Opinion

Letter: It's still important to cover the war in Iraq
By Joe Graca, Sartell

Published: April 06. 2008 12:30AM

Dateline Iraq, April 1 — Rockets have been falling in the "safe" green zone.

After a weeklong intense battle in Basra, between the militia of the Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and the Iraq army, a cease-fire has been declared.

The attack by the Iraqi army at the direction of the Iraqi Prime Minister, al-Maliki, has been described as poorly timed and coordinated by our U.S. military commanders in the area. Our forces were in jeopardy of being called in to shore up the Iraqi army.

So, who saved the day? Officials from Iran, our arch enemy in the war on terrorism, helped to broker the cease fire agreement!

Sadly, these events are described in only 18 lines of type on that date in the "Briefly" section of the St. Cloud Times. Has our interest in the war shrunk to such low levels or is the war no longer viewed as news worthy and only deserving of a brief note in the news?

Both may be true. Ironically, this letter will take up more column space than was given coverage of the war on that date. Not covering the war, and thus our not reading about it, will not end the war.

ST Cloud Times, Central MN

BAGHDAD, April 6 (Reuters) - Gunmen kidnapped 42 university students near the northern Iraqi city of Mosul on Sunday, police said.

"Gunmen stopped two buses in a village south of Mosul," said Khalid Abdul-Sattar, police spokesman for Nineveh province.

"One of the buses managed to flee. The second bus was stopped and 42 male students were seized."

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraqi police say gunmen have released the 42 college students they kidnapped earlier in the day near the northern city of Mosul.

Brig. Gen. Khalif Abdul-Sattar says the gunmen initially released the only two girls aboard the hijacked bus. They later set free remaining occupants after making sure they were not members of the security forces.

Link to NYT Article

By THOM SHANKER
Published: April 6, 2008

WASHINGTON — Army leaders are expressing increased alarm about the mental health of soldiers who would be sent back to the front again and again under plans that call for troop numbers to be sustained at high levels in Iraq for this year and beyond.

Among combat troops sent to Iraq for the third or fourth time, more than one in four show signs of anxiety, depression or acute stress, according to an official Army survey of soldiers’ mental health.

The stress of long and multiple deployments to Iraq is just one of the concerns being voiced by senior military officers in Washington as Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior Iraq commander, prepares to tell Congress this week that he is not ready to endorse any drawdowns beyond those already scheduled through July.

Link to AP Article

The Associated Press
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 04.05.2008

MUSCAT, Oman — The U.S. intends to send many more combat forces to Afghanistan next year, regardless of whether troop levels in Iraq are cut further this year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday.

It is the first time the Bush administration has made such a commitment for 2009.
Gates told reporters while flying to this Persian Gulf nation from a NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, that President Bush had made the pledge to other allied leaders at the summit on Thursday.

Bush was not specific about the number of additional troop, Gates said. The U.S. has about 31,000 troops there — the most since the war began in October 2001 — and has been pressing the allies to contribute more.

Until now, the heavy commitment of American forces in Iraq has been a constraint on the ability to increase U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan. But Gates said he did not believe that would be the case in 2009.

______________________________________________________________________

2009? 2009.... Doesn't something happen in 2009? Something kind of important? Oh, yeah:

Not only is he going to dump the Iraq war on the next administration, Bush is also leaving his successor a promise to increase troops in Afghanistan - without drawing down sufficient troops in Iraq, duirng his term in office, to allow the U.S. military to actually send the troops he's promised. That's his real legacy - unfinished fantasies for the grownups to clean up.

Link to LA Times Article

A battle for land in northern Iraq

By Ned Parker, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 5, 2008

MOSUL, IRAQ -- Far from the volatile Shiite rivalries that have shaken Baghdad and Basra, this city has been devastated by an epic struggle for land and power between Sunni Arabs and Kurds that has shattered the social fabric and could very well shape the future boundaries of northern Iraq.

Kurds say that they have been driven out of the city by Sunni Arab militants and criminal gangs, who have set off car bombs and kidnapped and killed members of their ethnic group. In turn, Kurdish forces have been accused of carrying out assassinations in Mosul and torturing Arab detainees elsewhere in the campaign to annex territory to the semiautonomous Kurdistan region.

The Iraqi government and U.S. military spokesmen blame the chaos on Al Qaeda in Iraq, a loosely organized Sunni Arab insurgent group, which desires to create a new base in the north. But the problems date to 2003, when the Kurds first sent fighters into Mosul, and the status of the city's Arab elite was diminished.

