WAR Iraq: How to Leave Iraq — Intact/Kurds get Arms from Bulgaria/the SOFA debate

Posted for fair use....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/op...b41&ei=5087

November 23, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor | Transitions
How to Leave Iraq — Intact

By PETER MANSOOR
Columbus, Ohio
AS a brigade commander in Baghdad in 2003, I befriended a resident, Adnan Abdul Sahib, who went on to serve two terms as the head of the city advisory council. In 2007, however, sectarian violence forced his family from their home in central Baghdad, and they fled the country. Last month I talked with Adnan in Colorado, where he and his family are now refugees. “The fatal mistake the United States made in Iraq,” he told me, “was to empower extreme sectarian political parties. It’s time to give the moderates a voice.”

Barack Obama has the opportunity to recast American policy toward Iraq in a meaningful way, by providing much-needed support to its political center. His administration should view the new status of forces agreement between Washington and Baghdad as a means to shape the withdrawal of our combat forces while maintaining enough leverage to guide Iraq toward a more stable future.

The assumption behind the recently concluded military surge was that substantial reductions in ethnic and sectarian violence would lead to progress on political reconciliation. The security situation has improved remarkably, and while political compromise has not followed as swiftly as we hoped, there has been some progress, especially in terms of clarifying the roles and powers of each of the country’s 18 provinces and paving the way for provincial elections early next year.

The key now is to sustain the momentum toward reconciliation, even while combat forces are withdrawn — a delicate balancing act. Although insurgent attacks have been appreciably reduced and Al Qaeda in Iraq is devastated, considerable distrust remains among various ethnic factions and religious sects and within the Iraqi government. As honest brokers, American forces keep the peace in key areas. Yet it is possible that we can complete their departure over three years, as envisioned in the status of forces agreement, assuming that the Iraqi Army has matured enough to take on added responsibilities.

Up to four brigades and their associated support — 20,000 to 25,000 troops — could be withdrawn in 2009, which would provide reinforcements for the war in Afghanistan. Withdrawals should then accelerate, as the division of power and resources is cemented locally across Iraq, with half the remaining combat forces and their associated support withdrawn in each of the following two years. By the end of 2011 — subject to Iraqi concurrence, of course — some 20,000 to 40,000 troops would remain for an extended period. These would be mainly military advisers, counterterrorist units, combat aircraft crews and support, and intelligence and logistical personnel.

Much of the stability in Iraq stems from a patchwork of agreements across the country between local leaders and the American military or the Iraqi government. To make sure that these agreements endure, the Iraqi government needs to prove to its people that it represents their interests in these ways: by ensuring adequate representation in political life of all sects and ethnicities in the political life; by incorporating a significant number of the Sons of Iraq (Sunnis who have supported the counterinsurgency) into the police forces and other government jobs; by providing tangible incentives for the return of Iraqi refugees from abroad; and by equitably distributing government funds and services to all areas of Iraq.

In this light, the provincial and national elections next year are crucial to the way ahead. That Sunni Arabs and several nonsectarian parties have decided to take part promises a more broadly representative and legitimate government. It is in the interest of both Iraq and the United States to see these elections held in a free, fair and transparent manner.

Even as we pull troops out, the United States is not without significant leverage. We provide the Iraqi armed forces needed assets, from intelligence and logistics to air support and advisers; our civilian advisers are helping to improve the efficiency of the Iraqi government; our global diplomatic leverage can help Iraq in a number of ways; and Washington can encourage business investment in Iraq, particularly in its dilapidated oil industry.

To nudge the Iraqi government in the right direction, the new administration must let it know, quietly but firmly, that the blank check given by the Bush administration is no longer in force. It should make clear that we, too, want to see the expeditious withdrawal of American combat forces, but only in a manner that ensures Iraq will not again dissolve into chaos and civil war. Long-term American diplomatic, economic and military support should be contingent on a comprehensive political solution with a fair division of power. The alternative — a sectarian Shiite government that marginalizes other sects and ethnicities and is perhaps aligned with Iran as well — is unacceptable.

Peter Mansoor is a professor of military history at Ohio State University and the author of “Baghdad at Sunrise: A Brigade Commander’s War in Iraq.” From February 2007 to May 2008, he was the executive officer to Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq.

Posted for fair use....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/22/AR2008112202297_pf.html

Kurds in N. Iraq Receive Arms From Bulgaria
3 Planeloads of Munitions Worry Officials in Baghdad

By Ernesto Londoño
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, November 23, 2008; A01

BAGHDAD -- Kurdish officials this fall took delivery of three planeloads of small arms and ammunition imported from Bulgaria, three U.S. military officials said, an acquisition that occurred outside the weapons procurement procedures of Iraq's central government.

