"Never give in, never give in, never, never- in nothing, great or small, large or petty- never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy." WINSTON CHURCHILL
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Largest Sunni Bloc rejoins Iraqi Government
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's largest Sunni Arab political bloc returned to the government fold Saturday after calling off a nearly one-year boycott of the Shiite-dominated leadership—another critical stride toward healing sectarian rifts.
The return of the National Accordance Front does more than politically reunite some of Iraq's main centers of power.
It was seen as a significant advance toward reconciliation and efforts to cement security cooperation between Shiite-led forces and armed Sunni groups that rose up against al-Qaida in Iraq.
The United States has pressured Iraq's government to work toward settling the sectarian feuds, which brought daily bloodshed until recent months. The hope is that more parties staked in the future of Iraq could mean a quicker exit for U.S. and other foreign forces.
Iraq's sharply improved security situation is already bringing plans for a pared-down British force.
On a visit to Baghdad, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said plans are being made to scale back troops in Iraq, but refused to consider an "artificial timetable" for withdrawing Britain's remaining 4,000 soldiers.
Brown's comments—following meetings with Iraqi leaders—come in advance of next week's scheduled address to British lawmakers on Iraq, when he is expected to give more details on troop reduction plans as insurgent attacks and militia violence drops sharply around Iraq.
No specific troop withdrawal figures have been made public, but a senior British military officer has predicted substantial troop cuts in Iraq next year.
"It is certainly our intention that we reduce troop numbers, but I am not going to give an artificial timetable at the moment," Brown said following talks with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Jalal Talabani.
A departure of more British forces will have little bearing on the battlefield. The troops, mostly based outside the southern city of Basra, no longer have a combat role and are involved mostly with training Iraqi security units.
Britain's moves come about four months after Iraqi opened a major offensive in Basra to root out Shiite militias with suspected links to Iran.
The campaign—which began with disarray among Iraqi forces—ultimately gained ground with U.S. help and reclaimed wide control over Iraq's second-largest city and key oil center.
Although Britain maintains the second-largest foreign military force in Iraq, it is dwarfed by the approximately 150,000 U.S. soldiers currently in the country.
Brown's visit came on the eve of an expected stop by presidential candidate Barack Obama on the second leg of a tour of the Pentagon's war zones. Obama spent Saturday in Afghanistan and is later expected to hold talks around the Middle East and Europe.
Al-Maliki, meanwhile, called Obama's suggestion of a 16-month withdraw of U.S. combat troops as "the right timeframe."
In an interview with Germany's Der Spiegel magazine released Saturday, al-Maliki said he was not seeking to endorse the Illinois senator.
"That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes," al-Maliki was quoted as saying. "Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of U.S. troops in Iraq would cause problems."
The break in the Iraqi political impasse came after parliament unanimously backed Sunni candidates to fill the post of deputy prime minister and head five midlevel ministries, including higher education and communications. Four other Cabinet posts were filled by Shiites.
The Front pulled its members from the 39-member Cabinet last August, complaining it was sidelined in important decisions. The political rift left al-Maliki's government without partners in bids to find common ground with Sunni leaders.
Sunni Arabs, who represent about 20 percent of the country, were highly favored under Saddam Hussein but the tables turned after his ouster when Iraq's majority Shiites held sway. The rivalries spilled over into a wave of sectarian killings and al-Qaida bombings apparently aimed at triggering civil war.
But Sunni sheiks last year began to organize militias—which came to be known as Awakening Councils—against insurgents. Their role has been considered key in undercutting al-Qaida and helping reduce violence to its lowest levels in four years.
"What happened today is a national step forward to boost the government's role and take the national reconciliation ahead," said the bloc's spokesman, Saleem Abdullah.
Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, hailed the political pact as "a very important step forward."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Earlier this month, the Sunday Times caught longtime Bush associate Stephen Payne on tape offering access to top Bush administration officials in exchange for “six-figure donations to the private library being set up to commemorate Bush’s presidency.” Payne, who is now being investigated by the Homeland Security Department and the House Oversight Committee, made the offer to Kazakh politician Yerzhan Dosmukhamedov, who is also known as Eric Dos.
