Iraqi officers meet with tribal leaders

Sheiks in the mostly Sunni area of Abu Ghraib, near Baghdad, sign a pledge to help Iraqi security forces fight insurgents in the region. By Ned Parker, Los Angeles Times April 23, 2010 Reporting from Abu Ghraib, Iraq The room filled with mistrust as more than 70 tribal sheiks arrived Thursday to discuss the problem of violence with some of Iraq's army commanders. The sheiks, dressed mainly in dark blue robes, had come by bus to the headquarters of the 24th Brigade of the 6th Iraqi Army Division. They were met by soldiers wearing red berets and forest green uniforms. Tension was unavoidable, as residents of Abu Ghraib see the mainly Shiite army unit in the area as heavy-handed. The army, by contrast, believes the inhabitants of the rural region are actively or tacitly abetting Al Qaeda in Iraq insurgents. But representatives of the two sides had agreed to at least try to find a way to reduce the bloodshed and suffering in the region, on the western outskirts of Baghdad. Iraqi Army Maj. Gen. Ahmed Saidi, head of the division, sat at the front of the meeting room on a golden armchair, and looked out on the tribesmen. The time of acrimony between the army and the general population must end, Saidi said. Although tribal leaders and armed groups turned against Sunni Arab insurgents in 2007, friction continued between the community and the army brigade, known locally as the Muthanna brigade. Commanders past and present have a reputation for mass round-ups in their effort to crush a onetime stronghold of the insurgency. Meanwhile, militants have used the farm region to launch attacks; seven soldiers were killed in the area in the last two weeks. "We aren't a land of criminals," Saidi said, emphasizing that Iraqis should not be killing each other. "All Iraqis are one." Saidi brandished a folder of names and shook it in the air. He said it had more than 150 arrest warrants for violence-related acts, but he would forget them, if the sheiks all joined in helping stop the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Iraq. The sheiks listened politely. It was their first meeting with an army commander in months. They knew Saidi, who took over the division in the first week of March, wanted them to sign a pledge to work with the security forces. When the time came for them to speak, Sheik Dahir Khamis Dari Zobaie nearly shouted from his seat. "I listened to your speech. In 2006 and 2007, we fought Al Qaeda," Zobaie said grabbing the air with his fist. "We fought the enemy.… We did protect our communities. This is the truth." Zobaie then announced his wish for reconciliation with the army. "I will stand with the government," he said. "I am not a terrorist." The sheiks and commanders talked a bit longer. Satisfied, the 17 most senior sheiks lined up before the seated general, with American officers looking on, and signed a document pledging their help in opposing criminals. "We will keep a vigilant eye to assist the security forces against any criminals or those who support them by providing shelter in their farming land," it read. It was mid-day. After the nearly two-hour meeting the army did not invite the sheiks to stay for lunch, a customary ritual for such gatherings. "I am not optimistic," one of the tribal leaders said, but he hoped for lasting peace.

Iraq reveals details of deadly al-Qaeda raid

By Jane Arraf and Mohammed Al Dulaimy McClatchy Newspapers BAGHDAD - Iraq released new details Wednesday of a raid that led to the killings of the two top al-Qaeda in Iraq figures over the weekend, while officials said inroads in dismantling the network over the last several months could prove more damaging to the group than the leaders' deaths. Maj. Gen. Qassim Atta said Iraqi special forces backed by U.S. troops launched the raid on a farmhouse near Tikrit at dawn Sunday after receiving information that it was being used as an al-Qaeda in Iraq safe house. On state-run television, Atta displayed photos that showed a partially destroyed farmhouse surrounded by high walls and empty fields that was the target of the operation that killed Abu Ayub al-Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. Atta said security forces evacuated the farmhouse of women and children before throwing in a stun grenade. A U.S. air strike launched after gunmen in the house started firing appears to have detonated a suicide vest worn by al-Masri and possibly another of the other three men in the underground bunker. It was unclear whether Masri and Baghdadi were killed in the air strike or by the suicide vests. "There was a rocket, there were bullets flying everywhere. I'd be lying if I told you that we knew," Iraqi military spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said. Askari said another significant al-Qaeda figure believed to be an aide to Baghdadi was wounded in the attack and arrested. Sixteen people were in the farm complex along with Masri, Baghdadi, and two other al-Qaeda members, he said. When Iraqi commandos entered the house, they discovered a trap door leading to an underground bunker. They exchanged fire from the bunker before retreating and ordering Baghdadi's wife to go back in to ask her husband to surrender. When he refused, they called in the air strike, Askari said. A U.S. soldier was killed and three soldiers wounded. The deaths of Masri and Baghdadi are among the biggest public blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq since the beginning of the insurgency. "Masri was physically developing the campaign plans for the timing, the type of targets that they were going to hit. Baghdadi was more the Iraqi face, the political party head of the Islamic State of Iraq - al-Qaeda in Iraq," U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Rob Baker said. "From what we could tell, they very often collaborated on the strategies they were going to follow." The announcement was also a publicity coup for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is fighting to retain leadership of the country after preliminary results in national elections gave his party two fewer seats than his main challenger. Askari said Maliki had overseen the intelligence cell that led in the operation. While the deaths have major symbolic and operational significance for al-Qaeda in Iraq, officials said a series of raids in the last three months could prove more important in dismantling the network. At least 57 suspected al-Qaeda figures have been arrested in the last two weeks in Baghdad and Anbar province, said Baker. From January to March, 280 suspected al-Qaeda members were captured and eight killed, he said. "I think immediately there will be a lull in operations," Baker said. "The question is how many more strings can they keep pulling out of the network. You'll see a concentrated effort by Maliki's security forces to not rest on their laurels and to go after the targets while they're out there."