The large quantity of weapons and the timing of the shipment alarmed U.S. officials, who have grown concerned about the prospect of an armed confrontation between Iraqi Kurds and the government at a time when the Kurds are attempting to expand their control over parts of northern Iraq.

The weapons arrived in the northern city of Sulaymaniyah in September on three C-130 cargo planes, according to the three officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.

Kurdish officials declined to answer questions about the shipments but released the following statement: "The Kurdistan Regional Government continues to be on the forefront of the war on terrorism in Iraq. With that continued threat, nothing in the constitution prevents the KRG from obtaining defense materials for its regional defense."

Iraq's ethnic Kurds maintain an autonomous region that comprises three of the country's 18 provinces. In recent months, the Shiite-led central government in Baghdad, which includes some Kurds in prominent positions, has accused Kurdish leaders of attempting to expand their territory by deploying their militia, known as pesh merga, to areas south of the autonomous region. Among other things, the Kurds and Iraq's government are at odds over control of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, which lies outside the autonomous region, and over how Iraq's oil revenue ought to be distributed.

The Kurds of northern Iraq have run their affairs with increasing autonomy since 1991, when U.S. and British forces began enforcing a no-fly zone in northern Iraq to protect the region from President Saddam Hussein's military. The U.S.-led invasion in 2003 sparked concern that Iraqi Kurds would seek independence, but the Kurds have insisted that they wish to remain part of a federal Iraq.

Neighboring countries with large Kurdish minorities, including Turkey and Iran, have said they would oppose the emergence of an independent Kurdistan, as the autonomous region is known.

Iraq's interior minister, Jawad al-Bolani, said in an interview that central government officials did not authorize the purchase of weapons from Bulgaria. He said such an acquisition would constitute a "violation" of Iraqi law because only the Ministries of Interior and Defense are authorized to import weapons.

Experts on Iraq's constitution said the document does not clearly say whether provincial officials have the authority to import weapons. However, Iraqi and U.S. officials said the Ministries of Interior and Defense are the only entities authorized to import weapons. The Defense Ministry provides weapons to the Iraqi army, and the Interior Ministry procures arms for the country's police forces.

The Iraqi government has acquired the vast majority of its weapons through the Foreign Military Sales program, a U.S.-run procurement system, Brig. Gen. Charles D. Luckey, who assists the Iraqi government with weapons purchases, said Saturday. He said he knew of no instances in which provincial authorities had independently purchased weapons from abroad.

With thousands of American military officials involved in the training of Iraq's security forces, there is little the U.S. government does not know about weapons that are legally imported to Iraq. The shipments from Bulgaria in September caught the American military off guard, the three officials said. They first learned of the shipments from a source in Bulgaria, the officials said.

The three said they did not know whether U.S. officials had confronted Kurdish leaders about the shipments or alerted Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government.

"Yes, the Kurds have this autonomous region and they're authorized to keep the pesh," one of the officials said, referring to the militia. "But arming themselves and bringing in weapons stealthily like that -- if I were the Iraqi government, I'd be pretty concerned."

While violence in Iraq has decreased markedly in recent months, political tension is rising as Iraqi leaders gear up for provincial and national elections scheduled to take place next year, and as they prepare for an era in which the U.S. military will have a smaller presence there.

Of the primary fault lines -- which include tension between Sunnis and Shiites and rivalry among Shiite political parties -- the rift between Kurds and the Arab-dominated Iraqi government has become a top concern in recent months. Senior government officials have engaged in a war of words, and Iraqi army and pesh merga units have come close to clashing.

"You could easily have a huge eruption of violence in the north," said Kenneth B. Katzman, a Middle East specialist at the Congressional Research Service in Washington. "Nothing having to do with the Kurds is resolved."

Because Arab Sunnis largely boycotted the 2005 election, Kurds obtained disproportionate political power in key provinces such as Tamim, which includes Kirkuk, and Nineveh. Both abut the Kurdish autonomous region. Kurds also control 75 of the 275 seats in parliament.

This year, violence broke out in Kirkuk amid political squabbling over an Arab proposal that seats on the Tamim provincial council should be divided evenly among ethnic Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. In the end, Iraqi lawmakers had to shelve plans to hold provincial elections in Tamim because the sides were unable to reach a deal.

In August, U.S. officials narrowly averted an armed confrontation between an Iraqi army unit and pesh merga fighters in the town of Khanaqin, in Diyala province.

In recent weeks, Maliki and Kurdish leaders have exchanged sharp words over Maliki's creation of so-called support councils. Maliki has said the councils, which are made up of pro-government tribal leaders, are the central government's eyes and ears in provinces. But Kurdistan Regional Government President Massoud Barzani and other Iraqi leaders have accused the prime minister of using the councils to bolster Maliki's influence in areas where he has little political support. In a recent news conference, Barzani said Maliki was "playing with fire."