The Times reported that Dos had previously worked with Payne to arrange a 2006 visit by Vice President Dick Cheney to Kazakhstan. Dos claims that in exchange for arranging Cheney’s trip, “a payment of $2m was passed, via a Kazakh oil and gas company, to Payne’s firm.” Payne denies that any such arrangement existed.
But the Times reports today that Payne may be lying about his business dealings and that the money may have been funneled through a sister company to Payne’s lobbying firm:
The Sunday Times, however, has discovered the existence of a channel through which funds from the Kazakh government could have been readily transferred.
A sister company to WSP, Worldwide Strategic Energy (WSE), of which Payne is also president, has a subsidiary, Caspian Alliance, which is the sole US representative for KMG.
The Times reports that a top adviser to Sen. John McCain, lobbyist Randy Scheunemann, has direct ties to the company that is alleged to have funneled the funds:
In a further link, Randy Scheunemann, chief foreign policy and national security adviser to John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, was listed in the WSE brochure as part of its executive team. Scheunemann and Associates, his lobbying firm, is reported as having represented the Caspian Alliance in 2005.
At the undercover meeting last week, Payne said Scheunemann had been “working with me on my payroll for five of the last eight years”. When confronted over the link to KMG, Payne declined to comment.
During his trip to Kazakhstan, Cheney ignored the country’s bad record on human rights and declared his “admiration for what has transpired here in Kazakhstan over the past 15 years.” Earlier this month, Payne told an undercover Times report that Cheney was more interested in what Kazakhstan “could do on energy” than “making them toe the line on human rights.”
Rewarding Them For Negligence
by Steve Soto
A large scandal kept under wraps by the Pentagon:
Shoddy electrical work by private contractors on United States military bases in Iraq is widespread and dangerous, causing more deaths and injuries from fires and shocks than the Pentagon has acknowledged, according to internal Army documents.
During just one six-month period — August 2006 through January 2007 — at least 283 electrical fires destroyed or damaged American military facilities in Iraq, including the military’s largest dining hall in the country, documents obtained by The New York Times show. Two soldiers died in an electrical fire at their base near Tikrit in 2006, the records note, while another was injured while jumping from a burning guard tower in May 2007.
And yet Bob Gates, the man Barack Obama and Carl Levin think would make a fine Defense Secretary in an Obama administration, just awarded KBR a new 10 year, $150 billion contract to do more of this kind of work.
Remember all those silly foreign affairs positions held by Barack Obama? You know, like meeting directly with our enemies, which showed that Obama was naive and inexperienced? Like setting a timetable for Iraq which was not important but on the other hand could lead to chaos and genocide?
Over the last couple of weeks, conservative Andrew Sullivan notes that the lines between Obama's positions and those of McCain and Bush are starting "to blur." Only, that blur seems to be moving in a particular direction.
Iran
Obama has famously argued that the US should deal directly with the mullahs, negotiate the nuclear question and have talks without the precondition that Tehran suspend uranium enrichment. This was a clear and vital difference, we were told only a short time ago, between a reckless, appeasing Obama and the resolute, Churchillian Bushies.
And yet last week Bush authorised William Burns, a high-level State Department official, to attend talks with Tehran’s representatives on the Iranian nuclear question.
Iraq
Obama’s position has long been that troops should be withdrawn expeditiously but with care, and that the US military should shift its emphasis towards Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, lo and behold, last week we were also told that Bush was considering accelerating the exit of Iraq troops to beef up the Afghan mission.
For good measure, McCain also gave a speech backing what he calls a "surge" in Afghanistan, with more troops and a counterinsurgency strategy in the style of General David Petraeus, the commander of US forces.
And that's before McCain has made any response to Iraqi President Maliki's agreement with Obama's timeline. Sullivan notes that the candidates are now sounding an awful lot alike, and that they're having trouble "putting blue sky" between their positions.
One thing he doesn't make clear: the lack of sky is because McCain and Bush have adopted more and more of Obama's "naive" positions rather than his bowing to their towering experience.
Blurry. It's all so blurry. Sure, Obama has a timeline, but now Bush has a "horizon," and by tomorrow McCain will probably have a purview, or a vision, or a vista. It's all the same. Right?
With today's news that Iraq's Prime Minister Maliki agrees with Barack Obama's plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months, the McCain campaign has so far failed to comment on the story. But McCain did have something to say about it in 2004:
QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible.
McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi
people.
Prepare yourself for spinning of Linda Blair-like proportions.
Maliki's Obama Endorsement
by TOM HAYDEN
July 19, 2008
In a stunning diplomatic breakthrough for Barack Obama, Iraq's Prime Minister has endorsed the Democratic candidate's sixteen-month timeline for withdrawing combat troops for Iraq.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki endorsed the Obama approach in a July 19 interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, just as President Bush and Senator John McCain were touting a vague new commitment to an unspecified "horizon" for withdrawal. The New York Times did not report the Maliki statement in its July 19 edition.
Uncertainty about Maliki's surprise statement persists since his top political spokesman told the Times only one week ago that troop withdrawals would take three to five years, if not longer. The two men's positions also allow thousands of counter-terrorism units, trainers and advisers to remain in Iraq as 140,000 US combat troops depart.
But as Obama's plane touched down in Afghanistan, Maliki's comments were having a far-reaching effect on the war and presidential politics, with the Maliki government withdrawing from George Bush and making McCain appear foolish.
This could be the "Philippine option" predicted in Ending the War in Iraq, in which the United States arranged behind the scenes for the Manila government to request the departure of the American fleet.
While the sequencing may be accidental, it appears that the Obama forces could reap a windfall. Obama will seem more successful than Bush in managing the last stages of the war, depriving McCain of the claim to superior foreign policy experience. Obama's imminent arrival in Baghdad could seem victorious.
Why would Maliki break so sharply with his long-time US partner in the White House? Are the Iraqis more adept at playing American politics than the White House is?
As noted before on this site, Iraqi public opinion--Shi'a and Sunni--strongly favors a deadline for American troop withdrawal. The provincial elections to be held later this year (at the insistence of the United States) will produce victories for candidates who strongly favor ending the occupation, both in Sunni areas like Anbar and Mahdi areas like Sadr City. Maliki's coalition must appear to stand for Iraqi sovereignty.
Somewhere in the background is Iran, with its strong ties to the entire Shi'a community in Iraq. The Iranian interest is in keeping Shi'a factions unified in a demand that the US troops and bases are folding up and returning home. Iran believes that a retreating United States will be less able to strike from positions of strength on the ground if a US-Iran conflict takes place.
Besides Iran and the Shi'a bloc, the big winners in this scenario would be the multinational oil companies now subtly assuring themselves access to Iraq's oilfields after thirty years of absence.
The Bush Administration could mask defeat in claims of "mission accomplished," perhaps with garlands of flowers provided by Maliki at a joint ceremony.
Though genuine peace would a blessing, the real losers stand to be the Sunni minority which is the backbone of the insurgency, and the long-suffering Shi'a poor in Sadr City whose social-economic needs are little recognized by the dominant Shi'a party. In the region's geo-politics, Saudi Arabia would be angered at the rise of greater Shi'a and Iranian power in potentially competitive oil fields. And despite their alarm about Iran's nuclear plans, Israel would welcome an Iraq shorn of its power in the Sunni world.
As for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, it could claim a victory in helping drive the American forces out of Iraq, but its narrow public support would shrink further if Iraqis recover sovereignty. A loophole in the Obama plan, certainly endorsed by Maliki, would allow American counter-terrorism units to go after alleged Al Qaeda units operating in Iraq as US combat forces draw down.
The huge "if" hovering over this sudden development is simply whether the Bush Administration can force Maliki to back down from his statement, or at least retreat from going further.
Here is Maliki's statement, delivered as Obama's visit to the region was beginning:
"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term [for withdrawal] is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems.... As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned... Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic.... Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
About Tom Hayden
Tom Hayden is the author of The Other Side (1966, with Staughton Lynd), The Love of Possession Is a Disease With Them (1972), Ending the War in Iraq (2007) and Writings for a Democratic Society: The Tom Hayden Reader (2008). more...
Copyright © 2008 The Nation
Exiting Iraq Is Easier Than They Say
comment
by CHRIS TOENSING
July 16, 2008
The debate over the war in Iraq follows a yellowing script: the minute someone suggests that the US move to withdraw its troops, war supporters cry "Havoc!" True to form, when no less a figure than Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki stated he wants a timeline for a US pullout, John McCain summoned the specter of dire consequences. "I've always said we'll come home with honor and with victory and not through a set timetable," McCain said, in a major foreign policy speech on July 15. Barack Obama affirmed his support for a withdrawal timetable, adding that the United States must "get out as carefully as we were careless getting in." Obama's position is the correct one, but he, like many other war critics, has done too little to counter the refrain that withdrawal is simply "cutting and running," a recipe for disaster.
