Training Iraqis May Pose Risks For U.S.
Congress Told of Dangers to Troops

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 10, 2006; Page A19

The newest program for training Iraqi security forces, embedding 11- to 15-member U.S. transition teams in Iraqi battalions, represents a "high-risk assignment" for the American officers and men involved, according to top military training officials.

The concept is considered so dangerous that a group of potential replacements stand ready at Fort Riley, the U.S. Army base directing the program, for immediate shipment to Iraq if members of a deployed team are killed or wounded, Maj. Gen. Carter F. Ham, who runs the training program, told House members last week.

While the U.S. training of Iraqis is considered key in determining the future of the American presence in Iraq, it remains a work in progress three years after it began, according to present and former senior U.S. Army and Marine officers involved in the process.

The disbanding of Saddam Hussein's army in May 2003 and the disappearance of local police units compelled the United States and coalition allies to rebuild almost from scratch a variety of Iraqi security forces, including a national army, local national guard units, special commando teams, a national police force, border police, local police and a facilities protection service.

Complicating matters was a desire among coalition officials in 2003 and 2004 to keep the new Iraqi army lightly armed, in part so it could not threaten any democratic government established in Baghdad. As part of that approach, former senior officers from Hussein's army initially were excluded from service, and the first national police units developed were not trained or equipped to deal with either insurgency or serious security threats.

The result of the hesitant U.S. training effort, the Iraq Study Group reported Wednesday, is that Iraqi army units are of questionable loyalty to the Baghdad government, the police units cannot control crime, and some, according to the report, "routinely engage in sectarian violence." The facilities protection service is "incompetent, dysfunctional or subversive."

Lt. Gen. James J. Lovelace Jr., the Army's deputy chief of staff for personnel, told the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday that the current goal is to train 325,000 Iraqis, with 134,000 in the army and at least 180,000 as police officers.

The latest enhancement to the training task is the embedding of transition teams whose job is to "advise, coach, teach and mentor Iraqi security forces and provide direct access to coalition . . . air support, artillery, medical evacuation and intelligence-gathering," Lovelace said.

The teams, made up of highly qualified senior commissioned and noncommissioned officers, have specialties that include combat operations, intelligence, communications and logistics. Because they live with the Iraqi units, it is a "high-risk assignment," Marine Maj. Gen. George J. Flynn, commander of the Marine Corps training and education command, told the panel.

more

Like the Nation, Military Families Divided on Iraq
Loved Ones Remain Resolute or Doubtful In Aftermath of Study Group's Report

By Christian Davenport and Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 10, 2006; A03

Nancy Hecker hasn't read the Iraq Study Group's report. She doesn't need to. She knows her son, Army Maj. William F. Hecker III, died at 37 for a just cause, no matter what the antiwar crowd thinks.

If she "can stand firm in support of our country and the mission, is it too much to ask the rest of the country to do so as well?" she asked.

Beverly Fabri also doesn't need the report to help her make up her mind on Iraq. "We are not going to win this war," she said. "And we shouldn't have gotten involved with it in the first place."

Almost three years after her 19-year-old son, Army Pvt. Bryan Nicholas Spry, was killed, she said: "I'm beginning to feel like he just died in vain, I really am."

As the country debates what's next for Iraq, many family members who have lost loved ones in the war are torn about what should happen and how the legacy of those who have died there will be affected.

When the war began nearly four years ago, there was virtually unanimous support for it among military families. But as the country's belief in it has deteriorated, cracks have also begun to show among those who were its staunchest backers. And now, as the death toll mounts, many are struggling to reconcile bad news that seems to keep getting worse with the mission their loved ones believed in and died fighting for.

In Kathy Petty's opinion, the report "is not going to change much." But she's not clear about what should be done in the war that claimed her son, Army Capt. Christopher P. Petty, 33.

On the one hand: "I want the Iraqi people to be free. I want them to have their democracy. That's what Chris died fighting for."

On the other: "You've got almost a civil war. . . . And I'm not sure what we could do better. I'm not sure sending more troops would work."

Her son believed in what he was doing there. She remembers how he talked about building schools for Iraqis, and how the soldiers were treated like heroes by the townspeople.

That's why Petty, of Vienna, doesn't think her son died in vain. But that doesn't mean there are any easy answers to what's happening in Iraq.

"I do want Chris's death to have been meaningful, but I don't know," she said. "It's very hard to see a light at the end of the tunnel, if you know what I mean. It just seems to keep getting worse."

On Wednesday, the day the Iraq Study Group report was released, at least 11 U.S. service members were killed. So far this month, more than 30 have died.