"Mosul became a real battlefield between Sunni Arab insurgents and peshmerga [Kurdish fighters] before Al Qaeda in Iraq really became much of a factor up there," said Wayne White, head of the U.S. State Department's Iraq intelligence team from 2003 to 2005.

"The Sunni Arab population up there knows the Kurds have designs on areas well beyond their current area of control in Nineveh [province], and are doubtless determined to push back," he said.

The Kurds believe Mosul's northern and eastern suburbs were wrongfully appropriated by Saddam Hussein's Sunni Arab regime. They also contend that they are the rightful owners of the Sinjar region in the western part of the province. The sought-after territories are believed to contain oil reserves.

Since late 2004, Kurdish security forces have seized de facto control of the disputed lands. The Kurdistan regional government's flag, a tricolor with a yellow starburst, flutters across northern Nineveh, and soldiers from neighboring Kurdistan are posted at dozens of sentry posts on roads.

Link to Reuters Article

By Wisam Mohammed

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Twenty-two people were killed and 55 wounded in clashes in Baghdad, police said on Sunday, the worst eruption of violence in the capital since Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called his fighters off the streets a week ago.

The unrest comes only days before U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker and U.S. commander General David Petraeus are due to deliver key testimony to the U.S. Congress on progress in Iraq.

Gunfire could be heard throughout the day in Sadr City, the stronghold of Sadr's Mehdi Army and home to 2 million people in eastern Baghdad.

U.S. Apache helicopter gunships swooped overhead and a column of black smoke towered over the Jamila market, a vast bazaar on the edge of the slum that supplies foodstuffs for much of the eastern half of capital.

"I have lost my cousin in these clashes today. I think Maliki will be happy now," a Mehdi Army street commander who gave his name as Abu Ammar told Reuters.

Police said a joint operation by the U.S. military and Iraqi forces had started in the early hours of Sunday and fighting had reached the outskirts of densely populated Sadr City.

In White House Deliberations on War, Gen. Petraeus Has a Privileged Voice

Link to WaPo Article

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 6, 2008; Page A01

For months, a debate raged at the top levels of the Bush administration over how quickly to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. But the discussion shut down soon after President Bush flew to Camp Arifjan, a dusty Army base near the Iraqi border in Kuwait, in January for a face-to-face meeting with the man whose counsel on the war he values most: Gen. David H. Petraeus.

During an 80-minute session, the president questioned his top commander in Iraq on whether further troop reductions, beyond those planned through July, would compromise security gains. According to officials familiar with the exchange, Petraeus said he wanted to wait until the summer to evaluate conditions -- and Bush made it clear he would support him and take any political heat.

"My attitude is, if he didn't want to continue the drawdown, that's fine with me," Bush said before television cameras later, with Petraeus standing by his side. "I said to the general: 'If you want to slow her down, fine; it's up to you.' "

* * * * * *

Bush's reliance on Petraeus has made other military officials uneasy, has rankled congressional Democrats and has created friction that helped spur the departure last month of Adm. William J. "Fox" Fallon, who, while Petraeus's boss as chief of U.S. Central Command, found his voice eclipsed on Iraq.

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Bush should rely primarily on the advice of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "Not only are they General Petraeus's superiors," Levin said, "but they have the broad view of our national security needs, including Afghanistan, and the risks posed by stretching the force too thin."

Link to WaPo Article

By Dana Hedgpeth
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 5, 2008; Page D02

The State Department said yesterday that it would renew its contract with Blackwater Worldwide, the controversial private security contractor, to provide security for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad for another year, but said it could cancel it at any time.

Blackwater has a five-year contract with the State Department to provide diplomatic security. The contract, which has one base year plus four option years, is entering its fourth year, an official at the State Department said.

The company, based in Moyock, N.C., is under investigation by the FBI in connection with a Sept. 16 incident in which its security personnel shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad. Questions have been raised about whether the shootings were justified and if they violated the rules under which contractors may use deadly force in Iraq.

Blackwater has received more than $1 billion in federal business since 2000, according to Eagle Eye, a research company that monitors contract spending. Its agreement to provide security for U.S. diplomats, and bodyguards and armed drivers to escort government officials outside Baghdad's Green Zone, was set to expire next month.

______________________________________________________________________

Link to CNN Article

Iraqi official: Blackwater staying on 'is bad news'

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. State Department's renewal of Blackwater's contract to provide security in Iraq "is bad news," an adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said.

