July shapes up to be least deadly for U.S. in Iraq

Military grows hopeful about Iraq Associated Press July 31, 2009 BAGHDAD — July is on track to be the least deadly month for American troops and one of the quietest for Iraqis since the war started, a decline in violence that has led the U.S. to consider stepping up its withdrawal plans just a month after pulling its combat forces back from Baghdad and other cities. The optimism was tempered by two bombings that killed 12 civilians to the north and west of Baghdad on Thursday. While such attacks have become a daily fact of life for Iraqis, overall violence levels remain low. At least 274 Iraqis have been killed in attacks so far in July, according to an Associated Press count. Only two months - both this year - have seen fewer Iraqis killed since the AP began tracking war-related fatalities in May 2005. There were 242 deaths in January and 225 deaths in May. Only seven U.S. troop deaths have been recorded this month, the lowest monthly total since the war started in March 2003, according to an AP tally. In all, at least 4,329 members of the U.S. military have died in the Iraq war. By contrast, July was the bloodiest month for U.S. forces in the eight-year Afghan war, with at least 41 dead. The encouraging numbers from Iraq came a month after the Americans turned over responsibility for protecting cities to government forces and withdrew to bases outside urban areas. A spike in bombings and other attacks that killed about 300 people in the 10 days leading up to the June 30 city withdrawal deadline sparked concern that the move would jeopardize security gains. But that level of violence did not continue into July. Jim Dobbins, director of national security research at RAND Corp., said the relatively smooth transition was one reason for Wednesday's remarks by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that the U.S. may speed up its withdrawal plans if the trend toward reduced violence continues.

Gates Speaks of Quicker Troop Decrease in Iraq

By Greg Jaffe Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, July 30, 2009 INCIRLIK AIR BASE, Turkey, July 29 -- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Wednesday that the relatively low levels of violence in Iraq and improved cooperation of late between U.S. and Iraqi forces have raised the possibility that commanders might be able to "modestly accelerate" the reduction of U.S. forces this year. At the same time, defense officials said, a flare-up between Kurds and Arabs in northern Iraq is the most likely scenario that could derail drawdown plans. Before leaving northern Iraq on Wednesday, Gates pressed Kurdish leaders to resolve their disputes with the Iraqi government in the next few months, while the United States still has tens of thousands of soldiers in the country and some influence over Baghdad. U.S. forces formally pulled out of Iraqi cities June 30 and, although there has been some tension between U.S. and Iraqi forces in Baghdad, senior military officials said the transition to full Iraqi control of the cities has gone better than they had expected. "There clearly will be the occasional hiccup by someone who doesn't get the word, but on the whole we are quite pleased," Gates said at the end of his two-day visit. The latest evidence of how the Iraqi government is asserting its independence came Tuesday in Diyala province, when security forces raided the camp of an Iranian opposition group that in the past had been protected by the U.S. military in exchange for funneling information about Iran's nuclear ambitions. At least eight Iranians were killed in the raid and in further violent clashes Wednesday, camp leaders and local officials said. Gates said that if trends throughout Iraq remain generally positive, the United States could withdraw three combat brigades, each consisting of about 5,000 soldiers, from Iraq this year. The existing plans call for two brigades to be withdrawn. Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, would have to recommend speeding the pace of the withdrawal before any final decision could be made this fall, Gates said. "I think there is at least some chance of a modest acceleration because of the way General Odierno sees things going, but that remains to be seen," he said. Accelerating the withdrawal from Iraq, where about 130,000 U.S. troops are stationed, would take some of the pressure off the Army, which has been badly strained in recent years by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S.-Iraqi security agreement calls for U.S. troop levels in Iraq to fall to about 50,000 by August 2010. All U.S. troops are to leave by the end of 2011. Long-running territorial feuds between Arabs and Kurds in northern Iraq, particularly over the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, have erupted into tense standoffs between Kurdish militia fighters and Iraqi army soldiers. U.S. troops and liaison officers, who are embedded in the Kurdish and Iraqi units, have played a critical role in preventing violence. "We have all sacrificed too much in blood and treasure to see our gains lost over political differences," Gates told Kurdish President Massoud Barzani during Wednesday's session. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Gates cautioned Barzani that "very difficult issues remain and that the clock is ticking on our presence."

After Violence of Iraq, Finding Peace in Logrolling

By JOHN BRANCH HAYWARD, Wis. — Sgt. J. R. Salzman remembers reaching for his ballistic glasses just as the roadside bomb blew apart his right arm. He remembers being unable to reach the handle of the Humvee’s passenger door and realizing that his arm was instantly shortened. He remembers the look on the face of the medic. Just about everything from Dec. 19, 2006, when he was in the lead truck of a tanker convoy in northwest Baghdad, is lodged in Salzman’s mind. That includes what he thought when he realized he would not die: I’ve still got my legs. I can still logroll. And that explained why Salzman cried when he won his seventh men’s logrolling title at the Lumberjack world championships on Sunday, his first with a prosthetic arm. “It’s what I do,” he said in the quiet shadows after a lengthy standing ovation. “This is my life in the summertime.” Salzman won the event five years in a row, from 1998 to 2002, and again in 2005. In between, Jamie Fischer won two titles, then another in 2006. Salzman was in Iraq by then. Still nagged and inspired to serve by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he had joined the Minnesota National Guard. He eloped with his girlfriend just before he was sent to Iraq in March 2006. She saw him again on Christmas Day at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Salzman’s right forearm was a stump. His left hand had severe nerve damage and was missing its fourth finger. Trauma to the brain left him without much of his memory. Some old friends, whose faces look familiar, can see the damage in his arms but do not quite understand why Salzman cannot always remember their names. Logrolling brings comfortable familiarity and therapy. But it is not the same as it used to be. Salzman, 30, still has the quick feet and strong legs required to spin and stop the floating logs in a high-speed attempt to make an opponent fall. Arms, however, provide balance. There is a lot of semicontrolled flailing in logrolling. Even splayed fingers can be the difference between getting wet and staying dry. Salzman’s carbon-fiber prosthetic — “my Tinkertoy arm,” he called it — is waterproof and hollow. Inside are thin rolls of lead for weight. In last year’s event here, he filled it with sand from the shore of Lake Hayward to try to find the right balance. He was matched with Fischer in his first match last year. Salzman lost. “I was in good physical condition,” Salzman said. “Emotionally, I was a wreck.” He had one and a half pounds of lead in the arm, which made it lighter than his left but heavy enough to provide counterbalance. He and Fischer met Sunday in the best-of-five finals. The two fell into the water almost simultaneously in one match, and Salzman won the point. When Fischer fell in to decide the title, Salzman slid into the water and the two embraced. Salzman waded to the dock, where his sister Tina, a 10-time champion at the Lumberjack world championships, had shouted encouragement, and clung tight. Salzman admitted he had struggled to find the right balance to his life. He imagines bombs around every corner and in every box along the road. He bolts awake at night. He and his wife, Josie, live in Menomonie, Wis., where Salzman attends the University of Wisconsin-Stout. He wants to teach technical arts. “It’s the old joke, the one-armed shop teacher,” he said. But teaching would allow Salzman to spend his summers logrolling. And as he learned Sunday, that can make him feel whole again.

U.S.-Iraq Relations Enter a New Phase, Gates Says

By YOCHI J. DREAZEN Wall Street Journal BAGHDAD -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the American military withdrawal from Iraqi cities went fairly smoothly, clearing the way for Baghdad to reshape its relationship with the U.S. and begin assuming primary security responsibility for the entire country. Mr. Gates's unannounced trip on Tuesday to Iraq came at a pivotal moment for Washington and Baghdad, as the two countries try to take advantage of a decline in Iraq's violence to focus attention on trade, weapons sales and nonmilitary aspects of their complex relationship. Robert Gates, at right, greets U.S. troops from the 4th Brigade, 1st Armored Division at Contingency Operating Base Adder in Tallil, Iraq, on Tuesday. On Wednesday, Mr. Gates is slated to visit Iraq's semiautonomous Kurdish region, where, he said, the U.S. is prepared to help resolve a growing political dispute between Arabs and Kurds over land and oil. It was Mr. Gates's first visit to Iraq since U.S. forces left the country's cities in late June, a milestone both nations describe as the first step toward a complete American military withdrawal by the end of 2011. In the first days after the pullout from Iraq's cities, several U.S. commanders complained that the Iraqis were imposing too many restrictions on U.S. forces, barring them from certain roads and demanding sensitive information about future U.S. ground convoys. Fueling tensions, an Iraqi officer tried to detain U.S. soldiers this month after they killed three Iraqi civilians while chasing militants near the restive city of Abu Ghraib. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, on a visit to Washington last week, said the Iraqi officer had been "out of line." Mr. Gates acknowledged some early miscues, but said U.S. and Iraqi officials had hammered out their differences and were cooperating closely on security matters. "The agreement has changed the chemistry of the relationship," Mr. Gates told reporters. "Nobody's the boss or the occupier or however you want to put it, but there's a real sense of empowerment by the Iraqis." Gen. Ray Odierno, the top American commander in Iraq, attributed the turnaround to a previously undisclosed videoconference involving more than 500 Iraqi and American officers. Gen. Odierno said the July 9 session allowed the two sides to better clarify the terms of the security agreement, reducing disputes over its implementation. Mr. Maliki recently said that some U.S. forces might be allowed to remain in Iraq after 2011, but Gen. Odierno said he was still operating under the assumption that a full U.S. withdrawal would occur within the next 30 months. U.S. military officials are working with the Iraqis on the next stages of the drawdown. U.S. commanders say roughly 80,000 of the 130,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq will leave the country by August 2010. At the same time, U.S. officials want to build a long-term relationship with Iraq that more closely resembles America's ties to other Arab allies. One complicated aspect of that shift is Iraq's request for American F-16 fighter jets. In his meetings in Washington with President Barack Obama and other senior U.S. officials last week, Mr. Maliki indicated Baghdad wants to buy 18 F-16s by the end of 2011 and as many as 96 by 2020. Congress would need to sign off on the request before Lockheed Martin Corp. could begin building the fighters, and Gen. Odierno acknowledged it would be impossible to deliver them to Iraq by 2011. Iraq has indicated it is prepared to buy jets from Russia or France if it can't buy them from the U.S. Gen. Odierno said the U.S. had begun to look for "creative solutions" to deliver the F-16s.

