "It cannot be anything else."
But in actuality, influential, US-financed agencies describing themselves as "pro-democracy" but viewed by critics as decidedly anti-democratic, have their hands all over Iraq?s transitional process, from the formation of political parties to monitoring the January 30 nationwide polls and possibly conducting exit polls that could be used to evaluate the fairness of the ballot-casting.
Two such groups -- the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) -- are part of a consortium of non-governmental organizations to which the United States has provided over $80 million for political and electoral activities in post-Saddam Iraq.
Both groups publicly assert they are non-partisan, but each has extremely close ties to its namesake American political party, and both are deeply partial to the perceived national interests of their home country, despite substantial involvement in the politics of numerous sovereign nations worldwide.
NDI is headed by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who took over the chair from former president Jimmy Carter. Republican Senator John McCain chairs IRI. Both groups have highly controversial reputations and are described throughout much of the world as either helpful, meddlesome, or downright subversive, depending on who you ask. In some places their work has earned praise from independent grassroots democracy advocates, but in many Third World republics, both groups have been tied to alleged covert plans to install US-favored governments.
The groups? separate but overlapping mandates in Iraq include educating Iraqis on the democratic process, training Iraqi organizations to monitor the elections and deal with electoral conflicts, and providing impartial advice and training to political parties, according to the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the official governmental organ funding the consortium's operations in Iraq. USAID contracts with and provides grants to private organizations that uphold its objectives, which include, according to the Agency?s own literature, "furthering America?s foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of citizens in the developing world."
Far from the United Nations? mission to oversee the election process itself, the American groups are actively engaged in cultivating political parties, and IRI appears to be working most heavily with parties and politicians favored by Washington.
Critics have expressed alarm, if not surprise, that policies carried out in other countries over the past two decades appear to be repeating in occupied Iraq. "USAID has learned that ?legitimate? leaders are not just found, they're made," wrote Herbert Docena, a research associate specializing in Iraq at the Bangkok-based activist think tank, Focus on the Global South. "Before the US withdraws from the scene, it first has to ensure that its Iraqis will know what to do."
According to Docena, USAID?s activity in Iraq, as carried out by non-governmental proxies, is drawn straight out of the Agency?s handbook, which advocates "capitalizing on national openings" and "[taking] advantage of national-level targets of opportunity" as they emerge, all while looking for a "strategic doorway" -- called an "entry point" -- that enables an Agency project to "anchor its program and optimize overall impact" in a target area.
"In Iraq, the ?entry point? was the invasion," Docena explained. "The ?national opening? was the collapsed state left in its wake."
In October, Reuters obtained documents from the US State Department suggesting that the parties benefiting from US support of the Iraqi political process would be limited to those considered by the US to be "democratic or moderate," and that the Department was spending $1 million on polling to determine "which candidates and parties are attracting the most support from the Iraqi people."
According to the documents, Washington will provide "strategic advice, technical assistance, training, polling data, assistance, and other forms of support" to "moderate, democratically oriented political parties."
Such US-backed groups, including the Islamic Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution (SCIRI), which now dominate the 100-member National Council selected amid controversy last August, participated in a series of six "training conferences" hosted by IRI this June.
According to IRI?s website, the prominent parties were joined at the training by dozens of small and medium-sized organizations. "Topics ranged from candidate leadership skills to platform development," reads the group?s report, "thus offering emerging Iraqi civic and political organizations a chance to learn a full array of successful campaign techniques. Results were promising -- participants expressed great enthusiasm during the proceedings and many actively pursued closer working relationships with the Institute."
Representatives of IRI would not speak with TNS on the record, but the group?s website page on Iraq -- which does not appear to have been updated since early summer -- suggests IRI was involved in organizing last August?s National Conference, purportedly held to elect an interim assembly that would oversee Iraq?s current interim government. That event was widely viewed as a calamity, not least because no vote ever took place. IRI would not comment on its involvement in the Conference or even evaluate its success on the record.
Other IRI programs have employed a "top-down approach," the group?s website states, providing instruction specifically for Iraq's interim governing bodies, from the original Governing Council to the present administration. Such a policy would appear to offer those already in power, mostly US-backed parties, a disproportionate share of IRI's resources and a precedent of involvement not shared with Iraq's fledgling opposition parties.
IRI's relationship with parties dominating Iraq's interim government raises the question of how much influence the American group has had in determining the makeup of current coalitions being formed to vie for the 275-seat National Assembly come January 30, which will in turn select a new government and write Iraq?s permanent constitution.
Unlike its counterpart, NDI spoke at length with The NewStandard. Insisting that NDI?s advice does not favor any of Iraq?s numerous political parties over any others, Les Campbell, the organization?s regional director for the Middle East and Africa, said, "We work with all the parties, including the big and well-known ones, but we actually ? spend special efforts to find, for example, Sunni parties -- ones that might represent the Sunni population."
Campbell estimated that NDI?s contributions are probably disproportionately helpful to the more obscure, less experienced Iraqi parties -- the ones that need assistance at nearly every level. "We have spent special effort trying to find people and parties that might reflect the views of the urban, sort of secular intellectuals," Campbell said, "because we think that they are disadvantaged."
Nevertheless, Campbell was careful to point out that NDI officially has no interest in the outcome of the Iraqi elections. "I have no idea, and nor do we ever really worry about whether or not our assistance has any affect on the [elections?] outcome," he said. "We?re not even slightly outcome-oriented."
Both NDI and IRI say they are maintaining low profiles in Iraq primarily for the security of their staff and the Iraqis to whom they provide political assistance. But Campbell said there are other reasons, at least for NDI, that they do not stand out as a defining feature of the transition to democracy in Iraq. "We?re not an organization that generally seeks credit," Campbell insisted. "We always perceive ourselves to be standing behind and supporting people. We?re not trying to lead the parade anywhere; and we?re certainly not trying to lead the parade in Iraq."
Critics of the work carried out elsewhere by NDI and IRI are concerned that the groups? low profiles in Iraq are not driven just by security or institutional modesty. Professor and author William I. Robinson of the Global and International Studies Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara calls groups like NDI and IRI "extensions" of the US State Department.
Robinson agrees with Campbell that groups like NDI are in danger in Iraq to the extent they are identified with the United States government. But according to Robinson, who has researched and written extensively on US foreign political and economic policies, the perception of an alignment between the US government and private organizations it funds is well deserved.
"I suspect that [NDI and IRI] are ? trying to select individual leaders and organizations that are going to be very amenable to the US transnational project for Iraq," Robinson said. He described those actors as willing to engage in "pacifying the country militarily and legitimating the occupation and the formal electoral system." Robinson added that developing relationships with "economic, political and civic groups that are going to be favorable to Iraq?s integration into the global capitalist economy" would prove even more important for US-based organizations in the long run.
This would include, Robinson said, altering Iraq?s political and economic infrastructure to be more open to international trade and investment, as well as more favorable to global financial lending institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Robinson sees the Middle East as one of the few viable areas of the world yet to be drawn into the US?s sphere of economic influence, and concludes that, more than a way to exploit oil, the US-led invasion and occupation serve as potential doorways into broader, more advantageous economic engagement in the region.
NDI and IRI are two out of four core organizations of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a self-described "nonprofit, non-governmental, bipartisan, grant-making organization" the stated purpose of which is "to help strengthen democratic institutions around the world." Created during Ronald Reagan?s first term as president to enhance overseas political influence weakened by Jimmy Carter?s 1977 ban on CIA democracy front groups, NED?s reputation as a promoter of democracy never truly thrived outside the United States.
The organization and its affiliates regularly encounter allegations that they have supported opposition candidates and promoted subversive movements in countries where governments -- some democratically elected -- are seen as threatening to US interests.
According to Campbell of NDI, both his group and its Republican counterpart originally became involved with political party formation and civil society efforts in Iraq shortly after the Spring 2003 invasion, using NED funds while getting their feet wet. By the next winter, administrators at the US-run Coalition Provisional Authority, along with others at the State Department and the National Security Council, began showing interest, Campbell explained. Then, in early 2004, the US government allocated $25 million to the NED to spread among its affiliate groups. Finally, in preparation for the 2005 vote, USAID gave more than $80 million to NDI, IRI and others involved in the consortium set up to provide technical and political assistance to the electoral process.
In Robinson?s view, ulterior motives of US groups aside, the idea that Western advisors can help democratize a society like Iraq also appears shortsighted. In reference to NDI?s stated practice of providing advice to politically vulnerable groups, Robinson said: "It?s not at all clear that Iraqi women need the advice of people from the US telling them how to organize -- or that students do, or so forth. And it?s not clear what value that advice could possibly have, other than trying to create a political bloc inside the country which will conform to the larger US vision for Iraq."
Robinson also says that US-based organizations, serving as private proxies for the government, will back numerous political parties in Iraq, just as IRI and NDI say they do; but Robinson says there will be stricter limits on that assistance than such organizations would lead the public to believe. "It wouldn?t be that the US would put its eggs behind one party, but [rather] a number of parties within a political spectrum -- representing different constituencies, but all within boundaries.
"What remains outside of those boundaries," Robinson continued, "is an alternative vision for Iraq -- a completely different vision which might well be the vision a majority of Iraqis would have."
Right wing critics have also questioned the record of National Endowment for Democracy and its affiliate organizations. In an analysis written for the conservative libertarian CATO Institute, Barbara Conry wrote that the NED?s "mischief overseas" has amounted to US taxpayers funding "special-interest groups to harass the duly elected governments of friendly countries, interfere in foreign elections, and foster the corruption of democratic movements."
Last year, Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) took aim at the Endowment -- particularly the roles of NDI and IRI -- writing that the purposes for which both organizations are utilized elsewhere in the world "would be rightly illegal in the United States."
The apparently impromptu public protest in the Ukraine following the now-rescinded win by Russia?s favored candidate, Victor Yanukovich, is believed to have been at least partly orchestrated by the National Endowment for Democracy. According to reports in The Guardian, both NDI and IRI were involved in developing extremely active popular campaigns in support of Victor Yushchenko, the opposition candidate favored in the West whose defeat was immediately followed by condemnations of vote fraud in the US, by both the State Department and the mass media.
Further, the Associated Press reported on December 10 that the Bush Administration spent $65 million over the past two years to support opposition candidates in Ukraine.
Other recent examples of NED-affiliated groups meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations include political upheavals in both Venezuela and Haiti.
An article in the current edition of Mother Jones specifically ties IRI to the 2002 armed coup that briefly removed populist President Hugo Chavez from power in Venezuela. According to Mother Jones, IRI was also involved in sponsoring parties that led to last January?s violent uprising against democratically elected Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, which itself culminated in Aristide?s exile and the dissolution of his government on February 29. Haiti is currently ruled by the county?s chief Supreme Court Justice, who replaced Aristide. Haiti currently has no functioning parliament and new elections have yet to be held.
One of the mechanisms US-backed groups typically use to challenge unfavorable election results is exit polls and other tracking methods, which almost invariably show Washington?s preferred candidates to have edged out their opponents. It is unclear whether IRI will engage in any exit polling or other verification methods on January 30, but Campbell said NDI will not, citing "security and logistical" concerns that would render such activity impossible.
There remains more to learn and report about the activities of these and other US-based non-governmental organizations in Iraq and the relations between the US State Department and various Iraqi political actors. The NewStandard has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents pertaining to the involvement of US-based organizations in Iraq?s upcoming elections.
Regardless of how the January 30, 2005 elections turn out, US-backed nongovernmental organizations are likely to be involved in Iraq well into the future. "We?re digging in for the long haul," said Campbell. "I would fully anticipate NDI being in Iraq five years from now or ten years from now."
Citation: Lisa Ashkenaz Croke and Brian Dominick. "Controversial U.S. Groups Operate Behind Scenes on Iraq Vote," The New Standard,, 13 December 2004.
Original URL: http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1311
By Lisa Ashkenaz Croke and Brian Dominick
The New Standard,, 13 December 2004.
Dec 13 - Even as the White House decries the ominous prospect of Iranian influence on the upcoming Iraqi national elections, US-funded organizations with long records of manipulating foreign democracies in the direction of Washington?s interests are quietly but deeply involved in essentially every aspect of the process. "As should be clear, the electoral process will be an Iraqi process conducted by Iraqis for Iraqis," declared United Nations special envoy, Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, in a September 14 statement to the Security Council. "It cannot be anything else."
But in actuality, influential, US-financed agencies describing themselves as "pro-democracy" but viewed by critics as decidedly anti-democratic, have their hands all over Iraq?s transitional process, from the formation of political parties to monitoring the January 30 nationwide polls and possibly conducting exit polls that could be used to evaluate the fairness of the ballot-casting.
Two such groups -- the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) -- are part of a consortium of non-governmental organizations to which the United States has provided over $80 million for political and electoral activities in post-Saddam Iraq.
Both groups publicly assert they are non-partisan, but each has extremely close ties to its namesake American political party, and both are deeply partial to the perceived national interests of their home country, despite substantial involvement in the politics of numerous sovereign nations worldwide.
NDI is headed by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who took over the chair from former president Jimmy Carter. Republican Senator John McCain chairs IRI. Both groups have highly controversial reputations and are described throughout much of the world as either helpful, meddlesome, or downright subversive, depending on who you ask. In some places their work has earned praise from independent grassroots democracy advocates, but in many Third World republics, both groups have been tied to alleged covert plans to install US-favored governments.
The groups? separate but overlapping mandates in Iraq include educating Iraqis on the democratic process, training Iraqi organizations to monitor the elections and deal with electoral conflicts, and providing impartial advice and training to political parties, according to the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the official governmental organ funding the consortium's operations in Iraq. USAID contracts with and provides grants to private organizations that uphold its objectives, which include, according to the Agency?s own literature, "furthering America?s foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of citizens in the developing world."
Far from the United Nations? mission to oversee the election process itself, the American groups are actively engaged in cultivating political parties, and IRI appears to be working most heavily with parties and politicians favored by Washington.
Critics have expressed alarm, if not surprise, that policies carried out in other countries over the past two decades appear to be repeating in occupied Iraq. "USAID has learned that ?legitimate? leaders are not just found, they're made," wrote Herbert Docena, a research associate specializing in Iraq at the Bangkok-based activist think tank, Focus on the Global South. "Before the US withdraws from the scene, it first has to ensure that its Iraqis will know what to do."
According to Docena, USAID?s activity in Iraq, as carried out by non-governmental proxies, is drawn straight out of the Agency?s handbook, which advocates "capitalizing on national openings" and "[taking] advantage of national-level targets of opportunity" as they emerge, all while looking for a "strategic doorway" -- called an "entry point" -- that enables an Agency project to "anchor its program and optimize overall impact" in a target area.
"In Iraq, the ?entry point? was the invasion," Docena explained. "The ?national opening? was the collapsed state left in its wake."
In October, Reuters obtained documents from the US State Department suggesting that the parties benefiting from US support of the Iraqi political process would be limited to those considered by the US to be "democratic or moderate," and that the Department was spending $1 million on polling to determine "which candidates and parties are attracting the most support from the Iraqi people."