A poll conducted last week by the Associated Press found that 63 percent of respondents did not expect a stable, democratic government to take root in Iraq, up from 54 percent in June.

All the talk of changing course in Iraq by people who have never taken up arms there has worn on Malia Fry, whose husband, Marine Gunnery Sgt. John Fry, 28, was killed while disarming a bomb in March.

"I don't want him to have died for nothing," said Fry, who has three young children and lives near Waco, Tex. "I want us to finish the job."

Marine Lance Cpl. Eric W. Herzberg's faith in the war, like that of much of the country, waned as the conflict dragged on, said his mother, Gina Barnhurst. But when his unit was called, Herzberg, 20, of Severna Park, went without complaint, because "Marines are not political," Barnhurst said. "They do what they're asked to do. They do it for their country. They do it for us."

And that's why she believes political leaders should think about the death of her son -- and the deaths of others -- as they decide what to do next in Iraq.

It has been nearly a year since Hecker's son, a West Point graduate and father of four, was killed south of Baghdad when a roadside bomb exploded next to his Humvee. She still keeps a tissue handy to blot away the tears that so often rise when she thinks about him: how he was a soldier and a scholar, a student of warfare and literature who had developed a taste for fine wine and rich coffee. But her loss does not mean American forces should leave Iraq, she said. Her son wouldn't want that.

Hecker, of Vienna, worries that the good things happening in Iraq are being suppressed by the media or buried under the din of politicians seeking office.

"If we had all stood firm on this, it would have sent a message to the terrorists," she said. "The more divided that we were, the more opportunity they saw to be successful by destroying our national will."

more

Sunni Muslims increasingly look for American troops to shield them
By Hannah Allam and Nancy A. Youssef
McClatchy Newspapers

BAGHDAD, Iraq -In a swirl of business suits and elegant robes, a delegation of community leaders from Iraq's most rebellious province slinked into a Baghdad hotel Saturday to give a news conference arranged by American handlers.

One sheikh promptly hid behind a door. Another insisted that not even his voice be recorded. With obvious reluctance, just three of the Sunni Muslim leaders agreed to speak on camera about the purpose of their visit: an unusual request for U.S. protection against attacks by Shiite militias and security forces.

The palpable discomfort among the delegates from Anbar province, home to the insurgent-infested towns of Ramadi and Fallujah, reflects a line from page 15 of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's report on the war: "Sunnis are confronted by paradoxes: they have opposed the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq but need those forces to protect them against Shia militias."

It's a humbling dilemma for a proud minority.

more...

Cornered Military Takes to Desperate Tactics
Dahr Jamail and Ali Al-Fadhily

FALLUJAH, Dec 9 (IPS) - People living in areas where resistance to U.S.-led occupation is mounting are facing increased levels of collective punishment from the occupation forces, residents say.

Siniyah town 200 km north of Baghdad with a population of 25,000 has been under siege by the U.S. military for two weeks.

IPS had earlier reported unrest in Siniyah Jan. 20 when the U.S. military constructed a six-mile sand wall in a failed attempt to check resistance attacks.

Located near Beji in the volatile but oil-rich Salahedin province, Siniyah has become a vivid example of harsh tactics used by occupation forces, who have lost control over most of the country.

"Thirteen children died during the two-week siege due to U.S. troops' disallowance for doctors to open their private clinics as well as closure of the general medical centre there," a doctor from the city reported to IPS via satellite phone.

The doctor spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing reprisals from the U.S. military. IPS had to reach him by phone since the military blockade has cut the city off from the outside world.

"This is not the first time U.S. troops have conducted such a siege here, but this time it represents murder," the doctor said.

A U.S. military public relations officer in Baghdad told IPS on phone that the military was doing "what it had to do to fight the terrorists in and around Siniyah" and that "no medical aid is being interfered with."

When IPS told him it had received contradictory information from a doctor in that city, he replied, "that is just not true."
more ...

Foreign Office has asked ministers to ditch the phrase invented by Bush to avoid stirring up tensions within the Islamic world

Jason Burke
Sunday December 10, 2006
The Observer

Cabinet ministers have been told by the Foreign Office to drop the phrase 'war on terror' and other terms seen as liable to anger British Muslims and increase tensions more broadly in the Islamic world.

The shift marks a turning point in British political thinking about the strategy against extremism and underlines the growing gulf between the British and American approaches to the continuing problem of radical Islamic militancy. It comes amid increasingly evident disagreements between President George Bush and Tony Blair over policy in the Middle East.