Audit finds contractor oversight improving in Iraq

By LARA JAKES (AP) – WASHINGTON — The government has kept a closer eye on U.S. contractors in Iraq since a deadly 2007 shooting by Blackwater guards, but it still needs to do a better job tracking and investigating when private security guards fire their guns, two new Pentagon audits have found. The reports were released Tuesday by the Pentagon's special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. They looked at the oversight of at least 13 U.S. firms working for the Defense and State departments between May 2008 and February 2009. In perhaps the most serious lapse of oversight, one of the audits concluded, contractor watchdogs did not properly report and track the May 2008 death of an Army Corps of Engineers employee who was caught in a gunfight between security guards and al-Qaida suspects near Bayji, in central Iraq. Pentagon auditors said the employee's death should have been recorded in a database and triggered an Army investigation. U.S. officials in Iraq, however, said that was unnecessary if "the incident is caused by the enemy and does not involve a local national," the audit found. "Because of the lack of documentation, we could not determine if the incident was not investigated for the reasons cited by ... officials or there simply is no record of an investigation," the audit noted. In all, contractor watchdogs did not record five out of 109 incidents where private guards fired their weapons during the 10-month period, the audit found. Moreover, the watchdogs' database did not have evidence supporting 51 percent of the incidents reported. Responding, the military's Armed Contractor Oversight Branch in Iraq reported that it now tracks all serious incident reports of contractor shootings in its database, including 44 between February and June. The reports ranged from 25 accidental shootings and the killing of a poisonous snake to 17 so-called "graduated force response" incidents that escalated into shootings. Of those 17, three have been referred for investigation, auditors found. The second audit found that new rules for contractors that were put in place after the 2007 Blackwater shootings generally have helped oversight and coordination between private guards and the military. Seventeen Iraqi civilians died in the notorious Blackwater shootings in Baghdad's Nisoor Square, an incident that strained U.S.-Iraqi relations. Blackwater is no longer operating in Baghdad, although it still has guards in some southern areas who are working under the company's new name, Xe. Five Blackwater guards have pleaded not guilty in the shootings, which Justice Department prosecutors say was an unprovoked attack on civilians. The guards' lawyers, however, say the five men believed they were under attack and acting in self-defense. On the Net: • The two reports can be found at: http://www.sigir.mil/reports/pdf/audits/09-023.pdf • http://www.sigir.mil/reports/pdf/audits/09-022.pdf

Opposition Rattles a Governing Coalition in Iraqi Kurds’ Vote

New York Times By SAM DAGHER SULAIMANIYA, Iraq — The entrenched leadership of the Kurdistan region of Iraq was shaken Sunday by what appeared to be a stronger than expected showing in regional elections by a new opposition coalition. Based on unofficial results, officials with one of the two governing parties conceded that they faced a very serious challenge from the upstart Gorran coalition in Sulaimaniya, one of the biggest cities in Kurdistan. Officials with Gorran — which means “change” in Kurdish — said their preliminary results showed that they received about 51 percent of the vote in Sulaimaniya in the race for seats in the regional Parliament. Final results are expected this week, but the parties compiled their own by adding the results posted at each polling station after the election on Saturday. If the party tallies are confirmed, Gorran will have mounted the first meaningful challenge to the authority of the two parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, or K.D.P., and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, or P.U.K., since the semiautonomous regional government was established in 1991. After a local television station reported a preliminary count, dozens of Gorran supporters trickled into the streets here to celebrate. Even so, there was little doubt that the two-party governing coalition would maintain its hold on power. Officials with the coalition said they had won at least 62 percent of the vote regionwide, more than enough for the parliamentary majority needed to form a new government. They said they also remained firmly in control of the powerful regional presidency, held by Massoud Barzani. But governing coalition officials said they remained neck and neck with Gorran in Sulaimaniya. They were still hoping that results would tip in their favor after about 104,000 ballots cast mainly by soldiers and security force members in special voting last Thursday were counted on Monday. Even a narrow victory would be a blow for the governing coalition, and many here are already predicting a messy and tense era for Kurdish politics. “It is historic because there was opposition and the authorities were in a defensive position,” said Aram Sheik-Mohammed, a Kurdish civil society activist. Gorran, led by Nawshirwan Mustafa, 65, a former P.U.K. insider, ran on a platform of shaking up the two-party monopoly, which many Kurds consider autocratic and corrupt. Popular support for Gorran would indicate a strong current of disenchantment with the government, despite the fact that many Kurds give it credit for the region’s prosperity and security. A Gorran adviser said the coalition expected to win about 40 seats in the 111-member Parliament, which has been viewed as a rubber stamp for governing parties’ decisions. But more conservative estimates put Gorran’s share at 25 to 30 seats. Internal dissension in Kurdish politics could also weaken the region in its battles with Baghdad over the fate of disputed territories and the sharing of budget revenues and oil and gas resources. Jalal Talabani, the P.U.K. chairman, who also holds the post of Iraqi president, was alarmed Sunday by the preliminary counts in Sulaimaniya, his home city, and summoned the party’s leadership to his mountaintop residence overlooking the city. “He is concerned,” said his son, Qubad Talabani, the region’s Washington envoy, who is currently in Kurdistan. “He wants to know what happened.” One local analyst described the Gorran coalition as a hodgepodge of disgruntled former P.U.K. leaders like Mr. Mustafa, ultranationalist pesh merga military commanders and a smattering of leftists, intellectuals and independents. Many Gorran supporters remain members of the P.U.K. These disparate groups were united mainly by dissatisfaction with the status quo, and it is far from clear whether Gorran can turn that rejection into a cohesive opposition movement. But many Kurds consider the governing parties — which control the government, the security forces and the economy — rife with corruption, nepotism and cronyism. These sentiments appeared to cut across class and age lines. In the working-class neighborhood of Kani Kurda in Sulaimaniya, resentment was particularly high among the young, who said that the only way they could improve their lot and get good-paying jobs was through sponsorship from governing party officials. “There is no justice,” said Hawkar Jabar, 24, who voted for Gorran. And in the upscale neighborhood of Tuymalik, Alan Nihad, 33, said he had to be endorsed by a P.U.K. party official in order to be certified as an orthopedic surgeon. He, his bother and parents, all surgeons, voted Gorran. “There should be opposition,” said his mother, Nasreen Abdul-Rahim, 59. “It will be better for the people.”

Iraq's Kurdish area begins voting, a key test of government

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS SULAIMANIYAH, Iraq — Soldiers, prisoners and hospital patients voted Thursday ahead of weekend elections in Iraq's Kurdish region, which is locked in a dispute with the central government over oil-rich land. For Kurds, the election tests a political establishment that has kept the region relatively safe but faces allegations of corruption. In Washington, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the divisions between the Kurds and the rest of Iraq are one of the most dangerous challenges facing his country. He said the political divide must be resolved by constitutional means, not by force. One flash point for conflict is the disputed city of Kirkuk, where a bomb exploded near a police patrol Thursday. One civilian was killed and four were injured, said police Brig. Sarhat Qader. A coalition of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdistan Democratic Party, two parties that have dominated the self-ruled region for decades, faces a challenge from new opposition alliances seeking to capitalize on complaints about authoritarian conduct and corruption. The opposition is expected to make some inroads in Saturday's vote, though Kurds have traditionally worked to maintain a unified front in conflicts with other Iraqi factions. Iraq's election commission said it could take a week to count the results. Also, Iraqi lawmakers agreed Thursday to move the national parliamentary election up from Jan. 30 to Jan. 16 to avoid conflicting with the Shiite religious observance of Ashoura, the anniversary of the seventh-century death of the Prophet Muhammad's grandson Hussein, said Deputy parliament speaker Khalid al-Attiyah. The election, which will determine the 275-member parliament, is a key test of Iraqi efforts to build democracy and foster political reconciliation. In the Kurdish area, 2.5 million eligible voters in the region's three northern provinces — Irbil, Dahuk and Sulaimaniyah — will elect their 111-seat parliament and president. Prisoners, people in hospitals and members of the Kurdish security forces known as peshmerga were among those allowed to vote early. "I have the right to vote, to feel no different from anyone outside the prison," said Nisreen Muhammad, an inmate who voted in a Sulaimaniyah prison. "We all have the same right."