According to the documents, Washington will provide "strategic advice, technical assistance, training, polling data, assistance, and other forms of support" to "moderate, democratically oriented political parties."
Such US-backed groups, including the Islamic Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution (SCIRI), which now dominate the 100-member National Council selected amid controversy last August, participated in a series of six "training conferences" hosted by IRI this June.
According to IRI?s website, the prominent parties were joined at the training by dozens of small and medium-sized organizations. "Topics ranged from candidate leadership skills to platform development," reads the group?s report, "thus offering emerging Iraqi civic and political organizations a chance to learn a full array of successful campaign techniques. Results were promising -- participants expressed great enthusiasm during the proceedings and many actively pursued closer working relationships with the Institute."
Representatives of IRI would not speak with TNS on the record, but the group?s website page on Iraq -- which does not appear to have been updated since early summer -- suggests IRI was involved in organizing last August?s National Conference, purportedly held to elect an interim assembly that would oversee Iraq?s current interim government. That event was widely viewed as a calamity, not least because no vote ever took place. IRI would not comment on its involvement in the Conference or even evaluate its success on the record.
Other IRI programs have employed a "top-down approach," the group?s website states, providing instruction specifically for Iraq's interim governing bodies, from the original Governing Council to the present administration. Such a policy would appear to offer those already in power, mostly US-backed parties, a disproportionate share of IRI's resources and a precedent of involvement not shared with Iraq's fledgling opposition parties.
IRI's relationship with parties dominating Iraq's interim government raises the question of how much influence the American group has had in determining the makeup of current coalitions being formed to vie for the 275-seat National Assembly come January 30, which will in turn select a new government and write Iraq?s permanent constitution.
Unlike its counterpart, NDI spoke at length with The NewStandard. Insisting that NDI?s advice does not favor any of Iraq?s numerous political parties over any others, Les Campbell, the organization?s regional director for the Middle East and Africa, said, "We work with all the parties, including the big and well-known ones, but we actually ? spend special efforts to find, for example, Sunni parties -- ones that might represent the Sunni population."
Campbell estimated that NDI?s contributions are probably disproportionately helpful to the more obscure, less experienced Iraqi parties -- the ones that need assistance at nearly every level. "We have spent special effort trying to find people and parties that might reflect the views of the urban, sort of secular intellectuals," Campbell said, "because we think that they are disadvantaged."
Nevertheless, Campbell was careful to point out that NDI officially has no interest in the outcome of the Iraqi elections. "I have no idea, and nor do we ever really worry about whether or not our assistance has any affect on the [elections?] outcome," he said. "We?re not even slightly outcome-oriented."
Both NDI and IRI say they are maintaining low profiles in Iraq primarily for the security of their staff and the Iraqis to whom they provide political assistance. But Campbell said there are other reasons, at least for NDI, that they do not stand out as a defining feature of the transition to democracy in Iraq. "We?re not an organization that generally seeks credit," Campbell insisted. "We always perceive ourselves to be standing behind and supporting people. We?re not trying to lead the parade anywhere; and we?re certainly not trying to lead the parade in Iraq."
Critics of the work carried out elsewhere by NDI and IRI are concerned that the groups? low profiles in Iraq are not driven just by security or institutional modesty. Professor and author William I. Robinson of the Global and International Studies Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara calls groups like NDI and IRI "extensions" of the US State Department.
Robinson agrees with Campbell that groups like NDI are in danger in Iraq to the extent they are identified with the United States government. But according to Robinson, who has researched and written extensively on US foreign political and economic policies, the perception of an alignment between the US government and private organizations it funds is well deserved.
"I suspect that [NDI and IRI] are ? trying to select individual leaders and organizations that are going to be very amenable to the US transnational project for Iraq," Robinson said. He described those actors as willing to engage in "pacifying the country militarily and legitimating the occupation and the formal electoral system." Robinson added that developing relationships with "economic, political and civic groups that are going to be favorable to Iraq?s integration into the global capitalist economy" would prove even more important for US-based organizations in the long run.
This would include, Robinson said, altering Iraq?s political and economic infrastructure to be more open to international trade and investment, as well as more favorable to global financial lending institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Robinson sees the Middle East as one of the few viable areas of the world yet to be drawn into the US?s sphere of economic influence, and concludes that, more than a way to exploit oil, the US-led invasion and occupation serve as potential doorways into broader, more advantageous economic engagement in the region.
NDI and IRI are two out of four core organizations of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a self-described "nonprofit, non-governmental, bipartisan, grant-making organization" the stated purpose of which is "to help strengthen democratic institutions around the world." Created during Ronald Reagan?s first term as president to enhance overseas political influence weakened by Jimmy Carter?s 1977 ban on CIA democracy front groups, NED?s reputation as a promoter of democracy never truly thrived outside the United States.
The organization and its affiliates regularly encounter allegations that they have supported opposition candidates and promoted subversive movements in countries where governments -- some democratically elected -- are seen as threatening to US interests.
According to Campbell of NDI, both his group and its Republican counterpart originally became involved with political party formation and civil society efforts in Iraq shortly after the Spring 2003 invasion, using NED funds while getting their feet wet. By the next winter, administrators at the US-run Coalition Provisional Authority, along with others at the State Department and the National Security Council, began showing interest, Campbell explained. Then, in early 2004, the US government allocated $25 million to the NED to spread among its affiliate groups. Finally, in preparation for the 2005 vote, USAID gave more than $80 million to NDI, IRI and others involved in the consortium set up to provide technical and political assistance to the electoral process.
In Robinson?s view, ulterior motives of US groups aside, the idea that Western advisors can help democratize a society like Iraq also appears shortsighted. In reference to NDI?s stated practice of providing advice to politically vulnerable groups, Robinson said: "It?s not at all clear that Iraqi women need the advice of people from the US telling them how to organize -- or that students do, or so forth. And it?s not clear what value that advice could possibly have, other than trying to create a political bloc inside the country which will conform to the larger US vision for Iraq."
Robinson also says that US-based organizations, serving as private proxies for the government, will back numerous political parties in Iraq, just as IRI and NDI say they do; but Robinson says there will be stricter limits on that assistance than such organizations would lead the public to believe. "It wouldn?t be that the US would put its eggs behind one party, but [rather] a number of parties within a political spectrum -- representing different constituencies, but all within boundaries.
"What remains outside of those boundaries," Robinson continued, "is an alternative vision for Iraq -- a completely different vision which might well be the vision a majority of Iraqis would have."
Right wing critics have also questioned the record of National Endowment for Democracy and its affiliate organizations. In an analysis written for the conservative libertarian CATO Institute, Barbara Conry wrote that the NED?s "mischief overseas" has amounted to US taxpayers funding "special-interest groups to harass the duly elected governments of friendly countries, interfere in foreign elections, and foster the corruption of democratic movements."
Last year, Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) took aim at the Endowment -- particularly the roles of NDI and IRI -- writing that the purposes for which both organizations are utilized elsewhere in the world "would be rightly illegal in the United States."
The apparently impromptu public protest in the Ukraine following the now-rescinded win by Russia?s favored candidate, Victor Yanukovich, is believed to have been at least partly orchestrated by the National Endowment for Democracy. According to reports in The Guardian, both NDI and IRI were involved in developing extremely active popular campaigns in support of Victor Yushchenko, the opposition candidate favored in the West whose defeat was immediately followed by condemnations of vote fraud in the US, by both the State Department and the mass media.
Further, the Associated Press reported on December 10 that the Bush Administration spent $65 million over the past two years to support opposition candidates in Ukraine.
Other recent examples of NED-affiliated groups meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations include political upheavals in both Venezuela and Haiti.
An article in the current edition of Mother Jones specifically ties IRI to the 2002 armed coup that briefly removed populist President Hugo Chavez from power in Venezuela. According to Mother Jones, IRI was also involved in sponsoring parties that led to last January?s violent uprising against democratically elected Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, which itself culminated in Aristide?s exile and the dissolution of his government on February 29. Haiti is currently ruled by the county?s chief Supreme Court Justice, who replaced Aristide. Haiti currently has no functioning parliament and new elections have yet to be held.
One of the mechanisms US-backed groups typically use to challenge unfavorable election results is exit polls and other tracking methods, which almost invariably show Washington?s preferred candidates to have edged out their opponents. It is unclear whether IRI will engage in any exit polling or other verification methods on January 30, but Campbell said NDI will not, citing "security and logistical" concerns that would render such activity impossible.
There remains more to learn and report about the activities of these and other US-based non-governmental organizations in Iraq and the relations between the US State Department and various Iraqi political actors. The NewStandard has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents pertaining to the involvement of US-based organizations in Iraq?s upcoming elections.
Regardless of how the January 30, 2005 elections turn out, US-backed nongovernmental organizations are likely to be involved in Iraq well into the future. "We?re digging in for the long haul," said Campbell. "I would fully anticipate NDI being in Iraq five years from now or ten years from now."
Citation: Lisa Ashkenaz Croke and Brian Dominick. "Controversial U.S. Groups Operate Behind Scenes on Iraq Vote," The New Standard,, 13 December 2004.
Original URL: http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1311
Joint Statement Issued by the Iraqi Trade Unions Concerning the Programs of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Iraq
Iraqi Trade Unions, 17 January 2006.
The Iraqi economy has been severely affected by decades of sanctions, wars and occupation. The Iraqi trade unions and federations believe in the capacity of the country with all its oil and mineral resources to provide a decent living standard for Iraqis.
The federations and unions consider that the wars and occupation have caused a dramatic decrease in the living and social standards of Iraqis and especially of workers.
The federations and unions stress the importance of complete sovereignty for Iraq over its petroleum and natural resources so as to develop them in a way that assures a complete reconstruction of the country. We wish to stress the following points in regard to the policies of the IMF and World Bank in Iraq:
1) Increasing transparency and additional representation for Iraq in the decision-making structures of the IFIs.
2) To stop imposing structural adjustment conditions for loans.
3) Agreeing to provide funding for public services and state-owned enterprises without demanding their privatization.
4) Canceling debts owed by Iraq that have resulted from the policies of the former regime.
5) Rejecting the reduction of spending on social services especially the elimination of government support for the food distribution system or the reduction of the number of items covered.
6) Strongly rejecting the privatization of publicly owned entities and especially of the oil, education, health, electricity, transportation and construction sectors.
7) Rejecting the increase in the price of petroleum products, considering the negative impact of the increase on the living standards of Iraqis.
8) Adopting a new labor law and a pension and social security law that assure workers' rights and are in conformity with international labor standards and human rights conventions. The World Bank and the IMF must also respect these standards .
The unions and federations that have signed this statement announce the formation of a permanent coordinating committee that will make its positions known to the Iraqi Government and to the IFIs. They also demand that the IFIs engage in dialogue, discussion and negotiations with the trade union federations regarding their policies in Iraq.
Finally, they request the assistance of international trade union organizations to provide all possible support to the above-mentioned demands.
Joint Statement, Iraqi Trade Unions
Amman, 16 January 2006
General Federation of Iraqi Workers Oil Unions Federation in Iraq
Basra Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq
Kurdistan General Workers Syndicate Union
Erbil Iraqi Kurdistan Workers Syndicate Union
Citation: "Joint Statement Issued by the Iraqi Trade Unions Concerning the Programs of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Iraq," Iraqi Trade Unions, 17 January 2006.
Original URL: http://electroniciraq.net/news/printer2250.shtml
The Iraqi economy has been severely affected by decades of sanctions, wars and occupation. The Iraqi trade unions and federations believe in the capacity of the country with all its oil and mineral resources to provide a decent living standard for Iraqis.
The federations and unions consider that the wars and occupation have caused a dramatic decrease in the living and social standards of Iraqis and especially of workers.
The federations and unions stress the importance of complete sovereignty for Iraq over its petroleum and natural resources so as to develop them in a way that assures a complete reconstruction of the country. We wish to stress the following points in regard to the policies of the IMF and World Bank in Iraq:
1) Increasing transparency and additional representation for Iraq in the decision-making structures of the IFIs.
2) To stop imposing structural adjustment conditions for loans.
3) Agreeing to provide funding for public services and state-owned enterprises without demanding their privatization.
4) Canceling debts owed by Iraq that have resulted from the policies of the former regime.
5) Rejecting the reduction of spending on social services especially the elimination of government support for the food distribution system or the reduction of the number of items covered.
6) Strongly rejecting the privatization of publicly owned entities and especially of the oil, education, health, electricity, transportation and construction sectors.
7) Rejecting the increase in the price of petroleum products, considering the negative impact of the increase on the living standards of Iraqis.
8) Adopting a new labor law and a pension and social security law that assure workers' rights and are in conformity with international labor standards and human rights conventions. The World Bank and the IMF must also respect these standards .
The unions and federations that have signed this statement announce the formation of a permanent coordinating committee that will make its positions known to the Iraqi Government and to the IFIs. They also demand that the IFIs engage in dialogue, discussion and negotiations with the trade union federations regarding their policies in Iraq.
Finally, they request the assistance of international trade union organizations to provide all possible support to the above-mentioned demands.
Joint Statement, Iraqi Trade Unions
Amman, 16 January 2006
General Federation of Iraqi Workers Oil Unions Federation in Iraq
Basra Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq
Kurdistan General Workers Syndicate Union
Erbil Iraqi Kurdistan Workers Syndicate Union
Citation: "Joint Statement Issued by the Iraqi Trade Unions Concerning the Programs of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Iraq," Iraqi Trade Unions, 17 January 2006.
Original URL: http://electroniciraq.net/news/printer2250.shtml
U.S. Fumbling Postwar Plan
By Hussein Ibish
Los Angeles Times, 04 April 2003.
If concern is growing that ideological convictions at the Defense Department resulted in costly miscalculations regarding the war in Iraq, even greater alarm is warranted by glaring missteps in the preparation for what comes after the war.
Take, for instance, the political profile of the man tapped to lead the occupation, retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner.
Garner's stated opinions on Middle Eastern politics make him singularly unsuitable for the indescribably sensitive task of being the first U.S. administrator of a large Arab country. In 2000, Garner signed a statement backing Israel's hard-line tactics in enforcing the occupation of the Palestinian territories of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
This statement, which was organized by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a think tank close to the Israeli far right, praised the Israel Defense Forces' "remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of a Palestinian Authority" and advised the strongest possible American support.
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of Arab politics knows that any association between an American occupation of Iraq and Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands poses great danger. It is guaranteed to breed deep resentment and bitter opposition, especially as U.S. checkpoints in Iraq begin to look increasingly like those in the West Bank.
Persistent reports in the British and American press suggest that Garner will be in charge of 23 ministries, each headed by an American with Iraqi advisors. Not only will this look and feel like a colonial administration, the identity of some of the Iraqi advisors rings alarms.
Most disturbing is the role apparently planned for Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, a U.S.-created opposition group based in London with no visible presence or support in Iraq. He is extremely popular with the neoconservatives in and around the administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.
In the Middle East, however, Chalabi is also known for swindling tens of millions of dollars from a bank he headed in Jordan. In April 1992, he was sentenced in absentia to 22 years' hard labor on 31 charges of embezzlement, theft, misuse of depositor funds and speculation with the Jordanian dinar. For many months this man has been demanding that Washington appoint him prime minister of Iraq. It is cold comfort indeed to learn that he will be Garner's "advisor" at a ministry of finance.