Experts have welcomed the move away from one of the phrases that has most defined the debate on Islamic extremism, but called it 'belated'.

'It's about time,' said Garry Hindle, terrorism expert at the Royal United Services Institute in London. 'Military terminology is completely counter-productive, merely contributing to isolating communities. This is a very positive move.'

(...)

( ... Link ... )

[currently residing in the "No shit, Sherlock, you finally figured that out by yourselves did you?" file - ES]

Talabani lashes out at 'dangerous' Baker report on US role in Iraq

· Report 'wrong medicine for wrong diagnosis'
· President urges return of Saddam-era army officers

Michael Howard in Baghdad
Monday December 11, 2006
The Guardian

Iraq's president Jalal Talabani, a key ally of the US, yesterday delivered a thunderous rejection of the bipartisan US Iraq Study Group, describing its findings as "dangerous" and saying that its recommendations were "dead in the water".

At his heavily fortified residence on the banks of the Tigris, Mr Talabani told the Guardian that the key suggestions of the long-awaited report by James Baker and Democrat Lee Hamilton were "the wrong medicine for the wrong diagnosis" and called them an unwarranted interference in Iraq's internal affairs that undermined the war-torn country's sovereignty at a crucial time.

"As far as I am concerned it is dead in the water," he said.

Mr Talabani added that calls for US sanctions against the Iraqi government if it failed to meet a timeline for a series of milestones were "an insult".

Carlotta Gall and Ismail Khan | Peshwar | December 11

NYT - Islamic militants are using a recent peace deal with the government to consolidate their hold in northern Pakistan, vastly expanding their training of suicide bombers and other recruits and fortifying alliances with Al Qaeda and foreign fighters, diplomats and intelligence officials from several nations say. The result, they say, is virtually a Taliban mini-state.

The militants, the officials say, are openly flouting the terms of the September accord in North Waziristan, under which they agreed to end cross-border help for the Taliban insurgency that revived in Afghanistan with new force this year.

The area is becoming a magnet for an influx of foreign fighters, who not only challenge government authority in the area, but are even wresting control from local tribes and spreading their influence to neighboring areas, according to several American and NATO officials and Pakistani and Afghan intelligence officials.

[snip]

The Afghan intelligence service said last week in a statement that it had captured an Afghan suicide bomber wearing a vest filled with explosives. The man reportedly said he had been given the task by the head of a religious school in the Pakistani tribal region of Bajaur, and that 500 to 600 students there were being prepared to fight jihad and be suicide bombers.

The bomber said that the former head of Pakistani intelligence, Gen. Hamid Gul, was financing and supporting the project, according to the statement, though the claim is impossible to verify. Pakistani intelligence agencies have long nurtured militants in the tribal areas to pressure the rival government in Afghanistan, though the government claims to have ceased its support.

[Comment: True? Who knows. Me, I think it's distinctly possible - but it could simply be decently crafted disinfo. Next time we read the guy in the Asia Times, we should keep in mind that he may be (I lean to he likely is) conducting information operations, not writing a think piece.

...of course, that does make one wonder when think pieces aren't a form of information operations, but I digress. My kingdom (meagre though it may be) for an objective view. ~ JPD]

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

The Independent, December 12

(AP) Suspected insurgents set off two bombs in a main square of central Baghdad where scores of Iraqis were waiting for jobs as day labourers today, killing at least 57 people and wounding 151, police said.

The carefully co-ordinated attack in Tayaran Square at 7am involved a parked car bomb and a suicide attacker who drove up in a minibus, pretended to hire day labourers, then set off his explosive as they got into his vehicle, said police Lt Bilal Ali.

The simultaneous explosions, which occurred about 100 feet apart, shattered windows in store fronts, left crafters and blood stains in the road, and set fire to least 10 other cars.

At least 57 Iraqis, including seven policemen, were killed in the attack and 151 people wounded, Ali said.

"In the first explosion, I saw people falling over, some of them blown apart. When the other bomb went off seconds later, it slammed me into a wall of my store and I fainted," said Khalil Ibrahim, 41, a shop owner.

When the attack occurred, police at a nearby checkpoint fired random shots in several directions, but residents soon rushed to the devastated area to see if friends or relatives had been killed or wounded.