Iraqi National Symphony Orchestra Fourishes

By Steven Lee Myers Photographs by Joseph Sywenkyj for The New York Times Chief conductor and director of the Iraqi National Symphony Orchestra, Karim Wasfi, runs rehearsal. Baghdad, Iraq, July 8, 2009. BAGHDAD – It was achievement enough that the Iraqi National Symphony Orchestra managed to survive the darkest days of the war, when it struggled for supplies and electricity, when its members fled for safety abroad and those who remained practiced in secret for fear of offending militants who considered music un-Islamic. “We were fighting against the impending doom simply by functioning,” the orchestra’s charismatic director and chief conductor, Karim Wasfi, said the other day. Now the orchestra finds itself “out of the bottleneck,” as Mr. Wasfi put it, facing challenges in a post-conflict society that are no less daunting for being less immediately life-threatening. Photographs by Joseph Sywenkyj for The New York Times Tuqa Saad Al Waeli warms up prior to rehearsal. The orchestra is fighting for its budget, only now beginning to solicit corporate sponsorship in a country where the state once controlled all (and still does, if chaotically). Mr. Wasfi is lobbying to build an opera house in a country where electricity, clean water and garbage removal remain scarce services. Hardest of all, the orchestra is trying to recreate a shared cultural life – “the concept of Iraq,” he said – that decades of isolation, international sanctions, war and sectarianism have thoroughly shattered. “Iraq has achieved a lot, but it’s not yet on a solid, concrete foundation,” Mr. Wasfi said. “Stability is not related just to people not killing each other.” The New York Times’s Edward Wong wrote movingly about the orchestra nearly three years ago , a time when sectarian bloodshed seemed to threaten its very mission: to give a troubled nation succor through music. Photographs by Joseph Sywenkyj for The New York Times Students and teachers practicing. Even with today’s vastly improved security, the orchestra’s home in a former royal concert hall near the edge of the Old City still feels like an oasis of civility and cosmopolitanism – something evident from a lone trumpeter practicing Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in Blue” to the full orchestra rehearsing Dvorak’s “New World” symphony. At the height of the sectarian bloodshed in 2006 and 2007 the orchestra dwindled to just 43 members; violence and checkpoints meant as few as 17 made it to some rehearsals. Photographs by Joseph Sywenkyj for The New York Times Dua’a Majid Hussien Al Azawi, a young oboe player in the orchestra, prior to rehearsal. There are 85 members now, including 13 who recently returned from self-exile in Syria and the United Arab Emirates. (During rehearsal Mr. Wasfi chided one whose playing was off, “Are you thinking of Syria?”) The dearth of musicians also forced the orchestra to find and train aspiring young people; the youngest member is only 15. Mr. Wasfi dreams of building a full philharmonic orchestra with 120 players. Its foundation seems firm at last. The Ministry of Culture pays the members’ salaries, the equivalent of roughly $1,000 a month. Members carry their instruments openly into the concert hall. The orchestra has 14 concerts planned in the coming year, as well as 10 chamber performances, around the country. Photographs by Joseph Sywenkyj for The New York Times Nubar Bashtikian prepares for rehearsal. The most recent was July 16 in Sulaimaniya, in the northern Kurdish region, sponsored by Asiacell, a mobile telephone company, which will cover its travel costs. The playlist included Verdi, Liszt, Strauss, Webber, Gershwin and Dvorak, as well as Iraqi classical music. For the first time, Mr. Wasfi has even negotiated performances in the next year in the holy Shiite cities of Karbala and Najaf, where conservative religious values still dominate. “There’s no indecent music,” he said, explaining his delicate negotiations with religious leaders there. The Iraqi National Symphony Orchestra rehearses under the direction of Karim Wasfi. Iraq remains a troubled place, but the orchestra should be a bridge to a better future, as he explained, “when we have an opera house, when attending a performance and opening a gallery is part of your normal life, when political leaders fight in the parliament and not in the streets, when they set aside their differences and attend a concert.”

Iraq Premier and Obama Emphasize the Positive

New York Times By JEFF ZELENY WASHINGTON — President Obama welcomed Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq to the White House on Wednesday and said that despite occasional differences between the two nations’ military forces, the United States was on track for withdrawing combat forces from Iraq by the end of August 2010. “The United States and Iraq have known difficult times together,” Mr. Obama said. “Now, both of us agree that the bonds forged between Americans and Iraqis in war can pave the way for progress that can be forged in peace.” In a joint appearance in the Rose Garden, the two leaders sidestepped some of the recent conflicts over details of the withdrawal and security, and they presented a positive portrait of the evolving relationship between the United States and Iraq. Although Mr. Obama conceded there would be “some tough days ahead,” he said he remained confident that the Iraqi forces would ultimately be able to handle much of their own security so the United States could pull out its combat troops. The president also said he was committed to working with Iraq to persuade the United Nations to ease international sanctions imposed on Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The sanctions, which were imposed on Saddam Hussein’s government, require Iraq to pay 5 percent of its oil revenue as war reparations. “It would be a mistake for Iraq to continue to be burdened by the sins of a deposed dictator,” Mr. Obama said, responding to a question from an Iraqi reporter. Mr. Maliki’s visit to the White House for a series of meetings with Mr. Obama and other administration officials was the highlight of his weeklong trip to the United States. The two leaders met privately in the Oval Office, their first meeting since American forces turned over security in cities and towns to Iraqis on June 30. “From working closely with the American forces and the multinational forces, our forces became highly capable,” Mr. Maliki said, speaking through an interpreter. “And they will continue to do their role and their part to provide the opportunity needed for reconstruction, rebuilding and developing Iraq.” For the White House, the private meeting with the prime minister was a rare public shift away from health care policy-making, which has dominated the president’s week. Mr. Obama said the United States was eager to move beyond its military relationship with Iraq to encourage more business investment and stable diplomatic relations. Still, about 130,000 United States troops remain in the country. “Violence continues to be down, and Iraqis are taking responsibility for their future,” Mr. Obama said, standing beneath a broiling sun alongside Mr. Maliki. “We have been very encouraged by the progress.” Mr. Maliki said Iraq needed to build upon a “strategic relationship on the economic front.” He said Iraq planned to convene an investment conference in October for companies eager to look for business opportunities in the country. “Iraq has suffered a great deal from being marginalized, from the policies of sectarianism and from wars,” Mr. Maliki said. “We will work very hard not to allow any sectarian behavior and opportunity to flourish.” On his trip to Washington, the prime minister is also scheduled to meet with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Congressional leaders.