Blackwater guards shot and killed 17 people, including women and children, last September, prompting an outcry and protest from Iraqi officials.

"This is bad news," al-Maliki adviser Sami al-Askari said. "I personally am not happy with this, especially because they have committed acts of aggression, killed Iraqis, and this has not been resolved yet positively for families of victims."

About 25,000 private contractors from three companies protect diplomats, reconstruction workers and government officials in Iraq. Under a provision put into place in the early days of the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, security contractors have immunity from Iraqi prosecution.

Link to Oliver North in the Washington Times

Basra — fact and fiction

By Oliver North
April 6, 2008

In the midst of last week's meaningless Arab League Summit in Damascus, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki boldly launched his government's first major offensive against renegade Shi'ite militias. Ranging from Baghdad's suburbs south to Basra — the country's oil port and second most populous city — Saulat al-Fursan (Charge of the Horsemen) is the largest and most complex operation by the Iraqi military since 2003.

The effectiveness of Iraq's soldiers, police and special operations forces in this bloody fight will be an important factor during Tuesday's congressional appearances for Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

As is so often the case with "news" from Iraq, the so-called mainstream media have delivered predominantly negative stories — and plenty of rhetoric — since the operation began March 26. The press has variously described the battle as "a major setback for Mr. al-Maliki," and "proof that Muqtada al-Sadr is stronger than ever."

Since so few U.S. and coalition personnel were involved in executing the campaign, most broadcast and print reports originated in Baghdad — where the focus was on mortar rounds and rockets fired into the Green Zone. Field reports filed from Najaf, Karbala, Diwaniyah, Kut, Hillah and Basra — all scenes of heavy fighting between Iraqi security Forces (ISF) and renegade Shi'ite militia units — have generally been filed by news agency "stringers" of dubious credibility.

* * * * * * *

None of this is particularly helpful in explaining to the American people what is really happening and what it means. To that end, I contacted some of the Coalition personnel with whom our Fox News "War Stories" team was embedded last December during our ninth trip to Iraq. Here is a synopsis of what those with "boots on the ground" have to say about our Iraqi allies and their adversaries:

Link to AP Article

By Bradley Brooks - The Associated Press
Posted : Sunday Apr 6, 2008 12:39:55 EDT

BAGHDAD — The United States is no closer to achieving its goals in Iraq than it was a year ago but a quick military withdrawal could lead to massive chaos and even genocide, according to a report released Sunday by a U.S. think tank.

The U.S. Institute of Peace report was written by experts who advised the Iraq Study Group, a panel mandated by Congress to offer recommendations on U.S. policy in Iraq in 2006.

The report was released two days before top commander Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker brief Congress on the situation in Iraq and prospects for American troop reductions. Their recommendations, which President Bush has signaled he will accept, could largely determine the course of action in Iraq for the coming year.

The report cited security improvements in Iraq since the buildup of U.S. forces in 2007, but credited factors outside U.S. control, such as help from mostly Sunni fighters who turned against al-Qaida and a truce by a Shiite militia.

“The U.S. is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago,” it concluded. “Lasting political development could take five to ten years of full, unconditional U.S. commitment to Iraq.”

Link to AFP Article

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Republican presidential hopeful John McCain said Sunday that Iraq's military performed "pretty well" in its recent Basra assault despite the "mixed" results of the battle.

Speaking ahead of a week when Congress will hold key hearings on the progress of the war in Iraq, the presumed Republican nominee for president defended Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government as increasingly effective in managing the war-torn country.

"Now, obviously, the results were mixed," McCain said on Fox News of the Basra attack against Shiite militia.

"Obviously, there were problems and Maliki in my view should have waited until we had concluded the battle of Mosul," he said in the interview recorded on Friday.

But, McCain said, "Overall, the Iraqi military performed pretty well. ... eight or nine months ago, it would have been unthinkable."

Craig and Marc Kielburger are Nobel Peace Prize-nominated rights activists and bestselling authors. They have travelled to more than 50 countries to interview the victims of injustice and exploitation. They are the founders of a charity,

Free The Children, which has built more than 500 schools in developing countries.

On a series of trips to Kuwait, they encountered a stream of South Asian men driving tractor-trailers bound for Iraq. The authors interviewed dozens of drivers, tracked official documents and found contracts and work orders that show these men were duped into becoming participants in the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Lured to Kuwait with the promise of work, truck drivers from developing countries say they have been trapped by companies that seized their passports and forced them to join deadly convoys into Iraq to supply U.S. troops.

