Palestinian rivals crack down harder on opponents

Karin Laub And Diaa Hadid The rival Palestinian governments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have clamped down harder on opponents and critics in recent months — deepening a nasty split that could prevent Palestinian statehood even if peace talks with Israel kicking off this week succeed against long odds. New reports by Palestinian rights groups highlight a surprising symmetry in the abuse that the U.S.-backed government of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank and his Iranian-supported rivals Hamas in Gaza inflict on each other. Both governments carry out arbitrary arrests, ban rivals from travel, exclude them from civil service jobs and suppress opposition media, the rights groups say. Torture in both West Bank and Gaza lockups includes beatings and tying up detainees in painful positions. Hamas and Abbas' Fatah organization have harassed each other ever since the Islamic militant Hamas seized Gaza in 2007. However, the crackdowns have become more sweeping in recent months as each aims to strengthen its grip on its respective territory. Just last week, security agents in the West Bank broke up a meeting of independents opposed to Abbas' decision to resume peace talks with Israel, despite government claims that it only targets militants who pose a security threat. In Gaza, Hamas is pushing legislation that is seen as an attempt to take over and silence the respected Independent Palestinian Commission for Human Rights. "In both the West Bank and Gaza, we are going toward a ... regime in which the security forces intervene in everything," said Shahwan Jabareen of the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq. For Gaza resident Assad Saftawi, 21, this has meant four stints in detention after writing an article criticizing Hamas for taxing cigarettes. Heart patient Mohammed Nahhal, a Fatah official, says Hamas prevented him from leaving Gaza for a medical checkup in Jordan, even after he obtained Israeli permission to leave the blockaded territory. In the West Bank, Nawaf Amr, producer for Al Quds TV, a pro-Hamas satellite station, says his West Bank correspondents face frequent harassment, including having tapes seized and being called for interrogation. Hamas supporter Munir Morie, a 25-year-old carpenter, says he was tortured for a month this spring and still suffers from joint pain. With each incident, the wedge is hammered deeper and the hostility grows between the two halves of what is meant to be a future Palestine, just as the U.S. relaunches Mideast talks at the White House this week in hopes of getting an agreement within a year. The talks aim to create a Palestinian state, but it appears unlikely any deal could be implemented as long as the split persists, particularly if Hamas — shunned by Israel and the West as a terror organization — remains in charge in Gaza. In the West Bank, touted by the international community as the cradle of a democratic Palestine, rights violations committed in the name of protecting that vision could end up destroying it, rights activists say. Both sides have strong motives for keeping their rivals down. Abbas fears a Hamas takeover of the West Bank and needs to keep the militants in check to maintain international support. Hamas appears increasingly intolerant of domestic challenges, both because of its isolation and its fundamentalist ideology. Hamas is increasingly targeting independents and civil groups, which provide a key alternative voice in the territory. Hamas has already closed more than 100 groups in Gaza that were once controlled by Fatah loyalists, said Hamdi Shakoura, who leads the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights. Recently, Hamas banned anyone who held a government job before the group took over Gaza — meaning, mainly Fatah loyalists — from serving on the boards of such groups. The government also stepped up its campaign to impose a strict version of Islam on Gaza's 1.5 million people, most recently banning women from smoking water pipes in public and ordering mannequins wearing lingerie out of display windows. The crackdown by Abbas' government focuses largely on Islamists, and robust political debate still flourishes in some niches. Still, dozens of journalists have been detained or harassed in both territories, and each side bans the other's newspapers. The Abbas government said last fall that it was halting abuse in its prisons — and rights groups say it abated for a time. But now complaints of torture have resurfaced, though not as widespread as before. Hamas activist Nouh Hreish said he was arrested and tortured for a week in December — and there were further repercussions for his family: His brother couldn't get his taxi license renewed and another relative was fired from a teaching job. "Today, people have the feeling that they live in a police state," said Hreish. Both governments insist they target only those who pose a potential security threat. They say abuses are the work of individual officers, and violators are punished. "We don't permit two things, weapons and money laundering," Abbas recently told reporters. "Aside from those two things, anyone can do anything he wants." Still, both sides appear to have carried out ideological purges. Hamas gradually moved loyalists into teaching jobs after pro-Fatah teachers went out strike. In the West Bank, the government has fired some 2,500 civil servants since 2007, most of them teachers, said West Bank Hamas leader Mahmoud Ramahi. Said Abu Ali, the West Bank interior minister, said many teachers have Hamas sympathies, but only those suspected of breaking the law, including by engaging in incitement, are targeted. "This is a very sensitive sector," he said. "We will not allow our society to turn into a Taliban one."

U.S. troops in Iraq go from shock and awe to 'advise and assist'

Even before the formal end this month, for most of the remaining troops in Iraq, the war as they knew it has long been over as they transitioned from a combat role to one of helping and training Iraqi forces. By Liz Sly, Los Angeles Times August 30, 2010 Reporting from Joint Security Station Constitution, Iraq -- The soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Heavy Brigade Combat Team are, as their designation implies, trained and equipped to fight. They have a fleet of tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles. They carry their M-16 rifles slung over their shoulders at all times, ready to shoot if they are attacked. But since they deployed to Iraq eight months ago, they haven't fired their guns. Their tanks and Bradleys sit unused in a lot at the sprawling Camp Victory beside Baghdad airport. And most important of all, no one has been killed. "It's wonderful," said Sgt. 1st Class Anthony Hunter of Boston, Ga., a tank crew commander on his third tour of duty who survived 20 roadside blasts when he was first deployed, in 2004-05. For Hunter and the other soldiers of the division's 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, many of whom are on their third or fourth tours, the formal end of combat operations in Iraq on Tuesday is just that: a formality. The war as they knew it is already over. That's not to say U.S. troops are out of danger. Eighteen U.S. soldiers have been killed in attacks this year across Iraq. But that's a fraction of the 4,408 who have died since 2003. These days Hunter spends his time training the Iraqi army, as part of a 70-member Stability Transition Team based at Joint Security Station Constitution in the still volatile neighborhood of Abu Ghraib, on the western outskirts of Baghdad. "I don't wish I was out there fighting. It means we can take everyone home safely," he said in his air-conditioned trailer on the base, one of the 94 in Iraq that will house the 50,000 U.S. troops staying after combat operations end. For this combat unit, many of whose members stormed into Baghdad seven years ago, a war that began with shock and awe is ending with "advise and assist." That's the new label being given to the six brigades that will be left in Iraq, even if all of them are made up of combat soldiers. "It sounds like it's semantics, but it's not," 2nd Battalion commander Lt. Col. Gregory Sierra said of the name change. "What we do is completely different. I am an infantryman. We are a combat brigade. But we're assigned as an advise and assist brigade." Troops offer Iraqi soldiers advice, and assist them, but only if asked. "Gone are the days where we had to grab three [Iraqi] soldiers and say, 'We're going outside the wire.' That does not happen," Sierra said. In a telling sign of how different the war has become, many of the soldiers at the camp didn't know about a wave of bombings across the country Wednesday that killed at least 50 people, even though several exploded in the west Baghdad area they cover. In days past, "we would have had an active role," said Staff Sgt. Frankie Parra, 28, of Queens, N.Y., whose quick reaction force wasn't aware of the bombings. "Now they only call us if they need us." When soldiers do go out, it's mostly to provide what amounts to a heavily armored escort service for officers and experts visiting with Iraqis. Roadside bombs, known as improvised explosive devices, are still a threat to troops who ride out on the streets. Rocket fire is also a continuing menace, and two of the three soldiers killed this month died on their bases in the usually peaceful south, which has seen a rise in rocket attacks by Shiite Muslim militias in recent weeks. There will probably be more casualties before U.S. forces withdraw entirely at the end of 2011, Iraq commander Gen. Ray T. Odierno has warned. And Iraq's war isn't over. The country is still unstable, there is no proper government, bombs explode every day, and assassinations are on the rise. U.S. troops do have the right to fight to defend themselves. It is not inconceivable that American forces will be called back into combat "if … you had a complete failure of the [Iraqi] security forces," Odierno told CNN this month. "But we don't see that happening." With just 50,000 troops on the ground, there's also a lot less the Americans can do. In 2007, there were 166,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, including eight combat brigades in Baghdad. Now there is one, responsible for a vast area comprising not only Baghdad, still one of the most violent areas of the country, but also an arc of territory to the south and west. "I have 70 guys covering an area that had a whole combat brigade," said Lt. Col. Rob Rooker, who was among the soldiers who stormed Baghdad in 2003 and now commands the Stability Transition Team at Constitution, pointing out on a map an area stretching from the Tigris River to Abu Ghraib in the west. "There's just things we don't do anymore. Things fall off the plate." For soldiers who have already performed several tours of duty, the new pace is a big relief. "It's real good that we can go outside the wire and not have to deal with all the stuff that we used to," said Sgt. Michael Davis, 30, of Baton Rouge, La., who is on his third tour of duty. "But sometimes if you get a new guy just out of high school, they get caught up in the war stories people tell and then you have to explain to them that they need to be grateful they're not going through that." Spc. Travis Carroll, 29, of Crawfordsville, Ind., is on his second deployment to Iraq, but mostly performed guard duty at a large base the last time. "Knock on wood, I've yet to fire my weapon in combat," he said. "There's a small part of me that does feel disappointed," he said. "I joined to be a soldier and I trained to fight. "But the big part of me says it means I'm going to go home 100% OK. I'd much rather see my family again than fire my weapon."