Other early signs for how the administration of Iraq will function are equally not encouraging.
The management of the port of Umm al Qasr, one of the few places in Iraq under complete Western control, has produced a split between British and American authorities. The British view is that the Iraqi manager, who has been in his position for years, is capable of doing the job. Our government insisted, however, in providing a lucrative contract to run the port to Stevedoring Services of Seattle.
Australia has expressed concern that its existing wheat contracts with Iraq will be transferred to U.S. interests.
This appears to be the pattern set for most such arrangements in Iraq, with not only allies, the United Nations and major nongovernmental organizations frozen out of the process but with local Iraqis as well, in favor of American corporations.
Some NGOs, of course, will be present in Iraq, and one of the first to announce its intention to follow in the footsteps of the invasion force is the evangelical organization led by Franklin Graham. Graham, who has repeatedly insisted that Islam is a "very evil, wicked religion," will hardly be a reassuring presence to ordinary Iraqis.
The behavior of some of our troops has also provided ominous signs of political problems to come. Gestures such as naming Army bases in Iraq after Exxon and captured airstrips "George W. Bush International Airport" do not convey a message of liberation.
Between Garner, Chalabi, Stevedoring, Graham and "Camp Exxon," not to mention the checkpoints, the prospects for winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis seem dim indeed.
Hussein Ibish is communications director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
Citation: Hussein Ibish. "U.S. Fumbling Postwar Plan," Los Angeles Times, 05 April 2003.
Original URL: http://electroniciraq.net/news/598.shtml
Los Angeles Times, 04 April 2003.
If concern is growing that ideological convictions at the Defense Department resulted in costly miscalculations regarding the war in Iraq, even greater alarm is warranted by glaring missteps in the preparation for what comes after the war.
Take, for instance, the political profile of the man tapped to lead the occupation, retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner.
Garner's stated opinions on Middle Eastern politics make him singularly unsuitable for the indescribably sensitive task of being the first U.S. administrator of a large Arab country. In 2000, Garner signed a statement backing Israel's hard-line tactics in enforcing the occupation of the Palestinian territories of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
This statement, which was organized by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a think tank close to the Israeli far right, praised the Israel Defense Forces' "remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of a Palestinian Authority" and advised the strongest possible American support.
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of Arab politics knows that any association between an American occupation of Iraq and Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands poses great danger. It is guaranteed to breed deep resentment and bitter opposition, especially as U.S. checkpoints in Iraq begin to look increasingly like those in the West Bank.
Persistent reports in the British and American press suggest that Garner will be in charge of 23 ministries, each headed by an American with Iraqi advisors. Not only will this look and feel like a colonial administration, the identity of some of the Iraqi advisors rings alarms.
Most disturbing is the role apparently planned for Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, a U.S.-created opposition group based in London with no visible presence or support in Iraq. He is extremely popular with the neoconservatives in and around the administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.
In the Middle East, however, Chalabi is also known for swindling tens of millions of dollars from a bank he headed in Jordan. In April 1992, he was sentenced in absentia to 22 years' hard labor on 31 charges of embezzlement, theft, misuse of depositor funds and speculation with the Jordanian dinar. For many months this man has been demanding that Washington appoint him prime minister of Iraq. It is cold comfort indeed to learn that he will be Garner's "advisor" at a ministry of finance.
Other early signs for how the administration of Iraq will function are equally not encouraging.
The management of the port of Umm al Qasr, one of the few places in Iraq under complete Western control, has produced a split between British and American authorities. The British view is that the Iraqi manager, who has been in his position for years, is capable of doing the job. Our government insisted, however, in providing a lucrative contract to run the port to Stevedoring Services of Seattle.
Australia has expressed concern that its existing wheat contracts with Iraq will be transferred to U.S. interests.
This appears to be the pattern set for most such arrangements in Iraq, with not only allies, the United Nations and major nongovernmental organizations frozen out of the process but with local Iraqis as well, in favor of American corporations.
Some NGOs, of course, will be present in Iraq, and one of the first to announce its intention to follow in the footsteps of the invasion force is the evangelical organization led by Franklin Graham. Graham, who has repeatedly insisted that Islam is a "very evil, wicked religion," will hardly be a reassuring presence to ordinary Iraqis.
The behavior of some of our troops has also provided ominous signs of political problems to come. Gestures such as naming Army bases in Iraq after Exxon and captured airstrips "George W. Bush International Airport" do not convey a message of liberation.
Between Garner, Chalabi, Stevedoring, Graham and "Camp Exxon," not to mention the checkpoints, the prospects for winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis seem dim indeed.
Hussein Ibish is communications director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
Citation: Hussein Ibish. "U.S. Fumbling Postwar Plan," Los Angeles Times, 05 April 2003.
Original URL: http://electroniciraq.net/news/598.shtml
27 November 2007
Chaos Reigns in Sadr City Despite Changes
By Hamza Hendawi. The Guardian, 18 June 2005.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Since the guns fell silent in Sadr City last November, Baghdad's sprawling Shiite district has been the safest place in the Iraqi capital - no car bombings, no suicide attacks, roadside bombs or assassinations.
But security and political empowerment of Sadr City's estimated 2.5 million residents have brought little improvement to life. Lengthy power cuts and open sewage drains remain the norm. Running water is scarce and many streets are strewn with garbage.
In many ways, the district's reality is similar to that of other former Iraqi hotspots where the end of violence has failed to change the quality of life. Pledges of reconstruction funds have failed to materialize, been slow in coming or poorly managed.
In the case of Sadr City, the absence of a peace dividend is boosting the standing of Muqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric whose militiamen are loyal to his Imam al-Mahdi Army and fought U.S. troops last year.
With that, al-Sadr's lieutenants have further tightened their hold on the area through an elaborate network of modest but reliable social and religious services and feeding anti-American sentiments.
"The absence of a genuine Iraqi sovereignty and the rule of law is allowing reconstruction funds to be wasted," said Falah Shanshal, a Sadr City legislator and a supporter of al-Sadr. "I am convinced that the funds have been stolen."
While such claims may be exaggerated, they highlight the notion among many Iraqis that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime two years ago and the end of more than a decade of sweeping U.N. sanctions have failed to make day-to-day life any better.
In fact, many say, they are worse off now than under Saddam, with a two-year-old insurgency and high rates of crime and unemployment tearing at the very fabric of society.
Before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, residents of Baghdad had about 20 hours of electricity a day. Now, they receive about 10 hours broken into two-hour chunks. There are frequent fuel and drinking water shortages and only 37 percent of the population has a working sewage system.
In Sadr City, residents say outages often last longer than the announced two-hour cuts.
"Things are bad. If they don't change, we will surely die," declared Shamsiyah Mohammed, a 72-year-old widow from Sadr City who shares a tiny two-story house with 13 family members.
"We are a forgotten people," her 28-year-old daughter Najat al-Bahadli said. "We don't feel any change since the fall of Saddam," said al-Bahadli, who shares an upstairs room with her taxi driver husband and two children.
Other adult members of the family waited impatiently for their turn to tell of their daily problems, including higher food prices and declining quality, not to mention the power and water outages.
Even the historic Jan. 30 election, an event that President Bush cites as evidence of America's success in Iraq, was looked back on with regret by some of the al-Bahadlis, who recalled risking their lives by going out to vote despite threats of violence.
"We exposed ourselves to danger during election day, so we could have a better life, but now we feel that things are the same and even getting worse," said Jabar al-Bahadli, Mohammed's son and a father of three. "I feel that death is the best way to be rid of this miserable life."
Such sentiments are in sharp contrast to the jubilation with which Iraq's Shiite majority greeted its political empowerment after the January vote, and until the ouster of Saddam -- whose patronage of the minority Sunni Arabs sanctioned oppression of the Shiites.
Hassan Shamah, head of the Sadr City local council, blamed lack of coordination and what he said was the corruption of Iraqi contractors for the slow reconstruction progress. He, however and contrary to the wider perception, acknowledged that significant improvement has been made in areas where the U.S. military had been involved.
The Sadrists, the name by which al-Sadr's supporters are known, have exploited these perceptions, stepping in to promote themselves as the alternative to a government widely accused of corruption and a U.S. military perceived as indifferent to the suffering of Iraqis.
"When the occupiers came to Iraq, they brought with them their armor and heavy weapons," said Abdul-Zahra al-Suaidi, leader of the Friday prayers in Sadr City, in a recent sermon. "So, how come they did not bring along power generators to replace the ones they destroyed?"
Al-Sadr's office is a magnet for residents seeking financial assistance or counseling on religious and family matters. During one recent day, scores of chador-clad women gathered at the office, a sparsely furnished building with rickety ceiling fans. They were there to collect stipends paid to families of militiamen killed or wounded while fighting the Americans.
Last week the Sadrists, who burst on the political scene soon after Saddam's ouster and now rival established Shiite parties, staged a colorful parade in Sadr City in memory of al-Mahdi militiamen killed in last year's fighting.
In a sign of the vast influence they wield, vehicles belonging to the local Sadr City police took part in the parade with their loudspeakers blaring songs praising al-Sadr. Commanders of the force joined the movement's turbaned clerics in the reviewing stand.
A mock battle between U.S. soldiers -- eight Iraqis in camouflage fatigues, sunglasses and bandanas -- and Iraqis, was well received by the several hundred people who gathered to watch the parade on a blistering afternoon. The scene ended with a woman in Islamic dress killing five of the soldiers and capturing three while chanting Allahu Akbar, or God is Great.
To a hearty round of applause, she set ablaze an American flag.
Citation: Hamza Hendawi. "Chaos Reigns in Sadr City Despite Changes," The Associated Press, 18 June 2005.
Original URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5083943,00.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Since the guns fell silent in Sadr City last November, Baghdad's sprawling Shiite district has been the safest place in the Iraqi capital - no car bombings, no suicide attacks, roadside bombs or assassinations.
But security and political empowerment of Sadr City's estimated 2.5 million residents have brought little improvement to life. Lengthy power cuts and open sewage drains remain the norm. Running water is scarce and many streets are strewn with garbage.
In many ways, the district's reality is similar to that of other former Iraqi hotspots where the end of violence has failed to change the quality of life. Pledges of reconstruction funds have failed to materialize, been slow in coming or poorly managed.
In the case of Sadr City, the absence of a peace dividend is boosting the standing of Muqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric whose militiamen are loyal to his Imam al-Mahdi Army and fought U.S. troops last year.
With that, al-Sadr's lieutenants have further tightened their hold on the area through an elaborate network of modest but reliable social and religious services and feeding anti-American sentiments.
"The absence of a genuine Iraqi sovereignty and the rule of law is allowing reconstruction funds to be wasted," said Falah Shanshal, a Sadr City legislator and a supporter of al-Sadr. "I am convinced that the funds have been stolen."
While such claims may be exaggerated, they highlight the notion among many Iraqis that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime two years ago and the end of more than a decade of sweeping U.N. sanctions have failed to make day-to-day life any better.
In fact, many say, they are worse off now than under Saddam, with a two-year-old insurgency and high rates of crime and unemployment tearing at the very fabric of society.
Before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, residents of Baghdad had about 20 hours of electricity a day. Now, they receive about 10 hours broken into two-hour chunks. There are frequent fuel and drinking water shortages and only 37 percent of the population has a working sewage system.
In Sadr City, residents say outages often last longer than the announced two-hour cuts.
"Things are bad. If they don't change, we will surely die," declared Shamsiyah Mohammed, a 72-year-old widow from Sadr City who shares a tiny two-story house with 13 family members.
"We are a forgotten people," her 28-year-old daughter Najat al-Bahadli said. "We don't feel any change since the fall of Saddam," said al-Bahadli, who shares an upstairs room with her taxi driver husband and two children.
Other adult members of the family waited impatiently for their turn to tell of their daily problems, including higher food prices and declining quality, not to mention the power and water outages.
Even the historic Jan. 30 election, an event that President Bush cites as evidence of America's success in Iraq, was looked back on with regret by some of the al-Bahadlis, who recalled risking their lives by going out to vote despite threats of violence.
"We exposed ourselves to danger during election day, so we could have a better life, but now we feel that things are the same and even getting worse," said Jabar al-Bahadli, Mohammed's son and a father of three. "I feel that death is the best way to be rid of this miserable life."
Such sentiments are in sharp contrast to the jubilation with which Iraq's Shiite majority greeted its political empowerment after the January vote, and until the ouster of Saddam -- whose patronage of the minority Sunni Arabs sanctioned oppression of the Shiites.
Hassan Shamah, head of the Sadr City local council, blamed lack of coordination and what he said was the corruption of Iraqi contractors for the slow reconstruction progress. He, however and contrary to the wider perception, acknowledged that significant improvement has been made in areas where the U.S. military had been involved.
The Sadrists, the name by which al-Sadr's supporters are known, have exploited these perceptions, stepping in to promote themselves as the alternative to a government widely accused of corruption and a U.S. military perceived as indifferent to the suffering of Iraqis.
"When the occupiers came to Iraq, they brought with them their armor and heavy weapons," said Abdul-Zahra al-Suaidi, leader of the Friday prayers in Sadr City, in a recent sermon. "So, how come they did not bring along power generators to replace the ones they destroyed?"
Al-Sadr's office is a magnet for residents seeking financial assistance or counseling on religious and family matters. During one recent day, scores of chador-clad women gathered at the office, a sparsely furnished building with rickety ceiling fans. They were there to collect stipends paid to families of militiamen killed or wounded while fighting the Americans.
Last week the Sadrists, who burst on the political scene soon after Saddam's ouster and now rival established Shiite parties, staged a colorful parade in Sadr City in memory of al-Mahdi militiamen killed in last year's fighting.
In a sign of the vast influence they wield, vehicles belonging to the local Sadr City police took part in the parade with their loudspeakers blaring songs praising al-Sadr. Commanders of the force joined the movement's turbaned clerics in the reviewing stand.
A mock battle between U.S. soldiers -- eight Iraqis in camouflage fatigues, sunglasses and bandanas -- and Iraqis, was well received by the several hundred people who gathered to watch the parade on a blistering afternoon. The scene ended with a woman in Islamic dress killing five of the soldiers and capturing three while chanting Allahu Akbar, or God is Great.
To a hearty round of applause, she set ablaze an American flag.
Citation: Hamza Hendawi. "Chaos Reigns in Sadr City Despite Changes," The Associated Press, 18 June 2005.
Original URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5083943,00.html
Shiite Pilgrims Fear Attacks in Iraq
By Antonio Castaneda
The Associated Press, 01 April 2005.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - An explosion Friday damaged a ninth-century minaret in Samarra that was once a sign of the central city's glory, as thousands of Shiite pilgrims slept on the streets of the holy city of Karbala for fear of traveling at night after a string of attacks on the faithful.
In other violence, a bomb near a Sunni mosque in Kirkuk killed one civilian heading to Friday prayers, said police official Sarhat Qadir.