They work for subcontractors hired by KBR, a U.S. corporation that earns billions stocking American bases.

The drivers deliver goods on behalf of the U.S., but a hands-off setup means they're out of reach of American protection.

'Our company says to go fast,' says one driver of the convoys into the war zone. 'They say if we go slow we will die'

The slightest distraction can be deadly for drivers on the bomb-scarred highways of Iraq. The roads teem with insurgents, waiting with sniper rifles and mortar bombs for the U.S. army convoys that snake through the country each day from neighbouring Kuwait.

But distraction comes easily to the thousands of South Asians hired to steer these convoys. Hard as they try, drivers can't help but think of family.
More

*Hands-off deals with foreign firms out of reach of U.S. law

Link to Newsweek Article

Tribal fighters have cut down Iraq's violence. But they're subjecting women to often-medieval mores.

By Silvia Spring and Larry Kaplow | NEWSWEEK
Apr 14, 2008 Issue

The insurgents have been driven out of her southwest Baghdad neighborhood, but the 30-year-old shop assistant is still frightened. A year ago Al Qaeda in Iraq ruled the streets outside her home, and Mahdi Army militia units kept the area under relentless attack. Now the Iraqis who helped get rid of the killers are the ones who scare her. The Americans imposed order a few months ago by recruiting and paying local men to turn in the names of suspected jihadists. Similar armed groups have popped up all around the city. Each has its own bizarre rules; some threaten to kill women who don't wear veils in public. The shop assistant is in mourning for her brother, who was killed last May, but she's asking for trouble if she wears black more than three days running. According to the new enforcers in her neighborhood, anyone who dresses in mourning is committing blasphemy by questioning the will of God.

In the past year, militias like this one have transformed the war in Iraq. Americans call them Concerned Local Citizens (CLCs), or Sons of Iraq; Iraqis know them as Sahwa—Awakening—after the tribal council in Anbar province that launched a Sunni revolt against the tyranny of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The militias' vital role (and the uncomfortable fact that many members used to be insurgents themselves) will be a big part of the debate this week, as American lawmakers hear testimony on the war's progress from U.S. military commander Gen. David Petraeus and the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker. What's less likely to be discussed—and yet just as important in the long run—is the impact that tribal groups like the CLCs are having on Iraq's social fabric, and in particular on its women.

America's efforts to disengage from Iraq have led to some messy compromises. After years of trying without success to wrest Sunni areas from Qaeda control, U.S. ground commanders appear to have done it at last—but only by granting sweeping powers to sheiks and local leaders who can keep the peace. Now Iraq's Sunni areas have been chopped into fragments, each one run by a different tribal ruler with different views on law and society. In some parts of Baghdad the situation changes visibly from block to block. No one can say how many of these leaders abuse their powers, or if their little sectors can ever be put back under the purview of a centrally controlled government. "We are becoming like Afghanistan was in the '80s," says Zainab Salbi, the Iraq-born founder and CEO of the activist group Women for Women International.

Link to AP Article

By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD - The U.S. military says rocket or mortar attacks against the U.S.-protected Green Zone and a military base elsewhere in Baghdad have killed three American service members and wounded 31.

A military official says two U.S. troops were killed and 17 wounded when rockets struck the Green Zone in central Baghdad. The official says another American service member died and 14 were wounded in another attack on a military base in the southeastern area of Rustamiyah.

your posts are much appreciated. :)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8429

The danger here is that the US will again resort to unrestrained
airpower to "control" Mahdi Army movements within Sadr City, as what happened last October when airstrikes were called in after 3a.m. raids by Yank troops looking for "kidnappers" were met with local resistance...49 largely civilian non-combatants were killed as a result.
Either the Americans will be forced to saturate Sadr City with soldiers in order to "put down" a potentially serious uprising by regular or irregular Mahdi elements, or just send in the fighter-bombers and Apache helos and kill everything in target range, per Fallujah. Neither prospect augurs well for a "surge success" benchmark, and more recalibration of the Petraeus Doctrine seems to be in order.
Looks as though Cheney, McBush, and other Green Zone tourists got their sorry arses out just in time."
http://agonist.org/20080324/iraq_and_afghanistan_dual_fronts#comment-152564

The FDL blog has updated accounts of the weekend's carnage in Sadr City, which is increasing looking like the worst of Fallujah - what's next, the Siege of Leningrad? - with airstrikes, snipers on rooftops, tanks and artillery firing at will into buildings...jesusbloodychrist, is there NO ONE in the US political arena who will step up to challenge this policy of wanton destruction and deliberate collective punishment?