A Shaky Advance in Iraq Led by Oil Money

By HASSAN HAFIDH Seven years after the U.S.-led invasion, Iraq's petroleum industry shows signs of living up to the potential that American planners hoped for at the start of the military operation, a potential boost to the war-ravaged country's economic recovery. In a December 2009 photo, a worker at the al-Fakkah oil field flashes the "victory" sign next to the Iraqi flag in Maysan province, south of Baghdad, Iraq. After fits and starts, Iraq's oil production has rebounded to pre-war levels. The government thinks the field-development deals it has handed out to international companies are on the way to boosting output significantly. With Iraq depending on oil exports for some 90% of its government revenue, that is expected to provide a broader boost to an economy that is already benefiting from renewed growth and tame inflation. No one is predicting an economic miracle in Iraq, which is still smarting from decades of sanctions, underinvestment and a creaky, centrally planned economy. Unemployment remains high, posing a continued risk that jobless youth will be lured to the insurgency. Power outages are common, leaving residents sweltering in darkness and complaining at times that things were better before the invasion. The Bush administration denied going to war over oil. But senior officials in Washington suggested early in the military operation that Iraq's oil wealth offered a quick way to rebuild. Years of trying to lure outside capital and know-how, however, foundered. During the invasion, oil production went to zero. Afterwards, the country's oil infrastructure and power grid—never reliable in the first place—were heavily looted. Then, political opposition to foreign involvement in the country's oil fields flared. Today, Iraq pumps some 2.5 million barrels a day and sells around 2 million barrels a day overseas, according to Iraqi estimates. That's more or less the same as before the war. But last year, the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki forced through oil-field auctions, successfully luring some of the world's largest oil companies, which agreed to tough terms in order to access Iraq's long-closed oil fields. Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Total SA, Eni SpA and OAO Lukoil have all jumped in. So has China, which is now the biggest foreign investor in the Iraqi oil patch. View Full Image British oil major BP Plc and partner China National Petroleum Corp. won the right to work southern Iraq's Rumaila field, the country's largest producer. BP said it would invest some $15 billion to boost production from the current 1.06 million barrels per day to 2.85 million barrels per day by 2017. Iraqi oil officials now say they hope that they will be able to add by as early as the end of next year some 250,000 barrels a day in capacity. If all the companies live up to their production promises, the projects will add nearly 10 million barrels a day of capacity by 2017. "We have already started serious projects to boost Iraq's oil production," said Ahmad al-Shammaa, the Iraqi deputy oil minister. A Look Back View Slideshow Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/Associated Press Lt. Col. Richard D. Heyward, left, of Illinois, and Sgt. Nick Wysong, of Washington, right, kept watch as the 2nd Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment of the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division crossed the southern desert of Iraq on Aug. 17, 2010. Theirs was officially designated the last combat brigade to leave Iraq. The War's Toll A look at the conflict and its milestones. But technical hurdles and political uncertainty lie ahead. Politicians are still wrangling over a new government six months after March's parliamentary polls. Some of the election's biggest winners have vowed to review the oil-field development awards. Other economic gauges are less optimistic. Today, Iraqi electricity production is some 7,000 megawatts, according to Iraq's electricity ministry, up from around 4,500 megawatts before the invasion. But higher demand in the seven years since has stretched the grid much further than before the war, and resulted in endemic power outages across Baghdad and beyond. The higher demand speaks to overall economic growth over the last three years—averaging 4.5%, compared with consistent, negative growth prior to the war, according to Mudher Kasim, a senior adviser to the Iraqi central bank. The International Monetary Fund estimates Iraq's gross domestic product will grow at above 7% this year, compared to a contraction of almost three quarters of a percent in 2005, the first year the IMF started posting reliable data. Inflation slipped to 2.7% in June, the lowest level in three decades, according to Mr. Kassim at the central bank. The IMF pegs inflation at just over 5% this year, down from about 37% in 2005. But unemployment remains stubborn, with official figures showing 20% of eligible workers without jobs. While that figure is down from previous years—and what Mr. Kasim said was a 50% unemployment before the U.S. invasion—U.S. commanders and diplomats are pushing job creation as a way of keeping young Iraqi men out of the insurgency. "We still need to regenerate the economy, create meaningful opportunities for employment, in order to help the security environment," says Mr. Kasim.

Army of diplomats takes the lead in fractious Iraq

By ROBERT BURNS (AP) – 4 days ago WASHINGTON — As the White House eagerly highlights the departure of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, the small army of American diplomats left behind is embarking on a long and perilous path to keeping the volatile country from slipping back to the brink of civil war. Among the challenges are helping Iraq's deeply divided politicians form a new government; refereeing long-simmering Arab-Kurd territorial disputes; advising on attracting foreign investment; pushing for improved government services; and fleshing out a blueprint for future U.S.-Iraqi relations. President Barack Obama also is banking on the diplomats — about 300, protected by as many as 7,000 private security contractors — to assume the duties of the U.S. military. That includes protecting U.S. personnel from attack and managing the training of Iraqi police, starting in October 2011. The Iraq insurgency, which began shortly after U.S. troops toppled Baghdad in April 2003, is why the U.S. only now is entering the post-combat phase of stabilizing Iraq. Originally, the U.S. thought Iraq would be peaceful within months of the invasion, allowing for a short-lived occupation and the relatively quick emergence of a viable government. Although the insurgency has been reduced to what one analyst terms a "lethal nuisance," it will complicate the State Department's mission and test Iraq's security forces. Much is at stake as the department negotiates with the Pentagon over acquiring enough Black Hawk helicopters, bomb-resistant vehicles and other heavy gear to outfit its own protection force in Iraq. "Regardless of the reasons for going to war, everything now depends on a successful transition to an effective and unified Iraqi government and Iraqi security forces that can bring both security and stability to the average Iraqi," says Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In his view that transition will take five years to 10 years. The question is whether progress will be interrupted or reversed once American combat power is gone. The U.S. will have 50,000 troops in Iraq when the combat mission officially ends Aug. 31; they are scheduled to draw down to zero by Dec. 31, 2011. Until then, they will advise and train Iraqi security forces, and provide security and transport for the diplomats. Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" that he believes Iraq's security forces have matured to the point where they will be ready to shoulder enough of the burden to permit the remaining 50,000 U.S. soldiers to go home at the end of next year. "My assessment today is they — they will be," Odierno said, according to an excerpt of the interview released Saturday by CNN. "We continue to see development in planning, in their ability to conduct operations," he added. "We continue to see political development, economic development and all of these combined together will start to create an atmosphere that creates better security." Once the U.S. troops are gone, the State Department will be responsible for the security of its personnel. Obama administration officials say the diplomats are well prepared for what the State Department expects to be a three- to five-year transition to a "normal" U.S.-Iraqi relationship. "We are fully prepared to assume our responsibilities as we move through this transition from a military-led effort to a civilian-led effort," department spokesman P.J. Crowley said. Iraq watchers have their doubts. Kenneth M. Pollack, a frequent visitor to Iraq as director of Middle East policy at the Brookings Institution, says the administration is in danger of underestimating the difficulty it faces. "One of the biggest mistakes that most Americans are making is assuming that Iraq can't slide back into civil war. It can," Pollack said. "This thing can go bad very easily." Pollack, who does not consider himself a pessimist on Iraq, said the historical record on civil wars around the globe shows that about half repeat themselves. "So it is a huge mistake to assume it can't" happen in Iraq, whose civil strife in 2005-07 was so violent that many Americans assumed the war was lost and believed U.S. troops should give up and go home. Pollack considers the State Department ill-suited for its new tasks — starting with the police training mission and including the complex developmental problems such as improving Iraq's water system. "What the State Department is being asked to do isn't in their DNA," Pollack said. The department has been strongly criticized for its past work in Iraqi police training. An October 2007 report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart W. Bowen Jr., said the State Department had so badly managed a February 2004 contract for Iraqi police training that the department could not tell what it got for the $1.2 billion it spent. In May 2004 President George W. Bush put the Pentagon in charge of all security force development. The newly departed U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, Christopher Hill, says he sees brighter days ahead for Iraq, but he also laments "woefully low" supplies of electricity and deeply ingrained tensions among the three main competitors for political power: Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. "There is a mountain of mistrust," Hill said. The diplomats' postwar task would have been much easier if, as the administration once hoped, Iraq had formed a new government by now, nearly six months after its March 7 national elections. Instead, the political stalemate — with no end in sight — has created another hurdle to the central U.S. goal in Iraq: translating hard-fought security gains into stability. Still, there is optimism in some quarters. "While there are no guarantees, the prospects for Iraq's security and stability beyond 2011 look as good or better than they have at any time in the recent past," John Negroponte, who was U.S. ambassador to Iraq in 2004-05, wrote Thursday in a ForeignPolicy.com blog. Another complication is the shake up of key U.S. players in Baghdad. Odierno leaves Baghdad on Sept. 1 for a new assignment in the U.S., and Gen. David Petraeus, who was Odierno's boss as head of Central Command, switched last month to take command in Afghanistan. Hill was replaced in Baghdad this past week by James Jeffrey, who was the U.S. ambassador to Turkey.

Top Marine Says Afghan Deadline May Help Taliban

By ELISABETH BUMILLER WASHINGTON — The commandant of the Marine Corps said Tuesday that President Obama’s July 2011 deadline to begin American troop withdrawals from Afghanistan was “probably giving our enemy sustenance.” It was by far the most sharply worded public remark from a senior military commander about the White House’s timetable for starting to wind down the war. The commandant, Gen. James T. Conway, also said that “if you follow it closely, and of course we all do, we know the president was talking to several audiences at the same time when he made his comments on July 2011.” The general apparently meant that Mr. Obama’s deadline was set for a domestic political audience as well as for the Afghans. But the general, who is retiring this fall, said he thought the deadline might not ultimately comfort the insurgents, who could find that only a small number of United States forces leave Afghanistan next July, a possibility increasingly set forth by Pentagon officials and senior commanders. He predicted that Taliban fighters, who he said have been told repeatedly by their commanders that the Americans would leave en masse, would be demoralized when they realized that the United States was staying. “What is he going to say to his foot troops,” he said of a Taliban commander, when, “come the fall, we’re still there hammering them like we have been? I think it could be very good for us in that context, in terms of the enemy’s psyche and what he has been, you know, posturing now for, really, the better part of a year.” General Conway, who spoke to reporters at a Pentagon briefing, also made clear, as he has in the past, that he remained personally opposed to overturning the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that requires gay men and lesbians in the military to keep their sexual orientation secret or leave the service. Mr. Obama and senior Pentagon leaders, including Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have said that the law should be changed to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military. The Senate is scheduled to consider legislation next month. “We will follow the law, whatever the law prescribes,” General Conway said, adding that the Marines “cannot be seen as dragging our feet or some way delaying implementation.” Based on his information from Marines, he said, “I can tell you that an overwhelming majority would like not to be roomed with a person who is openly homosexual.” But because some Marines do not object, he said, perhaps having those Marines share rooms voluntarily with openly gay service members “might be the best way to start, without violating anybody’s sense of moral concern or perception on the part of their mates.” Asked what he meant by moral concern, General Conway said, “We have some people that are very religious.” He added: “I couldn’t begin to give you a percentage, but I think in some instances we will have people that say that homosexuality is wrong, and they simply do not want to room with a person of that persuasion because it would go against their religious beliefs.” Gay rights groups counter that most active-duty service members, who are decades younger than many senior commanders, do not passionately care one way or another about overturning the ban or serving with openly gay men and women. General Conway, echoing other senior American commanders, said that it “will be a few years” before the Marines can turn over their operations in Afghanistan entirely to Afghan forces. About 20,000 Marines are based in the southern province of Helmand, Afghanistan’s breadbasket and the Taliban heartland, where they continue to battle insurgents in Marja, the site of a major Marine offensive this past winter. “They’re sniping at us, they’re throwing a few odd rounds here and there, they’re shooting at our helicopters, but mainly they’re intimidating the people, O.K., so as to maintain a presence there and keep Marja from being, again, this strategic victory on the part of the Marines in the south of Helmand,” he said. Nonetheless, General Conway said that over all in Helmand, “We have the momentum, we have the initiative.” Even though the American public is tired of the war, he said, “our enemy is getting tired, too.”