Allies kill third Al-Qaeda leader in Iraq Raid

By QASSSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA Irish Times IRAQI and United States troops killed a regional leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq in an early morning raid yesterday, as security forces continue to put pressure on the terrorist organisation following the reported deaths of its two top-ranking figures over the weekend, officials said. Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and Abu Ayyub al-Masri were killed in a joint operation on Sunday in what US vice-president Joe Biden called a "potentially devastating blow" to al-Qaeda in Iraq. The intelligence that led to the elusive leaders' desert safehoADVERTISEMENTuse six miles south-west of Tikrit came from the same source – a senior al-Qaeda operative captured last month – that produced the information leading to yesterday's raid, according to a senior Iraqi military intelligence officer who supervised both operations. The killing of the al-Qaeda figures comes at a critical moment for Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has staked his reputation on being the man who can restore stability to Iraq after years of bloodshed. Me Maliki's coalition came second in March's national election, but neither he nor his main rival has been able to muster enough support to form a new government. The intelligence officer said Mr Maliki personally oversaw the operations, and received daily briefings from him. In yesterday's raid, American and Iraqi joint forces launched a morning attack in the northern province of Ninevah, killing suspected insurgent leader Ahmed al-Obeidi, Iraqi military spokesman Major-General Qassim al-Moussawi said. Maj-Gen Al-Moussawi said the insurgent who was killed – known as Abu Suhaib – was in charge of al-Qaeda in Iraq's operations in the provinces of Kirkuk, Salahuddin and Ninevah. Iraqi and US troops routinely share intelligence information, and it was an American tip – which then generated more information from Iraqi informants – that led authorities to the isolated desert area outside Tikrit where Masri and Baghdadi were hiding, according to a US official.

Obama changes US policy towards Israel

Obama Speech Signals a U.S. Shift on Middle East By MARK LANDLER and HELENE COOPER New York Times WASHINGTON — It was just a phrase at the end of President Obama’s news conference on Tuesday, but it was a stark reminder of a far-reaching shift in how the United States views the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how aggressively it might push for a peace agreement. When Mr. Obama declared that resolving the long-running Middle East dispute was a “vital national security interest of the United States,” he was highlighting a change that has resulted from a lengthy debate among his top officials over how best to balance support for Israel against other American interests. This shift, described by administration officials who did not want to be quoted by name when discussing internal discussions, is driving the White House’s urgency to help broker a Middle East peace deal. It increases the likelihood that Mr. Obama, frustrated by the inability of the Israelis and the Palestinians to come to terms, will offer his own proposed parameters for an eventual Palestinian state. Mr. Obama said conflicts like the one in the Middle East ended up “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure” — drawing an explicit link between the Israeli-Palestinian strife and the safety of American soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism and terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Mr. Obama’s words reverberated through diplomatic circles in large part because they echoed those of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the military commander overseeing America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent Congressional testimony, the general said that the lack of progress in the Middle East created a hostile environment for the United States. He has denied reports that he was suggesting that soldiers were being put in harm’s way by American support for Israel. But the impasse in negotiations “does create an environment,” he said Tuesday in a speech in Washington. “It does contribute, if you will, to the overall environment within which we operate.” The glimmers of daylight between United States and Israeli interests began during President George W. Bush’s administration, when the United States became mired in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Three years ago, Condoleezza Rice, then secretary of state, declared during a speech in Jerusalem that a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians was a “strategic interest” of the United States. In comments that drew little notice at the time, she said, “The prolonged experience of deprivation and humiliation can radicalize even normal people.” But President Bush shied away from challenging Israeli governments. The Obama administration’s new thinking, and the tougher policies toward Israel that could flow from it, has alarmed American Jewish leaders accustomed to the Bush administration’s steadfast support. They are not used to seeing issues like Jewish housing in the West Bank or East Jerusalem linked, even by implication, to the security of American soldiers. Some fret that it raises questions about the centrality of the American alliance with Israel, which the administration flatly denies. “In the past, the problem of who drinks out of whose well in Nablus has not been a strategic interest of the United States,” said Martin S. Indyk, a former United States ambassador to Israel and the vice president and the director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. He said there was an interest now because of the tens of thousands of troops fighting Islamist insurgencies abroad at the same time that the United States was trying to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “Will resolving the Palestinian issue solve everything?” Mr. Indyk said. “No. But will it help us get there? Yes.” The administration’s immediate priority, officials said, is jump-starting indirect talks between Israelis and Palestinians. There is still a vigorous debate inside the administration about what to do if such talks were to go nowhere, which experts said is the likeliest result, given the history of such negotiations. Some officials, like Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser, advocate putting forward an American peace plan, while others, like the longtime Middle East peace negotiator Dennis B. Ross, who now works in the National Security Council, favor a more incremental approach. Last week, National Security Council officials met with outside Middle East experts to discuss the Arab Israeli conflict. Two weeks before, General Jones and Mr. Obama met with several national security advisers from previous administrations and discussed putting forward an American proposal, even though it would put pressure on both Israel and the Palestinians. Several officials point out that Mr. Obama has now seized control of Middle East policy himself, particularly since the controversy several weeks ago when Israeli authorities announced new Jewish housing units in Jerusalem during a visit to Israel by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Mr. Obama, incensed by that snub, has given Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a list of demands, and relations between the United States and Israel have fallen into a chilly standoff. “The president is re-evaluating the tactics his administration is employing toward Israel and the entire Middle East,” said Robert Wexler, a former Democratic congressman who resigned in January to lead the Center for Middle East Peace, a Washington-based nonprofit institution that is working for a peace agreement. “I don’t think that anybody believes American lives are endangered or materially affected by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” said Mr. Wexler, who has close ties to administration officials. “That’s an oversimplification. However, you’d have to have blinders on not to recognize that there are issues in one arena that affect other arenas.” For their part, administration officials insist that their support for Israel is unwavering. They point to intensive cooperation between the American and Israeli militaries, which they say has allowed Israel to retain a military edge over its neighbors. The sense of urgency in Washington comes just as many Israelis have become disillusioned with the whole idea of resolving the conflict. Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition government has long been skeptical about the benefits of a peace deal with the Palestinians. But skepticism has taken root in the Israeli public as well, particularly after Israel saw little benefit from its traumatic withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Among American Jewish groups, there is less skepticism than alarm about the administration’s new direction. On Tuesday, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, publicized letters to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, signed by 76 senators and 333 House members, that implored the administration to defuse tensions. In an open letter to Mr. Obama from the World Jewish Congress, the organization’s president, Ronald S. Lauder, asked, “Why does the thrust of this administration’s Middle East rhetoric seem to blame Israel for the lack of movement on peace talks?” Mr. Lauder, who said the letter was scheduled to be published Thursday as an advertisement in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, said he discussed the letter with Mr. Netanyahu and received his support before taking out the ad.

