.
(Army Times/AP) July 27 – A tangle of issues confront the three men, and none of them present clear or easy solutions:
— Prime Minister Al-Maliki, a Shiite who spent years in exile under Saddam Hussein, hotly objects to U.S. tactic of recruiting men with ties to the Sunni insurgency into the ongoing fight against al-Qaida. He has complained loudly but with little effect except a U.S. pledge to let al-Maliki’s security apparatus vet the recruits before they join the force. He also has spoken bitterly, aides say, about delivery delays of promised U.S. weapons and equipment for his forces.
— US General Petraeus is confronted with an Iraqi military and police force, nominally under al-Maliki’s control, that has in many cases acted on sectarian — namely Shiite — not national Iraqi interests. He has faced a significant challenge in persuading al-Maliki to shed his ties to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who runs the Mahdi Army militia.
— US Ambassador Crocker’s problems with the Iraqi leader are the appearance of foot-dragging or ineffectiveness on the political front — the need to shepherd critical benchmark legislation through parliament. U.S. opponents of the war will undoubtedly demand from Crocker, when he reports to congress in September, an explanation of why U.S. troops are fighting and dying to give al-Maliki political breathing space that the Iraqi leader will not or cannot capitalize on.
First word of strained relations began leaking out with consistency earlier this month.
Sami al-Askari, an key aide to al-Maliki and a member of the prime minister’s Dawa Party, said the policy of including one-time Sunni insurgents in the security forces shows Petraeus has a “real bias and it bothers the Shiites. It is possible that we may demand his removal.”
“The prime minister cannot just pick up the phone and have Iraqi army units do what he says. Maliki needs more leverage.”
A lawmaker from the al-Sadr bloc, who refused use of his name fearing the party would expel him over his continued close ties to al-Maliki, said the prime minister has complained to U.S. President George W. Bush about the policy of arming Sunnis.
“He told Bush that if Petraeus continues doing that he would arm Shiite Militias. Bush told al-Maliki to calm down,” according to the lawmaker who said he was told of the exchange by al-Maliki.
The lawmaker said al-Maliki once told Petraeus: “I can’t deal with you any more. I will ask for someone else to replace you.”
In an angry outburst earlier this month, al-Maliki said American forces should leave and turn over security to Iraqi troops. He quickly backpedaled, but the damage was done.
BAGHDAD (AP) July 27 — The top U.S. general and the top U.S. diplomat in Iraq both warned against cutting short the American troop buildup and suggested they would urge Congress in September to give President Bush’s strategy more time.
Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, in separate Associated Press interviews at their offices in the U.S. Embassy on the banks of the Tigris, were careful not to define a timeframe for continuing the counterinsurgency strategy — and the higher U.S. troop levels — that began six months ago.
Still, Petraeus’ comments signaled that he would like to see a substantial U.S. combat force remain on its current course well into 2008 and perhaps beyond. He said that a drawdown from today’s level of 160,000 U.S. troops is coming but he would not say when.
.
WASHINGTON, July 26 PRNewswire — Congressional leaders today got a close look at an advanced technology vehicle built to provide maximum protection for American troops from road mines and improvised explosive devices now encountered in Iraq.
The MaxxPro Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle — manufactured by International Military and Government LLC, a wholly owned affiliate of Navistar International Corporation — was displayed on Capitol Hill where company representatives highlighted for members of Congress and staff the MRAP vehicle’s troop protection capabilities, and underscored International’s capacity for production and delivery.
The company will now be supplying the military with 1,971 MRAP vehicles, due by February 2008 and totaling over $1.045 billion.
International MaxxProMine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP)
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Are they listed on the NY stock exchange? I’m not being cynical here, or am I?
Okay, let’s look at this predicament once again. Take life a hundred years ago. Where were the Sunni then, and where were the Shiite then, and how about the Kurds? Did Churchill fuck up when he decided, using a map alone, to bring these “Arabs” or whatever they are, together under the same roof? Arabs are just Arabs, afterall. Why worry about it.
Live together you bastards or die!
this is a pathetic turn of events.
Breaking: al-Malaki takes orders from al-Sadr. Am I the only person who knew this? Booman, you’re faultering here, and considerably biased against Iran.
.
BLITZER: The story with a Baghdad deadline. A key aide says Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s relations with General David Petraeus are so poor the Iraqi leader may ask Washington to withdraw the overall U.S. commander from his Baghdad post. Sami al-Askari, a key aide to al-Maliki, said the policy of incorporating one-time Sunni insurgents into the security forces shows Petraeus has a real bias, and it bothers the Shiites, whose communities the Sunnis have targeted. ‘It is possible that we may demand his removal,’ al-Askari said.”
What can you tell us about that?
KHALILZAD: Well, I don’t know the details of that. I know that General Petraeus is a strong leader, and he speaks his mind. And I’m sure when there are discussions with the prime minister on some important issues that there is strong exchange of views.
BLITZER: But have you heard that the relationship has deteriorated to the point that the Iraqi government may ask for the withdrawal, for the recall of General Petraeus from Iraq?