Iraq border concerns spur effort to integrate Kurdish and Iraqi Army forces

Kurdish forces are receiving instruction at the Iraqi Army’s training center in what officials call a breakthrough aimed at easing tensions and securing Iraq's vulnerable border with Iran. Kurdish Peshmerga cadets attend a 28-day course at an Iraqi military base in Kirkuk ,150 miles north of Baghdad August 10. The Iraqi army is training more than 100 Peshmerga cadets, the armed forces of Iraqi Kurdistan. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Jane Arraf, Correspondent posted August 23, 2010 at 2:44 pm EDT Kirkuk, Iraq — In this disputed city, Kurdish forces are being trained by Iraqi Army instructors in what officials call a breakthrough aimed at easing tensions between the two sides and securing Iraq’s vulnerable border with Iran. The program at the training center on the Kirkuk military base is part of a painstakingly arranged plan by US commanders here to integrate elements of the Kurdish pesh merga – fighters who battled Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi government forces – into the central government’s Iraqi Army. Border security has taken on heightened importance with the prospect of the US completely withdrawing by the end of next year and increasing acknowledgment that the current Iraqi Army would have a hard time defending the country on its own. “The Iraqis realize they have to get the Iraqi Army focused on defending the sovereignty of Iraq,” says Lt. Gen. Michael Barbero, the commanding general in charge of training and advising Iraqi security forces. “There is a realization that we have to move on and start doing this and get as far down the road as we can in the next 16 months,” he says in an interview with the Monitor. Iraq, carved out of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire by the victors of World War II, borders six countries – Saudi Arabia, Syria, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, and Iran. But it’s Iran, with more than 900 miles of border and a bitter and complicated history with Iraq, that is most worrisome. “It is a serious concern that this country will try to expand, encroach, unless you have a viable security force to fill that vacuum,” says a senior Iraqi Foreign Ministry official. “We have to fill it, not them.” Meddling from Iran? Iraq’s eight-year war with Iran in the 1980s was sparked partly by border issues. US and Iraqi officials say the country, which was home to many of Iraq’s Shiite leaders in exile during Hussein’s regime, meddles in Iraq in a variety of ways, most of them covert. “There is concern about Iraqi sovereignty,” says General Barbero. “When you have a neighbor that’s trying to exert its influence from here, the way Iran is, it resonates.” Hundreds of members of the pesh merga Regional Guard deployed along the border are rotating through the training center in Kirkuk to give them the same skills as Iraqi government forces. Rifle instruction In the searing heat on a recent August day, soldiers from a unit near Suleimaniyah in Iraqi Kurdistan sat on bleachers watching an Iraqi Army instructor demonstrate the proper method for dismantling rifles – his commands translated from Arabic to Kurdish. “According to the law, the regional guard’s duty is protecting the Kurdish region as part of Iraq,” said Gen. Babaker Zebari, the Iraqi Army chief of staff who recently created a furor when he said publicly that the Army would not be ready to defend its borders for another decade. “There must be coordination between the Kurdish government and the Ministry of Defense, and between the Kurdish police and the Ministry of Interior in Baghdad.” Iraq this month received the first of 140 M1A1 Abrams tanks it has purchased from the US, but its fledgling Army will still lack the manpower or capability to defend either its borders or its air space for years. Much of Iraq’s northern border is along the Kurdish territory, which has been autonomous since it broke away from Hussein’s regime after the 1991 Gulf War. Whether the country holds together is the biggest question of the 2003 postwar era. “They are one force under one authority, in one state, they legally carry weapons, and they are all part of the Iraqi defense system,” Zebari told a group of reporters in Kirkuk. “There is no discord between the [Kurdish] Regional Guard and the Iraqi Army. If there are political problems, that is another matter.” At the training center, the pesh merga seem leaner and harder-looking than the Iraqi Army soldiers. Because of mutual suspicion between Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Shiite Arab-led government and the Kurdish leadership, they’ve been largely left out of the billions of dollars devoted to rebuilding the Iraqi Army. Integration reduces flashpoints The integration that US Gen. Raymond Odierno has made a priority in his time here is aimed at building a country as well as an Army – reducing potential flashpoints between Kurdish and Iraqi troops that could threaten security and forging stronger official ties between the Iraqi government and that of the autonomous Kurdish region. In an interview with the Monitor in July, General Odierno said he had reached an agreement with Prime Minister Maliki and Kurdish leaders to work toward integrating four pesh merga brigades into the Iraqi Army in disputed areas, a development he described as "a huge step forward." The training of Kurdish soldiers and police by the Iraqi Defense and Interior ministries is part of the beginning of that integration. “It’s not going to be easy – there’s nothing easy in Iraq – there are some bumps we have to work through, there’s some scar tissue we have to work through, but we’ll get there,” says Barbero, the commanding general in charge of training and advising Iraqi security forces. The US is providing vehicles and communications equipment to the Kurdish border force. But so far, it's not offering arms – a move sought by Kurdish leaders as necessary to border security but strongly resisted by the Iraqi government. The Kurds point to 2003, when the US relied on pesh merga troops they brought into Baghdad to help maintain security after American occupation authorities disbanded the Iraqi Army. “Are we Iraqis or not? Are we part of this country or not?” asks Kurdish Prime Minister Barham Saleh in an interview. “Can a national Iraqi military be truly national without the Kurds? We are alarmed at the prospect of an Iraqi military armed with Abrams tanks and F-16s while the Kurds are kept out of it. We should accept that we are all partners in this country and we should all be committed to its defense.”

Iran unveils drone aircraft to counter "aggressors"

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran unveiled a prototype long-range unmanned bomber on Sunday, the latest in a stream of announcements of new Iranian-made military hardware as tension mounts over its nuclear program. On a stage in front of military officials, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pulled a sheet away from the aircraft, called the Karrar, which Iran says is its first long-range drone. With the United States and Israel saying they do not rule out a military strike to stop Iran getting a nuclear bomb, the Islamic Republic has showed off new mini-submarines, and a surface-to-surface missile and announced plans to launch high-altitude satellites over the next three years. The presentation of the drone came a day after Iranian and Russian technicians began loading fuel into Iran's first nuclear power station, something Israel called "totally unacceptable." In a speech at the unveiling ceremony, Ahmadinejad said Iran should seek the ability to make pre-emptive strikes against a perceived threat, although he said it would never strike first. "If there is an ignorant person or an egoist or a tyrant who just wanted to make an aggression then our Defense Ministry should reach a point where it could cut off the hand of the aggressor before it decided to make an aggression," he said. "We should reach a point when Iran would serve as a defense umbrella for all freedom-loving nations in the face of world aggressors. We don't want to attack anywhere, Iran will never decide to attack anywhere, but our revolution cannot sit idle in the face of tyranny, we can't remain indifferent." State television said the drone had a range of 1,000 km (620 miles) and a speed of 900 km per hour (560 miles per hour), and could be armed with four cruise missiles or a payload of either two 250-pound (113-kg) bombs or one of 500 pounds. It could also be used for reconnaissance and for testing Iran's missile defenses, the station said. Iran, which says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful, has warned that any strike against its nuclear sites would be countered by measures not restricted to the Middle East. Ahmadinejad said on Saturday an attack on Iran would be "suicidal." Iran has said it is prepared to return to talks with major world powers but the exact nature of such negotiations has yet to be defined. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said last week Iran would not talk to the United States unless sanctions and military threats were lifted.