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who is a Kurd, recently sent Maliki a letter saying the money being spent on councils should go to the country's armed forces.

The pesh merga, which began as a militia controlled by powerful Kurdish families, fought Iraqi troops when Hussein was in power. Since the 2003 invasion, its primary role has been to patrol predominantly Kurdish areas in the north. However, pesh merga units were deployed to the northern city of Mosul in 2004 to help quell an insurgent uprising, and others were dispatched to Baghdad as part of the 2007 buildup of U.S. troops.

Recently, the Iraqi government has refrained from using pesh merga forces outside of the Kurdish region and has taken steps to replace predominantly Kurdish forces with Sunni and Shiite soldiers in Nineveh, one of the most violent areas in Iraq.

Central government officials recently bristled at Barzani's offer to allow U.S. troops to establish bases in the Kurdish autonomous region, saying the regional government had no authority to make such an overture, especially as Iraqi officials are calling for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"There is a lot of tension," Kurdish parliament member Mahmoud Othman said. "Maliki and his administration are accusing the Kurdish authorities of violating the constitution. And the Kurds are accusing Maliki of violating the constitution."

Posted for fair use...
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/int...75363000&ty=ti

November 23, 2008 - 9:18 PM
Iraq PM says U.S. troops will leave if no pact

By Wisam Mohammed
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq will not seek to extend the U.N. mandate of U.S. troops and they will pull out immediately if Iraqi parliament fails to approve a pact allowing them to stay until 2011, Iraq's prime minister said on Sunday.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was speaking after Iraq's leaders met with recalcitrant politicians on Sunday to try to persuade them to accept the pact, which gives the United States three years to phase out a military presence that started with a 2003 invasion to oust Saddam Hussein.

"Extending the presence of the international forces on Iraqi soil will not be our alternative," Maliki told journalists. "The alternative will be their immediate withdrawal from Iraq."

Leaders of every major political bloc apart from followers of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr attended late evening talks behind closed doors on Sunday, as the government struggled to win broad acceptance of the pact.

The meetings ended without a final resolution, said Hassan al-Shimmari, the leader in parliament of the Shi'ite Fadhila party, one of the factions opposed to the pact.

"It was agreed the heads should meet tomorrow and every bloc present demands ... as recommendations to be voted on," he said.

Maliki and other cabinet ministers have fervently defended the pact, arguing that it is Iraq's best hope for restoring sovereignty while avoiding the bloody chaos of recent years.

"An immediate withdrawal would not be in Iraq's interests," Maliki told the late night news conference. Many Iraqis have assumed Iraq's only alternative was an extension of the existing U.N. mandate, which ends on December 31, given the security challenges it still faces.

Parliament has been debating the proposed pact after cabinet approved it last Sunday. Lawmakers are scheduled to vote on it on Wednesday, before setting off for a holiday recess.

Large Shi'ite and Kurdish parties that support Maliki may have enough votes to pass the pact, but to win a broad consensus they need to win over Sunni Arabs and smaller parties.

The Sadrists, who have been isolated from the political mainstream since a government crackdown on their Mehdi Army militia this year, oppose any extension of the U.S. presence. Thousands of their supporters marched against the pact on Friday.

They have 30 seats in the 275 seat legislature.

All other groups say they back a pact in principle. But some, including the main Sunni Arab group, the Accordance Front, have reservations about the text thrashed out over nearly a year of painstaking negotiations between Baghdad and Washington.

Several have indicated they may not approve it or turn up, prompting dire warnings from the government of a return to the violence that threatened to tear Iraq apart after the invasion.

Influential Shi'ite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who could sink the pact if he disapproved of it, has said it is up to parliament to decide. But he says the pact should have the support of all of Iraq's communities.

(Writing by Tim Cocks; editing by Sami Aboudi)

Posted for fair use....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/world/middleeast/24iraq.html?ref=world

November 24, 2008
Iraqi Foes of Security Agreement Cite Its Failure to Shield Assets From Suits
By JAMES GLANZ and STEVEN LEE MYERS

BAGHDAD — Iraqi lawmakers opposed to the proposed security agreement with the United States have seized on a new argument that has emerged only in recent days: the accord does not explicitly protect Iraq’s vast oil wealth and other assets from seizure to satisfy billions of dollars in legal claims against the former government of Saddam Hussein.

An extension of this protection, which is guaranteed in the soon-to-expire United Nations resolution that the security agreement is meant to replace, will have to be negotiated separately, a wide range of Iraq and American officials who support the security agreement acknowledged Sunday.

They also acknowledged that such a move will be critical to protecting Iraq’s assets, or the government’s main source of revenue — oil exports — could be thrown into disarray when the United Nations resolution expires Dec. 31.