Iraq's Reluctant Leader Emerges as Unlikely Force

By GINA CHON BAGHDAD -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, reluctantly thrust three years ago into a job few expected him to hold onto, arrives in Washington this week as a transformed leader -- with widening popularity among Iraqis, grudging respect of some political foes and a more even footing with his U.S. hosts. The quiet former Arabic-literature scholar has demonstrated surprising resilience, establishing himself as Iraq's first national leader since Saddam Hussein. His three years of consistent leadership, a prospect that initially seemed remote, augurs more stability for Iraq as U.S. involvement diminishes. Maliki's Makeover Since he assumed power in May 2006, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has gone from an introvert and quiet scholar to become a tough new leader.Though he still faces formidable problems at home, Mr. Maliki is positioning himself as the person capable of moving Iraq beyond the security concerns that have consumed the country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. In meetings Wednesday with President Barack Obama and other officials, he will seek foreign investment and stronger ties to the U.S. in education, culture and trade. For nearly two years as prime minister, Mr. Maliki enraged friends and enemies at home with blunders and inaction. U.S. officials worried he was the wrong man for the job. But he survived early attempts to dislodge him and took increasingly risky gambles. He held his ground in talks over a security deal with Washington, burnishing his nationalist credentials. Earlier this year, he and a slate of allies won big in local council elections across Iraq. Most notably, he showed a willingness to confront militiamen from his own Shiite Muslim sect, a crackdown that helped him win over skeptical Sunnis. Even some political enemies concede that after years of political instability and seemingly unbridgeable sectarian divides in Iraq, Mr. Maliki has helped give the country a sense of cohesion. Yet some Sunni critics say Mr. Maliki still holds a sectarian agenda, pointing in part to the recent arrests of several Sunni local leaders. The prime minister remains a polarizing figure in Baghdad, his growing strength and confidence now spurring some critics to accuse him of taking on the airs of a dictator. Critics say Premier Nouri al-Maliki has improved security but not Iraq's economy. Mr. Maliki sat down with Gina Chon recently at his office in Baghdad, ahead of his U.S. visit this week. Read an edited portion of the interview about security and political challenges, power sharing and his vision for the next Iraqi elections. Mr. Maliki says he rules for the benefit of all Iraqis, including his critics. "I've taken on everyone, Sunnis and Shias," he said in an hour-long interview at his official palace here earlier this month. "The Iraqi people now understand who is just talking, and who is talking and doing." When he returns to Baghdad, Mr. Maliki will face some of the biggest challenges in his premiership. After months of relative calm, Iraq suffered high-profile attacks as U.S. combat troops withdrew from Iraqi cities in June; on Tuesday, attacks in Baghdad and elsewhere killed at least 18 people. Sharply lower oil prices, meanwhile, have imperiled Iraq's ability to fund its security services and rebuilding efforts. Even some traditional allies are skeptical. Sheik Jalal al-Din al-Sagheer, a senior member of the Shiite alliance that includes Mr. Maliki's party, says the prime minister has improved security but hasn't attracted needed investment. "There's a man for each era," says Mr. Sagheer. "For the next chapter, the focus needs to be on economic development. And I think we need a different man for this job." Consensus Pick Mr. Maliki was, all along, an unlikely man. Born in 1950 just south of Baghdad, he received a master's degree in Arabic literature. As a student he became an activist against Iraq's ruling Baath Party and fled the country in 1979, he says, because of death threats against him from Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein. Living in Syria and Iran, he became a leader in the Shiite-led Islamic Dawa Party, which opposed Mr. Hussein from abroad. Mostly unknown in Iraq, he returned after the U.S. invasion. He was elected to parliament and became head of its defense committee in 2005. As the U.S. prepared to hand over power to the Iraqis, would-be leaders came to the fore. The Pentagon favored smooth-talking Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi. Some Iraqis embraced secularist Ayad Allawi. But top contenders couldn't hold on to popularity or political capital. After 2005 national elections, parliamentarians from more than 20 parties formed a government and quickly jettisoned then-Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. The demands of the vacant premiership -- bridging fractious parties, secularly divided Iraqis and oft-resented Americans -- appeared all but impossible. Several contenders demurred. Mr. Maliki raised fewer objections than other candidates among parliamentary factions. Iraqis and American advisers saw little indication that the introverted lawmaker would turn into another strongman. Rivals of his Dawa party expected Mr. Maliki could easily be removed later. Mr. Maliki started the job with little enthusiasm or confidence. "All the blocs were pressuring me," he said during the interview. "I was very upset and felt uncomfortable." He assumed power in May 2006, three months after the bombing of a Shiite mosque in Samarra that triggered waves of reprisals against Sunnis and threatened to touch off a sectarian civil war. Critics questioned whether the Shiite prime minister would rein in Shiite extremists and militias. In November, a leaked White House memo questioned the prime minister's will to rise above sectarian agendas. Mr. Maliki reinforced such fears the next month, disregarding American advice and pushing ahead with the hasty execution of Mr. Hussein, a Sunni. In early 2007, as thousands of U.S. troops poured into Iraq as part of the Pentagon's surge strategy, Mr. Maliki struggled to manage his security services. U.S. and Sunni critics said he was slow to purge the Shiite extremists who had infiltrated Iraq's army and police. He slept little. In the early-morning hours, he says he would call checkpoints across Baghdad for security updates. He also rushed to flash points, visiting Samarra after a second mosque bombing there in June 2007. "That's something we saw over and over again, the willingness at a moment of crisis to personally step into the fight," says former U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker. "He's not a grandstander. He's an introvert, an intellectual. He's everything a politician isn't." Mr. Maliki struggled with the trappings of power. During Dawa party meetings, officials reserved the head of the table for their prime minister. But when Mr. Maliki entered the room, he usually slumped into the closest seat to the door, recalls Dawa lawmaker Ali Alaak. Mr. Maliki's rivals, sensing weakness, threatened no-confidence motions. He considered resigning several times, close aides say. In a meeting in mid-2007, Mr. Maliki vented to advisers about what he said were backroom plots to remove him from power. "He was very angry because everyone was working against him. But we told him, 'If you leave, who will replace you? There will be chaos. This is bigger than you. It's about Iraq,'" says Sami al-Askary, a lawmaker and close Maliki confidant. "After that, he did not talk about resigning again." Sectarian violence escalated. Members of parliament's Sunni bloc were increasingly resentful that Mr. Maliki hadn't moved to disband Shiite militias and expand Sunnis' role in security matters. In August, the largest Sunni bloc withdrew from Mr. Maliki's governing coalition. No Alternative Though his parliamentary rivals had enough votes to pass a no-confidence motion, they couldn't agree on an alternative candidate. During a visit to Iraq in December 2007, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Mr. Maliki's critics that the U.S. wouldn't support plans to remove him, but she also told Mr. Maliki that he was failing. Mr. Maliki, in a private meeting with Ms. Rice, made a fresh promise to crack down on Shiite militias and extremists, say people familiar with the meeting. The turning point for Mr. Maliki came in early 2008. Iraqi and U.S. forces were making headway against Sunni insurgents. But Shiite militias -- including the Mahdi Army, led by cleric Moqtada al-Sadr -- had largely taken over Basra, an oil hub in the country's south. In March, Mr. Maliki approved an Iraqi military assault to recapture Basra. He explained the plan to U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus, then the top American commander in Iraq. Gen. Petraeus said in an interview that he was stunned, telling Mr. Maliki that such an operation needed at least six months of planning. Mr. Maliki responded that he would move in three days, with or without the Americans. The Iraqi army launched the offensive on March 25. Mr. Maliki flew to Basra to oversee the fight. Coalition forces provided backup, including air cover. The prime minister's military-operations center in Basra was shelled constantly. One of Mr. Maliki's security advisers, who was a close friend, was killed in front of him during a mortar attack, he says. U.S. officials begged Mr. Maliki to return to the capital. Many of the gunmen were killed or captured, and the Shiite fighters said they would leave the streets. Even so, the operation didn't end in decisive victory: As the militants faded away, skeptics worried they would regroup to fight again. U.S. commanders privately scoffed at the offensive. Aggressive Moves But in the following weeks, Basra remained safer. Mr. Maliki's political rivals applauded his aggressive moves against the militias. The prime minister grew in confidence and assertiveness. "I was not like other politicians in their air-conditioned rooms," Mr. Maliki said during the interview. "Everybody wanted to drag me back to Baghdad. I told them if I don't win in Basra, there will be no Baghdad." View Full Image He ordered similar offensives in Baghdad's Sadr City district and in the southern city of Amarah. Everyday Iraqis saw a Shiite willing to battle members of his own sect to secure Iraq. In July 2008, Sunnis returned to the government. That summer, Mr. Maliki took what he says was a further step to buttress local security by forming regional "support councils," made up of tribal leaders and funded by the prime minister's office. Critics began to complain Mr. Maliki was using the ad hoc councils to tighten his grip on power. "He was behaving like a dictator, and still is," said Sunni lawmaker Saleh Mutlaq. Next, Mr. Maliki took on Washington. Through the spring and summer of 2008, Iraqi and U.S. officials hashed out a bilateral security agreement to set the legal framework for continued U.S. military presence in Iraq. Mr. Maliki lobbied for a specific timeline for troop withdrawal, something he knew his parliament would require but that then-President George W. Bush resisted. Mr. Maliki told U.S. negotiators he had to get every "punctuation mark approved by parliament," according to Mr. Crocker. Mr. Bush relented, agreeing to a pact that called for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of 2011. Iraq's parliament approved the deal in November. "It was painful in the extreme hammering it out," Mr. Crocker says of the deal. Mr. Maliki, he added, struck an agreement that "allowed him to survive." The prime minister's new tough-talking persona bolstered him as he crisscrossed Iraq late last year campaigning for allies in provincial elections. Emphasizing strong government and rule of law, he spoke without notes, his Arabic-literature training giving him an eloquent command of the language. In the January vote, his allies captured the most votes for local councils in nine of 14 provinces, beating out religious-focused parties. Big challenges remain. Mr. Maliki hasn't been able to push through some legislation seen as vital to rehabilitating Iraq. A long-stalled petroleum law, for example, has been held up in part by escalating tension between Baghdad and the Kurdish Regional Government, which rules a semiautonomous enclave in the north. In June, Kurdish politicians approved a draft constitution for their region that claims several pieces of contested land, including oil-rich Kirkuk. Mr. Maliki and Kurdish President Masoud Barzani aren't on speaking terms, say staff members of both men. Mr. Maliki says he aims to address the issue with negotiations, and has sent emissaries to Iraqi Kurdistan. "We will use a soft feather to solve all these problems," Mr. Maliki said in the interview. Looking ahead to January's national parliamentary elections, Iraq's first since 2005, Mr. Maliki says he believes he has Iraqis' support. But there's no guarantee he can assemble a slate of candidates to take on a political system still dominated by sects and ethnic identities. Mr. Maliki says that even now, he doesn't have enough authority to overhaul basic services, blaming the open hostility of ministers from rival factions. Still, he has come to embrace his role. "I was forced to be prime minister," Mr. Maliki says. "But now, at least I can say I've done something for my country."