Operation Iraqi Freedom ends as last combat soldiers leave Baghdad

By Ernesto Londoño Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, August 19, 2010; A01 Lt. Col. Mark Bieger huddled his infantrymen in a darkened parking lot minutes before they were to depart Baghdad for the last time. "This is a historic mission!" he bellowed, struggling to be heard over the zoom of fighter jets and unmanned drones deployed to watch over the brigade's convoy to Kuwait. "A truly historic end to seven years of war." The 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, which left Iraq this week, was the final U.S. combat brigade to be pulled out of the country, fulfilling the Obama administration's pledge to end the U.S. combat mission by the end of August. About 50,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq, mainly as a training force. "Operation Iraqi Freedom ends on your watch!" exclaimed Col. John Norris, the head of the brigade. "Hooah!" the soldiers roared, using an Army battle cry. Shortly before midnight Saturday, a group of infantrymen boarded Stryker fighting vehicles, left an increasingly sparse base behind and began scanning the sides of a desolate highway for bombs. For many veterans, including some who made the same trip in the opposite direction years ago under fire, it was a fitting way to exit. "They're leaving as heroes," Norris said of his soldiers. "I want them to walk home with pride in their hearts." Besides pride, the soldiers will carry with them the hidden costs of war: hardened glares; tales of comrades' deaths relayed in monotone sentences devoid of emotion; young faces rendered incongruously old. There might never be an acknowledged end to the Iraq war -- a moment where it ceases being America's conflict. U.S. commanders acknowledge that the months-long political impasse over the disputed March 7 elections and a flurry of other unresolved disputes in Iraq have the potential to erode hard-won security gains. But U.S. commanders also seem to be stressing that this is no longer America's war to lose. "I will let history judge whether we reached irreversible momentum," Norris said. "That's not my call." By the end of this month, the United States will have six brigades in Iraq, by far its smallest footprint since the 2003 invasion. Those that remain are conventional combat brigades reconfigured slightly and rebranded "advise and assist brigades." The primary mission of those units and the roughly 4,500 U.S. special operations forces that will stay behind will be to train Iraqi troops. Under a bilateral agreement, all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011. Leaving Iraq one last time is particularly emotional for veterans who have served multiple tours, several soldiers said in the two-day journey through the southern desert to Kuwait in cramped, windowless vehicles. Silver remembrance bracelets to honor fallen comrades and tattoos that speak of loss and sacrifice are among the visible signs of the toll this conflict has taken on a generation of volunteer warriors. More than 4,400 U.S. service members have died in the Iraq war since the invasion. Several of these soldiers have served in Iraq more than one tour; some as many as four. They witnessed the toppling of a dictator and its aftermath, including the rise of a powerful and lethal insurgency. That extended the conflict long after the words "Mission Accomplished" appeared on a banner as President George W. Bush prematurely declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq aboard an aircraft carrier May 1, 2003. They were thrust into the front lines of a brutal sectarian war that ultimately ebbed. And they helped secure elections that bore a government system more akin to an oligarchy than a parliamentary democracy. Spec. Clinton J. Clemens, 26, was barely 18 when he traveled the same route northward in September 2003, clutching a .50-caliber machine gun mounted on a vehicle. "I was scared to death," the Edgefield, S.C., native recalled. "I remember crossing the border and about 15 minutes later is when we took our first contact. It was the first time I'd ever been shot at." Shortly after arriving in the western city of Ramadi in fall 2004, Clemens said, he realized that the war was far from over. Sunnis who had been fired from government jobs formed armed groups and began attacking U.S. forces daily. Sgt. Luke Hitchcock, 26, of Olean, N.Y., said he got his first real taste of combat during his third deployment while stationed in Arab Jabour, a rural area southeast of Baghdad that was a Sunni insurgent stronghold in 2007. "That was a horrible area. My platoon took six casualties," he said, speaking evenly. "I received a Purple Heart during that deployment. I was blown up." He suffered shrapnel wounds from a roadside bomb and was hospitalized for a month before returning to duty. His fourth and final deployment was cathartic, Hitchcock said, because he believes he is leaving behind a safer country with a large and proficient army. "I think the fact that we stuck it out a few extra years to help their forces take control of their country" is important, he said. "That helps you hold your head up high as you leave and know that you made a difference." But it is also clear that the departing soldiers are not leaving behind a peaceful country. The brigade ended up driving out in waves -- rather than having most soldiers flown out -- because that allowed the military to keep its last combat force a few weeks longer as commanders assessed the risks of political instability. Commanders spent weeks studying the perils of the 360-mile nighttime drive through the sweltering, dusty desert of southern Iraq. Powerful roadside bombs lined the two-lane road. And Shiite militias have stepped up attacks against U.S. bases in southern Iraq in recent weeks. As a precaution, the military demanded that journalists accompanying the soldiers on the trip refrain from disclosing details of their departure until early Thursday, when the last group was scheduled to cross the Kuwaiti border. For some troops, the protracted political crisis in Baghdad was a source of angst. Many Iraqis fear that militants are exploiting the period of uncertainty to make a comeback. "Of all the time and effort that we put in this country, the blood, the sweat, the tears, I wish you could see an answer within a couple of weeks or a couple of months," said the brigade's second in command, Lt. Col. Darren Wright, 42, of Dallas. "But we won't know that for another three to five years: Will all your efforts pay off?" Some soldiers said that's unlikely. "I hope good things come from it," said Clemens, the specialist. "But I think as soon as we leave, things are going to fall apart." The first departing soldiers made it to the Kuwaiti border Sunday at dawn. They emerged from the vehicles smelly and sweat-stained. Their uniforms were dirty; their boots worn out. There were a few high-fives but no air of jubilation as they covered the .50-caliber machine guns atop the vehicles and began dumping bullets from ammunition packs into cartons. Most will return to Fort Lewis, Wash., where the 2nd Infantry is based. Others will leave the military, while some will move to other units. And none will be deployed for at least another year because Army regulations now stipulate that soldiers' at-home rest period must be at least as long as their last combat deployment. "I hope this becomes a place where I can come back in 25 years," said Hitchcock, the sergeant. "But other than that, I'm glad it's over. I'm glad it's ending. I'm glad we can stop sending people here."

Vietnam, US hold first ever defense talks

HANOI, Vietnam — Former foes Vietnam and the United States held their first ever defense talks on Tuesday, which a senior U.S. official called extremely productive and successful. "I was struck by the open and frank discussions that we were able to have even though this is the first time that this dialogue was held," Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Robert Scher told a joint news conference with Vietnamese Vice Defense Minister Nguyen Chi Vinh. The talks came as the two countries celebrate the 15th anniversary of their normalization of relations after being enemies in the Vietnam War. Last week, an American warship, the USS John S. McCain, docked in Vietnam and the two navies conducted training exercises — a sign of growing military ties. "This dialogue ... represents the next significant, historic step in our increasingly robust defense relationship which is based on mutual trust, understanding and respect for independence and sovereignty," Scher said. He said the two sides talked about how they could better cooperate in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, search and rescue, international peacekeeping and maritime security. "I continued to be struck by the commonality of approach that our two countries share and the amount of cooperation that we have been able to achieve in a very short amount of time," Scher said. China has been uneasy with recent U.S. moves in the region, including military exercises with South Korea and the warming military relationship with Vietnam. Vinh, however, said Vietnam's increased military ties with the U.S. would not harm others. "We believe this cooperation brings about benefit to Vietnam and the United States," he told the briefing. "This cooperation does not do harm to the interests of any other country." Vietnam views U.S. influence in the region as a counterweight to China, which claims disputed islands in the South China Sea. Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines also have staked claims on all or some of the territory, which straddles vital shipping lanes, important fishing grounds and is believed rich in oil and natural gas reserves.

Pentagon Cites Concerns in China Military Growth

By THOM SHANKER New York Times WASHINGTON — China has increased spending on a military that is becoming larger and more effective even as Beijing has rebuffed exchanges with the Defense Department that could improve stability, according to a Pentagon study released Monday. Senior Pentagon officials acknowledged that much of the Chinese military modernization program may reflect the rational ambition of a rising global power, albeit one that may be a worrisome rival to American interests in the Pacific region. But across the American government — from the White House to the Pentagon to Congress — officials express concern that China’s lack of openness about the growth, capabilities and intentions of its military injects instability to a vital region of the globe. China’s overall spending on national defense for 2009 was estimated at $150 billion, an increase of 7.5 percent but only about one-fifth of what the Pentagon spent to operate and carry out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the study, required each year by Congress. China’s arsenal of missiles arrayed across a strait from Taiwan, an American ally considered a wayward province by Beijing, did not substantially grow in numbers but is being upgraded to be more capable, according to the review. Of the many potential points of conflict, Taiwan remains the most notable, as China froze military-to-military relations with the Defense Department earlier this year after an announcement that the United States was selling more than $6 billion in weapons to Taiwan. Administration officials say that while ties between Washington and Beijing in the areas of diplomacy and economics are improving, the military-to-military relationship is prickly and a reason for concern. Another cause of worry, according to the study, is China’s emphasis on weapons that could deny the ability of American warships to operate in international waters off the coast; those weapons include precision, long-range missiles and a growing fleet of submarines and warships. The Pentagon study said that China had an active program to develop and build several aircraft carriers, and could start construction by the end of this year. China also appears intent on expanding its arsenal of nuclear-powered submarines, with one missile-launching submarine and several hunter-killer submarines already at sea, all nuclear-powered for greater range. These nuclear-powered submarines are in addition to larger and growing numbers of diesel-powered hunter-killer submarines in the Chinese Navy, according to the study. Administration and military officials also criticized China’s actions beyond its territorial waters, particularly in the South China Sea. Pentagon officials say China’s military appears intent on extending claims for maritime jurisdiction beyond the range accepted by international law. Senior Defense Department officials who released the study declined to be drawn into a discussion of politics, but Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the Democrat who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, expressed a view shared by the Pentagon. In a statement released Monday, Mr. Skelton said he was concerned by “ambiguities regarding China’s military modernization, including its missile buildup across from Taiwan, its maritime activities in the South China Sea, and the steady increase of its power-projection capabilities, which do not obviously support China’s stated national security objectives.” While “China has taken some steps toward increasing transparency and openness regarding its defense strategy and expenditures in recent years,” Mr. Skelton said, “such steps are modest. China’s most recent military budget continues a trend of sustained annual increases, and China’s strategic intentions remain opaque.” The Pentagon review comes as China surpassed Japan in the second quarter of the year to become the world’s No. 2 economy, after the United States.

Israelie Defense Minister Barak approves purchase of F-35s

By YAAKOV KATZ AND JPOST.COM STAFF Israel to receive first 20 fighters in 2015, cost estimated at $2.75b. After months of deliberations, Defense Minister Ehud Barak gave his approval Sunday for the purchase of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) by the Israel Air Force. A fifth-generation stealth jet, the F-35 is said to be capable of evading all radars and anti-aircraft missile systems. RELATED: 'US to sell Saudis F-15 fighter jets' Israel to finalize JSF purchase plans Background: Yasour believed reliable “The F-35 will provide Israel with continued air superiority and help retain its qualitative military edge in the region,” Barak said Sunday. “The plane will provide the air force with improved capabilities in ensuring Israel’s security when operating near and far away.” While the Pentagon has approved an Israeli request to purchase 75 aircraft, Israel plans – as a first stage – to buy only 20 JSFs for an estimated $2.75 billion. The deal includes simulators, spare parts and the cost of routine maintenance. Delivery will begin in 2015 and is expected to last approximately two years. Barak plans to bring the deal for final approval to the security cabinet in the coming weeks. Two main obstacles have slowed down Israeli procurement plans until now – the price of the aircraft and US opposition to the integration of Israeli systems into the plane. The first batch will have a configuration similar to those used by the US Air Force, with minor changes. The second batch, likely to arrive in the second half of the decade, will already be designed according to Israeli specifications and include locally-designed and manufactured systems. One of the IAF’s main motivations for becoming the first foreign customer to receive the F-35 is concern that other countries in the region – particularly Egypt and Saudi Arabia – will also be allowed to purchase the aircraft. Israel, for example, was the first country outside of the US to purchase F-15s, but Saudi Arabia now operates a significant number of those fighters and is in talks with the Pentagon regarding the potential sale of an additional 82. Defense Ministry Director- General Udi Shani said that one of the considerations in approving the deal was an American offer of $4 billion in offset, meaning that it will purchase $4b. worth of military supplies from Israeli defense industries. Shani said he hoped Israel would eventually receive $5 billion in offset deals from the US. At the same time, Israeli defense industries will need to hold negotiations with Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the JSF, to pursue possible industrial cooperation. Israel Aerospace Industries, for example, manufactures wings for all F-16 fighter jets. The one Israeli company currently involved in the F-35’s production is Elbit Systems Ltd., whose helmet will be used by JSF pilots.