Three others were also injured.
Gunmen in the eastern city of Balad Ruz, meanwhile, killed police chief Col. Hatim Rashid and another officer at a police station, police Col. Mudhafar al-Jubouri said.
A third officer was injured in the attack, 30 miles northeast of Baghdad.
In Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, witnesses said two men climbed the 170-foot-tall spiral minaret, then returned to the ground before the explosion, which tore a large hole in the structure, police Lt. Qasim Mohammed said.
The minaret is all that remains of a mosque dating back from the Abbasid Islamic dynasty and is featured on Iraq's 250-dinar bill.
It was unclear why the minaret, one of Iraq's most famous landmarks, was targeted.
In the holy city of Karbala, bus stations were packed with faithful heading home after a Shiite religious holiday marking the end of a 40-day mourning period for Imam Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad and one of Shiites' most important saints.
Fighters from the Sunni Muslim-led insurgency staged several deadly attacks on Shiite pilgrims in the days leading up to the religious festival.
Security measures remained Friday, with policemen keeping watch from building rooftops and patrolling the streets.
On Thursday, a suicide car bomber blew himself up near an Islamic shrine in Tuz Khormato, 55 miles south of Kirkuk, killing five Iraqis and wounding 16, hospital officials said.
Also Friday, witnesses said a car bomb exploded outside a U.S. base in Ramadi, near a convoy at the base's gate.
The U.S. military and Iraqi police did not immediately have information on the blast.
Citation: Antonio Castaneda. "Shiite Pilgrims Fear Attacks in Iraq," The Associated Press, 01 April 2005.
Original URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4906832,00.html
The Associated Press, 01 April 2005.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - An explosion Friday damaged a ninth-century minaret in Samarra that was once a sign of the central city's glory, as thousands of Shiite pilgrims slept on the streets of the holy city of Karbala for fear of traveling at night after a string of attacks on the faithful.
In other violence, a bomb near a Sunni mosque in Kirkuk killed one civilian heading to Friday prayers, said police official Sarhat Qadir.
Three others were also injured.
Gunmen in the eastern city of Balad Ruz, meanwhile, killed police chief Col. Hatim Rashid and another officer at a police station, police Col. Mudhafar al-Jubouri said.
A third officer was injured in the attack, 30 miles northeast of Baghdad.
In Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, witnesses said two men climbed the 170-foot-tall spiral minaret, then returned to the ground before the explosion, which tore a large hole in the structure, police Lt. Qasim Mohammed said.
The minaret is all that remains of a mosque dating back from the Abbasid Islamic dynasty and is featured on Iraq's 250-dinar bill.
It was unclear why the minaret, one of Iraq's most famous landmarks, was targeted.
In the holy city of Karbala, bus stations were packed with faithful heading home after a Shiite religious holiday marking the end of a 40-day mourning period for Imam Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad and one of Shiites' most important saints.
Fighters from the Sunni Muslim-led insurgency staged several deadly attacks on Shiite pilgrims in the days leading up to the religious festival.
Security measures remained Friday, with policemen keeping watch from building rooftops and patrolling the streets.
On Thursday, a suicide car bomber blew himself up near an Islamic shrine in Tuz Khormato, 55 miles south of Kirkuk, killing five Iraqis and wounding 16, hospital officials said.
Also Friday, witnesses said a car bomb exploded outside a U.S. base in Ramadi, near a convoy at the base's gate.
The U.S. military and Iraqi police did not immediately have information on the blast.
Citation: Antonio Castaneda. "Shiite Pilgrims Fear Attacks in Iraq," The Associated Press, 01 April 2005.
Original URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4906832,00.html
Red Crescent Maternity Hospital Damaged in Attack
By International Federation of the Red Cross, 03 April 2003.
An Iraqi Red Crescent (IRCS) maternity hospital in the al-Mansour district of Baghdad was damaged on 2 April in an attack by American and British forces on a nearby building.
Three passers-by were killed and 27 injured as a result of the bombing.
The bombs hit a building opposite the hospital, and the blast was so strong it damaged nearby buildings. The windows of the maternity hospital were broken and its roof collapsed.
The maternity hospital is part of a Red Crescent compound that also includes the IRCS headquarters and a surgical hospital. No casualties were reported from the hospitals, as they had been evacuated some days previously.
Before the conflict, an average of 35 babies were being born every day at al-Mansour hospital, thanks to the dedication and skills of the 90 resident staff, which included four doctors, six midwives, eight anaesthetists and 22 nurses.
The hospital built its reputation on providing services for very low fees - "ten times less than a private clinic", according to Dr Rasmi Al-Rikabi, manager of the hospital for the past four years.
The most deprived families paid only one third of the regular fees, the rest being covered by an IRCS Social and Health Charity Fund. As a result, pregnant women came from all over Baghdad to take advantage of the cheap but good quality service.
The IRCS maternity hospital was serving a very real need. The UN Children’s Fund said last year that the mortality rate of under-fives in Iraq was 131 per 1,000 live births - two-and-a-half times higher than it was a decade ago. Unicef also warned of a sharp increase in maternal mortality, in part due to a lack of emergency obstetric care.
Established in 1973, the two-storey, 56-bedroom Al-Mansour hospital was the first IRCS health facility in Iraq. Since then, two surgical hospitals have opened in Baghdad. The IRCS also runs an orthopaedic clinic in Mosul, in northern Iraq, and a specialised centre for treating diarrhoea and other water-borne diseases in the southern city of Basrah.
Meanwhile, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies has been rehabilitating primary health care centres across the country. By the end of 2002, 105 had been made operational again or provided with medical equipment. There were plans to rehabilitate another 35 over the next two years, but this work has had to be suspended as a result of the conflict.
Citation: "Red Crescent Maternity Hospital Damaged in Attack," International Federation of the Red Cross, 03 April 2003.
Original URL: http://electroniciraq.net/news/550.shtml
An Iraqi Red Crescent (IRCS) maternity hospital in the al-Mansour district of Baghdad was damaged on 2 April in an attack by American and British forces on a nearby building.
Three passers-by were killed and 27 injured as a result of the bombing.
The bombs hit a building opposite the hospital, and the blast was so strong it damaged nearby buildings. The windows of the maternity hospital were broken and its roof collapsed.
The maternity hospital is part of a Red Crescent compound that also includes the IRCS headquarters and a surgical hospital. No casualties were reported from the hospitals, as they had been evacuated some days previously.
Before the conflict, an average of 35 babies were being born every day at al-Mansour hospital, thanks to the dedication and skills of the 90 resident staff, which included four doctors, six midwives, eight anaesthetists and 22 nurses.
The hospital built its reputation on providing services for very low fees - "ten times less than a private clinic", according to Dr Rasmi Al-Rikabi, manager of the hospital for the past four years.
The most deprived families paid only one third of the regular fees, the rest being covered by an IRCS Social and Health Charity Fund. As a result, pregnant women came from all over Baghdad to take advantage of the cheap but good quality service.
The IRCS maternity hospital was serving a very real need. The UN Children’s Fund said last year that the mortality rate of under-fives in Iraq was 131 per 1,000 live births - two-and-a-half times higher than it was a decade ago. Unicef also warned of a sharp increase in maternal mortality, in part due to a lack of emergency obstetric care.
Established in 1973, the two-storey, 56-bedroom Al-Mansour hospital was the first IRCS health facility in Iraq. Since then, two surgical hospitals have opened in Baghdad. The IRCS also runs an orthopaedic clinic in Mosul, in northern Iraq, and a specialised centre for treating diarrhoea and other water-borne diseases in the southern city of Basrah.
Meanwhile, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies has been rehabilitating primary health care centres across the country. By the end of 2002, 105 had been made operational again or provided with medical equipment. There were plans to rehabilitate another 35 over the next two years, but this work has had to be suspended as a result of the conflict.
Citation: "Red Crescent Maternity Hospital Damaged in Attack," International Federation of the Red Cross, 03 April 2003.
Original URL: http://electroniciraq.net/news/550.shtml
Fallujah's Political Fallout Threatens Security Throughout Iraq
Lisa Ashkenaz Croke. The NewStandard, 12 November 2004.
As what may prove the war's biggest battle rages on in Fallujah, violence has spiked nationwide, causing political rifts and leading to increased criticism of Iraqi and US governmental efforts.
Nov 12 - The consequences for the siege of Fallujah are rapidly mounting. Three relatives of interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi are being held hostage and threatened with execution, Iraq’s Sunni leaders are withdrawing from the political process, and rebels are escalating strikes throughout the country.
US forces moved into the northern Iraqi city of Mosul on Thursday, a day after resistance forces captured at least five police stations and took control of Iraq’s third largest city.
A senior member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) told reporters that Iraqi police handed police stations over to "the terrorists." Saadi Ahmed called internal security forces "a failure" and "ineffective because some of them are cooperating with the terrorists," reports MSNBC.
The partial loss of control in the relatively occupation-friendly Mosul, even briefly, is a particularly alarming development for the interim Iraqi government and foreign occupiers. Autonomous from the rest of Iraq since 1991, the northern Kurdish region supported the latest US invasion and was largely spared the night raids and mass arrests that presently define life in the rest of Iraq.
Despite spates of violence under US occupation, including continuous assassinations, the city and surrounding area were deemed such a low security risk, Prime Minister Allawi excluded Kurdistan from the 60-day state of emergency he announced on Sunday, just before approving the US-led ground offensive into Fallujah.
With approximately seven percent of American military personnel in Iraq devoted to regaining control of one city, rebel groups have taken their fight to central and northern Iraq.
Seven Iraqis were reported killed Monday during 24 hours of fighting between insurgents and US snipers in Ramadi. Agence France Presse reports that after US personnel left the town, masked rebels emerged dancing on the streets Tuesday, and residents unfurled banners supporting the insurgency in Fallujah.
"The residents of Ramadi condemn the attack against Fallujah," one man told AFP, "and we appeal to the inhabitants of Ramadi to wage war against the American occupants who want to eradicate Islam."
Attacks on three police stations Tuesday killed 25 police in the central city of Baqouba, while in northern Kirkuk, three workers were killed when a car bomb was detonated near an Iraqi National Guard base, reports Reuters.
Car bombings also killed over three-dozen people this week in Baghdad. On Tuesday, car bombs detonated in front of two churches killed four people, and thirteen others were killed later that day when a car bomb was detonated in front of one of Baghdad’s main hospitals, according to AFP.
Wednesday, a car bomb targeting a nearby police checkpoint killed ten bystanders and wounded fifteen others. The following day, an estimated seventeen people were killed and 30 others wounded when a car bomb detonated just after a US military convoy passed through a popular commercial district, reports the Associated Press.
Urban battles between insurgents and military forces killed ten civilians and wounded 26 others, including women and children in the northern city of Baiji on Wednesday, while three people were killed in Mosul, AFP reports.
Meanwhile, US officials have admitted that reputed Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, along with his group’s senior leadership and an unknown number of followers, likely escaped Fallujah before the ground offensive began. Far from acknowledging the development as a hazard to the rest of the country’s security, General Richard Myers, chair of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, dismissed it as expected:
"That's the nature of an insurgency, you know, where people can fight one minute and then blend into the surroundings the next minute," Gen. Myers told NBC’s Today Show on Thursday. "If anybody thinks that Fallujah's going to be the end of the insurgency in Iraq, that was never the objective, never our intention and even never our hope."
Defense analysts speaking to Reuters also expressed skepticism that merely securing Fallujah was enough.
"For Fallujah to be a success from the U.S. perspective, we would have to achieve something pretty close to total victory -- not just retaking real estate but accomplishing real strategic objectives," Charles Pena of the Cato Institute, a conservative libertarian think tank. "That could be capturing Al-Zarqawi or being able to say we've destroyed his network, and that the net result is a reduction in the violence in Iraq and an increase in security."
Conversely, Pena said, all that the "bad guys" have to do is "not lose."
"And not lose just simply means surviving to fight another day. And that's exactly what they've done," he told Reuters.
"In military terms, Fallujah is not going to be much of a plus at all," retired Lieutenant General Bernard Trainor told MSNBC. "The downside is that we’ve knocked the hell out of this city, and the only insurgents we really got were the nut-cases and zealots the smart ones left behind -- the guys who really want to die for Allah."
In a commentary written for Aljazeera’s website, former US Marine and senior UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who gained notoriety for his outspoken criticism of the Bush administration’s weapons of mass destruction claims, said, "While the US military leadership struggles to get a grip on a situation in Iraq that deteriorates each and every day, the anti-US occupation fighters continue to execute a game plan that has been in position since day one." Ritter added that the US is "playing right into [the rebels] hands."
( http://www.uruknet.info/?colonna=m&p=6985 )
While the US and Iraqi governments argue that massive offensives against rebel strongholds are needed to secure the country in time for the national elections slated for January, this latest excursion may end up undermining the US-backed political process, not to mention already-decayed public opinion on the US occupation.
"Certainly the US military can eventually suppress Fallujah," Dr. Wamid Omar Nathmi, a senior Baghdad University political scientist, told Independent journalist Dahr Jamail, who is currently working in Baghdad. "But for how long?" he asked. "Iraq is burning with wrath, anger and sadness…the people of Fallujah are dear to us. They are our brothers and sisters and we are so saddened by what is happening in that city."
For Sunni leaders, Allawi’s approval of the assault on Fallujah proved a breaking point, and they followed his announcement with one of their own on Monday. The Iraqi Islamic Party, a moderate Sunni group headed by a returned exile once detained under Saddam Hussein, pulled its sole cabinet member and withdrew from the Iraqi government.
"We are protesting the attack on Fallujah and the injustice that is inflicted on the innocent people of the city," said party leader Mohsen Abdel-Hamid, quoted by the Associated Press. "We cannot be part of this attack."
The following day, an Iraqi Sunni clerics organization, the Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS), called for a boycott of the national elections slated for late January.
AMS also issued a fatwa order prohibiting Iraqi military and police troops from fighting against other Muslims in Iraq, warning, "We will stand against you in the streets, we will enter your houses and we will slaughter you just like sheep."
The stress evidently too much to bear, some 400 Iraqi troops resigned or placed themselves "on leave" rather than engage in Fallujah, the Chicago Tribune reported on Tuesday.
Some people were afraid because they received threats," Iraqi Sergeant Abdul Raheem told the Tribune. "They were afraid of death."
Finally, Prime Minister Allawi awaits word over three family members reported kidnapped on Tuesday night. His cousin, Ghazi, 75, his cousin’s wife, and their pregnant daughter-in-law are reportedly being held by a previously unheard-of Islamist group, which threatened to behead them within 48 hours unless the assault against Fallujah is stopped.
© 2004 The NewStandard.
Citation: Lisa Ashkenaz Croke. "Fallujah's Political Fallout Threatens Security Throughout Iraq," The NewStandard, 12 November 2004.
Original URL: http://electroniciraq.net/news/printer1709.shtml
As what may prove the war's biggest battle rages on in Fallujah, violence has spiked nationwide, causing political rifts and leading to increased criticism of Iraqi and US governmental efforts.