It appeared doubtful that the newfound hole in the security agreement would create enough additional opposition in Parliament to defeat final approval in a vote that is scheduled for Wednesday. Supporters of the agreement expressed confidence on Sunday that it would still pass by a significant margin and that ways to extend the protection of Iraqi assets would be found.

But to Iraqi critics, the failure of the agreement to protect those assets reinforced their doubts. They said the defeat of the agreement, which would become the legal basis for the continued American military presence in Iraq after more than five and a half years of war, could not be ruled out.

“There is no respectable government that would sign such an agreement,” said Mahdi al-Hafedh, a member of Parliament who opposes it and was among the first to raise the issue of the expiring protections. Given all the unknowns, he said, the original United Nations resolution — not just the protection clauses — should be extended six months to enable further study of the security agreement.

The issue first emerged Saturday when parliamentary opponents pointed out that the agreement could not, by itself, ensure that Iraqi assets would continue to be protected against claims that could not only consume billions of dollars but also make it difficult for Iraq to sell oil and move the proceeds through banks around the world, where courts could “attach” — in effect, seize — money to settle legal judgments.

Those judgments have been granted or considered in everything from basic claims of damages by Americans who were badly treated as prisoners of war or used as “human shields” against American bombardment in the 1991 war, to more fanciful assertions that Mr. Hussein was, for example, behind the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 or the World Trade Center attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

On Sunday, in response to the criticism in Parliament, where both Iraqi and American government officials have labored mightily to win votes for the security agreement, the Iraqi minister of finance, Bayan Jabr, said during a news conference that the Iraqi government “was not able to achieve all of its wishes” in sections of the agreement relating to the protection of Iraqi assets.

But he said that the agreement was well worth supporting because in it, the United States pledged to press the Security Council to continue the protections if Iraq produced a plan for resolving all legal claims on its assets.

Two senior United States officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the agreement contained assurances that the United States would work to extend the protections by the Security Council.

“It is the highest level of assurance in a bilateral agreement between the United States and Iraq that they’re ever going to get,” one said.

The official said that if Iraq devised a strong plan to resolve outstanding legal claims on its money, they believed the Security Council was likely to extend the protections for a year.

Iraq has already started talks with the State Department to consolidate and resolve some of the cases, said Fadhil Mohammed Jawad, a legal adviser to the prime minister, but progress was slow. Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, said he thought that in the end, his country would gain Security Council support.

“We’ve already consulted with the permanent members of the Security Council and they will be agreeable,” he said. Mr. Hafedh, the Parliament member, said such reassurances did not convince him.

He pointed out that the American ambassador, Ryan C. Crocker, and other senior American officials from the United States Embassy, who have been personally lobbying members of Parliament before the vote, “have given us moral and political guarantees that they will support Iraq on the immunity issue, but these guarantees have no legal impact.”

In an illustration of the enormous complexity of the issue, both Mr. Jabr and the minister of planning, Ali Baban, who also attended the news briefing on Sunday, pointed out that it was not only the Security Council that would have to extend legal protection to Iraqi assets: a separate executive order by President Bush also provides some protections to Iraqi government funds held in American banks, and that order might have to be extended as well.

The order by Mr. Bush formally expires in May 2009, although the next president, Barack Obama, could presumably review it. Mr. Bush has also worked with Congress to reduce the risk that Iraq’s assets could be seized.

Mr. Bush’s order is not a mere detail. It is important to enforcing the current United Nations resolution, which requires that all Iraqi oil revenue is first deposited in an account at the New York Federal Reserve Bank before it is sent back to Iraq to satisfy budgetary requirements.

The huge balances in the account have been contentious, because they reflect in part Iraq’s unwillingness or inability to spend money on its own reconstruction, while the United States has devoted $50 billion of taxpayer money for that purpose.

Mr. Jabr revealed for the first time on Saturday that the account at the Federal Reserve now contained $20 billion — about twice the amount it contained at the end of 2007, according to the United States General Accounting Office. (In a separate interview, Mudher Salih Kasim, a senior adviser at the Central Bank of Iraq, said that the account contained, more precisely, $22 billion as of Oct. 10.)

Despite the interwoven complexities on legal protections of Iraq’s assets, Mr. Jabr and other members of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government said they still strongly supported the security agreement, which also in effect pledges to urge Mr. Obama to continue protecting Iraq’s assets in the United States.

Mr. Obama’s position on the protections has not been made clear, but his transition has been well disposed toward the security agreement over all, since it sets a deadline for United States fighting forces to vacate Iraq, a goal Mr. Obama supported during the campaign.

As members of Parliament considered the new developments in advance of the Wednesday vote, the largest bloc in the Parliament, the United Iraqi Alliance, which represents an array of Shiite lawmakers, met Sunday to set a strategy for pushing the measure through.