Taliban ban boys in private quarters

LAHORE: The Taliban have issued a list of 30 rules for new recruits, containing some curious restrictions, according to a report in British newspaper the Guardian. Rule 19 declares, “mujahideen are not allowed to take young boys with no facial hair on to the battlefield or into their private quarters.” Rule 18 urges mujahideen to quit smoking. Other rules instruct Taliban fighters to be on their best behaviour with civilians, lest they are government employees, who must be treated without mercy and killed. Schools that ignore warnings to close must be burned, while the teachers working there must first be warned, then beaten, and if they continue to teach, to be killed. The code, agreed by the Taliban shura during the recent Eid holidays, has been circulated to field commanders across Afghanistan and northern Pakistan. daily times monitor

Daily Times

Five U.S. servicemen die in Iraq
12 Dec 2006 19:50:54 GMT
Source: Reuters

BAGHDAD, Dec 12 (Reuters) - Three U.S. airmen were killed in action in western Iraq on Monday and two other soldiers died in separate incidents, the military said on Tuesday.

The U.S. military in Baghdad said the three airmen were killed by enemy action in Anbar province. One Marine died in "non-hostile action", the ususal term for an accident, in the same area. A fifth serviceman died of what the army described as apparent natural causes.

IRAQ: 'NEW EXPLOSIVES USED' IN DEADLY BAGHDAD BLAST

Baghdad, 12 Dec. (AKI) - The suicide truckbomb attack that killed at least 70 people and injured over 230 early on Tuesday in the capital, Baghdad, was carried out with explosives that are not known to have been used in previous blasts, an unnamed expert from the Iraqi interior ministry told Adnkronos International (AKI). "According to our impressions, today's devices were packed with not less than 150 kilogrammes of a new kind of explosive made from a mixture of TNT and other chemical substances intended to cause as many deaths as possible," the expert said. Many of those killed were poor Shiite labourers looking for work.

"These chemical substances may come from chemical weapons arsenals dating from the Saddam era, developed in secret laboratories. Explosives experts from the ministry are collaborating with international experts to try and and find out more," the expert continued.

A dangerous new tactic aimed at causing the maximum number of deaths in attacks in Iraq was already apparent in the 23 November multiple suicide bomb and mortar attacks on the sprawling Shiite heartland of Sadr City, the expert noted. These killed more than 200 people and inured some 400.

(Sal/Aki)

LA Times

THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ: DEBATE OVER TROOP LEVELS
Pentagon's plan: More U.S. troops in Iraq

Boosting presence and aid, and an anti-Sadr offensive, carry risks but offer the best path to victory, military officials say.

By Julian E. Barnes
Times Staff Writer

December 13, 2006

WASHINGTON — As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to "double down" in the country with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff will present their assessment and recommendations to Bush at the Pentagon today. Military officials, including some advising the chiefs, have argued that an intensified effort may be the only way to get the counterinsurgency strategy right and provide a chance for victory.

The approach overlaps somewhat a course promoted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). But the Pentagon proposals add several features, including the confrontation with Sadr, a possible renewed offensive in the Sunni stronghold of Al Anbar province, a large Iraqi jobs program and a proposal for a long-term increase in the size of the military.

Such an option would appear to satisfy Bush's demand for a strategy focused on victory rather than disengagement. It would disregard key recommendations and warnings of the Iraq Study Group, however, and provide little comfort for those fearful of a long, open-ended U.S. commitment in the country. Only 12% of Americans support a troop increase, whereas 52% prefer a fixed timetable for withdrawal, a Los Angeles Times/ Bloomberg poll has found.

"I think it is worth trying," a defense official said. "But you can't have the rhetoric without the resources. This is a double down" — the gambling term for upping a bet.

Such a proposal, military officials and experts caution, would be a gamble. Any chance of success probably would require major changes in the Iraqi government, they said. U.S. Embassy officials would have to help usher into power a new coalition in Baghdad that was willing to confront the militias. And the strategy also would require more U.S. spending to increase the size of the U.S. military and for an Iraqi jobs program.

Defense officials interviewed for this article requested anonymity because the deliberations over the Pentagon's recommendations were continuing and had not been made public.

"You are dealing with an inherently difficult undertaking," said Stephen Biddle, a military analyst called to the White House this week to advise Bush. "That doesn't mean we should withdraw. But no one should go into this thinking if we double the size of the military, the result will be victory. Maybe, but maybe not. You are buying the opportunity to enter a lottery."

The wild card in the Pentagon planning is Robert M. Gates, due to be sworn in Monday as Defense secretary. Gates had breakfast Tuesday with Bush and will participate, along with outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, in today's meetings.

Bush is collecting recommendations from his administration this week as he crafts his strategy for Iraq. But some defense officials say Gates may seek more time to weigh other options. And before endorsing an increase in combat forces, Gates may press commanders in Iraq for assurances that U.S. forces can hold off an escalation of the sectarian civil war.