Romania says it will stand by Israel in event of conflict with Iran

Romanian President Traian Basescu tells President Shimon Peres his country will stand by Israel if it attacks Iran. By The Associated Press Romania's president said Thursday his country will be a loyal partner of Israel and NATO in the event of a conflict with Iran, but added that he hopes the dispute can be solved through diplomacy and sanctions. "We hope that the sanctions imposed by the Security Council of the U.N. will create the correct solution in Tehran, not digging graves for American soldiers but starting transparent negotiations," said President Traian Basescu standing next to Israeli President Shimon Peres who is on an official visit to Romania. Basescu told reporters if a conflict broke out with Iran, "Romania will be a loyal partner of NATO ... and a loyal partner of Israel. The two leaders earlier talked for an hour about a range of topics including Iran." Iran is under a fourth round of sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council, and the U.S. and the European Union have also implemented other sanctions because of Tehran's controversial nuclear program. Peres was on a two-day official visit to Romania, the first by an Israeli head of state since the state was created in 1948. Peres thanked Romania for helping 400,000 Romanian Jews emigrate to Israeli during the communist regime. The Israeli leader is expected to attend a ceremony at a Bucharest synagogue to commemorate six Israeli soldiers who died in July in a helicopter crash in Romania. A Romania soldier was also killed when the Israeli transport helicopter crashed in mountainous terrain during a joint military exercise. Peres thanked Basescu for his personal support in dealing with the crash. On Friday Peres will visit the Holocaust Memorial in Bucharest.

Iraq needs help defending its borders after U.S. troops leave in 2011

Some form of continued U.S. military presence is necessary to protect against external threats and to train troops, commanders say. Iraq's inability to defend its airspace is a key concern. Iraqi army officers talk to U.S. soldiers during an exchange of intelligence at an Iraqi army base south of the city of Mosul in June. (Warrick Page, Getty Images / June 27, 2010) Reporting from Besmaya, Iraq — Iraq will need U.S. military support for up to another decade to defend its borders because the Iraqi army won't be ready to guard the country when American troops leave at the end of 2011, according to U.S. and Iraqi commanders. Commanders say they are reasonably confident in the Iraqi security forces' ability to keep order while facing insurgents or other internal threats. But when it comes to their capacity to protect against attacks from other nations, it is inconceivable that the Iraqi army will be able to stand alone by the time U.S. troops go home, said Lt. Gen. Michael Barbero, commander of the U.S. military training program in Iraq. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Get dispatches from Times correspondents around the globe delivered to your inbox with our daily World newsletter. Sign up » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Almost certainly, he said, there will have to be some form of continued U.S. military presence beyond 2011 — a tough sell for Americans eager to see a rapid withdrawal — to protect against external threats and to provide the training necessary to eventually bring the Iraqi army up to scratch. The gravest concern may be Iraq's inability to defend its airspace in a region bristling with missiles and fighter planes as well as longstanding jealousies and a history of wars involving border disputes. The Iraqi government placed its first order for 18 U.S. F-16 fighter jets in March, but the earliest they're expected to arrive is 2013. "I would say we're five years into a 10-15 year program," said Brig. Gen. Scott Hanson, who heads the U.S. mission in charge of training the Iraqi air force. "We're on a glide path, but we're not in the final stages of approach." An Iraqi Ministry of Defense strategy document projects that Iraq won't be capable of defending its borders until 2020, said the chief of staff of the Iraqi armed forces, Gen. Babakir Zebari. "In general, Iraqi soldiers and officers would like the American forces to stay in Iraq until they're capable of doing the job 100%," he said. "Not a huge force, just three or four bases." U.S. officials won't give numbers, saying it will be up to the U.S. and Iraqi governments to negotiate the form and size of any future troop presence. The current security agreement obligates all U.S. forces to leave Iraq by the end of 2011, and the Iraqi government would have to request a new agreement if it wanted any to stay. With so many uncertainties ahead, it is impossible to predict whether U.S. forces would stay beyond the deadline, analysts say. The issue is politically sensitive in both Washington and Baghdad. Much will depend on what the future Iraqi government looks like; one that is led by close allies of Iran would be unlikely to request continued U.S. military assistance. Also in question is America's likely appetite for a long- term troop presence, and the funding that would entail. The Pentagon is appealing a Senate decision to slash by half its $2-billion request for equipment for the Iraqi army in 2011. The issue of the ongoing U.S. military presence in Iraq has so far received little public attention either in Washington or Baghdad. The Obama administration's Iraq policy is currently focused on fulfilling the president's pledge to bring about the "responsible" drawdown of troops to 50,000 by Aug. 31, and end the war. In Baghdad, there is no proper government, and energies are consumed these days by the struggle to form a new one. Domestic challenges from a potential revival of the Sunni Arab insurgency, well-armed Shiite Muslim militias and tensions between the political factions still pose the biggest overall threat to Iraq's long-term stability, U.S. officials say. But many Iraqis also fear their country's vulnerability to the ambitions of well-armed nations in the region. "If America withdraws its forces and one of the neighboring countries causes problems, then we're going to have a problem," Zebari said. In a harbinger of what may lie ahead, Turkish and Iranian troops recently crossed Iraq's northern border in pursuit of Kurdish rebels. Iranian troops have remained there since June, building a small fort just inside Iraqi territory. In December, Iranian troops occupied an Iraqi oil well in the south, triggering popular outrage but little action from the Iraqi government. "There appears to have been an appalling lack of foresight on the part of American military planners," said Ted Galen Carpenter, a national security expert at the Washington-based Cato Institute, who believes the U.S. will have to maintain a substantial military presence well beyond 2011 if Iraq is not to risk becoming a trigger for regional instability. "What amazes me is that policymakers didn't seem to think this through when they decided to remove Iraq as a geostrategic player. I'm not sure what they were calculating." U.S. military officials say they are acutely aware of the shortfall in Iraq's defensive capabilities. "Two years ago the levels of violence were much higher than they are today. Fighting was the focus," said Hanson, the air force commander. "The whole business has required that amount of time. I don't think anybody was asleep at the switch." With the bulk of the basic training of the Iraqi army now complete and the State Department due to take over responsibility for police training next month, the U.S. military's training mission through the end of 2011 will be reoriented toward readying the army to defend against external threats, Barbero said. At the Besmaya combat training center located in the desert east of Baghdad, that effort is already underway. On a recent morning, half a dozen M1A1 Abrams battle tanks provided by the U.S. military for training purposes trundled out into the dusty wilderness to practice shooting at cardboard targets while a trainee Iraqi controller barked orders from a control tower. "What are you shooting at? There is no target! Cease fire!" he yelled at one of the crews, which seemed to be firing randomly. A spinning speck of swirling dust on the horizon, the tank corrected and hit two targets, to warm applause from the assembled American trainers and Iraqi trainees. The M1A1s, the workhorse of the U.S. Army, are to be the centerpiece of Iraq's land defenses, and the first 11 of 140 new ones bought by the Iraqi government arrived last week. But it won't be until the middle of 2012, after U.S. troops are scheduled to depart, that the crews will be ready and all the tanks have arrived in Iraq. Iraq has an additional $13 billion worth of arms on order or under discussion, but they could take years to be processed. The trainee tank crews, many of them veterans of Iraq's previous wars, fret that their new, 238,000-strong army is smaller than the old Iraqi army, which once numbered more than 500,000, invaded two neighboring nations and was feared across the region. "We need more. We need planes, tanks, armored personnel carriers, Strykers, Bradleys," said Capt. Hisham Jamil, 36, who commanded a tank crew during the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. "In terms of quality, the new army was better, but in number the old army was more." Iraq is a long way from being in a position to threaten its neighbors again, and U.S. officials say the envisioned arms sales won't bring it near that point. Even so, some of the sales could prove controversial, and Iraq's Kurds, who were treated brutally by late President Saddam Hussein's army, have expressed opposition to the proposed F-16 deal. Analysts say there is a broad recognition in Washington of the need for an enduring military relationship with Iraq if the huge investments in blood and money of the last seven years are not to be squandered. Obama administration officials have expressed lasting support for Iraq. Vice President Joe Biden said in Baghdad last month that the U.S. would not abandon the country after the troop withdrawal. A modest presence of advisors and mentors beyond 2011 would probably win support, said Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service, who questions U.S. commanders' confidence in the Iraqi security forces' domestic capabilities. "The U.S. has a long-term strategic interest there. If the whole program unravels after 2011, Iraq degenerates into sectarian conflict and the neighbors get involved, it means the whole project was flawed," he said. "I think there's a sentiment not to let that happen."