They formed a committee with responsibility for contacting members of the other parliamentary blocs — Sunnis, Kurds and those Shiites who oppose the pact — and listening to their positions, said Abbas al-Bayati, a member of the alliance.

The effort to win consensus is a response to Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the most senior Shiite cleric in Iraq, who said in the last 10 days that the measure should be approved by a broad majority.

The United Iraqi Alliance meeting was attended both by Mr. Maliki, who leads the Dawa Party, and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who leads the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the two most powerful Shiite parties.

Regardless of the vote outcome, the United Nations will still have to help Iraq deal with claims on Iraqi assets based on acts committed by Mr. Hussein, said Barham Salih, the deputy prime minister who is head of the cabinet’s economics committee.

“The hope that we have is that the Security Council will decide to maintain these protections for Iraqi oil revenues,” Mr. Salih said. “Obviously this is very crucial issue for Iraq. It is very complex and very painful that we will have to pay for the sins of Saddam Hussein.”

James Glanz reported from Baghdad, and Steven Lee Myers from Washington. Reporting was contributed by Alissa Rubin, Riyadh Mohammed, Abeer Mohammed and Atheer Kakan from Baghdad.

Posted for fair use....
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/11/sixteen_iraqis_kille.php

Sixteen Iraqis killed in morning bombings in Baghdad
By Bill Roggio
November 24, 2008 3:34 PM

Sixteen Iraqis were killed in a string of attacks in central Baghdad this morning. One of the atacks was carried out by a mentally handicapped female suicide bomber; another destroyed a bus carrying female employees working for the Iraqi Trade Ministry.

The first bombing took place at 7:20 a.m. in the Karadah district of eastern Baghdad, according to Mulitnational Forces Iraq. Voices of Iraq put the attack in the neighboring New Baghdad district.

A "sticky bomb," a magnetic bomb placed undernieth cars, detonated on a bus carrying female employees working for the Iraqi Trade Ministry. Fourteen civilians, mostly women, were killed and another four were wounded in the attack.

It is unclear whether the attack was carried out by the Iranian- backed Special Groups or al Qaeda in Iraq. The location of the bus bombing is in a largely Shia area in eastern Baghdad once teaming with the Mahdi Army.

"It is too early to tell who was responsible for the bus bombing," said Lieutenant Colonel Steve Stover, spokesman, for Multinational Division Baghdad told The Long War Journal in an email. "Underbelly IEDS are a tactic being used by both AQI [al Qaeda in Iraq] and SGC [Special Groups Criminals]."

The second attack took place just at a gate outside the International Zone in the Karkh district of central Baghdad over an hour later at 8:30 a.m., the US military said. "The attack began when a female bomber approached the checkpoint on foot and was directed by checkpoint personnel to cross the street away from the checkpoint. The individual failed to comply," Stover said. "As an IP [Iraqi Police] vehicle pulled up behind her to force her to move across the street, she detonated the suicide vest killing herself and an IA [Iraqi Army] soldier."

The female that carried out the bombing outside the International Zone was mentally handicapped, according to Iraqi officials.

“A mentally-retarded female suicide bomber was detonated by means of remote control near a checkpoint at the entrance of the green zone,” Major General Qassem Atta, the official spokesman for the Baghdad Operations Command told Voices of Iraq. Qassam said three Iraqis were killed and 12 were wounded.

Atta also said the attack was aimed at Iraq's intelligence agency.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has used mentally handicapped females in suicide attacks in numerous bombings throughout Iraq in 2007 and 2008.

The third bombing took place at 10:50 in the Wahda neighborhood, which is on the southern border of New Baghdad. One civilian was killed in the roadside bombing and one policeman and another civilian were wounded.

While the violence in Baghdad has decreased dramtically since 2007 - some 80 to 90 percent by some estimates, Novemebr has seen an increase in bombings, however the effectiveness of the attacks have decreased. Last year, al Qaeda suicide bombings often resulted in scores killed and hundreds wounded per attack, or more.

Posted for fair use....
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11242008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/iraqs_new_dawn_140418.htm


IRAQ'S NEW DAWN

By MICHAEL YON
November 24, 2008 --

BAGHDAD

THE Iraq War is over.

Flames still burst from various sources and wild cards remain, such as the potential that Muqtada al-Sadr might stomp his feet and encourage his diminished militias to attack us. Yet support for Sadr among Shia is hardly monolithic. In fact, many Shia view him as a simpleton whose influence derives strictly from respect for his father. Others cite the threat from Iran, but the Iranian participation in the fighting here remains overstated.

Nobody knows what the future will bring, but the civil war has completely ended.

The Iraqi army and police grow stronger by the month, and even the National Police (NP) are gaining a degree of respect and credibility.