Prime Minister Maliki remakes himself ahead of elections

Iraqi Premier Nouri Maliki came to power with the support of religious parties from his Shiite sect, but they are less keen on him and he has been reaching out to rival Sunnis in the name of unity. By Ned Parker July 21, 2009 Reporting from Baghdad -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki traveled to Anbar province, a visit that three years ago would have been considered a suicide mission into the cradle of the Sunni Arab resistance. Now the Shiite Muslim leader, famously mistrustful of the sect that dominated Iraq during Saddam Hussein's reign, was huddling with the head of the ruling Sunni coalition in Anbar, talking of the need to cut across sectarian lines in upcoming national elections. • Babylon & Beyond: Times Mideast blog • More on Iraq from Ned Parker Perhaps just as surprisingly, Maliki's words were received favorably by tribesmen. "Prime Minister Nouri Maliki is patriotic and able to lead Iraq," said provincial council member Arkan Khalaf Tarmouz, who attended the meeting two weeks ago. "It is possible to ally with him in a national coalition." Hours later on state television, the prime minister delivered a similar message, calling for an end to the divisions that have shaped the country since 2003. "Alliances based on national, ethnic and sectarian lines should end, and the substitute will be the 'national coalition,' " Maliki said. The steps toward rapprochement have enormous implications: Although it is far from a sure thing, if new parties or alliances emerge that soften communal boundaries and play upon shared interests, Iraq could take a major step away from the bloodshed of recent years. The new direction points to a general wish among Iraqis, weary after civil war and sectarian political battles, to limit religion's role in public life. Maliki, who is to meet with President Obama in Washington on Wednesday, has regularly tapped such sentiment, scolding the religious and ethnic blocs in the government. Emboldened by his victory in January provincial elections, in which he ran candidates on the strength of Iraq's security gains and mostly eschewed religious imagery, he has called for a way forward that will win the passage of key legislation, from an oil law to revisions of the constitution. The difference in language of onetime political foes such as Maliki and lawmaker Saleh Mutlak, a former member of Hussein's Baath Party, is at times minuscule. Across the political spectrum, groups are starting to use the nationalist language of the Hussein years -- without the baggage of the former dictator. "People want rulers representing them as Iraqis, not according to their affiliations or sects. They want people to work for Iraq and Iraqis," said political scientist Nabil Mohammed Salim, a professor at Baghdad University. "It's taken time to get here, after six years [of the Americans], and 10 to 13 years of embargo, and eight years of war [with Iran]. People want something real to make their lives better." Some call the prime minister's plea for unity a pose. They charge that he is a deeply sectarian figure masquerading as a nationalist after alienating his old Shiite and Kurdish political partners, who vaulted him to his position in 2006. His critics believe he wants a monopoly on power, and some even see echoes of strongman Hussein in the current Iraqi leader. Maliki has chosen allies among some Sunni leaders and groups, while blacklisting others. Commanders of paramilitary groups called Awakening Councils have been jailed while others have been granted protection by his office. Crucial to Maliki's ambitions for another term is whether he breaks away from the Shiite political coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance, that has helped shape the country along religious lines since 2005. In the last two years, Maliki has feuded with his main partner in the coalition, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, over power. If Maliki feels his Shiite partners are working to marginalize him, he could decide to leave the coalition for good. So far, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council has held off on putting Maliki at the head of the alliance. SIIC, more influential than Maliki in his early years as prime minister, has watched the Shiite leader eclipse the party in popularity. One politician involved in alliance negotiations said SIIC hoped to isolate Maliki and prevent him from getting a second term. A Western advisor to the Iraqi government warned that Maliki was in a dilemma: He might be the most popular figure in the Iraqi government, but many factions are now aligned against him in parliament, resentful of his gradual accumulation of power. The prime minister's supporters worry that Iran could force Maliki to reenter the Shiite alliance on terms favorable to SIIC, which has enjoyed a close relationship with Tehran since the 1980s. Iran has played a king-making role in Iraqi Shiite politics since 2003 because of its ties to many Shiite lawmakers, who spent years in exile across the border. "In the period of 2006 and 2007, there were moves to remove Maliki. It was Iran who stopped it. Maliki has to remember this. They can make his life harder," said Sami Askari, a Shiite legislator and confidant of the prime minister. Still, Askari warned that Maliki would not be hemmed in; he would set the conditions for any list of candidates he might join. "Maliki will not accept to be marginalized. . . . Some may have ambitions to surround Maliki. I doubt they will succeed," Askari said. "Everyone understands Maliki is an asset." Mindful of the efforts to unseat him, Maliki has reached out to the Sunni community, including the man he met with in Anbar, Ahmed abu Risha, and Sheik Ahmad Abdul-Ghafoor Samarrai, who administers Sunni mosques around the country. He has even had a long-running discussion with onetime enemy Mutlak about an alliance. Mutlak told The Times that an official from Maliki's camp had said that if they joined forces, their groups could secure the votes in parliament to form a government. The post of prime minister would go to Maliki and the presidency to someone from Mutlak's faction. Such a partnership between Maliki, a longtime leader of the Shiite fundamentalist Islamic Dawa Party, and Mutlak, whose roots are in the secular Baath Party, would have been unthinkable, and remains a tough sell. So far, Mutlak has held out. His suspicion of Maliki is a measure of how hard it remains to overcome the sectarian divide in Iraq. Mutlak said that in a discussion this summer with Maliki he had asked the prime minister how it was that he was suddenly in favor of a strong national government and opposed to a government based on sect. "He told me, 'I've changed,' " Mutlak said, and then scoffed. "I think he doesn't act on Earth the same way he talks."

Iraq leader plans to visit Arlington

From the Los Angeles Times FOREIGN EXCHANGE Prime Minister Nouri Maliki will visit the graves of American troops to offer a personal 'thank you' to those who gave their lives for the sake of a new Iraq. By Liz Sly July 20, 2009 Reporting from Baghdad — It's a gesture that couldn't have been made while U.S. forces were breaking down the doors of Iraqi homes and detaining residents by the thousands. Or when civilians were being killed by frightened American soldiers in sometimes careless shootings that have claimed an untold number of Iraqi lives. But U.S. troops have now departed almost completely from the streets of Iraq's cities, and Prime Minister Nouri Maliki plans to visit the graves of American soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery during a trip to Washington this week and to offer a personal "thank you" to the men and women who gave their lives for the sake of a new Iraq. It's a risky political move for a man who is facing a national election early next year. Maliki has been busily reinventing himself as an Iraqi nationalist in an effort to broaden his appeal beyond his Shiite Muslim constituency, and just three weeks ago, to the chagrin of U.S. officials, he was trumpeting the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq's cities as a "victory" for his government over the "occupiers." With U.S. troops now confined to bases in the countryside and on track to leave altogether by the end of 2011, Maliki feels it is appropriate to make a public statement of appreciation to the American people, Iraqi officials say. There's more than gratitude behind the gesture. The Iraqi government is deeply mindful of Washington's waning interest in Iraq as President Obama shifts personnel and resources to the war in Afghanistan. Even as Maliki seeks to portray himself as the leader who rid Iraq of American forces by negotiating an exit timetable with the Bush administration, he is keen to ensure that the U.S. does not entirely forget the investments of billions of dollars and more than 4,000 lives it has made in Iraq. Iraqis were particularly concerned by some of the anti-Iraq war rhetoric that emerged during Obama's election campaign, and Maliki wants to tell the new administration that the 2003 U.S.-led invasion was neither a mistake nor a failure, said Shiite legislator Sami Askari, who is close to the prime minister. "The Democrats were in opposition to George Bush so they tended not to see his positive points, only to concentrate on the negative ones," Askari said. "So I think the prime minister needs to say this: that as a people, we are not ignoring what others did for us. Every Iraqi who goes to Washington needs to make clear that the war was not a failure. "The problem is he might find it difficult here to say that because that help was clouded by many events, and we still feel the pain," he added. "But also, the situation in Iraq has changed. During the dark period it was very unwise for anyone to go public and say thank you to America. Now they've withdrawn from the cities and things are going well, and it's wise to say it now. I think ordinary people are saying it too, just not publicly." The Iraqi public remains deeply ambivalent toward the U.S., as the country that freed them from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, yet then oversaw the collapse of services and the disintegration into sectarian warfare. Iraq's Kurds, a longtime target of Hussein, unequivocally regard the Americans as liberators and have said they are welcome to remain indefinitely in the semi-autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq. There are others who resolutely regard the American troops as illegal occupiers and find even their reduced presence in the Iraqi countryside intolerable. "I would like to ask: Thank America for what?" said grocery storekeeper Riad Jaafar, 53, when told of Maliki's plans. "It is true that some people say they ousted Saddam, but now it is clear that things were better under Saddam." Many Iraqis express a somewhat more benign view of the experiences of the last six years. "I'm not sure they did anything good for us, but they came many miles and brought a lot of equipment with them, and to anyone who offered you this kind of service, you have to say thank you," said Wissam Wadhi, 42, who owns a toy shop in the much-bombed Baghdad neighborhood of Karada. "I want the soldiers to go home, but I want American companies to come and reconstruct here. They have a responsibility to do that," he added, expressing a widely held view that the U.S. should play a larger role in rebuilding. Encouraging investment in Iraq will be one of the top priorities during Maliki's visit to Washington, said Deputy Prime Minister Rafi Issawi, who oversees the delivery of services and reconstruction. Now that America's military involvement in Iraq is ending, the government wants to lay the groundwork for a new relationship based on economic and technical cooperation, he said.

Iraq's triumphant homecoming

(FIFA.com) Thursday 16 July 2009 International football made its long-awaited return to Iraq last week, seven years after an international match last graced one of the country's stadiums. The two friendly fixtures pitted the reigning Asian champions against their Palestinian counterparts in an initiative aimed at restoring the country's top stadiums to their former glory through international football. Despite not playing on home soil since 2002, the Lions of Mesopotamia remained close to the hearts of their passionate supporters, who turned up in huge numbers to see their heroes in Arbil on Friday 10 July and in Baghdad the following Monday. In the wake of the historic ties, FIFA.com spoke exclusively to new coach Shaker Nathem, goalkeeper Mohammed Gassid and forward Alaa Abdul-Zahra. Nathem took over the coaching duties from the Serbian Bora Milutinovic, who vacated the post after leading the team at the recent FIFA Confederations Cup, in which they failed to score and exited at the group stage. On his debut last Friday, the former Iraqi international steered his charges to a 3-0 victory in the northern city of Arbil. He then followed that up with an equally impressive 4-0 win just four days later at the Al-Shaab stadium in the capital Baghdad. "I'm overjoyed to have witnessed international action in our stadiums once again. The huge crowds in both Arbil and Baghdad left me speechless," Nathem said after the second game. "The games against Palestine were a message to the entire footballing world," the coach added. "The passion for football and for the national team was crystal clear in the eyes of the Iraqis gathered in their thousands to attend both games. Thanks to our players, we were able to repay that affection by winning both ties." “I'm overjoyed to have witnessed international action in our stadiums once again. The huge crowds in both Arbil and Baghdad left me speechless.” Iraq coach Shaker Nathem Commenting on the decision by the AFC to allow Iraqi clubs and national teams to host matches in the northern city of Arbil, Nathem told FIFA.com "As coach of Iraq's national team, I was more than happy to lead those talented players in the friendlies, and I just hope further steps can soon be taken that will enable Iraqis to host matches in any of their cities." Goalkeeper Mohammed Gassid expressed his delight with the huge crowds that flooded the two venues and spoke of his pride at playing on home soil again after having to use Syria, Jordan and Qatar for their home fixtures for so long. "First of all I'd like to thank the Palestinian team who provided the opposition for these historic matches," said the veteran goalkeeper who made headlines with his displays at June's FIFA Confederations Cup. "I'd also like to thank the tens of thousands of Iraqis who gathered to support their national team in both games." "I've been told that people started to arrive at the Al-Shaab stadium from daybreak to attend the second game. I think this shows the importance of hosting major games in Iraq," he added Gassid's team-mate Alaa Abdul-Zahra also remarked on the huge attendance, saying, "Even for a home game in front of our own fans, what we felt out there was very special. Our supporters ignored the security risks and began flocking to the stadium from the early hours to see their beloved team in the flesh. That's something truly magnificent." "Our dear fans played a crucial role in helping us perform to the best of our ability and win both games," added the veteran frontman, scorer of his side's third goal in Baghdad on Monday."My wish now is that international football can be seen again in every Iraqi city in the near future".