To answer that line of attack was the charge of the Task Force for a Responsible Withdrawal from Iraq, whose report appeared in June. In March, the Task Force, of which I was a member, convened a group of Middle East and security policy experts on the premise that the next President will indeed set a timetable for extracting US soldiers entirely from their Mesopotamian entanglement. Our Task Force did not seek to restate the case, well-argued by now, for the necessity of withdrawal. Nor did we rehash the reasons why the worst-case scenarios of intensified chaos in Iraq and endemic regional warfare are far from inevitable. Rather, we asked ourselves: What concrete steps can the United States take, immediately and during the withdrawal, to minimize further bloodshed and, instead, encourage peace and stability in Iraq? And how can our nation and others contribute to Iraq's eventual recovery from its excruciating ordeal?
We approached this charge with a sense of humility. After five years of occupation and civil war, not to mention the preceding decades of war, sanctions and dictatorship, Iraq is a traumatized and politically fragmented country. Since 2003, neighboring states have intervened in Iraq's internal conflicts to protect their own interests--and they may be tempted to intervene further when the US military departs. On the diplomatic front, Washington's credibility is badly eroded by a war that most of the world opposed.
Nevertheless, we believe there are many steps that can and should be taken. In the short term, to prevent an abrupt power vacuum, there should be a brief extension of the UN mandate that gives the US-dominated "Coalition forces" in Iraq their legal cover and is due to expire in December. We urge the next President to pursue a sweeping new United Nations mandate, to take effect in 2009, predicated upon a timetable of twelve to eighteen months for a complete withdrawal of US soldiers and private contractors. That mandate should define the contours of international participation in Iraqi reconciliation, reconstruction and humanitarian aid. Simultaneously, the next President should inform the Maliki government that the United States is adopting a stance of neutrality and non-interference in Iraqi politics. Lasting security is unachievable absent a political compromise among Iraq's various factions, and that compromise is impossible as long as America and its favored Iraqi politicians are calling the shots.
So Washington must let the UN do its job. With the US pullout underway, the UN should sponsor a pan-Iraqi conference in which the constituent parties of the Maliki government would sit down as equals with Sadrists, Sunni Arab insurgents and others (except the small, nihilistic Al Qaeda bands) who have been marginalized by the post-Saddam political transition. The summit should seek an immediate official ceasefire and consensus on the type of multinational force that a genuine government of national unity might request to keep the post-reconciliation peace. The Task Force does not presume to prescribe the shape of an Iraqi national compact, but at a minimum it will need to address questions of federalism, revision of the 2005 constitution, de-Baathification and oil revenue distribution.
National reconciliation in Iraq will be arduous work. The United States can help it along by pressing its regional allies to stem the flows of arms and foreign fighters that have exacerbated the country's internecine fighting. The next President must also recognize that the Bush Administration's project of "standing up" Iraqi security forces has itself armed and trained combatants in the civil war. Responsibility for provisioning the nascent Iraqi army should be transferred to a UN special envoy, and assistance to units should be contingent upon their meeting standards of professionalism, respect for rule of law and non-sectarian composition. With lead time and US-led investment, much can be done to build the UN's capacity to perform these functions.
But perhaps the single most important thing the United States can do to aid Iraqi national reconciliation, after withdrawal itself, is to drop the Bush Administration's belligerence toward Iran and Syria. If an arms embargo is not to leak, these two countries must help enforce it. If Iraqi factions are not to revert to zero-sum communal logic, Iran in particular must stop playing favorites. Yet the incentives for Iran and Syria are now all running the other way. To secure their cooperation, Washington will need the leverage that only wide-ranging and direct diplomatic engagement can provide. It may also need to offer carrots to its allies Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to cement a united front of principled non-interference in Iraq.