"This is the big moment," said the defense official. "It is enormously important for the new secretary of Defense to revisit what the overall objective is … and what is needed to achieve that."

Some military officers believe that Iraq has become a test of wills, and that the U.S. needs to show insurgents and sectarian militias that it is willing to stay and fight. "I've come to the realization we need to go in, in a big way," said an Army officer. "You have to have an increase in troops…. We have to convince the enemy we are serious and we are coming in harder."

The size of the troop increase the Pentagon will recommend is unclear. One officer suggested an increase of about 40,000 forces would be required, but other officials said such a number was unrealistic. There are about 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

The administration has spent about $495 billion for Iraq and terrorism-related efforts since 2001, including $70 billion so far in fiscal 2007. It is planning to request as much as an additional $150 billion to fund the war effort through the rest the budget year.

The problem with any sort of surge is that it would require an eventual drop-off in 2008, unless the president was willing to take the politically unpopular move of remobilizing the National Guard and sending reserve combat units back to Iraq.

But military officials are taking a close look at a proposal advanced by Frederick W. Kagan, a former West Point Military Academy historian, to combine a surge with a quick buildup of the Marines and the Army. That could allow new units to take the place of the brigades sent to Iraq to augment the current force.

"It is essential for the president to couple any recommendation of a significant surge in Iraq with the announcement that he will increase permanently the size of the Army and the Marines," Kagan said.

Kagan, who plans to release a preliminary report on his proposal Thursday, said he had discussed his ideas with people in the government. Although the military has had trouble meeting recruiting goals, Kagan said Army officials believed they could recruit at least an extra 20,000 soldiers a year. The Army missed its recruiting targets in 2005 but met this year's goal.

The troop-increase strategy faces substantial hurdles. Although both Democrats and Republicans have voiced support for increasing the overall size of the ground forces, key Democratic leaders are opposed to sending additional forces to Iraq.

Military leaders are also aware that the public has grown impatient. With a majority of the country favoring a timetable for withdrawal, a strategy to increase the number of troops in Iraq would have to include a plan to buy the military more time.

An increase in U.S. forces is not universally popular in the military. Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East, has long argued that increasing the size of the force would be counterproductive, angering the very people the U.S. was trying to help.

Outside the Pentagon, in other corners of government, officials are skeptical that an increase in military power will end sectarian violence. James Dobbins, a former U.S. diplomat and advisor to the Iraq Study Group, said many Iraqis believed that U.S. forces put them in danger, rather than improving security.

"The American troop presence is wildly unpopular in Iraq," Dobbins said. "Any effort to double our bet will lead to ever more catastrophic results."

Some officers argue that the U.S. needs to show substantial progress in decreasing the violence and instability in Iraq before the 2008 presidential election. But other officers and analysts note that a comprehensive counterinsurgency plan will take years, not months, to work.

MORE

Senior Marine Corps officials says Bush has so weakened the military, he's now jeopardized the war on terror
by John in DC - 12/13/2006 10:58:00 AM

From the Washington Post:
"We are concerned about gross readiness . . . and ending equipment and personnel shortfalls," said a senior Marine Corps official. The official added that Marine readiness has dropped and that the Corps is unable to fulfill many planned missions for the fight against terrorism.

It seems that our military leaders, who kept telling us that the war in Iraq was not weakening our military, and that we are ready to fight lots more wars wherever they may arise. Well, they were lying.

Now our military leaders want a permanent increase in the size of the military - apparently, we now don't have enough men and women to meet our global needs, all because of the Republicans' wars. But that's not all. The military now wants even more authority to totally screw the National Guard and the Army Reserves. Basically, anyone in the Guard or the Reserves who thought they were already drafted, just wait until you see what they're going to do to you next.

more w/links
America Blog

Leaders Seek No Major Troop Increase, Urge Shift in Focus to Support of Iraqi Army

By Robin Wright and Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 14, 2006; Page A01

The nation's top uniformed leaders are recommending that the United States change its main military mission in Iraq from combating insurgents to supporting Iraqi troops and hunting terrorists, said sources familiar with the White House's ongoing Iraq policy review.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney met with the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff yesterday at the Pentagon for more than an hour, and the president engaged his top military advisers on different options. The chiefs made no dramatic proposals but, at a time of intensifying national debate about how to solve the Iraq crisis, offered a pragmatic assessment of what can and cannot be done by the military, the sources said.

The chiefs do not favor adding significant numbers of troops to Iraq, said sources familiar with their thinking, but see strengthening the Iraqi army as pivotal to achieving some degree of stability. They also are pressing for a much greater U.S. effort on economic reconstruction and political reconciliation.