As recently as last year, the NPs were considered nothing more than militia members in uniform who murdered with impunity. To go on patrol with NPs was to invite attack. But the Americans worked to help alleviate the disdain.

On one occasion, US soldiers peacefully disarmed a local militia that was apparently about to ambush NPs who had harassed it the same morning, and the soldiers sent the NPs to their station and later gave the locals back their guns. The next day, we were at the NP station as the US commander, Lt-Col. James Crider, gave professional instruction to the NP commanders.

Over time, the extremely frustrating process of mentoring the NPs worked. Last week, I went on foot patrol with US forces and NPs in the same Baghdad neighborhood. Kids were coming up to say hello. And the same people who used to tell me they hated the NPs were actually greeting them.

Similar dynamics have occurred in places like Anbar, Diyala and Nineveh. Tour after tour of US soldiers carried the ball successively, further down the field.

Through time, trust and bonds have been built between the US and Iraqi soldiers, police and citizens. The United States has a new ally in Iraq. And if both sides continue to nurture this bond, it will create a permanent partnership of mutual benefit.

Surely, one could pick up a brush and approach a blank canvas using colors from the palette of truth, and, with a cursory glance, smear Iraq to look like a Third World swamp. But Iraq is a complicated tapestry with great depth and subtle beauty. This land and its people have great potential to become a regional learning center of monumental importance.

Iraqis are tired of war and ready to get back to school, to business and to living life as it should be.

Last week, I shed my helmet and body armor and walked in south Baghdad as evening fell. The US soldiers who took me along were from the battle-hardened 10th Mountain Division; about half the platoon were combat veterans from Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Though most were in their 20s, they seemed like older men. None had even fired a weapon during this entire tour, which so far has lasted more than eight months, in what previously was one of the most dangerous areas of Iraq.

Americans and Iraqis had, in those earlier times, been killed or injured on the very streets we patrolled that day. Patched bullet holes pocked nearly every structure as if concrete-eating termites had infested, and there was resonance of car bombs once detonated on these avenues.

Now, the SOI (Sons of Iraq; what pessimists used to scathingly call "America's Militias") are monitoring checkpoints. I talked with an SOI boss and found that he was getting along side-by-side with the neighborhood NP commander, and in fact they were laughing together. Those who derisively called the SOI "America's Militias" have lost much credibility, while the commanders who supported the movement have earned that same credibility.

Though we are still losing American soldiers in Iraq, the casualties are roughly a tenth of previous highs. Attacks in general are down to about the same.

I asked some Iraqis, "Why are the terrorists attacking mostly Iraqis instead of Americans?" One man explained that the terrorists see the Iraqi army getting stronger and unifying with police, and the terrorists fear the Iraqi government.

Focusing on a few "Iraqi trees," one could make the argument that the war is ongoing and perilous. But to step back and look at "the forest," one cannot escape the fact that Iraq's long winter is over, and the branches are budding.

Iraqis and Americans aren't natural enemies. We have no reason to fight each other, and we understand each other far better than we did back in 2003. True bonds have been formed. Iraq and America realize that we have every reason to cooperate as allies.

But the greater, much more important, milestone will be the day when American, British and Polish students are studying in Iraq, while Iraqi students are studying in our countries. Cementing these ties takes time and patience. But we can do it.

Michael Yon has been reporting on the War on Terror since December 2004 at Michaelyon-online.com. His latest book is "Moment of Truth in Iraq."

Posted for fair use....
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-11-25-voa84.cfm

Iraqi Sunnis Want Referendum on Pact
By VOA News
25 November 2008


A key group of Sunni lawmakers in Iraq says it will only support a security agreement with the United States if the proposed pact is put to a national referendum.

Members of the Accordance Front said Tuesday they also want a series of political reforms that would give their group a greater voice in political decisions.

Their demands come one day before parliament is set to vote on the pact, which would extend the U.S. military presence in Iraq for another three years.

In Washington, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said U.S. officials hope the pact will be approved. She pointed to violence in Baghdad Monday as showing that while "the Iraqis have come a long way" they are "not quite there yet" and still need U.S. support.

Without the Sunni group's support, the Shi'ite majority likely would pass the measure only by a narrow margin. Supporters of radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr oppose it. They have denounced it as a humiliation.

Sunni lawmakers want a guarantee the pact would be put before a national vote within six months. As for the reforms, Sunni members, who enjoyed favor under Saddam Hussein, are trying to ensure they are not marginalized by the Shi'ite majority.

Criticism of the security pact continued from Iraq's neighbor Iran, with Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani saying it violates Iraqi sovereignty.

Iraq's ruling coalition has urged passage of the pact, saying a precipitous U.S. troop withdrawal could destabilize the country. The pact would replace the U.N. mandate for a U.S. presence, which expires at the end of next month.