Nov 12 - The consequences for the siege of Fallujah are rapidly mounting. Three relatives of interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi are being held hostage and threatened with execution, Iraq’s Sunni leaders are withdrawing from the political process, and rebels are escalating strikes throughout the country.
US forces moved into the northern Iraqi city of Mosul on Thursday, a day after resistance forces captured at least five police stations and took control of Iraq’s third largest city.
A senior member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) told reporters that Iraqi police handed police stations over to "the terrorists." Saadi Ahmed called internal security forces "a failure" and "ineffective because some of them are cooperating with the terrorists," reports MSNBC.
The partial loss of control in the relatively occupation-friendly Mosul, even briefly, is a particularly alarming development for the interim Iraqi government and foreign occupiers. Autonomous from the rest of Iraq since 1991, the northern Kurdish region supported the latest US invasion and was largely spared the night raids and mass arrests that presently define life in the rest of Iraq.
Despite spates of violence under US occupation, including continuous assassinations, the city and surrounding area were deemed such a low security risk, Prime Minister Allawi excluded Kurdistan from the 60-day state of emergency he announced on Sunday, just before approving the US-led ground offensive into Fallujah.
With approximately seven percent of American military personnel in Iraq devoted to regaining control of one city, rebel groups have taken their fight to central and northern Iraq.
Seven Iraqis were reported killed Monday during 24 hours of fighting between insurgents and US snipers in Ramadi. Agence France Presse reports that after US personnel left the town, masked rebels emerged dancing on the streets Tuesday, and residents unfurled banners supporting the insurgency in Fallujah.
"The residents of Ramadi condemn the attack against Fallujah," one man told AFP, "and we appeal to the inhabitants of Ramadi to wage war against the American occupants who want to eradicate Islam."
Attacks on three police stations Tuesday killed 25 police in the central city of Baqouba, while in northern Kirkuk, three workers were killed when a car bomb was detonated near an Iraqi National Guard base, reports Reuters.
Car bombings also killed over three-dozen people this week in Baghdad. On Tuesday, car bombs detonated in front of two churches killed four people, and thirteen others were killed later that day when a car bomb was detonated in front of one of Baghdad’s main hospitals, according to AFP.
Wednesday, a car bomb targeting a nearby police checkpoint killed ten bystanders and wounded fifteen others. The following day, an estimated seventeen people were killed and 30 others wounded when a car bomb detonated just after a US military convoy passed through a popular commercial district, reports the Associated Press.
Urban battles between insurgents and military forces killed ten civilians and wounded 26 others, including women and children in the northern city of Baiji on Wednesday, while three people were killed in Mosul, AFP reports.
Meanwhile, US officials have admitted that reputed Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, along with his group’s senior leadership and an unknown number of followers, likely escaped Fallujah before the ground offensive began. Far from acknowledging the development as a hazard to the rest of the country’s security, General Richard Myers, chair of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, dismissed it as expected:
"That's the nature of an insurgency, you know, where people can fight one minute and then blend into the surroundings the next minute," Gen. Myers told NBC’s Today Show on Thursday. "If anybody thinks that Fallujah's going to be the end of the insurgency in Iraq, that was never the objective, never our intention and even never our hope."
Defense analysts speaking to Reuters also expressed skepticism that merely securing Fallujah was enough.
"For Fallujah to be a success from the U.S. perspective, we would have to achieve something pretty close to total victory -- not just retaking real estate but accomplishing real strategic objectives," Charles Pena of the Cato Institute, a conservative libertarian think tank. "That could be capturing Al-Zarqawi or being able to say we've destroyed his network, and that the net result is a reduction in the violence in Iraq and an increase in security."
Conversely, Pena said, all that the "bad guys" have to do is "not lose."
"And not lose just simply means surviving to fight another day. And that's exactly what they've done," he told Reuters.
"In military terms, Fallujah is not going to be much of a plus at all," retired Lieutenant General Bernard Trainor told MSNBC. "The downside is that we’ve knocked the hell out of this city, and the only insurgents we really got were the nut-cases and zealots the smart ones left behind -- the guys who really want to die for Allah."
In a commentary written for Aljazeera’s website, former US Marine and senior UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who gained notoriety for his outspoken criticism of the Bush administration’s weapons of mass destruction claims, said, "While the US military leadership struggles to get a grip on a situation in Iraq that deteriorates each and every day, the anti-US occupation fighters continue to execute a game plan that has been in position since day one." Ritter added that the US is "playing right into [the rebels] hands."
( http://www.uruknet.info/?colonna=m&p=6985 )
While the US and Iraqi governments argue that massive offensives against rebel strongholds are needed to secure the country in time for the national elections slated for January, this latest excursion may end up undermining the US-backed political process, not to mention already-decayed public opinion on the US occupation.
"Certainly the US military can eventually suppress Fallujah," Dr. Wamid Omar Nathmi, a senior Baghdad University political scientist, told Independent journalist Dahr Jamail, who is currently working in Baghdad. "But for how long?" he asked. "Iraq is burning with wrath, anger and sadness…the people of Fallujah are dear to us. They are our brothers and sisters and we are so saddened by what is happening in that city."
For Sunni leaders, Allawi’s approval of the assault on Fallujah proved a breaking point, and they followed his announcement with one of their own on Monday. The Iraqi Islamic Party, a moderate Sunni group headed by a returned exile once detained under Saddam Hussein, pulled its sole cabinet member and withdrew from the Iraqi government.
"We are protesting the attack on Fallujah and the injustice that is inflicted on the innocent people of the city," said party leader Mohsen Abdel-Hamid, quoted by the Associated Press. "We cannot be part of this attack."
The following day, an Iraqi Sunni clerics organization, the Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS), called for a boycott of the national elections slated for late January.
AMS also issued a fatwa order prohibiting Iraqi military and police troops from fighting against other Muslims in Iraq, warning, "We will stand against you in the streets, we will enter your houses and we will slaughter you just like sheep."
The stress evidently too much to bear, some 400 Iraqi troops resigned or placed themselves "on leave" rather than engage in Fallujah, the Chicago Tribune reported on Tuesday.
Some people were afraid because they received threats," Iraqi Sergeant Abdul Raheem told the Tribune. "They were afraid of death."
Finally, Prime Minister Allawi awaits word over three family members reported kidnapped on Tuesday night. His cousin, Ghazi, 75, his cousin’s wife, and their pregnant daughter-in-law are reportedly being held by a previously unheard-of Islamist group, which threatened to behead them within 48 hours unless the assault against Fallujah is stopped.
© 2004 The NewStandard.
Citation: Lisa Ashkenaz Croke. "Fallujah's Political Fallout Threatens Security Throughout Iraq," The NewStandard, 12 November 2004.
Original URL: http://electroniciraq.net/news/printer1709.shtml
No Longer Unknowable: Fallujah's April Civilian Toll is 600
Iraq Body Count, 26 October 2004.
Today the Iraq Body Count (IBC) website has published its analysis of the
civilian dealth toll in the April 2004 siege of Falluja. This analysis leads
to the conclusion that between 572 and 616 of the approximately 800 reported
deaths were of civilians, with over 300 of these being women and children.
A Falluja Archive carrying relevant and related excerpts from nearly three
hundred contemporary news reports is also being made available on the
website, and constitutes the largest publicly-available resource for
investigators researching the human consequences of the siege. IBC's number
for the civilian dead emerges from detailed and exhaustive analysis of these
reports as well as others more recently published.
Press spokesman, John Sloboda said "Data recently released to the public by
the Iraqi Health Ministry has allowed IBC to resolve a problem we have been
struggling with for months: how to reconcile casualty figures reported by
local doctors of 800 total dead with a much lower estimate (280 dead)
produced in short order by the Iraqi Health Ministry (IHM), soon after US
Gen. Mark Kimmitt told the press that the CPA would ask the Ministry to 'get
a fair, honest and credible' figure. Details of our analysis are provided on
the website, but it now appears incontrovertible that the IHM estimate was
quietly withdrawn once media attention moved away from Falluja, leading us
to conclude that their estimate was acknowledged to be flawed".
The IBC totals are based on multiply-cited reports from doctors and
eyewitnesses that no less than 308 of those killed were women and children.
This number demonstrates the huge impact of US attacks on civilian areas,
and allows the conclusion to be drawn that many of the males killed must
also have been non-combatants.
There are clear reports of 600 people killed in total up until April 12th,
most of them killed before US forces began to permit women and children to
be evacuated from the town. Civilian totals have been derived by assuming a
conservative ratio of one civilian adult male killed for every woman killed
prior to April 12th, and by using the minimum-maximum range to account for
differing possible numbers of women and children remaining in the targeted
areas after the exodus had begun.
The project's Principal Researcher, Hamit Dardagan, commented "The unique
IBC Falluja Archive allows members of the public to examine for themselves
the multiple violations which yielded this shocking toll. These include
attacks on ambulances and sniper fire at children as well as the aerial
bombardment of residential areas. Talk of "precision strikes" is mere
techno-babble when these are part of military campaigns causing thousands of
civilian deaths and injuries.
"The failed US attempt to "pacify" Falluja via "overwhelming" military means
was first and foremost a disaster for its civilian population. The fact that
it also embarrassed those who ordered it is of little sigificance in
comparison, except in one regard. Current US plans to launch a "final
assault" on Falluja, supported by back filling from UK troops, suggest that
we can expect another human catastrophe whose scale no one can judge in
advance but which will certainly result in the destruction of innocent
lives. The question planners in Washington, London and Baghdad - and the
public at large - need to consider is this: are the next attacks being
planned as a true measure of last resort? If not, it is not just mass
slaughter that is being contemplated here, but mass murder."
Citation: "No Longer Unknowable: Fallujah's April Civilian Toll is 600," Iraq Body Count, 26 October 2004.
Original URL: http://electroniciraq.net/news/1684.shtml
Today the Iraq Body Count (IBC) website has published its analysis of the
civilian dealth toll in the April 2004 siege of Falluja. This analysis leads
to the conclusion that between 572 and 616 of the approximately 800 reported
deaths were of civilians, with over 300 of these being women and children.
A Falluja Archive carrying relevant and related excerpts from nearly three
hundred contemporary news reports is also being made available on the
website, and constitutes the largest publicly-available resource for
investigators researching the human consequences of the siege. IBC's number
for the civilian dead emerges from detailed and exhaustive analysis of these
reports as well as others more recently published.
Press spokesman, John Sloboda said "Data recently released to the public by
the Iraqi Health Ministry has allowed IBC to resolve a problem we have been
struggling with for months: how to reconcile casualty figures reported by
local doctors of 800 total dead with a much lower estimate (280 dead)
produced in short order by the Iraqi Health Ministry (IHM), soon after US
Gen. Mark Kimmitt told the press that the CPA would ask the Ministry to 'get
a fair, honest and credible' figure. Details of our analysis are provided on
the website, but it now appears incontrovertible that the IHM estimate was
quietly withdrawn once media attention moved away from Falluja, leading us
to conclude that their estimate was acknowledged to be flawed".
The IBC totals are based on multiply-cited reports from doctors and
eyewitnesses that no less than 308 of those killed were women and children.
This number demonstrates the huge impact of US attacks on civilian areas,
and allows the conclusion to be drawn that many of the males killed must
also have been non-combatants.
There are clear reports of 600 people killed in total up until April 12th,
most of them killed before US forces began to permit women and children to
be evacuated from the town. Civilian totals have been derived by assuming a
conservative ratio of one civilian adult male killed for every woman killed
prior to April 12th, and by using the minimum-maximum range to account for
differing possible numbers of women and children remaining in the targeted
areas after the exodus had begun.
The project's Principal Researcher, Hamit Dardagan, commented "The unique
IBC Falluja Archive allows members of the public to examine for themselves
the multiple violations which yielded this shocking toll. These include
attacks on ambulances and sniper fire at children as well as the aerial
bombardment of residential areas. Talk of "precision strikes" is mere
techno-babble when these are part of military campaigns causing thousands of
civilian deaths and injuries.
"The failed US attempt to "pacify" Falluja via "overwhelming" military means
was first and foremost a disaster for its civilian population. The fact that
it also embarrassed those who ordered it is of little sigificance in
comparison, except in one regard. Current US plans to launch a "final
assault" on Falluja, supported by back filling from UK troops, suggest that
we can expect another human catastrophe whose scale no one can judge in
advance but which will certainly result in the destruction of innocent
lives. The question planners in Washington, London and Baghdad - and the
public at large - need to consider is this: are the next attacks being
planned as a true measure of last resort? If not, it is not just mass
slaughter that is being contemplated here, but mass murder."
Citation: "No Longer Unknowable: Fallujah's April Civilian Toll is 600," Iraq Body Count, 26 October 2004.
Original URL: http://electroniciraq.net/news/1684.shtml
White House Eyes Billions For Iraq Maintenance
By Rowan Scarborough.
The Washington Times, 31 January 2006.
The Bush administration is considering asking Congress later this year for at least $2 billion in new reconstruction money, primarily for maintaining completed Iraqi facilities.
Administration officials say the additional funding is needed to prevent completed projects in Iraq from falling into disrepair while the new government tries to establish a steady flow of revenue from oil and other sources to sustain the nation's infrastructure.
The money would come in an Iraqi emergency, or supplemental, appropriations bill that also would finance military operations, which cost about $6 billion a month. Congress attached an extra $50 billion to this year's Pentagon spending bill for that purpose, but officials say additional money likely will be needed. An administration official declined to comment.
Congress already has approved $24 billion for Iraq reconstruction, and some speculated that the White House would not ask for more. But in recent weeks, it has become evident that Iraq does not have the financial ability to sustain all its new properties, said officials familiar with the internal discussions.
The administration plans no more major requests for rebuilding because of deficit pressures and the realization that Congress likely would balk, two administration officials said.
Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, said the administration should make one last proposal to Congress for $2 billion to fund sustainment and the transfer of operations from the U.S. to the Iraqi government.
"The bottom line is, I think, we should spend some more money," Mr. Bowen told The Washington Times. "We need to allocate to ensure the success of the Iraqi project from a reconstruction perspective. I think the U.S. government needs to provide some sustainability funds. ... It's being considered."
The issue of maintaining facilities has added importance in light of a report Mr. Bowen released last week. He said that because of rising security costs and other factors, the U.S. will be able to finish only 49 of 136 planned water projects and 300 of 425 electric projects.
If Iraq is to complete the U.S. building plan, it will need more money from the World Bank, donor nations and its own sputtering oil industry.
Mr. Bowen sends auditors as well as engineers to construction sites to determine whether projects are being built correctly.
"My mandate to those inspection teams is to identify whether there is a plan for sustainability at each project," he said.
Just like the U.S. military is turning over the counterinsurgency mission to the Iraqis, he said, the State Department is entrusting facilities to locals.
"This will be the year of transition," Mr. Bowen said. "We have to be ready to turn over operating and effective projects, and that means there has to be sufficient funding in place from both our side and the Iraqi side to secure sustainability."
Citation: Rowan Scarborough. "White House Eyes Billions For Iraq Maintenance," The Washington Times, 31 January 2006.
Original URL: http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20060130-113747-9568r
The Washington Times, 31 January 2006.