KHALILZAD: Well, I don’t believe the prime minister will ask for the withdrawal or removal of General Petraeus. The prime minister knows that General Petraeus has the full confidence of the president, and that he is a great leader. He’s doing his level best to help the Iraqis defeat extremists, both Shia and Sunni.
BLITZER: But you know that what the Shiite majority, the Shiite- led government in Baghdad, the government of Prime Minister Nouri al- Maliki, hates about General Petraeus’s strategy is working with the Sunni groups, whether in the al-Anbar Province or the Diyala province, giving them weapons, working with them to fight Al Qaida in Iraqi.
Because the Shiites believe it’s only a matter of time before the Sunnis will turn against not only the Shiites, but turn against the United States as well. And they don’t like this U.S. strategy.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.".
(Oxfam) July 30 – The violence in Iraq is overshadowing a humanitarian crisis, with eight million Iraqis – nearly one in three – in need of emergency aid, says a report released today by international agency Oxfam and NCCI, a network of aid organizations working in Iraq.
The agencies’ report “Rising to the Humanitarian Challenge in Iraq” says although the appalling security situation is the biggest problem facing most ordinary Iraqis, the government of Iraq and other influential governments should do more to meet basic needs for water, sanitation, food and shelter.
According to the report:
Jeremy Hobbs, director of Oxfam International, said: “The terrible violence in Iraq has masked the ongoing humanitarian crisis. Malnutrition amongst children has dramatically increased and basic services, ruined by years of war and sanctions, cannot meet the needs of the Iraqi people. Millions of Iraqis have been forced to flee the violence, either to another part of Iraq or abroad. Many of those are living in dire poverty.
≈ Cross-posted from Hurria’s diary — Will the Slaughter Get Worse if the U.S. Leaves Iraq? A Common-Sense Analysis ≈
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.".
Informed Comment Global Affairs by Gary Sick
July 30 – About six months ago, I wrote … speculating on what I thought was an emerging US Middle East strategy. The essence of the argument was that the United States would attempt to use the threat of Iran and a Shia political emergence to mobilize Arab support and perhaps even a degree of tacit Arab-Israeli cooperation. The strategy would also intend to shift attention away from the US catastrophe in Iraq.
[ . . . Robin Wright of the Washington Post also wrote an article today . . . that compared this development to US strategy during the cold war — see “U.S. vs. Iran: Cold War, Too” in Thread 15. See also “Is it a cold war?” By Aluf Benn in Haaretz, Thread 25.]
This strikes me as a marvelous example of political jiu jitsu. The United States made possible an emergent Iran by eliminating its Taliban rivals to the east and its Baathist rivals to the west and then installing a Shia government in Baghdad for the first time in history. Having inadvertently created a set of circumstances that insured an increase in Iranian strength and bargaining power, that seriously frightened US erstwhile Sunni allies in the region, and that undermined US strength and credibility, the US now proposes a new and improved regional political relationship to deal with the problem, and, incidentally, to distract attention from America’s plight in Iraq while reviving America’s position as the ultimate power in the region.
But there is a potentially huge flaw in this brilliant policy legerdemain …
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.".
Charleston AFB South Carolina – July 24, 2007 – Professed by G.W. Bush:
“I’ve explained the connection between al Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate. I presented intelligence that clearly establishes this connection. The facts are that al Qaida terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they’re fighting us in Iraq and across the world, and they are plotting to kill Americans here at home again. Those who justify withdrawing our troops from Iraq by denying the threat of al Qaida in Iraq and its ties to Osama bin Laden ignore the clear consequences of such a retreat. If we were to follow their advice, it would be dangerous for the world — and disastrous for America. We will defeat al Qaida in Iraq.” (Applause)
If I dared to put up a diary with such nonsense, BooMan would have me banned instantly, even here in the liberal pond! Did Bush listen to Gordon Brown at press conference at Camp David: “The central stage in fighting Al Qaeda is Afghanistan.”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.".
You hardly hear about that from the antiwar Democrats in the Senate. But you did hear it from someone closer to the scene: Shiite lawmaker and close Maliki adviser Hassan al-Suneid. He is none too happy with the new American strategy. He complained bitterly about the overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala. “These are gangs of killers,” he told the Associated Press. Petraeus is following a plan according to a “purely American vision.”
How very true and very refreshing. We had been vainly pursuing an Iraqi vision that depended on people such as Suneid and Maliki to make the grand bargain. So now, the American vision. “The strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaeda in the early period, but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias,” said Suneid.
Again, he is precisely right. His coalition would not or could not disarm the militias. So Petraeus has taken on the two extremes: (a) the Shiite militias and their Iranian Revolutionary Guard enablers, and (b) al-Qaeda, with the help of local Sunnis.
The Petraeus-Crocker plan is the 20 percent solution: peel the Sunnis away from the insurgency by giving them the security and weaponry to fight the new common enemy — al-Qaeda in Iraq.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."