U.S. and Iraqi Interests May Work Against Pullout

By TIM ARANGO BAGHDAD — In a recent speech President Obama took credit for delivering on his promise to end the official combat mission on schedule, and vowed to meet America’s next deadline of moving all American forces off Iraqi soil by the end of 2011. “As agreed to with the Iraqi government, we will maintain a transitional force until we remove all our troops from Iraq by the end of next year,” the president said. The reality in Iraq may defy that deadline, because many American and Iraqi officials deem the American presence to be in each nation’s interest. “For a very long period of time we’re going to be on the ground, even if it’s solely in support of its U.S. weapons systems,” said Ryan C. Crocker, who was the American ambassador in Baghdad until 2009 and helped to negotiate the agreement that tethers the two countries and mandates that all American troops leave Iraq by the end of 2011. Even as that deadline was negotiated, he said, a longer-lasting, though significantly smaller, presence of American forces had always been considered to be likely. At the moment, five months after national elections, there is still no Iraqi government to begin talking about what any post-2011 arrangement might entail. But many Iraqi officials deem it quietly necessary on a number of fronts: Iraq is buying more and more sophisticated American weapons, like tanks and warplanes, and will need Americans here for training and maintenance. At the same time, training is intensifying for the Iraq Army to learn not only how to battle internal insurgents, but also how to protect its national borders — a project that will take many years. And many Americans, most notably Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., have long argued that it is not in America’s interest to withdraw completely — even if Mr. Obama rose to national prominence opposing the Iraq war and ran for president promising to end it. The decision will bear directly on the payoff America could yet reap for all its spent blood — more than 4,000 American lives — and treasure, in the form of a democratic ally in a combustible region that would be a check on Iranian power and offer American access to Iraq’s vast oil reserves. A sustained American presence, at relatively low cost, could prevent Iraq, a country with a long and violent history of coups and tyranny, from slipping back into civil war. But the decision could be politically perilous for both sides. For Mr. Obama, a deepening commitment to a conflict he opposed could alienate his supporters who helped win him the presidency, especially as his party slowly abandons him on the war in Afghanistan. Iraq’s leaders face a public that wishes to be free of the American military’s grip, but the deficiencies of the country’s armed forces are obvious. “Our country will not be able to defend against foreign aggression for a long time,” said Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq’s foreign minister. But he demurred on the question of whether the Americans should stay: “It’s up to the government to decide if they see a need for it.” When the security agreement was negotiated in 2008, it was politically essential for Iraqi officials to establish the sovereignty of their country by setting a deadline for an American exit, even as it was widely acknowledged that the agreement could be amended later. “The current running through the latter phase of 2008 was the Iraqi refrain that there will be a need for an American military presence for an extended period of time, but that Iraqi politics required us to drive a stake through the occupation,” Mr. Crocker said. Even though Iraqi soldiers and policemen are still dying at the hands of insurgents, the focus of the American advisory mission will shift toward preparing Iraq’s national defenses. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died in the war with Iran in the 1980s. “What we’re doing over the next 17 months is, you’ll see significantly more training on the capabilities we think they need to protect externally,” Gen. Ray Odierno, the top United States military commander in Iraq, said recently. In addition to the tanks, the Iraqis have purchased M-16 rifles, and Navy vessels, and are seeking to acquire F-16 fighter jets from the United States.. At the least, the purchases are likely to require contingents of American troops and private contractors to remain in Iraq beyond 2011 as trainers and advisers. Amid the searing heat at an Iraqi Army base in south Baghdad in an area once called the triangle of death, a small unit of American soldiers are training Iraqi soldiers in a mission that will be far from complete by the end of next year: preparing the country to face foreign enemies. “The I.A. is transitioning from a counterinsurgency fight to a national defense army, like a normal army, to defend from external threats,” said Lt. Col. Edwin J. Fiske, of the Third Infantry Division’s First Brigade, using the abbreviation for the Iraqi Army. Colonel Fiske is the officer in charge of an American unit that is training Iraqis to use American Abrams tanks, weapons whose destructive capability was seen firsthand by Iraqis during the invasion in 2003. The Iraqi government has bought 140 of the tanks for about $200 million, and the first few recently arrived in Umm Qasr, in southern Iraq. Beyond the 2011 deadline, Colonel Fiske said, “I can’t foresee them not asking for some sort of assistance from us.” American forces continue to leave here, to reach the president’s goal of being down to 50,000 troops by Sept. 1. It is a process that has played out during the summer against a backdrop of political paralysis and the recognition by Iraq’s political class that Mr. Obama is increasingly invested in the war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the war’s legacy and the United States’ future relationship with Iraq is unsettled. “Everybody considers 1 September, we’re abandoning Iraq,” General Odierno said. “We’re not abandoning Iraq. What we’re doing is changing our commitment from a military-dominated commitment to one that is more civilian-led. Which is what I think they need more.”

Pentagon to cut thousands of jobs, Defense Secretary says

By Craig Whitlock Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, August 10, 2010; A01 Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Monday that the Pentagon will cut thousands of jobs, including a substantial chunk of its private contractors and a major military command based in Norfolk, as part of an ongoing effort to streamline its operations and to stave off political pressure to slash defense spending in the years ahead. Gates said he will recommend that President Obama dismantle the U.S. Joint Forces Command, which employs about 2,800 military and civilian personnel as well as 3,300 contractors, most of them in southeastern Virginia. He also said he will terminate two other Pentagon agencies, impose a 10 percent cut in intelligence advisory contracts and slim down what he called a "top-heavy hierarchy" by thinning the ranks of admirals and generals by at least 50 positions. The reduction in funding for contract employees -- by 10 percent annually over three years -- excludes those in war zones. Although the moves will save an unspecified amount of money, defense officials characterized them as a political preemptive strike to fend off growing sentiment elsewhere in Washington to tackle the federal government's soaring deficits by making deep cuts in military spending. The Obama administration has exempted national security from its budget reductions, but Gates said he fears that Congress might not be able to resist for long. "It is important that we not repeat the mistakes of the past, where tough economic times or the winding down of a military campaign leads to steep and unwise reductions in defense," Gates said. He cited threats from Iran, North Korea and other countries -- in an implicit reference to China -- as justification for continued overall growth in the Pentagon's budget. After a decade in which its budget has nearly doubled, the Defense Department confronts its most significant fiscal constraints since the end of the Cold War. These constraints are pressing the military to accept major changes in the way it operates, especially as it tries to end long-running wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The initiatives Gates detailed are part of his previously announced effort to save $100 billion over five years by trimming overhead and shrinking bureaucracy so that more money can be spent on troops and weapons. That bureaucracy includes the U.S. Joint Forces Command, which was established in 1999 to coordinate training and military doctrine among the branches of the armed services. The command is also involved in organizing the deployment of armed forces around the world. On Monday, the defense secretary emphasized that he is not seeking to cut the Pentagon's overall budget. Rather, he said, officials need to demonstrate a newfound thriftiness to keep deficit hawks elsewhere in the government at bay. "The culture of endless money that has taken hold must be replaced by a culture of savings and restraint," he said. In a statement, Obama said he supports Gates's plans, saying they would "help us sustain the current force structure and make needed investments in modernization in a fiscally responsible way." Despite soaring federal budget deficits, the Obama administration has asked Congress to increase defense spending next year from $535 billion to $549 billion, not counting the cost of the wars in Iran and Afghanistan. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned how long the Pentagon's budget can avoid the ax as Washington confronts its mounting debts. Analysts said Gates's preemptive strategy has played well on Capitol Hill, but might go only so far. "It's a very smart and anticipatory set of actions Gates is taking, and it will definitely help," said Maren Leed, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Will it be enough? Probably not." Some stalwarts of the defense establishment have urged Gates to make deeper cuts. The Defense Business Board, an advisory group at the Pentagon, recommended to Gates last month that he shutter the Joint Forces Command. It also urged the Defense Department to shed more than 100,000 civilian jobs overall, returning its workforce to the size it was in 2003, when it numbered about 650,000. Gates noted that the number of people working directly for him -- in the Office of the Secretary of Defense -- has swelled by 1,000 employees over the past decade, an increase of about 50 percent. He said he would freeze the number of personnel in his office, as well as those working for defense agencies and the military's 10 combatant commands, for the next three years. The reduction in money for contractors alone would mark a major shift in the way the Defense Department has conducted business over the past decade, as it sought to limit the size of the federal workforce by hiring private firms instead. The Pentagon did not specify how much it hopes to save by closing the Joint Forces Command or by reducing the number of contractors. Nor did it say how many of those positions would be transferred to the rest of the Defense Department's civilian workforce. "It's premature to give you a number," Comptroller Robert F. Hale told reporters. "I don't think it's ready for prime time." Indeed, the military isn't even sure how many contractors are on its payroll. One Pentagon report recently estimated that it relies on about 766,000 contractors, at a cost of about $155 billion. "This does not include the intelligence organizations and we are told it is not a 'high-confidence' figure," the Defense Business Board noted. In comparison, the Defense Department's civil-service workforce consists of 745,000 people. A Washington Post analysis conducted as part of the "Top Secret America" investigation, however, found a significantly higher number: an estimated 1.2 million contractors overall being paid by the Defense Department, including the armed services and military intelligence agencies.

Marines' F-35 is lagging behind other components of the program

Posted Sunday, Aug. 08, 2010 By Bob Cox rcox@star-telegram.com It comes as no surprise to many knowledgeable observers that, as flight testing of the F-35 joint strike fighter gets under way in earnest, one of the three airplane types is having more problems than the others. That one is the F-35B, the short-takeoff-vertical-landing version designed for the Marines and the British navy and air force. At the end of July, the four F-35Bs undergoing flight testing had completed 77 percent of their scheduled flights this year. The other three F-35 test airplanes were completing test flights at better than twice the planned rate. So while part of the F-35 test flight program is going well, showing significant progress for the troubled program at long last, the most difficult part is now further behind schedule. That comes as no shock to staunch F-35 critic Pierre Sprey, a former Defense Department official deeply involved in development of the F-16 and A-10 warplanes now in use. "Nothing was dumber than saying we could stuff a STOVL mechanism into a conventional airplane," he said. Designing and building high-performance military airplanes that push the boundaries of science and technology have always been challenging. STOVL's challenges The F-35B task is daunting. Like the other models, it's supposed to be a supersonic attack jet that is nearly invisible to radar and jam-packed with electronic systems to detect, track and kill enemies. Unlike the others, it's also supposed to take off -- fully loaded with fuel and weapons -- from a 500-foot-long runway and, upon returning to base, make a vertical landing still carrying bombs and missiles. Technical challenges of the F-35B have added billions of dollars and years of delays to the program. The design problems and technical issues "have mostly been driven by STOVL," aircraft engineering consultant Hans Weber said. The extent of F-35B testing issues was revealed at the end of July by Lockheed Martin CEO Robert Stevens in a conference call with financial analysts. Stevens and other Lockheed officials say the problems are failures of relatively minor parts and components, not the vertical flight propulsion system or controls. "F-35B has met or exceeded its performance requirements since testing on the first STOVL variant began," J.D. McFarlan, vice president of F-35 test and verification, said in an e-mail response to Star-Telegram questions. "That is, frankly, a tremendous accomplishment for such an ambitious design goal." The STOVL requirement is so challenging that the F-35B is arguably less capable than the more conventional versions destined for the Air Force and Navy. The lift fan system, which generates about 19,000 pounds of thrust straight down to push the aircraft skyward, weighs more than 3,000 pounds. That means less room for fuel and weapons, so the F-35B carries half the bomb load of other fighter jets and can't fly as far. The F-35B can be described as the political glue that has long held the entire program together. The Marines, looking to replace their beloved but aging and hazardous AV-8B Harriers, have been the U.S. military's most forceful advocates for the F-35. The British, who developed the Harrier, are the strongest foreign backers and have contributed more than $2 billion to F-35 development. Of the four F-35B test aircraft built and sent to the Navy's Patuxent River flight test center, only one has made vertical landings. Lockheed spokesman John Kent said that plane, the BF-1, must fully prove the full vertical flight "envelope" before the other planes can fly in STOVL mode. Despite six landings last week, only three of the 12 key test points have been completed. Burdensome element The F-35B requirements have burdened the program. A little more than one year into the design effort and with parts already being made, Lockheed and the other contractors realized that the planes would be too heavy. The contractors stopped in midstream and redesigned the aircraft to slice 3,000 pounds of weight. That has been blamed for much of the delays and cost increases. Early on in engine testing, Pratt & Whitney discovered that fan blades in F-35B model engine were cracking under the added strain of driving the lift fan. That, too, led to months of delays and added costs. Many military experts have long questioned the real-world utility of a STOVL aircraft like the Harrier and F-35B, given the added complexities and costs. The Marines have never really used the Harrier in the way it's advertised, taking off from isolated fields or dirt landing areas, even in the two Iraq wars and Afghanistan. "You see these pictures of it popping up out of corn fields or grocery store parking lots. It's never happened," said Dakota Wood, a retired Marine turned military analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. But the Marines have stuck to and convinced policymakers of their need for the STOVL jets, saying they need their own close air support capability near the front lines. "When a Marine commander says, 'I need air support,' he wants it in five minutes or less, not in half an hour," said Bill Lawrence of Aledo, a retired Marine combat helicopter pilot and former head of Marine flight testing at Patuxent River. Lockheed's McFarlan says the F-35B test program is making progress and will make up lost time. "Design, engineering and performance all are proving out in testing," McFarlan said, and the "flight rate of the STOVL jets is up significantly in recent weeks."