Syria Gave Scuds to Hezbollah, U.S. Says

By CHARLES LEVINSON and JAY SOLOMON JERUSALEM—Syria has transferred long-range Scud missiles to the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah, Israeli and U.S. officials alleged, in a move that threatens to alter the Middle East's military balance and sets back a major diplomatic outreach effort to Damascus by the Obama administration. Israeli President Shimon Peres on Tuesday publicly charged President Bashar Assad's government with transferring Scud missiles to Hezbollah's forces inside Lebanon. Syria and Hezbollah both denied the charges. But the allegations already are affecting U.S. foreign policy: Republicans pressed on Capitol Hill to block the appointment of a new American ambassador to Damascus, according to congressional officials. The White House said it was pressing ahead. The Scuds are believed to have a range of more than 435 miles—placing Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Israel's nuclear installations all within range of Hezbollah's military forces. During a monthlong war with Israel in 2006, Hezbollah used rockets with ranges of 20 to 60 miles. Israeli President Shimon Peres, shown in Paris Tuesday, claimed Syria gave Scud missiles to Hezbollah Israeli officials called Scud missiles "game-changing" armaments that mark a new escalation in the Mideast conflict. They alleged that Mr. Assad is increasingly linking Syria's military command with those of Hezbollah and Iran. Officials briefed on the intelligence said Israeli and American officials believe Syria transferred Scud missiles built with either North Korean or Russian technology. Rumors of the arms transfer had been swirling around Jerusalem and Washington for more than a week, but both Israeli and U.S. officials initially declined to confirm the reports. "Syria claims it wants peace while at the same time it delivers Scuds to Hezbollah, whose only goal is to threaten the state of Israel," Mr. Peres said in an interview with Israeli radio. President Barack Obama has made engaging Mr. Assad's government a cornerstone of his Mideast policy, hoping to woo Damascus into a regional peace process and lure it from a strategic alliance with Iran. The Bush administration had increased sanctions on Damascus and pushed a United Nations-backed investigation into the murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri; Mr. Obama's aides said these measures just drove Syria closer to Iran. In addition to nominating an ambassador, Mr. Obama moved to ease, though not lift, sanctions targeting Syria's ability to import airplane parts and software. The U.S. has sought to increase military-to-military contacts with Damascus to better secure Syria's border with Iraq. A senior U.S. official involved in Mideast policy said Washington was uncertain why Mr. Assad would escalate tensions with Israel. But in recent months, Israeli and Syrian officials have publicly charged each other with preparing for war. The U.S. official said Syria's arms transfer could have been meant as a form of deterrence. The Israelis in recent weeks postponed war games in an effort to calm tensions with Damascus, however. And Israeli officials have publicly told Mr. Assad that the Jewish state doesn't seek a conflict. Many Israeli officials said they felt tensions were lessening ahead of the announcement of the alleged Scuds shipment. Syrian officials also have voiced frustration with the pace of the U.S. rapprochement. Some have said they believed sanctions could be removed quicker. They also said Washington appeared unable to extract from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a meaningful commitment to negotiations aimed at reverting the Golan Heights region to Syrian sovereignty. Fears of a new military conflict in the region have escalated in recent weeks among U.S., Israeli and Arab officials. In late February, Mr. Assad hosted a summit in Damascus with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah's secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah. The three pledged to continue their "resistance" against the U.S.-Israeli alliance. A spokesman for Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, who went as an emissary to Damascus on April 1, said that he couldn't comment on classified matters but that the Massachusetts senator had raised long-running concerns about Syria helping to arm Hezbollah directly with President Assad. "These weapons transfers must stop in order to promote regional stability and security," said the spokesman, Frederick Jones. Detractors of the White House's policy of engagement with Damascus seized on the news Tuesday as evidence Mr. Assad has no intention of breaking Syria's strategic ties to Tehran and Hezbollah. View Full Image Agence France-Presse/Getty Images Scuds give the group the ability to strike from further away than rockets like these used in 2006 attacks. "It's increasingly hard to argue that the engagement track has worked," said Andrew Tabler, a Syria analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a regional think tank with no party affiliation that some view as pro-Israel. White House supporters replied that the U.S. needs close engagement with Syria all the more because of provocations like the Scud surprise, in order to be better placed to sway Syria. "If anything, we need (an ambassador) in Damascus full time just to ensure that reality gets its day in court now and then," a senior administration official said. Israeli officials have been concerned that Syria could transfer antiaircraft missile systems and armor-piercing munitions to its Lebanese ally. AFP/Getty Images Syrian President Bashar Assad's government has transferred long-range Scud missiles to the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah. Hezbollah officials Tuesday in Lebanon dismissed the allegations as an Israeli attempt to divert attention from continued Jewish construction of homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Syrian embassy's spokesman in Washington charged Israel with trying to cover up its own regional military buildup. "It is ridiculous that Israel dictates the agenda of arms control in the region while stifling any discussion of its nuclear arsenal, along with the influx of top-caliber U.S. weaponry," said Ahmed Salkini. In February, President Obama nominated a career diplomat, Robert Ford, to be the first U.S. ambassador to Damascus since 2005. The Bush administration pulled its chief envoy after the assassination of Lebanon's Mr. Hariri, which was widely blamed on Syrian agents. Damascus has denied the allegations. Mr. Ford's appointment was part of a phased U.S. re-engagement with Syria to be tied to Damascus's cooperation in Iraq, the Palestinian territories and Lebanon, say U.S. officials. The State Department also recently dispatched its No. 3 diplomat, William Burns, to Damascus to talk with Mr. Assad. Congressional officials said Republicans were now seeking to place a hold on Mr. Ford's confirmation, which was passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a voice vote Tuesday with three Republicans dissenting. They expect the fight to continue on the Senate floor. U.S. officials stressed Tuesday that the White House wasn't second-guessing its strategy and was pushing ahead with Mr. Ford's nomination. "Sending an ambassador to Syria who can press the Syrian government in a firm and coordinated fashion...is part of our strategy to achieve comprehensive peace in the region," a White House statement said.