Is the Press Our Deadliest Foe In Afghanistan?

Those who are the smartest people in the press room too often feel that skepticism of the military somehow gives journalist, editors and op-ed writers more credibility and clout. The media may just be the deadliest foe in Afghanistan, I know they were almost fatal in Iraq. As a war correspondent, I have covered somewhere between 50 to 75 military units from nations throughout the world. Army pilots, Air Force medics or Marine infantrymen, the variety of teams working in a war zone runs the gamut, but no matter how many different American troops I speak to, I'm asked the same question from the men and women serving overseas. "Why is the media so biased against the military?" I am not convinced the "media" as a group conspires to be biased against the military, but the troops overseas have a point, there is a media-military disconnect and there are couple of reasons why. Those who are the smartest people in the press room too often feel that skepticism of the military somehow gives journalist, editors and op-ed writers more credibility and clout. Far too many members of the media are afflicted with "monkey see journalist write". Conventional wisdom and group think become more important than individual reporting and the need to fit in among colleagues. I have come to these conclusions out of personal experience. As I wrote in 2007 about the success of the Anbar Awakening, and how little the war in Iraq resembled what was portrayed throughout most of the media, I was accused of being "naive", biased or an "outright war propagandist." In country, whenever I first meet a unit, I usually get a cold reception because American troops mostly feel the media is out to get them. For some, having a media embed is at worst being forced to host a backstabbing spy or, at best babysitting a spoiled brat. Controversy gets attention and this fits into the very popular template journalists use to portray the American soldier as a victim or the Marine as a villain. The troops generally likes FOX News, but there's no doubt that much of the press gets far less love. While traveling in Iraq, I heard tons of media nightmare stories and this trip to Afghanistan (my third) has been no different. It's sad that members of the American military almost always expect a story on their work to be unfair or portray them in a bad light, but some journalists have been downright dangerous. New York Times writer, David Brooks, revealed the name of an Army Special Forces soldier in an op-ed and was even kind enough to give a small description. Just like CIA operatives, members of Special Forces are not to be revealed in the media, the military public affairs officers make that quite clear to reporters and yet the NY Times still published Brook's piece placing the Special Ops Green Beret and his family back home in danger. It's difficult to understand why the NY Times thinks it's above the rules. "I will not watch CNN." one soldier flatly told me in the mess hall at Camp Airborne, Afghanistan It's not just the American media that seems to have an agenda; I've heard nightmares about the foreign press too. One Green Beret told me of British reporter Stephen Grey, the author of "Operation Snakebite" and "Ghost Plane: The True Story of Operation Snake Bite." In a news report, Grey bluntly accused the Army Special Forces of murdering civilians, an accusation that surprised the men involved in the operation. I was not personally there, but the Green Beret who led the mission that day called the reporting "ridiculous and disappointing" because "Grey saw everything that was going on and was very chummy with us before he left." The Green Berets felt Grey came into the report with an agenda and never intended to give them a fair shake. Grey's Web site is running a story on the "American Gulag," so much for objectivity. Honest and sincere reporting, critical or otherwise can help improve an organization and the military is no exception. The men and women in both Iraq and Afghanistan have up armored to face a motivated and deadly enemy willing to kill with little or no regard. Unfortunately, there is little defense against a free press devoid of free thought and even fewer justifications.

Iraq holds true: No calls for U.S. military's help

By Mike Tharp McClatchy Newspapers BAGHDAD — Two weeks after U.S. combat troops withdrew from Iraq's major cities, amid sporadic outbreaks of violence countrywide, Iraqi authorities aren't asking American forces for help. Although U.S. troops are "just a radio call away," in Baghdad and five other major urban areas, it appears the Iraqis haven't asked even once. In Baghdad, the Iraqis also won't allow U.S. forces on the street, except for supply convoys. The failure to trigger the "Onstar option" suggests that the government of Iraq and its military think they can deal with the car bombings, homemade bombs and attacks with silencer-equipped handguns that have plagued parts of the country in recent days. As the June 30 deadline approached for withdrawing troops from major cities, U.S. military officials told their Iraqi army and national police allies that they were "just a radio call away" in case they needed American military muscle. So far, however, it isn't clear whether there's been a call. McClatchy Newspapers special correspondents in Najaf, Basra, Anbar, Diyala and Mosul report that Iraqi forces have made no requests for U.S. combat help. American officers have been surprised to learn that "out of the cities" meant just that. "The Iraqis have been hellbent on taking control of all security operations in the city and completely excluding the Americans, to the point of completely refusing to permit U.S. patrols of any kind into the city except logistics convoys," one U.S. officer in Baghdad said. Another American soldier who works closely with the Iraqi National Police: "Business is pretty much as usual. Our guys don't ask for help on the ground very often, and not at all since the 30th. We give them the usual help, and they mention several times how pleased they are that we are still here with them." The "usual help" includes more in-depth intelligence sharing, coordinating communications among Iraqi units and pervasive surveillance from the air. The go-it-alone stance of Iraqi security forces comes at a time of scattered but lethal outbreaks of violence over the last week or so. Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city, has been hardest hit by car bombs, suicide bombers and assassinations of police officers with silencer-equipped handguns. Dozens of people have been killed and hundreds wounded. Over several days, insurgents have targeted Christians in Baghdad and Mosul. They've blown up churches, killing several people and wounding scores. On Sunday, a convoy in southern Iraq that was carrying U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill had just passed a homemade roadside bomb when it blew up; no one was hurt. It's clear that Iraqi authorities continue to lean on certain American capabilities they lack. While the Iraqi government has taken a hard line on no U.S. patrols in Baghdad except supply convoys, for example, many Iraqi officers privately have told their U.S. counterparts that they hope for more American involvement because of U.S. intelligence capability. Army Brig. Gen. William Phillips, the commander of the Joint Contracting Command-Iraq/Afghanistan, told McClatchy that "companies that want to come and do business in Iraq understand what the security situation is, but it won't be a deterrent. The (security) agreement is a great step forward for Iraqi sovereignty." The Iraqi National Police have reported a few minor violations of the June 30 agreement. On July 1, a U.S. patrol set up a checkpoint in a village west of Baqouba in Diyala province, searched civilian cars for two hours and drove off. On July 5, an American patrol set up a checkpoint, searched vehicles and conducted house-to-house searches in Abu Ghraib, a western suburb of Baghdad. For now, it seems that the 130,000-plus American troops in Iraq will serve mainly by waiting for that radio call from Iraqi security forces.

Dutch return 69 stolen antiquities to Iraq

Mike Corder ASSOCIATED PRESS THE HAGUE | The Dutch government turned over dozens of antiquities stolen from Iraq to Baghdad's ambassador on Thursday and urged other countries to clamp down on the illicit trade of artifacts. The 69 pieces include cylindrical stone seals older than 2000 B.C. and a terra-cotta relief depicting a bearded man praying. "These things should not be bought and sold," said Diederik Meijer, an archaeologist with the Dutch National Museum for Antiquities, which will display the treasures before they are returned to Iraq. Mr. Meijer declined to put a value on the artifacts, saying it could encourage illegal trade. Despite efforts to stop the looting of historical sites, such theft is still happening in Iraq. Mr. Meijer showed an aerial photo of an official archaeological dig surrounded by a landscape pockmarked with illegal excavations. Dutch Education, Culture and Science Minister Ronald Plasterk said the ancient artifacts were surrendered by Dutch art traders after police informed them the artifacts were stolen. U.S. customs authorities and Interpol had alerted Dutch officials that the items were being sold here. Mr. Plasterk said the artifacts came from the "cradle of civilization," the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that once was known as Mesopotamia. Among other items Mr. Plasterk handed to Iraqi Ambassador Siamand Banaa was a sawn-out fragment of a flagstone with an inscription of King Nebuchadnezzar dating from 570 B.C. and a decorated nail from 2100 B.C. that would have been used to anchor a building's foundations. "We should cherish and honor the start of civilization in Iraq," Mr. Plasterk said, "and consider it the responsibility of the world to make sure it stays there. These objects lose a lot of their value if they are stolen from their site." Mr. Banaa praised the Netherlands for tracing and returning the stolen goods and said he hoped other countries would "emulate the Dutch example." Looting in Iraq earlier led to an outcry when American troops largely stood by as thieves carried away priceless antiquities from the National Museum in the chaos that followed the 2003 capture of Baghdad. About 15,000 artifacts were stolen from the museum, and the lead U.S. investigator said last year that trafficking in those items helped finance al Qaeda in Iraq as well as Shi'ite militias. Eventually, about 8,500 items were recovered in an international effort that included culture ministries across the region, Interpol, museum curators and auction houses. Jordan, Syria and Egypt were among countries that returned stolen objects to Baghdad, the scientific and literary hub of the Arab world in the eighth and ninth centuries. The museum reopened in February. The U.N. cultural body UNESCO has said of the roughly 7,000 pieces still missing from the museum, about 40 to 50 are considered to be of great historical importance. It was not immediately clear when the antiquities being returned by the Dutch were looted.