The Bush administration is considering asking Congress later this year for at least $2 billion in new reconstruction money, primarily for maintaining completed Iraqi facilities.
Administration officials say the additional funding is needed to prevent completed projects in Iraq from falling into disrepair while the new government tries to establish a steady flow of revenue from oil and other sources to sustain the nation's infrastructure.
The money would come in an Iraqi emergency, or supplemental, appropriations bill that also would finance military operations, which cost about $6 billion a month. Congress attached an extra $50 billion to this year's Pentagon spending bill for that purpose, but officials say additional money likely will be needed. An administration official declined to comment.
Congress already has approved $24 billion for Iraq reconstruction, and some speculated that the White House would not ask for more. But in recent weeks, it has become evident that Iraq does not have the financial ability to sustain all its new properties, said officials familiar with the internal discussions.
The administration plans no more major requests for rebuilding because of deficit pressures and the realization that Congress likely would balk, two administration officials said.
Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, said the administration should make one last proposal to Congress for $2 billion to fund sustainment and the transfer of operations from the U.S. to the Iraqi government.
"The bottom line is, I think, we should spend some more money," Mr. Bowen told The Washington Times. "We need to allocate to ensure the success of the Iraqi project from a reconstruction perspective. I think the U.S. government needs to provide some sustainability funds. ... It's being considered."
The issue of maintaining facilities has added importance in light of a report Mr. Bowen released last week. He said that because of rising security costs and other factors, the U.S. will be able to finish only 49 of 136 planned water projects and 300 of 425 electric projects.
If Iraq is to complete the U.S. building plan, it will need more money from the World Bank, donor nations and its own sputtering oil industry.
Mr. Bowen sends auditors as well as engineers to construction sites to determine whether projects are being built correctly.
"My mandate to those inspection teams is to identify whether there is a plan for sustainability at each project," he said.
Just like the U.S. military is turning over the counterinsurgency mission to the Iraqis, he said, the State Department is entrusting facilities to locals.
"This will be the year of transition," Mr. Bowen said. "We have to be ready to turn over operating and effective projects, and that means there has to be sufficient funding in place from both our side and the Iraqi side to secure sustainability."
Citation: Rowan Scarborough. "White House Eyes Billions For Iraq Maintenance," The Washington Times, 31 January 2006.
Original URL: http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20060130-113747-9568r
Senate OKs $81B for Iraq, Afghanistan
By Liz Sidoti
The Associated Press, 21 April 2005.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved $81 billion
for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a spending bill that would push the
total cost of combat and reconstruction past $300 billion.
Both the Senate and House versions of the measure would give President Bush
much of the money he requested. But the bills differ over what portion
should go to military operations.
Bush urged a quick resolution of the differences and passage of a bill "that
focuses taxpayer dollars on providing the tools our troops and diplomats
need now."
The Pentagon says it needs the money by the first week of May, so Senate and
House negotiators are expected to act quickly to send the president a final
bill.
Other issues to be resolved in the competing versions include immigration
changes, a U.S. embassy in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, military death
benefits and the fate of an aircraft carrier.
"I'm confident we will be able to come back with a product, in the form of a
conference report, which the Senate can support," said Sen. Thad Cochran,
R-Miss., chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
He said the bill gives strong support to troops in the fight against
terrorism and provides needed dollars for the State Department.
Overall, the Senate version would cost $81.3 billion, compared with the
$81.4 billion the House approved and the $81.9 billion that Bush requested.
Congress has passed four similar emergency spending measures for the wars
since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. This one would put the overall cost of
combat and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan - as well as
Pentagon operations against terrorists worldwide - past $300 billion.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, says lawmakers previously
approved $228 billion. The latest money is to last through Sept. 30, the end
of the current budget year. Pentagon officials have said they will have to
ask for more money for 2006.
In both the House and Senate, lawmakers struggled to give troops whatever
they needed and pay only for projects deemed urgent. Congress was leaving
other items to be dealt with in the regular budget for the new budget year
starting Oct. 1. In doing so, they were sending a message to the White House
that it cannot expect a rubber stamp from Congress on its emergency
war-spending requests.
Still, as Bush requested, the bulk of the money - about $75 billion - would
go to the Pentagon. The Army and the Marine Corps, the two service branches
doing most of the fighting, would get the most.
The House bill would add money to the president's request for defense
expenses; the Senate's would not. The Senate version would restore some
money the House cut for foreign aid and State Department programs.
The Senate bill also would provide $592 million to build a U.S. embassy in
Baghdad. The House bill does not fund the construction of a fortified
diplomatic compound.
The Senate added a requirement that the Pentagon report every three months
to Congress on how many Iraqi security forces are trained and how many U.S.
troops are needed.
The Senate also put in requirement that the Pentagon keep the Navy's fleet
of 12 aircraft carriers intact. The Pentagon had proposed scrapping one
carrier to save money.
The Senate version would increase a one-time benefit for the families of
soldiers killed to $100,000 from $12,000, regardless of whether the deaths
occurred in combat, and increase life insurance as well. The House version
limits the extra money to survivors of those killed in combat-related duty.
One of the most contentious issues facing congressional negotiators is
whether to include an immigration overhaul in the final bill. The Senate
decided to take up immigration later.
Citation: Liz Sidoti. "Senate OKs $81B for Iraq, Afghanistan," The Associated Press, 21 April 2005.
Original URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4954639,00.html
The Associated Press, 21 April 2005.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved $81 billion
for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a spending bill that would push the
total cost of combat and reconstruction past $300 billion.
Both the Senate and House versions of the measure would give President Bush
much of the money he requested. But the bills differ over what portion
should go to military operations.
Bush urged a quick resolution of the differences and passage of a bill "that
focuses taxpayer dollars on providing the tools our troops and diplomats
need now."
The Pentagon says it needs the money by the first week of May, so Senate and
House negotiators are expected to act quickly to send the president a final
bill.
Other issues to be resolved in the competing versions include immigration
changes, a U.S. embassy in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, military death
benefits and the fate of an aircraft carrier.
"I'm confident we will be able to come back with a product, in the form of a
conference report, which the Senate can support," said Sen. Thad Cochran,
R-Miss., chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
He said the bill gives strong support to troops in the fight against
terrorism and provides needed dollars for the State Department.
Overall, the Senate version would cost $81.3 billion, compared with the
$81.4 billion the House approved and the $81.9 billion that Bush requested.
Congress has passed four similar emergency spending measures for the wars
since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. This one would put the overall cost of
combat and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan - as well as
Pentagon operations against terrorists worldwide - past $300 billion.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, says lawmakers previously
approved $228 billion. The latest money is to last through Sept. 30, the end
of the current budget year. Pentagon officials have said they will have to
ask for more money for 2006.
In both the House and Senate, lawmakers struggled to give troops whatever
they needed and pay only for projects deemed urgent. Congress was leaving
other items to be dealt with in the regular budget for the new budget year
starting Oct. 1. In doing so, they were sending a message to the White House
that it cannot expect a rubber stamp from Congress on its emergency
war-spending requests.
Still, as Bush requested, the bulk of the money - about $75 billion - would
go to the Pentagon. The Army and the Marine Corps, the two service branches
doing most of the fighting, would get the most.
The House bill would add money to the president's request for defense
expenses; the Senate's would not. The Senate version would restore some
money the House cut for foreign aid and State Department programs.
The Senate bill also would provide $592 million to build a U.S. embassy in
Baghdad. The House bill does not fund the construction of a fortified
diplomatic compound.
The Senate added a requirement that the Pentagon report every three months
to Congress on how many Iraqi security forces are trained and how many U.S.
troops are needed.
The Senate also put in requirement that the Pentagon keep the Navy's fleet
of 12 aircraft carriers intact. The Pentagon had proposed scrapping one
carrier to save money.
The Senate version would increase a one-time benefit for the families of
soldiers killed to $100,000 from $12,000, regardless of whether the deaths
occurred in combat, and increase life insurance as well. The House version
limits the extra money to survivors of those killed in combat-related duty.
One of the most contentious issues facing congressional negotiators is
whether to include an immigration overhaul in the final bill. The Senate
decided to take up immigration later.
Citation: Liz Sidoti. "Senate OKs $81B for Iraq, Afghanistan," The Associated Press, 21 April 2005.
Original URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4954639,00.html
26 November 2007
Military wants more views on Iraq reports
September's assessment put too much focus on Gen. Petraeus, say officials concerned about the war's effect on public support.
By Julian E. Barnes
Los Angeles Times, 26 November 2007
WASHINGTON — Top military leaders at the Pentagon want to avoid a repeat of the last public assessment of the Iraq war -- with its relentless focus on the opinion of a single commander -- when the Bush administration makes its next crucial decision about the size of the U.S. force.
Concerned about the war's effect on public trust in the military, the leading officials said they hoped the next major assessment early next year would not place as much emphasis on the views of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, who in September spent dozens of hours in testimony before Congress and in televised interviews.
Defense officials believe his testimony succeeded in muting a congressional debate and in giving them breathing room for their counter-insurgency strategy, but at a potentially high cost. In addition to the burden on Petraeus, some officials believe, an incessant spotlight on one general risks politicizing the military and undermining the public's faith that military leaders will give honest assessments of the war's progress.
"This is not Dave Petraeus' war. This is George Bush's war," said one senior official, underscoring the military's view that its role is to carry out the decisions made by political leaders.
The senior official, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity because the administration has not made final decisions about how next year's assessment, planned for March, will be presented.
Despite security improvements in Baghdad, Americans continue to hold deep reservations about the Iraq war. Some military leaders are worried that the unpopularity of the war has eroded public confidence in the military and in top military officials.
Although support for the military remains high, there is a basis for such concerns. An annual Gallup poll in June found that 69% of the public had confidence in the military, down from 82% in 2003.
In response, some officers are taking steps to shore up public support, saying that the military must be accountable for its actions and that officers must be apolitical and honest in their public comments.
Adm. Michael G. Mullen, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, released a formal letter of guidance that stressed the need for military leaders to preserve the confidence and support of the public.
"To the degree we allow ourselves to disconnect from [the American people], we allow the very foundation upon which our success rests to crumble," Mullen wrote. "Every action we take, every day, must be executed in a way that strengthens and sustains the public's trust and confidence in our ability and our integrity."
Next year's Iraq war assessment could be more crucial than the one in September. Officials have indicated that they plan to lay out their views on how quickly the number of troops in Iraq can be cut, possibly revealing the latest military thinking on the long-term size of the U.S. presence in Iraq.
And the assessment will occur as the nation's Democratic and Republican parties are in the politically charged process of selecting their presidential candidates, a time of particular sensitivity to any appearance of partisanship on the part of the military.
"You could make an argument that the March assessment is perhaps more important than the previous one," said a senior military official. "By the March assessment, we will know more as to how things are progressing. So that assessment will be absolutely key as to mapping the way ahead."
Although some Defense officials have expressed concerns that a "cult of personality" has developed around Petraeus, a larger number of officials make the argument that it is simply not fair to put the entire burden of the Iraq war on the general's shoulders.
"I would hope they wouldn't put anyone through what we put Petraeus through. I would hope next time, we would not have the same level of attention," said the senior military official.
Petraeus' high profile and close association with the policies of President Bush drew questions about the military's credibility on Iraq. In a survey taken before Petraeus testified in September, more than half of the respondents thought he would sugarcoat conditions in Iraq. An advertisement by the liberal group MoveOn.org, accusing Petraeus of misleading the public, resulted in a backlash as the general's popularity rose.
Another senior military official said the amount of focus on Petraeus' assessment was "over the top."
But since Petraeus' appearances before Congress, the Iraq war has commanded a little less attention, the second senior military official said, and the Pentagon hopes to keep it that way.
"The air has gone out of the Iraq balloon right now," the official said. "It would be a good idea if it stays out."
Still, Petraeus may agree with the advice to step out of the spotlight. Since September, he has seemed to keep a lower profile, and one military officer said Petraeus would be happy to avoid another marathon session before Congress.
Officers in Baghdad said Petraeus would welcome other officials testifying along with him in March. One senior officer said it might be better if other officials testified first, outlining the administration's broad policies, and left operational details for Petraeus.
It is unclear, however, whether the Pentagon can lower its profile next year because Congress is likely to demand even more public testimony.
Although Bush frequently mentions Petraeus when discussing Iraq, both Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mullen have sought to inject other military voices into the debate, notably that of Adm. William J. Fallon, the head of U.S. Central Command, the military's Mideast headquarters.
Several officials also said they hoped that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, could be the main focus of future hearings, rather than Petraeus or another military officer. Crocker testified in September, but his views were overshadowed by those of the U.S. military commander.
Mullen has placed a high value on the veracity of the military. Like most of his predecessors, he issued a commander's guidance for the Armed Forces when he took office. The document laid out priorities for defending national interests in the Middle East, revitalizing the military after years of war and ensuring that the services were prepared not just for Iraq but future conflicts as well.
But Mullen went further, writing that the ability to meet these priorities requires that officers ensure that they do not lose the backing of the American public.
Mullen began his career during the Vietnam era and watched as the unpopularity of that war translated in a loss of support for the military.
A senior military officer familiar with Mullen's thinking said the Joint Chiefs chairman was concerned the same thing could happen in the Iraq war. Public support for the military remains high, but there are signs of slippage.
"We are now in another unpopular war," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Separation of the American people from the men and women who wear the uniform would be a disaster."
"The military is a highly thought-of institution," the officer said. "It has the privilege of being apolitical, serving its civilian masters with an expectation not to take sides."
Mullen is emphasizing the need to hold leaders accountable for their actions and those of their subordinates and has stressed the need to stay out of political debates, which he considers the province of the civilian leaders of the Defense Department.
Mullen believes that the threat of terrorism makes it crucial for the military to retain public support, the official said. Besides, an erosion of support could reduce money and resources coming from Congress.
"Right now, there are extraordinary challenges in a very dangerous, unpredictable world," the official said. "To have the military detached from the American people is a nightmare scenario."
julian.barnes@latimes.com
Times staff writer Peter Spiegel contributed to this report.
Citation: Julian E. Barnes. "Military wants more views on Iraq reports," Los Angeles Times, 26 November 2007.
Original URL: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trust26nov26,0,5883694.story?coll=la-home-center
By Julian E. Barnes
Los Angeles Times, 26 November 2007
WASHINGTON — Top military leaders at the Pentagon want to avoid a repeat of the last public assessment of the Iraq war -- with its relentless focus on the opinion of a single commander -- when the Bush administration makes its next crucial decision about the size of the U.S. force.
Concerned about the war's effect on public trust in the military, the leading officials said they hoped the next major assessment early next year would not place as much emphasis on the views of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, who in September spent dozens of hours in testimony before Congress and in televised interviews.
Defense officials believe his testimony succeeded in muting a congressional debate and in giving them breathing room for their counter-insurgency strategy, but at a potentially high cost. In addition to the burden on Petraeus, some officials believe, an incessant spotlight on one general risks politicizing the military and undermining the public's faith that military leaders will give honest assessments of the war's progress.