Sources said that Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is reviewing a plan to redefine the American military mission there: U.S. troops would be pulled out of Iraqi cities and consolidated at a handful of U.S. bases while day-to-day combat duty would be turned over to the Iraqi army. Casey is still considering whether to request more troops, possibly as part of an expanded training mission to help strengthen the Iraqi army.

December 14, 2006

How violence is forging a brutal divide in Baghdad
Ned Parker and Ali Hamdani in Baghdad

Neighbourhoods have become no-go areas as Sunni and Shia militias engage in a grab for land and the domination of government

Read Ned Parker on the doctor living a double life just to work
US military's classification of Baghdad's ethno-sectarian divide

Baghdad is like a jungle, the grey-bearded Shia militia leader said. “It is a savage place where the wild animals fight for their piece of territory. Each animal wants to take more land than the other.”

Abu Bakr takes his job as a commander in al-Mahdi Army extremely seriously. In Sadr City, he organises fighters at checkpoints to defend the Shia enclave from Sunni extremists in neighbouring districts.

His foot soldiers, followers of the Shia cleric Hojatoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr, are vigilant in protecting their territory. “The Takfiris [Sunni extremists] want to use Sunni areas as a base to attack the Shia and all of Iraq. They want to make Iraq a country for al-Qaeda,” Abu Bakr cautioned.

Across the Tigris, in western Baghdad, Abu Obeida, an al-Qaeda member, sits in his house in the Sunni district of Amariya. The 33-year-old has the air of one under siege. He talks about preparing to confront al-Mahdi Army and rails against them for murdering innocent civilians. He makes no mention of the car bomb attacks that his group has carried out against the Shia over the past three years.

“What we are trying to do right now is to prevent the expansion of these militias, so we are keeping our forces on the outskirts of our neighbourhoods to prevent them from invading,” Abu Obeida said. “Most important right now is for our groups not to lose our areas.”

More and more, Baghdad is splintering into Shia and Sunni enclaves that are increasingly no-go areas for anyone from outside. The trend is fuelled by the ugliest sectarianism. It also reflects a crude power grab, with both sides egged on by political parties aiming to maximise their clout in the Iraqi Government by dominating as much of the capital as possible. The result is that since February, when Sunnis bombed the golden-domed mosque in Samarra, a Shia shrine, 146,322 individuals have been displaced in Baghdad, according to the International Organisation for Migration.

The pattern is so pronounced that the US military has drawn up a new map of Baghdad to reflect its ethno-sectarian fault lines. Published here for the first time, it lists the mixed neighbourhoods considered to be most explosive. Four of the five are on the western bank of the Tigris, called Karkh, where mixed neighbourhoods are still prevalent. Predominently Shia Kadhamiya and the largely Sunni areas of Qadisiya, Amariya and Ghazaliya have become the deadliest battlegrounds, according to US forces.

The violent struggle for neighbourhoods goes well beyond a fight among outlaws. Armed groups belonging to the parliament’s two main Sunni and Shia political blocs fuel much of the violence, according to senior Iraqi officials. “There is a very clear connection between some of the displacements caused by armed groups in some neighbourhoods in and around Baghdad and the political parties that are in the Council of Representatives,” Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi National Security Adviser, told The Times.

Mr al-Rubaie refused to name the culprits. Officials have blamed the Islamic Party, the biggest Sunni political party in the country, and the Mahdi militia belonging to Hojatoleslam al-Sadr, whose movement has 32 parliament seats, the largest number in the ruling Shia coalition.

“The religious and political leaders don’t seem to have the will to stop it. The Islamic Party is involved. AlMahdi Army does it. These people are fighting each other,” Mahmoud Osman, a Kurd Parliament member, said.

A Shia government official said that the Islamic Party and the Muslim Scholars Association (MSA), the largest grouping of Sunni mosques in the country, had been working in tandem with the insurgent group the 1920 Revolution Brigade to force the Shia out of western Baghdad.

much more:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2502503,00.html

Not only the referenced report above on his pre-war lying, but now he's up to his armpits in the "cash-for-honours" scandal, and just yesterday prevailed upon the AG, Lord Goldsmith, to call off the Serious Fraud Office investigation into potential bribery charges involving BAE, the UK's biggest arms producer, and - yes - yet again, the Saudi royal family, allegations which reached back to the Thatcher years and continued up to the present. Now, unlike the US, having to suffer two more years of Junior, barring a very unlikely impeachment, Blair can be tossed out by his own party - tomorrow, as Thatcher was defenestrated by the Tories after well outliving her usefulness. But the "New Labour" grandees seem paralysed or unwilling to see off this sleazy loser...why, I wonder?