Iraqi-Gulf relations in conference in Basra

April 13, 2010 - 07:44:56 BASRA / Aswat al-Iraq: The First Scientific Conference on Iraqi-Gulf Relations has begun in Basra province, southern Iraq. “The 2-day conference is organized by Basra University,” a media source from the university told Aswat al-Iraq news agency. He noted that researchers from Britain and Persian Gulf states are participating in the conference during which 46 papers will be presented. “The conference aims at activating mutual mechanisms that contribute to better Iraqi-Gulf relations,” the source explained. The oil-rich city of Basra lies 590 km south of Baghdad.

Israel, Turkey Team to Offer Colombia Tanks

Joint Marketing Effort Belies Deep Diplomatic Rifts By barbara opall-rome Published: 12 April 2010 TEL AVIV - Despite diplomatic differences that threaten the strategic ties between Israel and Turkey, defense and industry leaders from both nations are pushing third-country exports of the jointly refurbished M60A1 main battle tank, beginning with Colombia. In interviews here and in Turkey, officials said a new joint venture between Turkey's procurement agency, the Undersecretariat for Defense Industries, or Savunma Sanayi Mustesarligi (SSM), and state-owned Israel Military Industries (IMI) is competing for the South American country's estimated $250 million tank buy. IMI is the prime contractor for the jointly upgraded M60. Related Topics Europe Americas Land Warfare The defense ministries of the two countries approved the joint venture and requisite licensing issues at the height of tensions between the Islamist government of Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's rightist coalition government over Israel's early 2009 war in Gaza and disputes over Gaza, Iran and Syria. The joint venture between IMI and Turkey's Aselsan aims for a 50-50 work share based on Israeli electronics, subsystems and weaponry, with the bulk of production and assembly work to take place in Turkey and later under licensed production in customer countries. Both countries last week marked the final delivery of the 170th tank produced under the joint, $687.5 million upgrade program, launched in 2002. Turkish Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul presided over the April 7 event, which was attended by hundreds of Turkish civilian, uniformed and industry leaders, as well as Colombian Army leaders. Retired Maj. Gen. Udi Shani, director-general of the Israeli Ministry of Defense and a former tank officer, led the Israeli delegation, which included senior Israeli industry executives and the director of Israel's Merkava Tank Production Office. In an April 7 statement, Israel's MoD said it lent its full support to the eight-year effort, which involved considerable technology transfers and military-to-military sharing of operational, training and logistics concepts. "As an armored corps officer most of my military career, I believe this is the best tank of its kind, and will serve with distinction the Turkish Army as it confronts the challenges ahead," Shani said. He told Gonul and other event attendees the program was based on "knowledge and expertise accrued over decades in support of Israeli requirements. ... We will be able to expand on this in future projects, which will contribute to the security of both our countries." "We're proud of the cooperation nurtured at all levels during the course of this major upgrade effort, and its successful completion will allow for additional opportunities with regard to third-country sales," IMI Managing Director Avi Felder said April 8. Felder confirmed that IMI and its Turkish partners are bidding for the Colombia program, offering what he described as "an advanced, extremely cost-effective front-line main battle tank … in terms of firepower, survivability, maneuverability as well as unit and life-cycle costs." When pressed, Felder estimated that the Israeli-Turkish offer would cost about half that of a new tank such as the U.S. MIA2 Abrams, Germany's Leopard and even Israel's own Merkava Mk4. Kenneth Brower, a defense analyst based in Delray Beach, Fla., questioned Colombia's need for a major tank acquisition program. But if Bogotá is committed to such a purchase, he said, the Turkish-Israeli-upgrade M60 would be an ideal choice: "This is certainly the best of the upgraded tanks in the world." He estimated the price tag for a new Merkava Mk4 at $4 million, while a new Abrams or Leopard would be closer to $9 million. "I estimate the cost of a reconditioned Turk-Israeli M60 at $2.5 million to $3 million, depending on Colombian specifications." With IMI as prime contractor and Elbit Systems a leading Israeli subcontractor, Israel, SSM and industry partners replaced or upgraded all major elements of the original U.S.-built M60. Upgrades include a 120mm cannon and fire-control system, advanced suspension, new hybrid armor and a 1,000-horsepower propulsion system developed by Germany's MTU. An Israeli MoD official noted that the upgraded Israeli-Turkish tank is one of at least four other options now being evaluated by Bogotá, all of which are based on Israeli technology. Other options include upgraded versions of Merkava Mk2 and Mk3 tanks and - less likely due to unit costs - brand-new Mk4s now in production for the Israeli Army. A decision on the Colombia acquisition program is not likely until later this year or early next year, and is likely to include work-sharing and offset agreements, sources here said. Amos Yaron, a former Israeli MoD director-general who approved the bilateral upgrade program, said it showed that mutual interests can sustain and strengthen defense ties, even at a time of political and diplomatic tension. "Our relationship with Turkey is based on common interests, and even though politics can drive us apart, projects like this give us hope that in time, we can return to business as usual," Yaron said. "This cooperative program doesn't have to end with 170 tanks. The Turkish Army has many more M60s, which would make for a very economical investment, and then of course, there's the export market." Yaron and others noted that all third-country exports involving U.S. content would require U.S. export licensing approval. Until now, Israel has never offered a complete Merkava system for export "for our own reasons," he said. ■