Last week, Maliki and his cronies were blocked by Sadr’s fighters. This week, US forces are taking their place, maintaining a seige force around Sadr City and attempting to defeat Sadr’s Mahdi army with both air strikes and sweeps into this Baghdad nationalist stronghold.

Reports of air strikes on Sadr City neighborhoods appear daily in Iraqi sources but get almost no attention here – and the civilian death toll mounts – again with barely a word in the US press.

During the night from Saturday to Sunday, April 5 to 6, the US forces went from raids and arrests to large-scale attacks, based on the following reports: AP reported five killed and 17 wounded, including women and children, in "clashes" in Sadr City, then reported that at least 20 people died and 50 were wounded. Continuing into Sunday, AFP said a US airstrike killed nine people at 8:00 in the morning, a strike the US army confirmed, and that another airstrike involving two missiles at 11:00 in the morning, which wasn't "immediately confirmed".

And news just in at GorillasGuides reports:

There is very heavy fighting going on in Sadr city. The Americans have it under siege and are refusing all access to the city. American helicopters have bombed the city repeatedly. American snipers are being deployed on the roof tops. Imam Ali spokesmen say they are now desperately short of medical supplies. The Red Crescent attempts to get emergency medical supplies to the city which we reported yesterday have failed because the Americans will not let them through.

There are reports that the fires caused by the American bombing of the Jameela market are spreading and that there is no water being pumped to the city.

CrooksandLiars has more.

Sadrists in Baghdad are describing these attacks as “collective punishment:”

The official spokesman for the Sadrist bloc (in parliament), Saleh alAkili told AlHayat, "The announcement issued by Maliki about stopping the [arbitrary] searches and arrests was an attempt to throw sand in our eyes", explaining: "The arrests have not stopped, in spite of Maliki's announcement to that effect. And the American forces continue to spread terror among the people of Sadr City, stationing themselves in force at the entrances of local streets, carrying out nighttime raids, arresting hundreds of Sadr City youths, without warrants.
(much more, with links in org. art.)
http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/06/lessons-not-learned/

This is simply beyond the pale, but not unexpected. The same crowd who brought us the "Torture Memos" carry that same immoral mindset into the evil prosecution of a filthy war.

Link to WaPo Article

Basra Offensive Inflamed Long-Standing Rivalry, Redefining Nature of Conflict

By Sudarsan Raghavan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, April 7, 2008; Page A01

BAGHDAD, April 6 -- As verses from the Koran floated from a loudspeaker, the Shiite militia commander's face glowered. Inside the cavernous funeral tent, a large portrait of his 16-year-old son, Mustafa, hung over the mourners. Abu Abdullah, who fought U.S. troops and Sunni insurgents for five years, never expected his son to die before him. Now, he said, his anger was directed at other Shiites.

An Iraqi soldier, he said, had shot Mustafa two days earlier as he approached a checkpoint in Sadr City, where Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army rule. Abu Abdullah blamed Sadr's Shiite rivals, who lead the Iraqi government.

"What do I feel inside me?" asked Abu Abdullah, dressed in black. "I want to do to them exactly what they did to my son, and even more."

In this volatile Shiite redoubt, animosity toward Prime Minister Nouri-al Maliki and his allies has deepened in the aftermath of Iraq's worst violence in months, threatening to escalate a conflict among Shiites that could further draw in U.S. troops.

IN a measured voice, Maj. Levi Dunton explained to the small circle of Army officers and their spouses what had gone wrong in his marriage since he returned home from Iraq in 2005. He had trouble being involved with his family, he said. He didn’t find joy in being a parent to his two boys, 3 and 5 months. Little things made him angry.

Major Dunton said he was not sure whether his year in Iraq, where he was an Apache pilot and commander of 150 soldiers, was responsible for his numb state. Others, he wanted to make clear, had it a lot worse. To the other soldiers, this was a familiar litany of guilt, emotional distance and marital discombobulation; they were silent or simply nodded their heads.

Like Major Dunton, they seemed uneasy with all this talk, all this sharing, all this connecting to the wife in front of strangers.

Even as he spoke, Major Dunton, who fidgeted and played with his wedding ring, rarely made eye contact with Heather, his wife of 10 years and a former helicopter pilot herself.

Ms. Dunton, however, seemed relieved, liberated even, to be given a chance to reach out to her husband. She put her hand around his knee and said she was convinced that the war had wormed its way into their marriage.