By FRANK JORDANS
Fri Dec 15, 20006

ENEVA - Harassment from U.S. forces is a greater threat to the work of the Iraqi Red Crescent than insurgent attacks, a senior official of the Red Cross-linked humanitarian organization said Friday.
ADVERTISEMENT

Dr. Jamal Al-Karbouli, vice president of the Iraqi Red Crescent, said some U.S. forces appeared not to realize that the society, which uses as its symbol the Muslim red crescent instead of the red cross, was part of the international humanitarian movement.

"The main problem we are facing is the American forces more than the other forces," Al-Karbouli told reporters in Geneva. "We are spending a lot of time to explain about the Red Crescent."

Al-Karbouli said insurgent groups in Iraq did not pose as great a problem for the organization.

"The insurgents, they are Iraqis, a lot of them are Iraqis, and they respect the Iraqis. And they respect our (the Red Crescent's) identity, which is neutrality."

He also complained that Red Crescent offices in Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf provinces had been repeatedly "attacked" by U.S.-led multi-national forces searching for insurgents.

more

Army chief accused of lying about Britain's readiness for Iraq war
By Ian Herbert

Published: 16 December 2006

An inquest into the death of a British tank commander killed in Iraq has heard a tape he recorded three days before his death, in which he accuses the Army of telling "a blatant lie" by saying that British troops were ready for war, and tells his wife, "I just want to come home."

Sergeant Steve Roberts, 33, died in a "friendly fire" incident after he was attacked by a stone-wielding Iraqi man while manning a checkpoint outside the southern city of Az Zubayr on 24 March 2003. Had he been wearing the enhanced combat body armour that should have been issued to troops, he would have survived, pathologists found. But he was ordered to give it up three days before his death, due to shortages.

An Army Board of Inquiry into Sgt Roberts' death found that his Browning pistol failed during the attack. He was shot by a soldier in a Challenger tank who was trying to protect him but did not know his gun was inaccurate at short range.

In a audiotape recorded as a letter for his wife, Samantha, Sgt Roberts, from Shipley in West Yorkshire, accuses the then Chief of the General Staff, Sir Mike Jackson, of lying by claiming that Britain was ready for war.

He tells her the military supplies are "disgraceful" and a "joke", and adds he fears being attacked by Americans since his 2nd Royal Tank Regiment does not have the equipment to identify them as friendly forces. He tells her: "Kit we're being told we are going to get, we're not. It's disheartening because we know we're going to have to go to war without the correct equipment."

The tape was recorded over a period from 13 March, as the regiment prepared for battle, to 23 March, the morning before he died. Mrs Roberts, knew nothing of the tape until his funeral. She temporarily left Oxfordshire coroner's court yesterday so that she did not have to hear it again.

On Thursday, Geoff Hoon, the former defence secretary, was called to give evidence at the inquest to explain an eight-week delay in authorising extra body armour for Iraq troops.

The MoD told the inquest yesterday that David Williams, director of MoD capability, resources and scrutiny, could appear to explain the delay. This would seem to prevent Mr Hoon, now minister for Europe, being forced to make an embarrassing appearance at an inquest which has turned into a rigorous examination of the standard of protection afforded to troops in Iraq.

more

Pentagon to Move Troops Into Kuwait

Saturday December 16, 2006 3:46 AM
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. military is planning to move a brigade of troops into Kuwait in what could be the first step of a short-term surge of American forces into Iraq to stabilize the violence.

The 2nd Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division is expected in Kuwait shortly after the new year, a senior Defense Department official told The Associated Press on Friday. The official requested anonymity because the plans had not yet been announced.

The 2nd Brigade, made up of roughly 3,500 troops, is based at Fort Bragg, N.C., and would be deployed in Iraq early next year if needed, the official said. The move would be part of an effort to boost the number of U.S. troops in Iraq for a short time, the official said. The plan was first reported by CBS News.

In a half-hour video conference with President Bush on Friday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki outlined plans for the national reconciliation conference taking place in Baghdad on Saturday. Al-Maliki cited the desire of many people in Iraq for a larger core of Iraqi political leaders to come together for the common objective of stabilizing the country and promoting the rule of law, National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in describing the conversation.

Al-Maliki also talked with Bush about providing greater security, in particular in Baghdad, by going after all sources of violence, including insurgents and militias, Johndroe said. Bush reiterated his support for al-Maliki and said he was encouraged by the meetings he had recently with Iraq's Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, and with the leader of the largest Shiite bloc in Iraq's parliament, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim.