Time to Confront the Tehran-Caracas Axis

U.S. sanctions can't work as long as trade between Iran and Venezuela remains robust. By ROGER NORIEGA Wall Street Journal As Washington policy makers scramble to craft effective sanctions against Iran, they seem to have completely ignored Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's blossoming relationship with Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. This strategic alliance provides the Iranian regime with a clandestine source of uranium, helps it evade restrictions on trade and financing, and gives Middle Eastern terrorists access to weapons from Mr. Chávez's growing arsenal. So even if the West is able to implement a sanctions plan with bite, Tehran's partnership with Caracas might cancel it out. Mr. Chávez is a self-declared enemy of the United States who has aided terrorist groups and radical regimes for more than a decade. Though his support of Iran should come as no surprise, it is not clear that the U.S. is prepared to respond to the Caracas-Tehran axis. In September 2005, Mr. Chávez signaled his sympathies when Venezuela was the only member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board to vote against sanctioning Iran for its illegal uranium enrichment program. Four years later, during Mr. Chávez's eighth visit to Iran, he called that country a "strategic ally." On Sept. 11, 2009, in an interview in the French newspaper Le Figaro, he thanked Iran for helping Venezuela develop its own nuclear program. Indeed, the two governments formalized their collaboration "in the field of nuclear technology" in an accord signed in Caracas in November 2008. And, in the midst of a crushing fiscal crisis, last December Mr. Chávez ordered his treasury to channel another $50 million toward a secret nuclear program, according to a document provided to me by a source in Venezuela. Although Mr. Chávez has denounced reports of uranium mining as "lies" and part of an "imperialist plan," the Canadian uranium exploration company U308 Corp has recorded a substantial source of uranium in the Roraima Basin, which straddles the border between Guyana and the Venezuelan province of Bolívar. Iranian or other Middle Eastern individuals operate a tractor factory, cement plant and gold mine in this region. Two of these facilities have private ports on the Orinoco River, affording unimpeded access to the Atlantic. One of these operations—the VenIran tractor factory—was the intended recipient of 22 containers intercepted by Turkish customs authorities at the port of Mersin in December 2008. They were carrying an "explosives lab" and nitrate and sulfite chemicals that are used to manufacture explosives. These industrial operations are only the tip of the iceberg. Joint ventures and other projects totaling at least $30 billion between Iranian and Venezuelan front companies can be used to conceal multimillion dollar transactions. In addition, Iran has created several major financial institutions in Venezuela that work through local banks to gain access to the global banking system. Because Venezuela can barely meet its domestic demand for refined petroleum products, some have doubted that Mr. Chávez can make good on his September 2009 pledge to supply Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime with 20,000 barrels of gasoline a day to soften the blow of expected sanctions. If the U.S. intelligence community is paying attention, however, it will know what Mr. Chávez told his Iranian counterpart in Caracas last November: Venezuela is already purchasing fuel on the international market for planned shipment to Iran, according to a secret account of the meeting provided to me by Venezuelan sources. The Iranian relationship has also helped boost Venezuelan support of Middle Eastern radicals. Last November, Israeli navy commandos seized the German cargo vessel Francop, which was carrying 36 shipping containers holding 500 tons of Katyusha rockets, mortars, grenades and a half-million rounds of small-arms ammunition en route to Syria, but ultimately bound for Hezbollah in Lebanon. The lethal shipment had left the Venezuelan port of Guanta around the time that Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro was visiting Damascus to deliver a message from Mr. Chávez to Bashar al-Assad. Because the U.S. is determined to ignore what it dismisses as petty provocations, Washington has refused to take any effective action against Mr. Chávez's support for Colombian terrorists and his complicity in drug trafficking. Perhaps his ties with Iran will be a game-changer. Any serious sanctions program must plug the gaps opened up by the substantial business and banking relationships between Iran and Venezuela. Tehran's support for Mr. Chávez's nuclear ambitions must be brought under the strict scrutiny of the IAEA. Venezuelan officials, the state oil company, and other financial institutions should be investigated and sanctioned for abetting illegal financial transactions. Mr. Chávez's support for terrorist groups in the Americas and beyond should be challenged as a threat to peace and an act of aggression under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter.

Al Qaeda in Yemen

Eliminating al-Awlaki: Great, but Only Part of the Solution [Chris Harnisch] Hitherto, the discussion on this forum surrounding the Obama administration’s decision to place Anwar al-Awlaki on the U.S. kill-or-capture list has focused on the decision’s legal and moral implications. From a national security standpoint, the elimination of al-Awlaki — an unequivocal enemy of the United States — would make America safer, as Andy McCarthy and Daniel Foster have argued. The radical cleric has been connected to nearly a dozen terror cases in the U.S., Britain, and Canada over the past decade, including 9/11. He provided encouragement and justification for Nidal Hasan to murder thirteen individuals at Ft. Hood, and he allegedly had a hand in the Christmas Day attack of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s (AQAP). Perhaps most alarmingly, al-Awlaki has contributed to the radicalization of youth around the world through his English-language messages advocating violent jihad against the United States (the most recent of which came in late March) and his skillful online outreach, as my colleague Katherine Zimmerman argues here. However, any illusion that the eradication of al-Awlaki will eliminate, or even significantly reduce, the terror threat emanating from Yemen is fantasy. Al-Awlaki appears to serve as a key interlocutor for American and European jihadists traveling to Yemen to join AQAP, and he may have a voice in the group’s leadership council. He is, however, certainly not a top leader or deputy within the group. The United States and Yemeni forces must target with even more vigor than they do al-Awlaki the group’s most senior leaders — all of whom are Yemeni or Saudi and have led the resurgence of AQAP — in order to mitigate the immediate threat the group poses to U.S. interests. Above all, though, simply killing or capturing Anwar al-Awlaki or other senior AQAP operatives will not eliminate the long-term terror threat originating in Yemen. Yemen is literally on the brink of becoming a failed state. The country is running out of oil and water, Salafists have penetrated the security apparatus, the population is growing at 3 percent per year, at least 35 percent of its people are unemployed, about half of them live on less than two dollars per day, corruption is rampant in every sector of the society, and anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism pervade the education system. All of these factors have fueled al-Qaeda’s growth in the country. A CIA drone strike killed the leader of al-Qaeda in Yemen in 2002, and Yemeni forces arrested his successor in 2003. But the conditions that allowed al-Qaeda to establish a stronghold in Yemen remained, allowing AQAP to become one of the most powerful al-Qaeda franchises in the world. Until the Obama administration develops and implements a comprehensive Yemen strategy, which must include both counterterrorism and soft-power prongs, the killing or capturing of Anwar al-Awlaki or any other AQAP operative will not suffice in eliminating the terror threat emanating from within its borders.

Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

New York Times By DAVID E. SANGER and PETER BAKER WASHINGTON — President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons. But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation. Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary. Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China. It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack. Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office. White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike. Mr. Obama’s new strategy is bound to be controversial, both among conservatives who have warned against diluting the United States’ most potent deterrent and among liberals who were hoping for a blanket statement that the country would never be the first to use nuclear weapons. Mr. Obama argued for a slower course, saying, “We are going to want to make sure that we can continue to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,” and, he added, to “make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances.” The release of the new strategy, known as the Nuclear Posture Review, opens an intensive nine days of nuclear diplomacy geared toward reducing weapons. Mr. Obama plans to fly to Prague to sign a new arms-control agreement with Russia on Thursday and then next week will host 47 world leaders in Washington for a summit meeting on nuclear security. The most immediate test of the new strategy is likely to be in dealing with Iran, which has defied the international community by developing a nuclear program that it insists is peaceful but that the United States and its allies say is a precursor to weapons. Asked about the escalating confrontation with Iran, Mr. Obama said he was now convinced that “the current course they’re on would provide them with nuclear weapons capabilities,” though he gave no timeline. He dodged when asked whether he shared Israel’s view that a “nuclear capable” Iran was as dangerous as one that actually possessed weapons. “I’m not going to parse that right now,” he said, sitting in his office as children played on the South Lawn of the White House at a daylong Easter egg roll. But he cited the example of North Korea, whose nuclear capabilities were unclear until it conducted a test in 2006, which it followed with a second shortly after Mr. Obama took office. “I think it’s safe to say that there was a time when North Korea was said to be simply a nuclear-capable state until it kicked out the I.A.E.A. and become a self-professed nuclear state,” he said, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency. “And so rather than splitting hairs on this, I think that the international community has a strong sense of what it means to pursue civilian nuclear energy for peaceful purposes versus a weaponizing capability.” Mr. Obama said he wanted a new United Nations sanctions resolution against Iran “that has bite,” but he would not embrace the phrase “crippling sanctions” once used by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. And he acknowledged the limitations of United Nations action. “We’re not naïve that any single set of sanctions automatically is going to change Iranian behavior,” he said, adding “there’s no light switch in this process.” In the year since Mr. Obama gave a speech in Prague declaring that he would shift the policy of the United States toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, his staff has been meeting — and arguing — over how to turn that commitment into a workable policy, without undermining the credibility of the country’s nuclear deterrent. The strategy to be released on Tuesday is months late, partly because Mr. Obama had to adjudicate among advisers who feared he was not changing American policy significantly enough, and those who feared that anything too precipitous could embolden potential adversaries. One senior official said that the new strategy was the product of 150 meetings, including 30 convened by the White House National Security Council, and that even then Mr. Obama had to step in to order rewrites. He ended up with a document that differed considerably from the one President George W. Bush published in early 2002, just three months after the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Bush, too, argued for a post-cold-war rethinking of nuclear deterrence, reducing American reliance on those weapons. But Mr. Bush’s document also reserved the right to use nuclear weapons “to deter a wide range of threats,” including banned chemical and biological weapons and large-scale conventional attacks. Mr. Obama’s strategy abandons that option — except if the attack is by a nuclear state, or a nonsignatory or violator of the nonproliferation treaty. The document to be released Tuesday after months of study led by the Defense Department will declare that “the fundamental role” of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attacks on the United States, allies or partners, a narrower presumption than the past. But Mr. Obama rejected the formulation sought by arms control advocates to declare that the “sole role” of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack. There are five declared nuclear states — the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. Three states with nuclear weapons have refused to sign — India, Pakistan and Israel — and North Korea renounced the treaty in 2003. Iran remains a signatory, but the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly found it in violation of its obligations, because it has hidden nuclear plants and refused to answer questions about evidence it was working on a warhead. In shifting the nuclear deterrent toward combating proliferation and the sale or transfer of nuclear material to terrorists or nonnuclear states, Mr. Obama seized on language developed in the last years of the Bush administration. It had warned North Korea that it would be held “fully accountable” for any transfer of weapons or technology. But the next year, North Korea was caught aiding Syria in building a nuclear reactor but suffered no specific consequence. Mr. Obama was asked whether the American failure to make North Korea pay a heavy price for the aid to Syria undercut Washington’s credibility. “I don’t think countries around the world are interested in testing our credibility when it comes to these issues,” he said. He said such activity would leave a country vulnerable to a nuclear strike, and added, “We take that very seriously because we think that set of threats present the most serious security challenge to the United States.” He indicated that he hoped to use this week’s treaty signing with Russia as a stepping stone toward more ambitious reductions in nuclear arsenals down the road, but suggested that would have to extend beyond the old paradigm of Russian-American relations. “We are going to pursue opportunities for further reductions in our nuclear posture, working in tandem with Russia but also working in tandem with NATO as a whole,” he said. An obvious such issue would be the estimated 200 tactical nuclear weapons the United States still has stationed in Western Europe. Russia has called for their removal, and there is growing interest among European nations in such a move as well. But Mr. Obama said he wanted to consult with NATO allies before making such a commitment. The summit meeting that opens next week in Washington will bring together nearly four dozen world leaders, the largest such gathering by an American president since the founding of the United Nations 65 years ago. Mr. Obama said he hoped to use the session to lay down tangible commitments by individual countries toward his goal of securing the world’s nuclear material so it does not fall into the hands of terrorists or dangerous states. “Our expectation is not that there’s just some vague, gauzy statement about us not wanting to see loose nuclear materials,” he said. “We anticipate a communiqué that spells out very clearly, here’s how we’re going to achieve locking down all the nuclear materials over the next four years.”