The new security agreement calls for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities by June, and from the country by the end of 2011. Both sides have said the deal signals a firm commitment but that it could be renegotiated.

Posted for fair use....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ip1uikogL8Ipv7etPVV-XDw6QgJAD94M6RB82

US mil: 2 US servicemen killed in shooting in Iraq

By KIM GAMEL – 39 minutes ago

BAGHDAD (AP) — Two American servicemen were killed Tuesday after a gunman in an Iraqi army uniform opened fire while they were distributing humanitarian aid in northern Iraq, the U.S. military said.

It was the third such shooting in the Mosul area in less than a year purportedly involving Iraqi soldiers, raising concerns about infiltration of the Iraqi security forces in one of the most dangerous areas in Iraq.

The shooter opened fire from about 50-100 yards away and it was not immediately clear if he was an Iraqi soldier or an insurgent in disguise, a senior U.S. military official said.

The American servicemen and Iraqi soldiers were passing out blankets near Baaj, a mainly Sunni area near the Syrian border, about 75 miles southwest of Mosul, when the midday attack occurred, the official said.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to release the information ahead of a formal announcement.

The gunman appeared to be alone and fled the scene after the attack, the U.S. official said, adding that an investigation was under way.

An Iraqi police officer, who also declined to be identified for the same reason, said the attacker later surrendered to the Iraqi army, but that report could not be confirmed.

The attack came two weeks after an Iraqi soldier ambushed U.S. soldiers in a courtyard of an Iraqi military base in a dangerous Sunni neighborhood in Mosul, killing two Americans and wounding six before he died in the subsequent gunbattle.

Maj. Gen. Mark Hertling, commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, claimed that was a "premeditated" attack as the soldiers waited for their two lieutenants to finish a meeting with an Iraqi army company commander.

Iraqi officials said the Nov. 12 shooting followed a quarrel with the Iraqi soldier, but Hertling disputed that account.

Similar reports emerged after Tuesday's shooting, with the Iraqi policeman and a news report claiming an American serviceman had slapped a woman. But the U.S. military official said that report was false.

Last December, an Iraqi soldier also allegedly shot and killed a U.S. captain and a sergeant during a joint operation in Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad.

U.S. and Iraqi forces launched a major offensive this spring to rout insurgents from Iraq's third-largest city, which American commanders at the time dubbed al-Qaida in Iraq's last urban stronghold.

The attack occurred on the eve of a vote on a U.S.-Iraqi security pact that would allow American forces to remain in Iraq through the end of 2011 under strict Iraqi guidelines. Proponents of the agreement argue the Iraqis are not yet ready to maintain security on their own.

Posted for fair use....
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1126/p01s01-wome.html

Discontent over Maliki threatens US-Iraqi security pact
Wednesday's vote on a security pact to allow US troops to remain in Iraq for three more years is being seen as a referendum on Prime Minister Maliki's performance.
By Jane Arraf | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

from the November 25, 2008 edition

Baghdad - A wave of discontent with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has spilled over into opposition to a crucial pact governing a US troop withdrawal from Iraq, leaving Iraqi officials scrambling to find enough votes to pass the legislation in parliament.

In a rare coordinated campaign, several cabinet members have publicly warned of dire economic repercussions and security woes if the deal isn't approved and US forces begin decamping Jan. 1.

Iraq's most influential Shiite spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has called for politicians of all parties and sects to support the deal. But against a backdrop of parliamentary wrangling – which included a brawl in parliament – the government has lowered its expectations for a broad consensus.

While Mr. Maliki has reached across the aisle to recalcitrant politicians in a bid to win support, many are viewing Wednesday's vote on the pact as a referendum on his leadership.

"The opposition to this is not about [the security agreement], it's about Maliki," says a senior US official.

The Shiite prime minister's popularity soared this spring after he sent Iraqi troops to Basra, which had been overtaken by militias. But since then a combination of what has been seen by Sunnis as a heavy-handed approach in Iraqi Army operations in northern Iraq, discontent by the Kurds over his move to consolidate tribal councils in Kurdish areas, and what is seen as a generally autocratic approach has led to a resurgence of criticism, including some calls for a no-confidence motion.

"He doesn't realize that a coalition put him in power," says one senior Iraqi official.

Sunni groups have also been asking for guarantees on detainees released from US prisons. The pact calls for the US to hand the detainees over to Iraqi custody – dominated by Shiite security officials.

If parliament rejects the agreement, the Iraqi government would either have to ask the United Nations to extend the wartime mandate authorizing US troops in Iraq or face the prospect of US forces starting to withdraw personnel and equipment at the beginning of next year.