"This is not Dave Petraeus' war. This is George Bush's war," said one senior official, underscoring the military's view that its role is to carry out the decisions made by political leaders.
The senior official, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity because the administration has not made final decisions about how next year's assessment, planned for March, will be presented.
Despite security improvements in Baghdad, Americans continue to hold deep reservations about the Iraq war. Some military leaders are worried that the unpopularity of the war has eroded public confidence in the military and in top military officials.
Although support for the military remains high, there is a basis for such concerns. An annual Gallup poll in June found that 69% of the public had confidence in the military, down from 82% in 2003.
In response, some officers are taking steps to shore up public support, saying that the military must be accountable for its actions and that officers must be apolitical and honest in their public comments.
Adm. Michael G. Mullen, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, released a formal letter of guidance that stressed the need for military leaders to preserve the confidence and support of the public.
"To the degree we allow ourselves to disconnect from [the American people], we allow the very foundation upon which our success rests to crumble," Mullen wrote. "Every action we take, every day, must be executed in a way that strengthens and sustains the public's trust and confidence in our ability and our integrity."
Next year's Iraq war assessment could be more crucial than the one in September. Officials have indicated that they plan to lay out their views on how quickly the number of troops in Iraq can be cut, possibly revealing the latest military thinking on the long-term size of the U.S. presence in Iraq.
And the assessment will occur as the nation's Democratic and Republican parties are in the politically charged process of selecting their presidential candidates, a time of particular sensitivity to any appearance of partisanship on the part of the military.
"You could make an argument that the March assessment is perhaps more important than the previous one," said a senior military official. "By the March assessment, we will know more as to how things are progressing. So that assessment will be absolutely key as to mapping the way ahead."
Although some Defense officials have expressed concerns that a "cult of personality" has developed around Petraeus, a larger number of officials make the argument that it is simply not fair to put the entire burden of the Iraq war on the general's shoulders.
"I would hope they wouldn't put anyone through what we put Petraeus through. I would hope next time, we would not have the same level of attention," said the senior military official.
Petraeus' high profile and close association with the policies of President Bush drew questions about the military's credibility on Iraq. In a survey taken before Petraeus testified in September, more than half of the respondents thought he would sugarcoat conditions in Iraq. An advertisement by the liberal group MoveOn.org, accusing Petraeus of misleading the public, resulted in a backlash as the general's popularity rose.
Another senior military official said the amount of focus on Petraeus' assessment was "over the top."
But since Petraeus' appearances before Congress, the Iraq war has commanded a little less attention, the second senior military official said, and the Pentagon hopes to keep it that way.
"The air has gone out of the Iraq balloon right now," the official said. "It would be a good idea if it stays out."
Still, Petraeus may agree with the advice to step out of the spotlight. Since September, he has seemed to keep a lower profile, and one military officer said Petraeus would be happy to avoid another marathon session before Congress.
Officers in Baghdad said Petraeus would welcome other officials testifying along with him in March. One senior officer said it might be better if other officials testified first, outlining the administration's broad policies, and left operational details for Petraeus.
It is unclear, however, whether the Pentagon can lower its profile next year because Congress is likely to demand even more public testimony.
Although Bush frequently mentions Petraeus when discussing Iraq, both Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mullen have sought to inject other military voices into the debate, notably that of Adm. William J. Fallon, the head of U.S. Central Command, the military's Mideast headquarters.
Several officials also said they hoped that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, could be the main focus of future hearings, rather than Petraeus or another military officer. Crocker testified in September, but his views were overshadowed by those of the U.S. military commander.
Mullen has placed a high value on the veracity of the military. Like most of his predecessors, he issued a commander's guidance for the Armed Forces when he took office. The document laid out priorities for defending national interests in the Middle East, revitalizing the military after years of war and ensuring that the services were prepared not just for Iraq but future conflicts as well.
But Mullen went further, writing that the ability to meet these priorities requires that officers ensure that they do not lose the backing of the American public.
Mullen began his career during the Vietnam era and watched as the unpopularity of that war translated in a loss of support for the military.
A senior military officer familiar with Mullen's thinking said the Joint Chiefs chairman was concerned the same thing could happen in the Iraq war. Public support for the military remains high, but there are signs of slippage.
"We are now in another unpopular war," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Separation of the American people from the men and women who wear the uniform would be a disaster."
"The military is a highly thought-of institution," the officer said. "It has the privilege of being apolitical, serving its civilian masters with an expectation not to take sides."
Mullen is emphasizing the need to hold leaders accountable for their actions and those of their subordinates and has stressed the need to stay out of political debates, which he considers the province of the civilian leaders of the Defense Department.
Mullen believes that the threat of terrorism makes it crucial for the military to retain public support, the official said. Besides, an erosion of support could reduce money and resources coming from Congress.
"Right now, there are extraordinary challenges in a very dangerous, unpredictable world," the official said. "To have the military detached from the American people is a nightmare scenario."
julian.barnes@latimes.com
Times staff writer Peter Spiegel contributed to this report.
Citation: Julian E. Barnes. "Military wants more views on Iraq reports," Los Angeles Times, 26 November 2007.
Original URL: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trust26nov26,0,5883694.story?coll=la-home-center
Iraqis may offer US deal to stay longer
By Qassim Abdul-Zahra
The Associated Press, 26 November 2007
BAGHDAD - Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday.
The proposal, described to The Associated Press by two senior Iraqi officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence.
In Washington, President Bush's adviser on the Iraqi war, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, confirmed the proposal, calling it "a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations."
As part of the package, the Iraqis want an end to the current U.N.-mandated multinational forces mission, and also an end to all U.N.-ordered restrictions on Iraq's sovereignty.
In a televised address Monday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said his government will ask the U.N. to renew the mandate for the multinational force for one final time, with its authorization to end in 2008.
Iraq has been living under some form of U.N. restriction since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the officials said.
U.S. troops and other foreign forces operate in Iraq under a U.N. Security Council mandate, which has been renewed annually since 2003. Iraqi officials have said they want that next renewal — which must be approved by the U.N. Security Council by the end of this year — to be the last.
The two senior Iraqi officials said Iraqi authorities had discussed the broad outlines of the proposal with U.S. military and diplomatic representatives. The Americans appeared generally favorable subject to negotiations on the details, which include preferential treatment for American investments, according to the Iraqi officials involved in the discussions.
The two Iraqi officials, who are from two different political parties, spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is sensitive. Members of parliament were briefed on the plan during a three-hour closed-door meeting Sunday, during which lawmakers loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr objected to the formula.
Preferential treatment for U.S. investors could provide a huge windfall if Iraq can achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources. Such a deal would also enable the United States to maintain leverage against Iranian expansion at a time of growing fears about Tehran's nuclear aspirations.
At the White House, Lute said the new agreement was not binding.
"It's not a treaty, but it's rather a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations," Lute said. "Think of today's agreement as setting the agenda for the formal bilateral negotiations."
Those negotiations will take place during the course of 2008, with the goal of completion by July, Lute said.
The new agreement on principles spells out what the formal, final document will contain regarding political, economic and security matters.
"We believe, and Iraqis' national leaders believe, that a long-term relationship with the United States is in our mutual interest," Lute said.
From the Iraqi side, Lute said, having the U.S. as a "reliable, enduring partner with Iraq will cause different sects inside the Iraqi political structure not to have to hedge their bets in a go-it-alone-like setting, but rather they'll be able to bet on the reliable partnership with the United States."
When asked about the plan, U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo noted that Iraqi officials had expressed a desire for a strategic partnership with the U.S. in a political declaration in August and an end to the U.N.-mandated force.
"Thereafter then, the question becomes one of bilateral relationships between Iraq and the countries of the multinational forces," she said. "At that point we need to be considering long-term bilateral relationships and we're following the Iraqi thinking on this one and we agree with their thinking on this and we'll be looking at setting up a long-term partnership with different aspects to it, political, economic, security and so forth."
She said any detailed discussion of bases and investment preferences was "way, way, way ahead of where we are at the moment."
The Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and U.S. troops would relocate to bases outside the cities. Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000.
Haidar al-Abadi, a senior Dawa member of al-Maliki's Dawa party, told Alhurra television that the prime minister would write parliament in the next few days to tell lawmakers that his government would seek the renewal of the U.N. mandate for "one last time."
Al-Abadi said the Iraqi government would make the renewal conditional on ending all U.N.-mandated restrictions on Iraq's sovereignty.
The Iraqi target date for a bilateral agreement on the new relationship would be July, when the U.S. intends to finish withdrawing the five combat brigades sent in 2007 by President Bush as part of the troop buildup that has helped curb sectarian violence.
On Sunday, Iraq's Shiite vice president hinted at such a formula, saying the government will link discussions on the next extension of the U.N. mandate to an agreement under which Iraq will gain full sovereignty and "full control over all of its resources and issues."
Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said Iraq wanted an "equal footing" with the U.S. on security issues as a sovereign country so Iraqi could "have relations with other states with sovereignty and interests."
He said the government would announce within days a "declaration of intent" that would not involve military bases but would raise "issues on organizing the presence of the multinational forces and ending their presence on Iraqi soil."
One official said the Iraqis expect objections from Iraq's neighbors. Iran and Syria will object because they oppose a U.S. presence in the region.
Egypt and Saudi Arabia will not like the idea of any reduction in their roles as Washington's most important Arab partners.
Citation: Qassim Abdul-Zahra. " Iraqis may offer US deal to stay longer,"
The Associated Press, 26 November 2007.
Original URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us;_ylt=Aj5SHt6_E9Yzs4HS0BQCrJJvaA8F
The Associated Press, 26 November 2007
BAGHDAD - Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday.
The proposal, described to The Associated Press by two senior Iraqi officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence.
In Washington, President Bush's adviser on the Iraqi war, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, confirmed the proposal, calling it "a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations."
As part of the package, the Iraqis want an end to the current U.N.-mandated multinational forces mission, and also an end to all U.N.-ordered restrictions on Iraq's sovereignty.
In a televised address Monday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said his government will ask the U.N. to renew the mandate for the multinational force for one final time, with its authorization to end in 2008.
Iraq has been living under some form of U.N. restriction since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the officials said.
U.S. troops and other foreign forces operate in Iraq under a U.N. Security Council mandate, which has been renewed annually since 2003. Iraqi officials have said they want that next renewal — which must be approved by the U.N. Security Council by the end of this year — to be the last.
The two senior Iraqi officials said Iraqi authorities had discussed the broad outlines of the proposal with U.S. military and diplomatic representatives. The Americans appeared generally favorable subject to negotiations on the details, which include preferential treatment for American investments, according to the Iraqi officials involved in the discussions.
The two Iraqi officials, who are from two different political parties, spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is sensitive. Members of parliament were briefed on the plan during a three-hour closed-door meeting Sunday, during which lawmakers loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr objected to the formula.
Preferential treatment for U.S. investors could provide a huge windfall if Iraq can achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources. Such a deal would also enable the United States to maintain leverage against Iranian expansion at a time of growing fears about Tehran's nuclear aspirations.
At the White House, Lute said the new agreement was not binding.
"It's not a treaty, but it's rather a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations," Lute said. "Think of today's agreement as setting the agenda for the formal bilateral negotiations."
Those negotiations will take place during the course of 2008, with the goal of completion by July, Lute said.
The new agreement on principles spells out what the formal, final document will contain regarding political, economic and security matters.
"We believe, and Iraqis' national leaders believe, that a long-term relationship with the United States is in our mutual interest," Lute said.
From the Iraqi side, Lute said, having the U.S. as a "reliable, enduring partner with Iraq will cause different sects inside the Iraqi political structure not to have to hedge their bets in a go-it-alone-like setting, but rather they'll be able to bet on the reliable partnership with the United States."
When asked about the plan, U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo noted that Iraqi officials had expressed a desire for a strategic partnership with the U.S. in a political declaration in August and an end to the U.N.-mandated force.
"Thereafter then, the question becomes one of bilateral relationships between Iraq and the countries of the multinational forces," she said. "At that point we need to be considering long-term bilateral relationships and we're following the Iraqi thinking on this one and we agree with their thinking on this and we'll be looking at setting up a long-term partnership with different aspects to it, political, economic, security and so forth."
She said any detailed discussion of bases and investment preferences was "way, way, way ahead of where we are at the moment."
The Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and U.S. troops would relocate to bases outside the cities. Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000.
Haidar al-Abadi, a senior Dawa member of al-Maliki's Dawa party, told Alhurra television that the prime minister would write parliament in the next few days to tell lawmakers that his government would seek the renewal of the U.N. mandate for "one last time."
Al-Abadi said the Iraqi government would make the renewal conditional on ending all U.N.-mandated restrictions on Iraq's sovereignty.
The Iraqi target date for a bilateral agreement on the new relationship would be July, when the U.S. intends to finish withdrawing the five combat brigades sent in 2007 by President Bush as part of the troop buildup that has helped curb sectarian violence.
On Sunday, Iraq's Shiite vice president hinted at such a formula, saying the government will link discussions on the next extension of the U.N. mandate to an agreement under which Iraq will gain full sovereignty and "full control over all of its resources and issues."
Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said Iraq wanted an "equal footing" with the U.S. on security issues as a sovereign country so Iraqi could "have relations with other states with sovereignty and interests."
He said the government would announce within days a "declaration of intent" that would not involve military bases but would raise "issues on organizing the presence of the multinational forces and ending their presence on Iraqi soil."
One official said the Iraqis expect objections from Iraq's neighbors. Iran and Syria will object because they oppose a U.S. presence in the region.
Egypt and Saudi Arabia will not like the idea of any reduction in their roles as Washington's most important Arab partners.
Citation: Qassim Abdul-Zahra. " Iraqis may offer US deal to stay longer,"
The Associated Press, 26 November 2007.
Original URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us;_ylt=Aj5SHt6_E9Yzs4HS0BQCrJJvaA8F
23 November 2007
All private security firms must close: Afghanistan
Agence France Presse, 22 November 2007
KABUL (AFP) — Authorities in Afghanistan want to close down all private security firms operating in the country, many of them illegally, President Hamid Karzai's office said.
About nine unlicensed companies have already been shut down in a crackdown that has been under way in Kabul for weeks, according to city police.
Under the constitution "only the Afghan government has the right of having and handling weapons, so private companies are against the constitution," the president's spokesman Siamak Hirawi told AFP late Wednesday.
A cabinet meeting Monday argued that the dozens of private security firms were illegal and a source of criminality.
"The session decided that in the long term all private companies should be shut down," he said.
"But for the time being a small number of private companies which can prepare themselves to meet the regulations put in place by the ministry of interior will be allowed temporary licences."
Only a "handful" of such companies would be allowed to operate mainly for the use of international organisations and the United Nations, he said.
"In the long run, when Afghan security forces have the capacity to replace them, they will be replaced by government security personnel, police."
Insecurity in Afghanistan has sharply increased because of a rise in crime and an insurgency led by the extremist Taliban who held power until 2001.
A range of security companies are operating in Afghanistan, from US-based Blackwater to smaller Afghan firm, some of them linked to militias or former warlords.
They guard embassies and other premises or act as bodyguards, while some, like the US-based DynCorp, also train Afghan police.