The Iraqi Voter Rewrites the Rulebook

By ROD NORDLAND New York Times BAGHDAD — Quite a few of the candidates in Iraq’s national election did so poorly they didn’t even get the votes of their wives (assuming the sole vote these candidates got was their own). Maybe the wives were on to something. They had a lot of company among Iraqi voters, who showed a ruthlessly discriminating eye when they voted on March 7 for their political leaders. Once the names and vote totals of all the individual candidates were finally announced last week, there were a lot of surprises. And perhaps the biggest was the unexpected sophistication of the Iraqi voter, even though the election results left this often-violent land without a clear governing consensus and some groups crying for a recount. It may, in fact, be months before a governing coalition can be formed in a 325-seat Parliament where no group won more than 91 seats. Still, the election accomplished something quintessentially democratic: The voters had their say, and what they said was not just “a pox on all their houses,” but also something far more trenchant — that many assumptions about what appeals to voters, however true elsewhere, need to be revised for voters here. First, incumbency didn’t matter. Only 62 of the 275 members of the last Parliament kept their seats. Also dashed were the political hopes of many government officials — commissioners, deputy ministers and more. Second, sectarianism is still a force in Iraq, but no longer the only significant force, as it was five years ago in the first election after Saddam Hussein fell. While some religious parties did well, it wasn’t well enough to dictate who will form a government. Other religious parties ended up with hardly a seat to call their own. Nor was tribalism a guarantee of victory. One tribal leader, Hamid Shafi al-Issawi, had counted on the 50,000 votes of his huge Issawi tribe in Anbar Province; he couldn’t even muster the few thousand votes needed to take a seat. Even the clout of party leaders proved dubious. Those leaders, who formed voting alliances called lists, chose the order in which their members appeared on the ballot. That ensured that the leaders themselves were big winners in position No. 1. But further down the list, the order counted for less. For example, Mohammed Ridah Fawzi, a follower of the militant leader Moktada al-Sadr, finished sixth and won a seat, even though he was 86th on the Shiite-dominated Iraqi National Alliance list. And (Boston, take note), the patronage vote was nearly nonexistent. Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani, whose 500,000-strong ministry includes the local and national police, got only 3,000 votes and lost his seat, even though he headed his own list. And the defense minister, Abdul Qader Mohammed Jassim, in charge of the country’s 150,000-man army, won only 887 votes — not even a battalion’s worth — even though he was 16th on the prime minister’s State of Law list, which took 89 seats in all — two fewer than the victorious Iraqiya list of candidates, led by the secular Shiite Ayad Allawi (who won big among Sunnis as well as secular voters). “Is this possible?” Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki asked rhetorically in response to the defense minister’s drubbing. Many Iraqis watching his speech guffawed their assent. Even heavy publicity for a prominent, well-known candidate didn’t help. In fact, it sometimes seemed to hurt. The head of the Accountability and Justice Commission, Ali Faisal al-Lami, who was in the news daily as he disqualified allegedly Baathist candidates by the hundreds, won only 703 votes, disqualifying him now from his own seat in Parliament. The voters’ discrimination was particularly profound in the largely Sunni Anbar Province, where Mr. Allawi’s Iraqiya list won 11 seats compared to only 2 for the Islamist Tawafaq party, which had been the only Sunni party running there in 2005. Mr. Issawi, the tribal leader who couldn’t win a seat, ran on the Tawafaq list; he was bested by a much less weighty cousin, Rafiie al-Issawi, a Falluja hospital director famous for negotiating peace with the American Marines, who ran on Iraqiya’s ticket. Even leaders of the Awakening, or Sons of Iraq — the Sunni tribal force that turned against the insurgency — didn’t do well in Anbar; they were rejected by voters as too uneducated. “We cannot forget what the Awakening did for us,” said Haitham Hameed, a car parts shop owner in Falluja, “but we cannot vote for them to sit in our Parliament.” Like most Arabs, Iraqis take their politics seriously, and discuss it endlessly, with the same sort of passion for detail, over cups of strong tea, that Americans are more likely to exhibit when discussing sports over beers. But unlike most Arabs, who are ruled by monarchs and autocrats, Iraqis now have moved from the tea shops to the voting booths, and seem determined to make the most of it. “I am really proud of the Iraqi people and how carefully they voted this time,” said Saeed al-Jumaily, The New York Times’ local correspondent in Falluja, who was in an ebullient mood when he dropped by the Baghdad bureau for a post-election visit. A funny thing was happening now, he said; people in that hardcore Sunni heartland had started praising Amar al-Hakim, leader of the Islamic Supreme Council in Iraq, a Shiite party, for the moderation of his recent statements. They were probably responding to Mr. Hakim’s riposte after Mr. Maliki refused to accept the election results: “Some people believe in democracy only when it favors them.” It was, as Mr. Jumaily noted, a good omen. He has worked in Anbar for this newspaper for seven years, and this is the first time he’s felt confident enough in the future to see his name published in it.

U.S. Military Embarks on Costly, Complicated Removal of Iraq Equipment

The U.S. Army plans to spend tens of billions of dollars over the next year and a half to refurbish and move equipment out of Iraq as the military focus shifts to a build-up in Afghanistan. WASHINGTON D.C. -- Like after a play, U.S. forces in the theater of war need to strike the set. And it's expensive work. The U.S. Army plans to spend tens of billions of dollars over the next year and a half to refurbish and move equipment out of Iraq as the military focus shifts to a build-up in Afghanistan. Third Army Commander Lt. Gen. William Webster told Pentagon reporters Friday there are 2.8 million pieces of equipment in 88,000 containers that need to be moved out of Iraq, calling it the largest operation "since the build-up for World War II." The equipment drawdown coincides with the troop drawdown President Obama outlined in 2009. The president wants 50,000 troops left in Iraq by the end of the summer while surging 30,000 forces into Afghanistan in that same period. The rest of the U.S. presence in Iraq is supposed to be gone by the end of 2011. Webster said the military will salvage whatever it can during that time, taking items to Kuwait to be rebuilt and shipped directly to the battlefield in Afghanistan. Items that are not fit for battle will make their way back to the United States for training purposes. The toughest part of the job, Webster said, is determining what to keep and what to leave behind for the Iraqis -- decisions based in part on whichever option is cheaper. The Army Material Command and Defense Logistics Agency has thousands employees making those decisions. For example, humvees and mine-resistant vehicles are considered to be worth refurbishing and bringing to Afghanistan. The mine-resistant truck, better known as the M-RAP, is taking over as the new workhorse of the military. The reinforced V-shaped hull beneath them shields its passengers from roadsides bombs, protection that's desperately needed in Afghanistan. However, the thousands of SUVs used by military and civilian officials in and around Baghdad aren't worth taking anywhere. A truck bought for $30,000 in 2004 is worth only $5,000-$8,000 dollars today, and the cost of shipping one of the SUVs exceeds that value. In addition, many of these trucks were not built to U.S. emission standards and would face the added cost of upgrading the exhaust system. "So in some cases, it's cheaper for us to turn that over to the government of Iraq through the -- the right programs and let them keep it," Webster said. Another example of equipment that the U.S. plans to leave behind is the common jersey barrier, or T-wall as it's known in Iraq. The walls, shaped like an upside-down "T," lined the roads throughout Baghdad at the height of the war and served to protect government and commercial buildings from bombs and other attacks. Webster said depending on their size it costs between $800 and $5,000 to pour a T-wall, but it would also cost $5,000 to ship it. "And so it doesn't make any sense," Webster told reporters Friday. "It's cheaper, more beneficial to our government to buy them in Afghanistan or adjacent countries. And that, of course, then contributes to businesses in Afghanistan." Despite the enormous cost of the undertaking, Webster said decisions like this have saved the Army and the taxpayer lots of cash. "We saved about $3.8 billion last year by finding those redundancies and efficiencies in our processes and either cost avoidance or cost savings, and we were able to apply that $3.8 billion towards last year's build-up in Afghanistan," he said. But moving equipment is one of the most costly undertakings in a foreign war. Webster acknowledged that at the height of the Iraq surge, about $20 billion dollars was spent repairing equipment and supplying troops on the ground.