Restoring the Paradise that Saddam Destroyed

By Samiha Shafy Der Spiegel Saddam Hussein drained the unique wetlands of southern Iraq as a punishment to the region's Marsh Arabs who had backed an uprising. Two decades later, one courageous US Iraqi is leading efforts to restore the marshes. Not even exploding bombs can deter him from his dream. Azzam Alwash is an anomaly in Iraq, a country devastated by war and terrorism. As he punts through the war zone in a wooden boat, his biggest concerns are a missing otter, poisoned water and endangered birds. Who thinks about the environment in southern Iraq, and who is willing to risk his life to save a marsh? "Isn't this wonderful?" Alwash asks as his boat, accompanied by armed guards, glides through a channel lined with reeds. Flocks of birds fly through a reddish evening sky above the marshland, where the air temperature has dropped to 35 degrees Celsius (95 degrees Fahrenheit) -- cool by local standards. Basra, a city devastated by war, is only 60 kilometers (37 miles) away, and yet it might as well be on another planet. Water buffalo snort as they swim past the boat. Alwash, a broad-shouldered man with bushy gray hair and a moustache, is beaming as he sits upright on the rowing bench. "Just look at this," he says. "There was a desert here just a few months ago." The Cradle of Civilization Alwash, 52, a citizen of Iraq and the United States, is a hydraulic engineer and the director of Nature Iraq, the country's first and only environmental organization. He founded the organization in 2004 together with his wife Suzanne, an American geologist, with financial support from the United States, Canada, Japan and Italy. His goal is to save a largely dried-up marsh in southern Iraq. In return for giving up his job in California, Alwash is now putting his safety and health at risk. Nowadays he spends a lot of time flying from one continent to another. Four days ago, he traveled from Fullerton, California, where his family lives, to Amman, Jordan to meet with former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Then he flew to Basra to attend a conference, and now he is back in the marsh. His next stop is Baghdad, where he has an appointment at the Environment Ministry. After that, he will travel to Sulaymaniyah in northern Iraq, where, for security reasons, Nature Iraq has its headquarters. After that, he has meetings scheduled with donors and advisers in the Italian cities of Padua and Venice. Other men have a mistress, says Alwash -- he has the marshes. Of course, this isn't just any old marsh. Alwash is fighting for a marsh which Biblical scholars believe is the site of the Garden of Eden, and which some describe as the cradle of civilization. The Mesopotamians settled in the fertile region in the fifth century B.C., and within a few centuries it had become the site of an advanced Sumerian civilization. Scholars believe that cuneiform was invented in the region, as were literature, mathematics, metallurgy, ceramics and the sailboat. Only 20 years ago, an amazing aquatic world thrived in the area, which is in the middle of the desert. Larger than the Everglades, it extended across the southern end of Iraq, where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers divide into hundreds of channels before they come together again near Basra and flow into the Persian Gulf. For environmentalists, this marshland was a unique oasis of life, until the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, had it drained in the early 1990s after a Shiite uprising. Turning the Garden of Eden into Hell The official explanation was that the land was being reclaimed for agriculture. The military was sent in to excavate canals and build dikes to conduct the water directly into the Gulf. The despot, proud of his work of destruction, gave the canals names like Saddam River and Loyalty to the Leader Canal. In truth, Saddam was not interested in the farmers. His real goal was to harm the Madan, also known as the Marsh Arabs. For thousands of years, the marshes had been the homeland of this ethnic group and their cows and water buffalo. They lived in floating huts made of woven reeds and spent much of their time in wooden boats, which they guided with sticks along channels the buffalo had trampled through the reeds. They harvested reeds, hunted birds and caught fish. When the fishermen backed a Shiite uprising against the dictator, the vindictive Saddam turned their "Garden of Eden" into a hell. He had thousands of the Marsh Arabs murdered and their livestock killed. Any remaining water sources were poisoned and reed huts burned to the ground. Many people fled across the border into Iran to live in refugee camps, while others went to the north and tried to survive as day laborers. By the end of the operation, up to half a million people had been displaced. Within a few years, the marshland had shrunk to less than 10 percent of its original size. In a place that was once teeming with wildlife -- wild boar, hyenas, foxes, otters, water snakes and even lions -- the former reed beds had been turned into barren salt flats, poisoned and full of land mines. In a 2001 report, the United Nations characterized the destruction of the marshes as one of the world's greatest environmental disasters. 'Wait Until You See the Marshes' On June 18, 2003, only three months after the American invasion, Alwash flew from Los Angeles to his native Iraq. He knew what to expect. "Nevertheless, it was a shock," he says. "I remembered water and green vegetation as far as the eye could see, but what I saw was nothing but desert, dust and the ruins of settlements." At that point, Alwash had not stepped on Iraqi soil in exactly 24 years and 341 days. He had gone to the United States to study and eventually became an American through and through. He had an American wife, two young daughters with whom he did not speak Arabic, a house in Long Beach and a well-paid job as a hydraulic engineer. "It was the perfect American dream," he says today. But he couldn't forget the marshland, his childhood paradise. His father, who had worked in Iraq's Water Ministry until the early 1980s, had often taken him along when he was traveling in the marshes for work or hunting geese in the reeds. Sometimes his mother and his two sisters came along on their extended outings in the boat. Alwash had promised himself that one day he would show his wife and his daughters the "Garden of Eden" of his childhood. "This is nothing," he would say when they were hiking or canoeing in California. "Just wait until you see the marshes!" It was this promise that prompted Alwash to return to Iraq and raise funds for his plan, which involved the controlled flooding of former marshland. He and his collaborators called their ambitious plan the "Eden Again" project. Curtis Richardson, an ecologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, was part of the project from the very beginning, making research trips to the region between 2003 and 2007. "I've studied wetlands for my entire professional life," says Richardson, "but this marshland is the Holy Grail -- the Garden of Eden." Soon, however, Richardson was forced to realize how naïve his enthusiasm had been. He spent many a sleepless night on the floor of his hotel room in Basra listening to the sound of gunshots outside. Heavily armed guards had to escort him during his field work. "You do feel a little strange when you're holding a pH monitor in your hand while everyone else is carrying a machine gun," he says. Once, when Richardson went into the water near the Iranian border to take some samples, his translator, who was standing on the shore, suddenly began shouting and waving his arms wildly. "I had walked into a minefield," Richardson says. That was the moment he decided to abandon his field work. "Azzam is fighting a courageous battle, but he needs help," says Richardson. The United States has cancelled its financial support for the project, and now most of its funding and scientific advice comes from Italy. Richardson estimates that no more than 30 to 40 percent of the former marshland can be transformed into a functioning ecosystem in the long term. But even that would represent an enormous improvement, not just for nature but also for Iraq's future. Influencing the Climate Because they retain the water from the rivers, the marshes could prove to be an important water source for the south. They also influence the climate. The region became hotter after the marshland was destroyed, says Richardson. When temperatures went over 50 degrees Celsius (112 degrees Fahrenheit), the crops dried up in the fields. The fishermen and shrimp growers also saw a sharp decline in their catch, because the marshes were no longer there to filter dirt and pollutants out of the rivers. Now, about a third of the original river marshes are covered with water once again. Teams of international experts, Nature Iraq employees and representatives of three Iraqi ministries are demolishing dams, channeling water from the canals back into parched areas, sowing native plants and studying the composition of species and the development of plant and animal populations. Before they flood a new area, the scientists measure salt and sulfur concentrations in the soil. Levels are so high in some places that neither reeds nor indigenous fish species can survive. A constant flow of fresh water is needed to flush out the salt and allow the soil to recover. Alwash and his collaborators are developing a plan for the country's first national park: a protected zone of about 1,000 square kilometers (386 square miles) where the water supply will be regulated with a large number of floodgates. "We are in the process of drafting guidelines for nature reserves," says Giorgio Galli of Studio Galli Ingegneria Spa, an engineering firm in Padua, Italy. "This sort of thing has not existed in Iraq until now." The scientists hope that if the project materializes, it could be declared a UNESCO World Heritage site. Bombs 'Just Part of Daily Life' But all of this is happening in the midst of a conflict zone. Dozens of employees of the project have died in terrorist attacks in the last seven years. Others, fearing for their lives, have left. Experts with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) can only provide advice from afar. For safety reasons, they have been barred from entering Iraq since 22 people died in an attack on the UN headquarters building in Baghdad in August 2003. The situation seems to have calmed down somewhat recently. Basra is not as safe as Sulaymaniyah, but neither is it as dangerous as Baghdad. But security is a relative concept. Is the risk worth it? Can conservation even function in a country like this? Alwash is used to bombs going off. "As long as you are at least 100 meters (about 330 feet) away, it's just part of daily life." He tries to explain how he feels: "For the first time in my life, I have the feeling that my work really helps people, and that I'm not just working to make money for my family and myself. That's fulfilling." Nowadays, when Awash is traveling in the marsh of hope, he sometimes encounters images of his childhood. In Al-Hammar, a labyrinth of waterways leads through dense, meter-high reeds and comes together to form larger lakes. Dewdrops glisten on the reeds, rustling as they recede alongside the passing boat. A crescent moon fades away as the sun grows stronger. Tiny fish dash through the water, fleeing a water snake. And the birds are back: night herons, pied kingfishers, purple herons, little grebes, black-tailed godwits and marbled ducks. Reed huts surrounded by sleepy water buffalo stand on small islands. Men and women with sunburned faces and long robes glide through the water in boats, cutting reeds, occasionally raising their hands in greeting. The water has brought back the Madan, whose numbers are already believed to have climbed to about 80,000. Their stories are like the story of Naim Aatai, a small, hunched-over man with a white beard, a furrowed face and deep-set eyes. "Saddam's soldiers came to our village and accused us of hiding terrorists," says Aatai. "They shot at us and killed my brother. Then they burned down our huts." After the attack, Aatai fled to the north and found work on a farm near Baghdad. "It wasn't a good life," he says. "It's better here. This is our home." Dhwia Jift is just returning from her first reed-cutting trip of the day, her boat filled with reeds. A few men load the bundles onto a truck. Jift is paid the equivalent of $4 (about €3) for a full load. The slight woman, dressed in black, says that she gets up every morning before sunrise, bakes flatbread and feeds the children. Then she spends the rest of the day harvesting reeds. The skin on her hands and feet is cracked and covered with calluses. She says that she is tired and sick, but that she doesn't want to complain. Her time as a day laborer in the north was much worse, she says, because she was treated like a slave there. "I'm free here," she says with a smile, exposing the gaps in her teeth. "At least I don't have to beg, as long as I have water and reeds." Wasting Water But it is far from certain that the water will remain in the marshes. Turkey, where the Tigris and the Euphrates originate, is building dams and gradually reducing the flow of water southward. There are no agreements between the two countries over joint use of the rivers. And Turkey is only one of three countries, along with China and Burundi, that have not signed the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. Much would be gained if Iraq's farmers would learn to be economical with their use of water. They are not familiar with the principle of drip irrigation. Instead, they still flood their fields, a method that was practiced in times when there was a surplus of water. There are also other ways to save water. Iraq treats hardly any of its sewage, and recycling water is practically unheard of. As a result, the water that is being fed out of the canals and back into the marshes contains high concentrations of fertilizer, environmental toxins and pathogens. The Environment Ministry and Nature Iraq are jointly monitoring the situation to gauge the effects on the ecosystem and the health of human beings and animals. The Hazards of Oil Broder Merkel of the Freiberg University of Mining and Technology sits between muscular bodyguards in the lobby of the newly opened Mnawi Basha Hotel in Basra. The German hydrogeologist has identified another hazard: oil. "The oil companies can't wait to start drilling for oil in the marshes," he says. "And when that gets going, without regulations, research and monitoring, you can forget about the marshes once and for all." Iraq has the world's third-largest oil reserves, and there are plans to triple production in the next five years. A number of oil fields are located in the marshlands. Merkel, who has short white hair and many laugh lines, has come to Basra on behalf of the German Academic Exchange Service to develop two new courses of study together with representatives of Iraqi universities: "Sustainable Oil Production" and "Hydrogeology and Water Management in Arid Regions." This time, Merkel wants to take home a few water samples from the Basra canals. His trip takes him past slums the color of brown mud, mountains of garbage and checkpoints. The streets of Basra are filled with the stench of garbage and gasoline. Rickety cars squeeze past donkey carts and beggars. Combat vehicles are parked next to corrugated metal huts where vendors sell fruit and vegetables. Shiite mourning flags flutter in the wind. Wherever the scientists stop, police officers join them and wait politely until the guest from Germany has filled his test tubes. Hotels and Hikers Alwash knows the geologist from Freiberg, and the two men greet each other in the Arabic fashion, by kissing each other on both cheeks. But the US Iraqi doesn't share his German colleague's pessimism. In fact, he sees the oil boom as an opportunity. "Maybe we can create incentives for the oil companies to contribute to the establishment of a nature reserve in return," says Alwash. Alwash isn't afraid of dreaming. And when he glides through his beloved marshlands in a boat during the evening, his dream seems within reach. "I see floating reed hotels and camping sites," he says. "I see glass-bottomed kayaks, hikers, paragliders and hot-air balloons." His minders listen to him, their weapons lowered. "The first people to come will be the ornithologists," Alwash continues. "Then the people who are interested in archaeology, in the ancient cities of Ur and Uruk. And then the eco-tourists." Eco-tourists? Alwash grins, and then he says: "One of my strengths is that I don't let myself be constrained by reality."