It is fashionable among Democrats to decry the unspent billions in Iraqi accounts while US taxpayer dollars continue to fund reconstruction projects. Given that Congress just allocated an additional $162 billion for prosecuting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the dyspepsia is surely misplaced. Yet while withdrawal will certainly cost less than continued occupation, meeting long-term US responsibilities to Iraq will not be cheap. It is reasonable that the Iraqis should pay their operating expenses, but to ask them to repair the damage done by the US-led sanctions, invasion and occupation is surely wrong.
The United States should be prepared to donate heavily to a UN peacekeeping force, should the Iraqis request one; to programs for disarming, demobilizing and reintegrating Iraqi militias; and to an Iraq Development Fund that bankrolls a labor-intensive public works program, addresses the roots of food insecurity and strengthens Iraqi civil society organizations. Washington should push Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to follow the lead of the United Arab Emirates and forgive the debts accrued by Saddam Hussein. The biggest debt of all is owed to the more than 4 million Iraqis who are refugees or internally displaced persons as a result of the Bush Administration's war of choice. The United States should plan to contribute significantly to UN and Iraqi government aid agencies caring for the displaced, and send substantial sums to Jordan, Lebanon and Syria to help the Iraqis living there, until such time as they can return home or resettle.
We do not dismiss the contingencies that will bedevil the best of plans and intentions for a responsible policy toward Iraq. Yet the chief uncertainty, on which all else depends, is whether the next President, whoever he may be, will heed the wishes of most Americans and Iraqis, at last, and order a full US withdrawal.
The online report of the Task Force for a Responsible Withdrawal from Iraq can be found here.
About Chris Toensing
Chris Toensing is editor of Middle East Report, published by the Middle East Research and Information Project (www.merip.org). more...
Copyright © 2008 The Nation
Hey annonahole,
Go start your own blog if you intend to post and post others' work, you jerk.
Re: "All those silly foreign affair positions by B. Insane Obama - you know like meeting directly with our enemies which did show that Obama was naive and inexperienced."
You mean like Dimocrats Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Paul Krugman.. saying that?
Ok nitwit - let's go over this so maybe your pea brain can rationalize and grasp it, if that is really possible. Here is the EXACT question in the Dimwit debate that began this:
"In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"
Obama took the question first. He replied,
I would.
------
Both Clinton and Edwards' reply "highlighted" Obama's naivety in that debate matter immediately following his "WITHOUT PRECONDITION FIRST YEAR MEETINGS"
Now this is complicated to nitwits for some reason - but the CONTEXT is - "would YOU, as President, in your FIRST TERM.
Pres. Bush is in his LAST TERM of an 8 YR Presidency - and HE is NOT meeting, but a LOWER LEVEL officer than HIM, in the course of SEVERAL engaged interactions over these 8 YRS, and there are CONDITIONS.
Are you really that much of an idiot that you don't comprehend WORDS. (Don't tell me words don't matter)
Who cares what Andrew Sullivan says? (other than others like you)
I can list multiple commentors who refute what he says - but, this is going to be too long as it is just responding to your moronic dribble.
Re: Iraq timetable - B. Insane Obama is an idiot regarding military matters compared to Patraeus, and other MILITARY LEADERS, and McCain's as well. (oh wait, B. Insane was a community organizer, LOL) Also, if we had followed B. Insane Obama's earlier advice - we would NOT have had the surge (he said it wouldn't work) he would have already WITHDRAWN our troops and there would be CHAOS, and mass murder as Al Qeada and IRAN would own that country now. (instead of it being STABLE where he can now tour around without incident)
The plan has ALWAYS been as Iraqis step up, we will step down - you idiot. They are stepping up, and so we are stepping down accordingly and will be withdrawing REGARDLESS of Obama's opinions.
Besides, one can keep saying it is going to rain, and at some point it is going to rain - only the idiots will say, see I was right.
Osama Bin Laden himself said the war in Iraq was the central front for them. Iraq is a much more strategic battlefront/location (next to Iran, with vast oil reserves) than Afghanistan (but then most intelligent people already know this).
NATO forces are in Afghanistan, they are NOT in IRAQ - which depends upon US much more to secure. But, Pres. Bush has already sent additional troops it Afghan, and said more are needed - regading McCain - he comes from a generational military family (serving and leading himself for years)- he has more military matters wisdom in his middle finger than B. Insane Obama has in his whole nicotine saturated body.
What a complete moron you are!!
right4us
Post a Comment