A report released this month by the Swisspeace research institute said that while about 90 firms could be identified by name, only 35 had registered with the government.
Some are alleged to be involved in extortion, kidnapping and the smuggling of drugs, it said.
Citation: "All private security firms must close: Afghanistan," Agence France Presse, 22 November 2007.
Original URL: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUikB4yVqHEf7eGIvBboJprdDPkw
KABUL (AFP) — Authorities in Afghanistan want to close down all private security firms operating in the country, many of them illegally, President Hamid Karzai's office said.
About nine unlicensed companies have already been shut down in a crackdown that has been under way in Kabul for weeks, according to city police.
Under the constitution "only the Afghan government has the right of having and handling weapons, so private companies are against the constitution," the president's spokesman Siamak Hirawi told AFP late Wednesday.
A cabinet meeting Monday argued that the dozens of private security firms were illegal and a source of criminality.
"The session decided that in the long term all private companies should be shut down," he said.
"But for the time being a small number of private companies which can prepare themselves to meet the regulations put in place by the ministry of interior will be allowed temporary licences."
Only a "handful" of such companies would be allowed to operate mainly for the use of international organisations and the United Nations, he said.
"In the long run, when Afghan security forces have the capacity to replace them, they will be replaced by government security personnel, police."
Insecurity in Afghanistan has sharply increased because of a rise in crime and an insurgency led by the extremist Taliban who held power until 2001.
A range of security companies are operating in Afghanistan, from US-based Blackwater to smaller Afghan firm, some of them linked to militias or former warlords.
They guard embassies and other premises or act as bodyguards, while some, like the US-based DynCorp, also train Afghan police.
A report released this month by the Swisspeace research institute said that while about 90 firms could be identified by name, only 35 had registered with the government.
Some are alleged to be involved in extortion, kidnapping and the smuggling of drugs, it said.
Citation: "All private security firms must close: Afghanistan," Agence France Presse, 22 November 2007.
Original URL: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUikB4yVqHEf7eGIvBboJprdDPkw
UNHCR says time not right for large-scale Iraq repatriation
Reuters, 23 November 2007
GENEVA, November 23 (UNHCR) – Amid media reports that thousands of refugees are going back to Iraq, the UN refugee agency said on Friday that while improved security conditions were welcome it was not yet time to promote, organize or encourage returns.
Spokeswoman Jennifer Pagonis told journalists in Geneva that UNHCR was ready to assist people who have decided, or will decide, to return to Iraq voluntarily, but the agency believed that large-scale repatriation would only be possible "when proper return conditions are in place – including material and legal support and physical safety."
She added that "presently, there is no sign of any large-scale return to Iraq as the security situation in many parts of the country remains volatile and unpredictable. "
According to a survey conducted by UNHCR staff in Syria, there are many reasons for returns to Iraq other than considerations of improved security. Most of some 110 Iraqi families interviewed said they were returning because they were running out of money and/or resources, they faced difficult living conditions or because their visas have expired.
As a result of recent visa restrictions, a number of Iraqis have been unable to shuttle back and forth between Iraq and Syria to get additional resources, make some money or collect food distributions or pensions.
The incentives offered by the Iraqi government of some US$700-US$800 to return home, as well as free bus and plane rides, have also played a role in returns. The survey also highlighted that this was the first time in recent years that Iraqi refugees were discussing return.
Pagonis said UNHCR staff also did quick interviews with returnees in Baghdad, who cited economic difficulties caused by their long displacement as a major reason for going home. Many had run out of or nearly depleted their savings. Some returned as it was the last chance to get their children back into Iraqi schools before the end of the first term.
Some were encouraged by the reports regarding improvement of security, but many expressed concern about longer-term stability, citing the fact that militias were still around and many areas remained insecure. People have mainly been returning to areas where they feel that local security forces are working properly and are maintaining control.
"Although we are not in a position to monitor borders on a 24-hour basis, we have noted more returns to Iraq than arrivals in Syria – with a fluctuating average of 1,500 departures to Iraq and 500 arrivals in Syria per day. We cannot confirm reports that 46,000 Iraqis returned from Syria in October," Pagonis said.
Inside Iraq, the number of internally displaced people increased slightly over the last few months. According to the latest figures received by UNHCR, it is estimated that as of Wednesday more than 2.4 million Iraqis were displaced inside Iraq. The breakdown is: 1,021,962 displaced prior to 2003; 190,146 displaced from 2003-2005; and 1,199,491 displaced since the first Samarra mosque bombing in February 2006.
Pagonis said reasons for the increase included better registration of the displaced, but also recent visa restrictions in Syria, which meant more people moved within Iraq rather than seeking refuge outside. There has also been more secondary displacement as governorates close their doors to the newly displaced from elsewhere – 11 out of Iraq's 18 governorates have limited access to new arrivals.
Still, there have been some returns among displaced people. Various families received financial incentives to return. UNHCR has received reports of families who returned to very difficult conditions while others did not return to their original homes, but settled elsewhere (secondary displacement). Displaced Iraqis say access to shelter, food, work, water/sanitation and legal aid remain the most common needs.
According to government estimates, some 2.2 million Iraqis live outside Iraq - with some 500,000-700.000 in Jordan and up to 1.5 million in Syria.
Citation: "UNHCR says time not right for large-scale Iraq repatriation," Reuters, 23 November 2007.
Original URL: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/UNHCR/04966fcb59ed349889dbbe8a9c5a6bb7.htm
GENEVA, November 23 (UNHCR) – Amid media reports that thousands of refugees are going back to Iraq, the UN refugee agency said on Friday that while improved security conditions were welcome it was not yet time to promote, organize or encourage returns.
Spokeswoman Jennifer Pagonis told journalists in Geneva that UNHCR was ready to assist people who have decided, or will decide, to return to Iraq voluntarily, but the agency believed that large-scale repatriation would only be possible "when proper return conditions are in place – including material and legal support and physical safety."
She added that "presently, there is no sign of any large-scale return to Iraq as the security situation in many parts of the country remains volatile and unpredictable. "
According to a survey conducted by UNHCR staff in Syria, there are many reasons for returns to Iraq other than considerations of improved security. Most of some 110 Iraqi families interviewed said they were returning because they were running out of money and/or resources, they faced difficult living conditions or because their visas have expired.
As a result of recent visa restrictions, a number of Iraqis have been unable to shuttle back and forth between Iraq and Syria to get additional resources, make some money or collect food distributions or pensions.
The incentives offered by the Iraqi government of some US$700-US$800 to return home, as well as free bus and plane rides, have also played a role in returns. The survey also highlighted that this was the first time in recent years that Iraqi refugees were discussing return.
Pagonis said UNHCR staff also did quick interviews with returnees in Baghdad, who cited economic difficulties caused by their long displacement as a major reason for going home. Many had run out of or nearly depleted their savings. Some returned as it was the last chance to get their children back into Iraqi schools before the end of the first term.
Some were encouraged by the reports regarding improvement of security, but many expressed concern about longer-term stability, citing the fact that militias were still around and many areas remained insecure. People have mainly been returning to areas where they feel that local security forces are working properly and are maintaining control.
"Although we are not in a position to monitor borders on a 24-hour basis, we have noted more returns to Iraq than arrivals in Syria – with a fluctuating average of 1,500 departures to Iraq and 500 arrivals in Syria per day. We cannot confirm reports that 46,000 Iraqis returned from Syria in October," Pagonis said.
Inside Iraq, the number of internally displaced people increased slightly over the last few months. According to the latest figures received by UNHCR, it is estimated that as of Wednesday more than 2.4 million Iraqis were displaced inside Iraq. The breakdown is: 1,021,962 displaced prior to 2003; 190,146 displaced from 2003-2005; and 1,199,491 displaced since the first Samarra mosque bombing in February 2006.
Pagonis said reasons for the increase included better registration of the displaced, but also recent visa restrictions in Syria, which meant more people moved within Iraq rather than seeking refuge outside. There has also been more secondary displacement as governorates close their doors to the newly displaced from elsewhere – 11 out of Iraq's 18 governorates have limited access to new arrivals.
Still, there have been some returns among displaced people. Various families received financial incentives to return. UNHCR has received reports of families who returned to very difficult conditions while others did not return to their original homes, but settled elsewhere (secondary displacement). Displaced Iraqis say access to shelter, food, work, water/sanitation and legal aid remain the most common needs.
According to government estimates, some 2.2 million Iraqis live outside Iraq - with some 500,000-700.000 in Jordan and up to 1.5 million in Syria.
Citation: "UNHCR says time not right for large-scale Iraq repatriation," Reuters, 23 November 2007.
Original URL: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/UNHCR/04966fcb59ed349889dbbe8a9c5a6bb7.htm
20 November 2007
Iraq takes hard stance in shooting by security guards
Criminal charges are planned in the incident that involved foreign contractors and left a woman injured. 'We will no longer be easy on this,' official says.
By Doug Smith
Los Angeles Times, 20 November 2007
BAGHDAD — Iraqi officials took a hard line today on abuses by foreign security guards, saying criminal charges would be filed in the nonfatal shooting of a woman on Monday by a convoy ferrying laborers across the city.
"We will no longer be easy on this," said Qassim Atta, spokesman for Iraqi security forces in the capital.
A home video of the incident that circulated in the capital today dramatized the rage that Iraqis harbor against private security contractors whose convoys drive at high speeds and are authorized to shoot at threats.
Critics say they drive recklessly and sometimes shoot indiscriminately at cars that pose no threat.
The jerky picture, apparently taken from the bed of a truck that was transporting the workers, shows a swarm of angry bystanders being kept at bay by warning shots. About a dozen people lie in the truck bed cowering under blankets and suitcases as three soldiers stand over them. One soldier strikes at several of them with a cane-like stick as voices in the crowd urge him on.
Iraqi officials arrested 43 people in the incident, some of them laborers and some security. The detainees were two Fijians, 10 Iraqis, 21 Sri Lankans, one Indian, and nine Nepalese, the U.S. military said.
Despite the apparent evidence that most of the detainees in the shooting were unarmed, Atta said none would be released until the investigation is complete.
Atta's comments did not make clear whether they were being held as suspects or witnesses, but he said those responsible for the shooting would be turned over to Iraqi courts for prosecution and the others would be released. He could not say when that would be.
"We are now interrogating the members of the company to find out who did the shooting and we will hand him to the judicial courts," Atta said.
The charges would be driving on the wrong side of the street, shooting randomly at civilians and injuring one, Atta said.
The U.S. military said it was working with Iraqi forces to provide support, but was not involved in the investigation.
Attempts to prosecute could prove problematic because Iraqi law currently grants immunity to foreign contractors under an order established during the post-invasion U.S. occupation.
Following a September shooting in which guards for Blackwater USA, the company that provides security to U.S. embassy officials, killed 17 Iraqis, the Cabinet of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki last month proposed a law that would repeal contractors' immunity, but parliament has not yet acted on it.
The company involved in Monday's shooting, Almco Group, is based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and has contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense to provide some bases with essentials such as food, water and tents, the U.S. military said. It also has a contract to build a courthouse as part of U.S. reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
Almco had contracted with an Iraqi company, Al Iraq Al Moaser, to provide security for the convoy, said a U.S. military spokesman.
It was unclear whether those being escorted were related to a U.S. Defense contract or another of Almco's clients in Iraq.
In a statement today, the U.S. military said, "It is up to the government of Iraq to determine what charges, if any, will be filed."
Also today, a car bomb in Bayaa, in southwest Baghdad, killed one person and injured six, and in the west Baghdad neighborhood of Mansour, armed men opened fire, killing two computer engineers at a mosque, a source at Yarmouk hospital said.
A roadside bomb exploded in a village southwest of the northern city of Kirkuk, killing one Iraqi soldier and injuring five others, police said.
Citation: Doug Smith. "Iraq takes hard stance in shooting by security guards," Los Angeles Times, 20 November 2007.
Original URL: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-fg-iraq21nov21,1,1573198.story?coll=la-iraq-complete
By Doug Smith
Los Angeles Times, 20 November 2007
BAGHDAD — Iraqi officials took a hard line today on abuses by foreign security guards, saying criminal charges would be filed in the nonfatal shooting of a woman on Monday by a convoy ferrying laborers across the city.
"We will no longer be easy on this," said Qassim Atta, spokesman for Iraqi security forces in the capital.
A home video of the incident that circulated in the capital today dramatized the rage that Iraqis harbor against private security contractors whose convoys drive at high speeds and are authorized to shoot at threats.
Critics say they drive recklessly and sometimes shoot indiscriminately at cars that pose no threat.
The jerky picture, apparently taken from the bed of a truck that was transporting the workers, shows a swarm of angry bystanders being kept at bay by warning shots. About a dozen people lie in the truck bed cowering under blankets and suitcases as three soldiers stand over them. One soldier strikes at several of them with a cane-like stick as voices in the crowd urge him on.
Iraqi officials arrested 43 people in the incident, some of them laborers and some security. The detainees were two Fijians, 10 Iraqis, 21 Sri Lankans, one Indian, and nine Nepalese, the U.S. military said.
Despite the apparent evidence that most of the detainees in the shooting were unarmed, Atta said none would be released until the investigation is complete.
Atta's comments did not make clear whether they were being held as suspects or witnesses, but he said those responsible for the shooting would be turned over to Iraqi courts for prosecution and the others would be released. He could not say when that would be.
"We are now interrogating the members of the company to find out who did the shooting and we will hand him to the judicial courts," Atta said.
The charges would be driving on the wrong side of the street, shooting randomly at civilians and injuring one, Atta said.
The U.S. military said it was working with Iraqi forces to provide support, but was not involved in the investigation.
Attempts to prosecute could prove problematic because Iraqi law currently grants immunity to foreign contractors under an order established during the post-invasion U.S. occupation.
Following a September shooting in which guards for Blackwater USA, the company that provides security to U.S. embassy officials, killed 17 Iraqis, the Cabinet of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki last month proposed a law that would repeal contractors' immunity, but parliament has not yet acted on it.
The company involved in Monday's shooting, Almco Group, is based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and has contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense to provide some bases with essentials such as food, water and tents, the U.S. military said. It also has a contract to build a courthouse as part of U.S. reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
Almco had contracted with an Iraqi company, Al Iraq Al Moaser, to provide security for the convoy, said a U.S. military spokesman.
It was unclear whether those being escorted were related to a U.S. Defense contract or another of Almco's clients in Iraq.
In a statement today, the U.S. military said, "It is up to the government of Iraq to determine what charges, if any, will be filed."
Also today, a car bomb in Bayaa, in southwest Baghdad, killed one person and injured six, and in the west Baghdad neighborhood of Mansour, armed men opened fire, killing two computer engineers at a mosque, a source at Yarmouk hospital said.
A roadside bomb exploded in a village southwest of the northern city of Kirkuk, killing one Iraqi soldier and injuring five others, police said.
Citation: Doug Smith. "Iraq takes hard stance in shooting by security guards," Los Angeles Times, 20 November 2007.
Original URL: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-fg-iraq21nov21,1,1573198.story?coll=la-iraq-complete