MORE

NYT, By DAVID E. SANGER and MICHAEL R. GORDON, December 16, 2006

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 — Military planners and White House budget analysts have been asked to provide President Bush with options for increasing American forces in Iraq by 20,000 or more. The request indicates that the option of a major “surge” in troop strength is gaining ground as part of a White House strategy review, senior administration officials said Friday.

Discussion of increasing the number of American troops, at least temporarily, has coursed through Washington for two months, as a possible way to reverse the deteriorating security situation in Baghdad. But the decision to ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to specify where the additional forces could be found among overstretched Army, Marine and National Guard units, and to seek a cost estimate from the White House Office of Management and Budget, signifies a turn in the debate.

Officials said that the options being considered included the deployment of upwards of 50,000 additional troops, but that the political, training and recruiting obstacles to an increase larger than 20,000 to 30,000 troops would be prohibitive.

At present, only about 17,000 American soldiers are actively involved in the effort to secure Baghdad, so even the low end of the proposals being considered by military and budget officials could more than double the size of that force. If adopted, such an increase would be a major departure from the current strategy advocated by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., which has stressed stepping up the training of Iraqi forces and handing off to them as soon as possible.

The details of the plan under study by the White House are not known, but in most scenarios the troop increase would be accomplished in large part by accelerating some scheduled deployments while delaying the departure of units in Iraq.

Cole, quips, “You don't need 20,000 troops in Iraq, you need 20,000 accountants!

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Chalabi in charge of the Oil Ministry before he retired as a rich man to England? Will there be a comedy play or movie about this period of American history? I vote for Steve Martin to play the lead role!

Who will they get to play the role of the Saudis who fund literally everyone (including the sunni Al-Qaeda terrorist organization and the Sunni insurgency who fire their Saudi-paid for weapons on the troops,) I wonder why the United States sends troops and kick in billions of dollars of their taxpayers' dollars? Are Saudis all born under the astrological sign of Gemini? Good guy/bad guy twins. And are Americans masochists? The audience will be rolling in the floor unable to stiffle their laughter.

Bush has created a comprehensive catastrophe across the Middle East

In every vital area, from Afghanistan to Egypt, his policies have made the situation worse than it was before

Timothy Garton Ash
Thursday December 14, 2006
The Guardian

What an amazing bloody catastrophe. The Bush administration's policy towards the Middle East over the five years since 9/11 is culminating in a multiple train crash. Never in the field of human conflict was so little achieved by so great a country at such vast expense. In every vital area of the wider Middle East, American policy over the last five years has taken a bad situation and made it worse.

If the consequences were not so serious, one would have to laugh at a failure of such heroic proportions - rather in the spirit of Zorba the Greek who, contemplating the splintered ruins of his great project, memorably exclaimed: "Did you ever see a more splendiferous crash?" But the reckless incompetence of Zorba the Bush has resulted in the death, maiming, uprooting or impoverishment of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children - mainly Muslim Arabs but also Christian Lebanese, Israelis and American and British soldiers. By contributing to a broader alienation of Muslims it has also helped to make a world in which, as we walk the streets of London, Madrid, Jerusalem, New York or Sydney, we are all, each and every one of us, less safe. Laugh if you dare
...
So here's the scoresheet for Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and Egypt: worse, worse, worse, worse, worse, worse and worse. With James Baker, the United States may revert from the sins of the son to the sins of the father. After all, it was Baker and George Bush Sr who left those they had encouraged to rise up against Saddam to be killed in Iraq at the end of the first Gulf war - not to mention enthusiastically continuing Washington's long-running Faustian pact with petro-autocracies such as Saudi Arabia. I'm told that Condoleezza Rice, no less, has wryly observed that the word democracy hardly features in the Baker-Hamilton report.

Many a time, in these pages and elsewhere, I have warned against reflex Bush-bashing and kneejerk anti-Americanism. The United States is by no means the only culprit. Changing the Middle East for the better is one of the most difficult challenges in world politics. The people of the region bear much responsibility for their own plight. So do we Europeans, for past sins of commission and current sins of omission. But Bush must take the lion's share of the blame. There are few examples in recent history of such a comprehensive failure. Congratulations, Mr President; you have made one hell of a disaster..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1971749,00.html

Garton Ash normally is quite temperate in his commentaries, certainly avoiding so-called "knee-jerk" anti-American rants and fitting well into the "moderate academic" camp. This, however, definitively places him into the Junior-is-an-unalloyed-disaster category of critic. And good on him for all that.