Still Not Stimulated?

Washington Post Calls for additional spending by a government already neck-deep in red ink Friday, July 10, 2009 BY ANY MEASURE, the current fiscal and monetary policies of the United States are highly stimulative, almost incredibly so. The Obama administration projects that the federal budget deficit for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 will hit $1.8 trillion, or 12.3 percent of gross domestic product. Mr. Obama's budget plan calls for an additional $1.2 trillion deficit, or 8 percent of GDP, in fiscal 2010. Both figures reflect not only the $787 billion stimulus plan adopted in February but also the countercyclical impact of "automatic stabilizers": During recessions, tax receipts decline and transfer payments such as unemployment benefits increase. The previous postwar deficit record, set in 1983, was 6 percent of GDP. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve has driven its target interest rate to nearly zero, opened its discount window to a wider range of financial institutions and expanded its balance sheet by more than $2 trillion through purchases of government bonds and mortgage-backed securities. In other words, those calling for an additional stimulus package must explain why this is not enough. Yes, the U.S. unemployment rate hit 9.5 percent in June -- on its way toward 10 percent or more by the end of the year. Vice President Biden's admission that the administration might have "misread" the country's economic woes gave ammunition to those, including but not limited to the left wing of the Democratic Party, who always believed that $787 billion in stimulus was too little. Meanwhile, the contractionary effect of tax increases and spending cuts by cash-strapped states is working against the federal stimulus. So far, though, only about $99 billion of the stimulus bill has flowed, according to the administration; this is consistent with forecasts by the Congressional Budget Office, which suggested that a quarter of the $787 billion would be "on the street" by the end of 2009 and another half would be out by the end of 2010. Congress packed the bill with all sorts of slow-moving stuff from members' long-standing spending wish lists. But if you believe both that the economy will be weak through next year and that the stimulus money can help perk it up, this is not necessarily a bad pace. More fundamentally, the country may be testing the limits of its ability to borrow its way to recovery. Thanks to America's Triple-A credit rating, the federal government is tapping not only domestic savings but those of the entire world. Still, there is only so much capital to go around. If the United States claims an ever-increasing share of that pie, it may have to pay higher interest rates to get it. And higher interest rates would short-circuit economic recovery -- thus defeating the purpose of the stimulus.

Air National Guard to Congress: We Need F-22

Congressional Quarterly reports: The director of the Air National Guard, in a statement that has added afterburners to the case in Congress for continued production of F-22 fighters, has told lawmakers that the jet is the optimal choice for replacing aging aircraft that patrol U.S. airspace on homeland security missions. The battle over whether to keep building F-22s or to halt the program, as the Obama administration wants, is shaping up as the most contentious defense budget dispute this year. And the Air National Guard is slowly becoming a force in the gathering campaign for keeping the program alive. “While a variety of solutions abound, I believe the current and future asymmetric threats to our nation, particularly from seaborne cruise missiles, requires a fighter platform with the requisite speed and detection to address them,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III wrote in a June 19 letter responding to an inquiry from Sen. Saxby Chambliss , R-Ga., an advocate of additional F-22 production. Final assembly of the F-22 is handled at Lockheed Martin’s Marietta, Ga., facility. “The F-22’s unique capability in this arena enables it to handle a full spectrum of threats that the ANG’s [Air National Guard’s] current legacy systems are not capable of addressing.” You'll remember it was not long ago that the grounding of the Air Force's fleet of F-15s left the military with no choice but to ask the Canadian Air Force to assist in the defense of U.S. air space. Secretary Gates has made it pretty clear that any lobbying of Congress for funds not sought by this administration, in particular for the procurement of additional F-22s, will not be looked upon kindly. Apparently General Wyatt is off the reservation.

The Receding Economy, Surging Spending

By J.T. Young on 7.8.09 @ 6:08AM America's emerging policy issue is the federal budget deficit. According to the 7/2 released CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll of 1,026 adults (conducted 6/26-28 with a 3.1% +/- margin of error), the federal budget deficit ranked second only to the economy as "the most important issue facing the U.S. today." That's ahead of health care, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and energy policy. The public's concern is not surprising. While the U.S. economy has been shrinking, the U.S. government has been anything but. The recession's effect on the federal spending and the deficit can be painted in a few bold strokes. Even using the Congressional Budget Office's March estimates -- which do not include the effect of recent spending legislation -- it's not a pretty picture. Federal outlays, the true measure of the government's size, are estimated by CBO to be $3.853 trillion this year. This is greater than the entire U.S. economy was in 1984. The federal government now consumes more than America produced just a generation ago. Those federal outlays now account for 27.4 percent of all America produces today. Less than three-fourths -- 72.6 percent -- is left for all the nation's other uses. This ratio of spending to the total economy is higher than at any point since WWII. As a result of this spending, the deficit is 11.9 percent of the economy. The deficit too is higher than at any time since WWII and would pay for two-thirds of all America's health care spending. In nominal dollars, today's deficit measures $1.667 trillion. This is far and away the largest nominal deficit in our nation's history. That figure is 3.6 times greater than the previous record deficit of $459 billion, which was reached just last year. Total federal spending, did not reach the level of this year's deficit until 1999. In fact, today's nominal deficit is greater than the previous five years' deficits ($1.599 trillion from 2004 through 2008) put together! The previous eight years' net deficit of $2.005 trillion is just a fifth greater than this year's alone. Looking at the deficit from the revenue angle: the federal government is estimated to collect $968 billion in federal income taxes this year. If income tax revenues were doubled -- everyone paying twice as much -- the 2009 deficit would be cut by just over a half. And the remaining $699 billion deficit would still be the biggest deficit in U.S. history. The deficit is enormous because spending is even more so. The recession has fueled both and both have surged quickly: just two years ago, federal spending was $2.7 31 trillion and the deficit just $163 billion (a tenth of today's estimate). When the recession ends, it will be interesting to see if federal spending and deficits recede as quickly as they arose.

Tracking Faraway Action From an Iraqi Base

By ROD NORDLAND AL TAQADDUM, Iraq — It is not that the war in Iraq is over, exactly, just that the one in Afghanistan sounds like a lot more action. For the Marines, guarding provincial reconstruction teams from the United States Embassy and baby-sitting Awakening Councils is not what they had in mind when they answered the recruiters’ call to join “the few and the proud.” As more and more American soldiers withdraw into bigger bases, like this one on an old Iraqi air base in Anbar Province, there is less and less of the exciting sort of work to do. That is particularly true in Anbar, where the Marines turned cities and towns over to Iraqi forces months ahead of the June 30 deadline. The men and women of the Marines’ Helicopter Medium-Light Attack Squadron 167 got a taste of just how much more exciting it could be. A detachment of Cobra gunships from their unit, based here, recently returned from three months on loan to a Marine battalion in Helmand Province in Afghanistan, where the Marines just began a major offensive. “You definitely felt more, well, necessary,” said Capt. Andrew Wimsatt, 27, of Laytonsville, Md., a Cobra pilot. “Even though you know you’re doing good here, just by your rotor noise, keeping them away.” Scaring away insurgents with their prodigious racket is not what the $10 million Cobra gunships were designed for. In a war where civil affairs and reconstruction are what really matter, a gunship may seem as useful as a hammer at a chess match. So far in Squadron 167’s tour in Iraq, which ends this month, the gunships have mostly gone on reconnaissance missions. On one mission the Cobras escorted a medevac helicopter carrying a wounded dog. “But it was a military working dog,” said Captain Wimsatt. The squadron, stationed in Jacksonville, N.C., whose official motto is “Have Guns Will Travel,” may well leave Iraq at the end of this tour without having fired a single shot in combat. That proved far from the case in Afghanistan. “We were doing what we were trained to do,” said Maj. Erik Arrington, 37, from Van Nuys, Calif., who led the 55-person detachment. “It’s kind of like football,” said Captain Wimsatt. “You train all summer, you lift weights, you go to practices and then a lot of times you just sit on the bench. There you actually get to go out and play in the game.” “It was exciting, we were all eager to go,” said Capt. Jessica Hawkins, 27, of Coral Springs, Fla., another of the Cobra pilots and one of a growing cohort of female combat aviators; there are 2 women among the 40 pilots in Squadron 167. “We knew we’d be in support of combat troops actually fighting. More flying, more excitement.” In three months in Afghanistan, they had to scramble to the report of a “T.I.C.,” meaning “troops in contact,” nearly every day; here in Iraq, they have had no T.I.C.’s this tour. Their maintenance crews lived and worked with them in tents, unlike the hardened containers here, and they all ate in the British Royal Marines field kitchen, a far cry from the sprawling, air-conditioned dining facilities here. “I may be old school,” said Cpl. Caitlin Liberson, of Ofalen, Mo., a mechanic who at the age of 20 was on her second deployment to Iraq when the Afghan mission came along. “But I like the whole thing in tents.” Before Squadron 167 left Helmand, it had 21 engagements involving exchange of fire. The detachment was sent because of a temporary shortage of air support as the Marines rapidly increase their presence in Afghanistan, particularly in Helmand. President Obama has ordered an additional 21,000 American soldiers to Afghanistan by the end of this year, building total troop strength there to more than 60,000. The Afghan trip was “pretty cool,” said Captain Wimsatt, but it had its sobering moments, such as when a rocket-propelled grenade exploded between his helicopter and Major Arrington’s. “That morning you can wake up and have no idea it’s your last day on earth, and then all of a sudden...” Captain Hawkins will attest to that. The Marines on the ground got into a heavy firefight at close quarters in the middle of a village. “I was overhead watching the whole situation develop, and this will stick in my mind forever,” she said. The gunships often could not find targets to fire at because the Marines and the Taliban were too close to each other. Two Marines died on the ground. “By 1500 I was back at the ramp ceremony at the C-130,” she said. That is a ceremony for the dead before their body bags are loaded into the cargo plane for repatriation. “You just feel, ‘I didn’t do my job that well.’ I wish I could have made more attack runs, better understood what was happening.” Captain Hawkins considered it an invaluable lesson. “It did make it more of a reality, that we’re not invincible,” she said. “We may have all this technological superiority, but the enemy, they are a competent enemy.” “We were really bummed when we had to leave,” Major Arrington said. Even the scenery in Afghanistan was better, the officers said, especially compared to the flat expanses in most of Iraq. On their base here in Iraq, there are signs everywhere reminding them of their biggest enemy: “Complacency Kills.” The pilots know that the next time they are deployed overseas, it may well be to Afghanistan. While there are 130,000 troops in Iraq now, their numbers are due to fall off rapidly beginning in September. “I don’t imagine we’ll be back here,” Captain Wimsatt said. “But who knows?”