When Military Moves a War, There Are No Shortcuts

By STEPHEN FARRELL and ELISABETH BUMILLER JOINT BASE BALAD, Iraq — Early this year a “fob in a box” — military slang for 80 shipping containers with all the tents, showers and construction material needed to set up a remote forward operating base — was put on trucks here for the trip from one war to another. Left over and never used in Iraq, the fob rumbled north to Turkey, east through Georgia and Azerbaijan, by ship across the Caspian Sea to Kazakhstan, then south on the old Soviet rail lines of Uzbekistan into northern Afghanistan. There — the end of a seven-nation, 2,300-mile, two-and-a-half-month odyssey — it was assembled just weeks ago as home for several hundred of the thousands of American forces entering the country. In trying to speed 30,000 reinforcements into Afghanistan while reducing American forces in Iraq by 50,000, American commanders are orchestrating one of the largest movements of troops and matériel since World War II. Military officials say that transporting so many people and billions of dollars’ worth of equipment, weapons, housing, fuel and food in and out of both countries between now and an August deadline is as critical and difficult as what is occurring on the battlefield. Military officials, who called the start of the five-month logistics operation “March Madness,” say it is like trying to squeeze a basketball through a narrow pipe, particularly the supply route through the Khyber Pass linking Pakistan and Afghanistan. So many convoys loaded with American supplies came under insurgent attack in Pakistan last year that the United States military now tags each truck with a GPS device and keeps 24-hour watch by video feed at a military base in the United States. Last year the Taliban blew up a bridge near the pass, temporarily suspending the convoys. “Hannibal trying to move over the Alps had a tremendous logistics burden, but it was nothing like the complexity we are dealing with now,” said Lt. Gen. William G. Webster, the commander of the United States Third Army, using one of the extravagant historical parallels that commanders have deployed for the occasion. He spoke at a military base in the Kuwaiti desert before a vast sandscape upon which were armored trucks that had been driven out of Iraq and were waiting to be junked, sent home or taken on to Kabul, Afghanistan. The general is not moving elephants, but the scale and intricacy of the operation are staggering. The military says there are 3.1 million pieces of equipment in Iraq, from tanks to coffee makers, two-thirds of which are to leave the country. Of that, about half will go on to Afghanistan, where there are already severe strains on the system. Overcrowding at Bagram Air Base, the military’s main flight hub in Afghanistan, is so severe that beds are at a premium and troops are jammed into tents alongside runways. Cargo planes, bombers, jet fighters, helicopters and drones are stacked up in the skies, waiting to land. All lethal supplies — weapons, armored trucks, eight-wheeled Stryker troop carriers — come in by air to avoid attacks, but everything else goes by sea and land. The standard route from Iraq to Afghanistan is south from Baghdad and down through Kuwait, by ship through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz to Karachi, Pakistan, then overland once again. The “fob in a box” went on an experimental and potentially less expensive journey through Turkey to link up with a new northern route through Central Asia, which was opened last year for supplies going to Afghanistan from Europe and the United States as an alternative to the risky trip through Pakistan. Both routes circle Iran, by far the most direct way to get from Baghdad to Kabul, but off limits because of the country’s hostile relationship with the United States. “These are the cards that we’re dealt,” said Gen. Duncan J. McNabb, who oversees all military logistics as the leader of the United States Transportation Command at Scott Air Force Base, Ill. Nonlethal supplies flowing into Afghanistan include cement, lumber, blast barriers, septic tanks and rubberized matting, all to expand space at airfields and double, to 40, the number of forward operating bases in a country that has an infrastructure closer to the 14th century than the 21st. Gen. David H. Petraeus of the United States Central Command, in another grand historical parallel, recently called the construction under way “the largest building boom in Afghanistan since Alexander built Kandahar,” a reference to the conqueror of Afghanistan in the fourth century B.C. Food shipments alone are enough to feed an army. The Defense Logistics Agency, which provides meals for 415,000 troops, contractors and American civilians each day in both wars, shipped 1.1 million frozen hamburger patties to Afghanistan in March alone, compared with 663,000 burgers in March 2009. The agency also supplied 27 million gallons of fuel to forces in Afghanistan this month, compared with 15 million gallons a year ago. Commanders say that their chief worry is that the equipment and supplies will not arrive in sync with the troops. Their biggest enemy, they say, is the short time between now and August, the deadline set in separate plans for each war. Early last year, President Obama and military commanders agreed on a withdrawal plan to reduce United States forces in Iraq to 50,000 by Aug. 31 ( 97,000 United States troops are there now), with all American forces out by 2011. Late last year, he pushed commanders to speed up the infusion of new troops into Afghanistan — military planners had originally said it would take 18 months — so that 30,000 new troops would get there by August. So far, about 6,000 of those reinforcements have arrived. Once they all get there, there will be close to 100,000 United States troops in Afghanistan. “There is a great sense of urgency in getting in and getting effective,” said Vice Adm. Alan S. Thompson, the director of the Defense Logistics Agency. “The administration is concerned about being able to show results quickly.” There are obvious strains, he said, but “I think it’s doable.” In the meantime, General McNabb, in yet another reference to Alexander the Great, said that when he took over the transportation command in 2008, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates reminded him of the well-known words attributed to the famous conqueror: “My logisticians are a humorless lot; they know if my campaign fails they are the first ones I will slay.” Mr. Gates had his own words of advice. “He just said, ‘Hey, it’s a tough job, better figure it out,’ ” General McNabb said.