Major Weapons Systems Cancelled for Smaller Wars

Washington Times Ryan Scarborough The Pentagon has begun a new hunt for cost savings that likely will lead to scaling back big-war weapons systems in favor of funding smaller conflicts typified by Iraq and Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is selling the green-eyeshade exercise as a way to achieve more efficiencies by streamlining acquisition, cutting personnel and perhaps eliminating some organizations altogether. But defense industry sources say the Gates team also is looking to kill or shelve weapons systems — a move that worries pro-defense conservatives who say it sends the wrong message to China, Russia, North Korea and other potential adversaries. Among the programs that might be subject to the budget ax are the next-generation ballistic-missile submarine and one or two of the Navy's 11 active carrier strike groups. It would be the second time Mr. Gates applied the scalpel to big-war weapons, though his first effort was far more extensive. In 2009, he ended production of the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, scaled back missile defense, retired scores of warplanes and put on hold the planning on a long-range nuclear bomber — systems associated with a clash of titans, not counterinsurgency. "We want to look ahead to the years ahead and make sure that we're not creating something or imaging something or embarking on something that we're not going to be able to pay for," Ash Carter, the Pentagon's top acquisition officer, told reporters. "If we want to continue to invest in war-fighter capabilities, we're going to have to do that by finding efficiencies and being leaner." At a time when the Congressional Budget Office is warning that the mounting U.S. debt is not sustainable, Mr. Gates has given his team the daunting task of finding $100 billion in savings over five years, starting in fiscal 2012, the budget that goes to Congress next winter. The aim is to keep overall defense spending of about $700 billion at a 1 percent, after-inflation, increase annually. "What he's moving on to now is getting efficiencies out of the system by cutting overhead costs," said Loren Thompson, who runs the pro-business Lexington Institute. "They're going to achieve that by seeking greater productivity from contractors, by reducing unnecessary rules and regulations, and by tightening contract terms. My guess is that at the same time they are doing that they will cut additional weapons systems." Mr. Thompson said that on the day he spoke with The Washington Times that Pentagon officials were meeting over the fate of the Marine Corps' $13 billion Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. The Corps has said the system is critical for Marines in future wars. But Mr. Gates has suggested that the vehicle is expendable in a war-fighting era when full amphibious assaults are unlikely. "I think Gates' efforts to cut spending are necessary," said Mr. Thompson. "I can quibble about how they're doing it. But we've got a government that's spending $4 billion a day it doesn't have. The Pentagon just wastes a huge amount of money." As Mr. Gates was planning to shift money from big future wars to current smaller ones, some conservatives noted an inconsistency last month. When the Obama administration wanted to project power directly at North Korea's doorstep, it dispatched F-22s and an aircraft carrier strike group — the very systems the defense secretary has singled out for cuts. "Gates is doing what previous Democratic administrations have done repeatedly, and that is to hollow out our military," said Frank Gaffney, a defense official in the Reagan administration who directs the Center for Security Policy. "The problem with such cuts in the forces we need to wage those much more difficult and more violent kinds of conflicts is that we put ourselves in a position where we may not be able to deter them as well as fight them," he said. "That's a terrible mistake and may cost us dearly." In speeches last spring, Mr. Gates put the services on notice that more weapons cuts were coming. He disputed Navy proponents who say the sea service lacks fighters and ships for adequate global deployment and to keep in check countries such as Iran and China. "Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners?" Mr. Gates said. "Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?" Days later at the Navy League, he said: "Our current plan is to have 11 carrier strike groups through 2040 and it's in the budget. And to be sure, the need to project power across the oceans will never go away. But consider the massive overmatch the U.S. already enjoys. Consider, too, the growing anti-ship capabilities of adversaries. Do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one? Any future plans must address these realities." The Navy says it does need 11, and so do many conservatives. "Carrier battle groups remain the backbone of our power projection capabilities at sea," said Mr. Gaffney. "The threats to those carrier battle groups are growing. There is no doubt about that. We need to do a vastly better job of protecting those vital elements of our fleet and indeed of our national capabilities. But I think it would be the height of folly to reduce or otherwise take actions that would disable us from having the sorts of force projection capabilities that they uniquely represent." Mr. Gates is being pressed from another front. Last week, a bipartisan panel of defense analysts called for a bigger Navy, not a smaller one, by increasing the fleet from 282 ships to 346. "The United States must be fully present in the Asia-Pacific region to protect American lives and territory, ensure the free flow of commerce, maintain stability and defend our allies in the region. A robust U.S. force structure, one that is largely rooted in maritime strategy and includes other necessary capabilities, will be essential," said the panel, headed by former Defense Secretary William J. Perry, a Democrat, and former White House National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley, a Republican. Norman Polmar, a recognized authority on the Navy who is writing his 50th military book, said there are new strike and spy platforms today that could allow for one or two fewer carriers. The Navy, for example, will operate with only 10 while it retires one carrier and awaits the launching of a new one, the USS Gerald R. Ford. "The Navy will make do," Mr. Polmar said. "Will it mean longer deployments? Yes. Hopefully it will also mean the Navy's leadership and [Defense Department] will re-evaluate how we use carriers." What has happened, he said, is a revolution in smart weapons to the point where surface ships and submarines can deliver cruise missiles on target instead of strike aircraft from a carrier offshore. For reconnaissance, there are satellites and unmanned vehicles instead of planes. "Today, you want to hit somebody and you send a destroyer or submarine and you shoot 20 or 30 or 50 Tomahawk missiles," he said. "We've got different capabilities in other ships that can do, to some degree, not completely, what a carrier does." Mr. Polmar said that if Mr. Gates settles on nine instead of 11 carriers, the Navy would need to increase the number of cruisers and destroyers to replace the firepower. He estimates that the Navy would save $1 billion annually in operating costs for each 6,000-sailor carrier it eliminated. "Gates' view is that the kind of wars we're fighting today are probably what we will face tomorrow also," said Lexington's Mr. Thompson. "So the logic of much of what he wants to do comes down to whether you believe his predictions about the future. "I suspect that if we bank on fighting irregular warfare in the future, that some smart adversary will look at our emerging gaps in conventional war-fighting capability and try to challenge us there," he said. "I sometimes get the impression policymakers don't understand how far gone the Cold War arsenal is and how decrepit things like our fighters are." Said Mr. Gaffney: "As long as we've got global interest, we've got to be able to project power globally. It's not just in any given region. It's truly global. And the problem is that as we see the Russians and the Chinese and the Indians and others proliferating the means by which to attack our ships, that is becoming more challenging."