Biden Suggests U.S. Not Standing in Israel’s Way on Iran

New York Times By BRIAN KNOWLTON WASHINGTON — Plunging squarely into one of the most sensitive issues in the Middle East, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. suggested on Sunday that the United States would not stand in the way of Israeli military action aimed at the Iranian nuclear program. The United States, Mr. Biden said in an interview broadcast on ABC’s “This Week,” “cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do.” "Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else," he said, in an interview taped in Baghdad at the end of a visit there. The remarks went beyond at least the spirit of any public utterances by President Barack Obama, who has said that diplomatic efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear program should be given to the end of the year. But the president has also said that he is “not reconciled” to the possibility of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon — a goal Tehran denies. Mr. Biden’s comments came at a particularly sensitive time, amid the continuing tumult over the disputed Iranian elections, and seemed to risk handing a besieged President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a new tool with which to fan nationalist sentiments in Iran. What was not immediately clear was whether Mr. Biden, who has a long-standing reputation for speaking volubly — and sometimes going too far in the heat of the moment — was sending an officially sanctioned message. The Obama administration has said, and Mr. Biden reaffirmed this, that it remains open to negotiations with Tehran, even after the bitterly contested election that returned Mr. Ahmadinejad to the presidency. “If the Iranians respond to the offer of engagement, we will engage,” Mr. Biden said. “The offer’s on the table.” But separately, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned of the costs of any military strike against Iran. “It could be very destabilizing, and it is the unintended consequences of that which aren’t predictable,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” Still, he added, “I think it’s very important, as we deal with Iran, that we don’t take any options, including military options, off the table.” Earlier in his interview with ABC, Mr. Biden had seemed sensitive to the risk of handing Mr. Ahmadinejad and the supreme Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, a propaganda edge by criticizing the elections too forcefully and allowing them to claim that “the reason why there was unrest is outside influence.” He called Mr. Obama’s original condemnations, which some criticized as overly cautious, “absolutely pitch-perfect.” If Mr. Biden’s comments on Israel and Iran were perhaps off the cuff, he did not back away from them when given a chance to do so. George Stephanopoulos, the program’s host, asked: “But just to be clear here, if the Israelis decide Iran is an existential threat, they have to take out the nuclear program, militarily the United States will not stand in the way?” And Mr. Biden replied: “Look, we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination — if they make a determination — that they’re existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country.” The Israeli government has said that it hopes to see the Iranian nuclear program halted through diplomacy, but it has not ruled out a military strike. Talk of such a strike flared episodically during the Bush presidency. Such a strike is considered highly problematic, both for the unpredictable shock waves it would send coursing through the region and because of the technical difficulty of destroying nuclear facilities that are scattered around Iran, some of them deep underground. Still, the disputed Iranian election result has raised concerns in Israel. Officials there say that the victory by Mr. Ahmadinejad, who has called for the destruction of Israel, underscored the Iranian threat and bolstered the argument for tough action. In May, Mr. Obama told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel during a meeting at the White House that “we’re not going to have talks forever” with Iran; in the absence of cooperation from Tehran, he said, the administration would not rule out “a range of steps.” But the two sides have seemed in discord about what those steps might be.

Iraq Marks Withdrawal of U.S. Troops From Cities

By ALISSA J. RUBIN BAGHDAD — Iraq celebrated the withdrawal of American troops from its cities with parades, fireworks and a national holiday on Tuesday as the prime minister trumpeted the country’s sovereignty from American occupation to a wary public. Even with a deadly car bombing and other mayhem marring the day — the deadline for the American troop pullback under an agreement that took effect Jan. 1 — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki seized on the occasion to position himself as a proud leader of a country independent at last, looking ahead to the next milestone of parliamentary elections in January. He made no mention of American troops in a nationally televised speech, even though nearly 130,000 remain in the country; most had already pulled back from Iraq’s cities before Tuesday’s deadline. The excitement, however, has rung hollow for many Iraqis, who fear that their country’s security forces are not ready to stand alone and who see the government’s claims of independence as overblown. From Basra in the south to Mosul in the north, Iraqis expressed skepticism about the proclamation of “independence.” “They will not withdraw to their homes; they will stay here and there so that they can return in emergencies,” said Samir Alwan, 28, the owner of a mini-market in Basra. “So it is not sovereignty, according to my point of view, and I think that the Iraqi Army is only able to secure the south of the country and unable to secure Baghdad and Mosul.” In a national address, Mr. Maliki focused his praise on Iraqi troops and security forces for their role in fighting the insurgency. “The national united government succeeded in putting down the sectarian war that was threatening the unity and the sovereignty of Iraq,” he said, as if the United States had played no role. President Obama, who ran for office on a pledge to end the war, marked the occasion with minimal fanfare, declaring it “an important milestone” even as he warned of “difficult days ahead.” “The Iraqi people are rightly treating this day as cause for celebration,” he said. The withdrawal did not command its own presidential appearance — Mr. Obama’s brief remarks were delivered at a ceremony honoring entrepreneurs — a contrast with his predecessor, who rarely missed an opportunity to celebrate milestones in Iraq. Underscoring the insecurity, a suicide bombing in a market in a Kurdish neighborhood of the volatile northern city of Kirkuk killed 33 people, according to the police there. In Baghdad, the American military reported that four United States soldiers were killed in an attack on Monday, evidence of the vulnerability of the troops as they withdraw. Military experts anticipate more violence in the days ahead. Mr. Maliki’s effort to capitalize on Iraq’s latent anti-Americanism and to extol the abilities of his troops is a risky strategy. If it turns out that Iraqi troops cannot control the violence, Mr. Maliki will be vulnerable to criticism from rivals — not only if he has to ask the Americans to return but also if he fails to enforce security without them. Some American commanders have said they were taken aback by Mr. Maliki’s insistence on taking credit for all the security successes in Iraq. However, they also see the importance of having him and Iraqi troops appear strong, especially in the face of insurgent factions intent on destabilizing the government. Gen. Ray Odierno, the top commander of American troops in Iraq, brushed aside the dismissive tone of public remarks by the country’s leaders about the Americans, saying that Mr. Maliki personally thanked him Monday night and again Tuesday for the sacrifices the American troops had made. “I do not get these negative comments from the political leaders that are in the government,” he said at a news conference at the American military headquarters at Camp Victory. “In my mind, I frankly don’t worry about those comments because I understand that we are working this together.” He also played down concerns about security in Iraq’s cities after the withdrawal of most American combat forces, noting that nearly 130,000 troops remained in Iraq. He said the American and Iraqi militaries continued to cooperate on security issues inside and outside the cities. In most places the transition to the Iraqi forces has gone relatively smoothly, but there have been bumps, reminders of the underlying tensions between the two militaries and the resentment that American soldiers feel as the Iraqis appear eager to push them out the door even though they still want them to be on call. In Diyala Province, where the Americans closed 11 of 18 bases or outposts before Tuesday’s deadline, the transfers did not go entirely smoothly. An official in Mr. Maliki’s office showed up early at a camp near Baquba and complained that the Americans had not left behind generators and air-conditioners for the Iraqis — something the American commander in the region said had never been part of the agreement. The dispute on Sunday delayed the formal transfer. “You can’t treat your partners that way,” the commander, Col. Burt K. Thompson of the First Stryker Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, said in Baquba. For Iraqis, claiming sovereignty is something of a national pastime, with various politicians celebrating different markers: 2004, when the American-led Coalition Provisional Authority handed power to the interim Iraqi government; 2006, when Iraq seated its first constitutionally elected Parliament; and Jan. 1, when the security agreement took effect. Mr. Maliki seems to be making a conscious effort to cement his image as a strong ruler by using many of the same tools of power as the predecessor he hated so much, Saddam Hussein. He has used the state television network and newspaper to spread nationalist messages, and has used parades and festivals to encourage public pride. Over the past several days the state television network, Al Iraqiya, not only ran a “Countdown to Sovereignty” clock but also broadcast promotional spots glorifying Iraqi history, culture and people. Its images of the marshes of southern Iraq, the markets of Baghdad, men performing traditional dances and children playing in the mountain meadows of Kurdistan — much of it filmed before the 2003 invasion — presented an image of Iraq completely unfamiliar to most Iraqis, who now live in neighborhoods cordoned off by blast walls and are forced to go through multiple checkpoints every day. “This is all for the media,” said Amina al-Esadi, a female searcher at the compound of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a religious Shiite political party. “Some people are afraid because the Americans have left. Some think it will be better because then the enemies of the Americans will leave Iraq” and the country will be safer, she said.