Maliki, in what was seen as a move to put pressure on those still holding out, said Sunday he would not ask the UN to renew the mandate.

More than 140,000 US troops are in Iraq under the original mandate, which authorized military force in Iraq and gave the US-led coalition sweeping powers. It expires at the end of this year. The new status of forces agreement and framework agreement governing the US-Iraqi relationship calls for American troops to withdraw to bases outside Iraqi cities by next June and to leave the country entirely by 2011. After months of negotiations, it also includes provisions demanded by the Iraqi government, such as removing some forms of immunity against US soldiers and contractors.

Iraq's cabinet approved the deal last week. Now it's up to the parliament that has been debating the measure since.

Accurately gauging the level of support has been difficult since some lawmakers privately support the agreement while publicly opposing it.

Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari says the government has been working hard to rally votes.

"I am hopeful that most of the key parliamentary blocs have expressed their support – some of them publicly, some of them privately. So from now until Wednesday, I think there will be more and more lobbying, let's say, to get a simple majority," he told the Monitor. "There is opposition, definitely. Even if it is ratified, it might be a close call."

US officials said they were not ruling out the possibility of there not being enough votes to pass the agreement at all. "Pretty much they don't have a cushion," says one US official who asked to remain anonymous.

At Saddam Hussein's former palace, Iraqi parliamentarians and officials have streamed in for consultations with US State Department officials trying to provide assurances and in some cases broker political deals.

Political parties and factions are holding their own closed-door meetings, many aimed at seeing what they can pry out of the government in exchange for their support, Iraqi politicians say. If parliament does not vote Wednesday, many of its members plan to leave on religious pilgrimage to Mecca, making a further vote unlikely.

"Some people are raising concerns about the day after," says Mr. Zebari in an interview, referring to what he described as unwarranted fears by some factions that the agreement would give the Shiite-controlled Iraqi government more power.

At an entrance to the Green Zone, where the palace and the US Embassy are located, a female suicide bomber who may have been mentally disabled blew herself up at a checkpoint – one of three attacks Monday that killed an estimated 20 Iraqis. Officials have warned of more violence if the agreement is rejected and US troops leave immediately.

Zebari says he has been working with the UN toward resolving a key concern that has arisen in the agreement – the potential liability of a trillion dollars' worth of claims against Iraq arising from actions of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Under the UN agreement, Iraq's oil revenues are protected from those claims. The US-Iraqi security agreement has no such protection. Zebari says he is asking the UN to extend protection while Iraq figures out how to settle some of those claims.

US officials say the agreement is particularly complicated because most status of forces agreements are negotiated after combat and approved in secret.

"Passions run high on issues of national sovereignty," says Adam Ereli, a US Embassy spokesman. "I think this is historic – people are having a public debate on issues of national importance."

Posted for fair use....
http://africa.reuters.com/world/news/usnTRE4AP508.html

Iraq parliament scrambles to agree on U.S. troop pact
Wed 26 Nov 2008, 23:24 GMT

By Tim Cocks

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi lawmakers prepared for a gruelling round of talks on Thursday over a long-awaited pact setting a deadline for U.S. troops to leave the country.

Parliament had been scheduled to vote on the security agreement on Wednesday, but wrangling pushed it back a day.

The landmark deal will pave the way for U.S. troops to withdraw by the end of 2011, bringing in sight an end to a U.S. military presence that has lingered on since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.

Once-dominant minority Sunni Arabs are concerned the U.S. departure may dilute their influence in the Shi'ite-led country and have listed reforms they want adopted before they approve it.

Legislators agreed to meet a demand from the two main Sunni blocs that the pact be put to a referendum next year.

But they rejected other conditions, including reforms that would cease the hunting down and trying of former members of Saddam's Baath party and a pledge to abolish the tribunal that condemned the dictator to death.

Iraq's Shi'ite-led government and its Kurdish partners, who together hold most of Iraq's 275 parliamentary seats, could probably push the pact through by themselves, but Maliki's government needs a broad consensus to satisfy Iraq's most influential Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

"What Sistani's trying to do is get as many people in there as possible so when it is signed, it marginalises the radical voices against it," said Toby Dodge, an Iraq specialist at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Those voices include followers of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who oppose a deal with the Americans and have vowed to fight it.

Cabinet has approved the pact and signed with Washington, but Iraqis remain in suspense as parliamentary debates rage on.

The deal, replacing a U.N. mandate, gives Iraq authority over U.S. troops, makes them liable for some crimes committed when they are off-duty, and reins in private security firms.

The 150,000-odd American troops in Iraq will have to quit the towns by mid-2009, and leave the country by the end of 2011.

That will boost Maliki, who will get three more years of U.S. support while claiming accolades for ending the occupation.

(Editing by Charles Dick)

© Reuters 2008. All Rights Reserved.