“He used to tell jokes and funny stories and now he doesn’t do that anymore,” she said later. “I could tell he was different right away, but I thought it would pass.”

Not long ago, the Army, too, might have waited for it to pass — particularly for someone as seemingly steady and committed to his wife as Major Dunton. But that was before this war, with its 15-month deployments, before 2004 when divorce rates spiked among the officer corps and before recruitment and retention became a military preoccupation.

These days the Army is fighting a problem as complex and unpredictable as any war: disintegrating marriages. And so, the Duntons, like 18 other couples, gathered for a weekend retreat in late March, part of an Army pilot program to address marital stress after soldiers return from long tours in Iraq. The retreat is part of a new front in the Army’s “Strong Bonds” programs, which are for families and couples and run by its chaplains. Many of the earlier programs dealt with fundamentals such as “how not to marry a jerk” and how to have open communication.
More

Link to Boston Globe Article

Value of the surge debated

By Farah Stockman and Bryan Bender
Globe Staff / April 7, 2008

WASHINGTON - Since the US military began reducing its troop presence in Iraq three months ago, several key indicators of violence in the troubled nation have risen, according to new military figures released this weekend, sparking fears that security gains hailed by the White House are already eroding.

more stories like thisThe rise in violence - blamed on both Shi'ite militants and Sunni extremists allied with Al Qaeda - has prompted war critics to argue that President Bush's surge of 30,000 more troops last year, designed to stabilize the nation, merely postponed the inevitable deadly chaos that will follow an eventual US withdrawal.

Other analysts question whether the US strategy planted the seeds for greater bloodshed by funding, and arming, various Sunni and Shi'ite factions who may eventually battle one another or fight among themselves.

KABUL, 7 April 2008 (IRIN) - There are increasing fears of an imminent outbreak of ethnic conflict in central Afghanistan over access to grazing land between Kuchis and Hazaras.

The estimated 2-3 million Kuchis (nomads) - predominately Pashtuns - have traditionally moved all over the country with their camels, sheep, goats and donkeys in search of greener pastures. At the start of spring they normally flock into the central provinces where most of Afghanistan's third largest ethnic minority, the Hazaras (9 percent of the population). The Hazara have warned that Kuchis will not be allowed to graze animals in "their" areas.

Hundreds of Hazaras demonstrated in Kabul on 30 March, threatening to take up arms and fight if Kuchi herders entered Bamiyan and Wardak provinces.

"If the government does not stop Kuchis from entering our areas, we will do so by all possible means," said a leader of Hazara demonstrators in Kabul. "Down with Kuchis," chanted others.

Kuchis say their right to pasture-land has been denied by the Hazara minority and they have no option but to fight for it. "Because the government is weak and cannot ensure our legitimate rights we may have to fight for them," said a young Kuchi man, Nazargul.

"Dangerous" grievances

The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) has indicated that parts of the country could be affected by more drought than usual in 2008. Kuchis in southern and eastern provinces - where drought is anticipated to be more severe - could thus be prompted to move to less drought-affected provinces in the north and centre of the country.

Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) and the Independent Directorate of Kuchi Affairs (IDKA) are concerned that clashes between Hazaras and Kuchis could be worse than in previous years. "Given that both parties lack confidence in the government's ability to solve their disputes they may try to defeat each other by violent means," warned the AIHRC's Hamidi.

The AIHRC warning was echoed by the director of IDKA who said grievances on both sides had become "dangerous". "There are strong possibilities that a future conflict could turn into a widespread battle with devastating results," said Daudshah Niazi, the head of the IDKA.

Kuchi elders complain that since the overthrow of the Taliban government in 2001, Hazaras have enjoyed strong international support and been given opportunities in the government and other decision-making bodies, while Kuchis have been perceived as collaborators of the mainly Pashtun Taliban and "terrorists".

"Because they are in a position of power, Hazaras have objected to all the traditional norms and laws in this country and have denied us access to a main source of livelihood," said Abdul Ghani, an elderly Kuchi.

Hazara leaders counter by saying they have been repressed by the more numerous Pashtuns for centuries - a situation which the Kuchis are trying to perpetuate. "We only want to end their oppression and only want our rights," said Ali Orfani, a Hazara leader in Kabul.

more

Link to NYT Article

By ELAINE SCIOLINO
Published: April 8, 2008

* * * * * *

Judge Jean-Louis Bruguière, then France’s senior counter-terrorism magistrate, later warned that Iraq was a “black hole sucking up all the elements located in Europe.” Some of them were coming back to Europe, he added, and some of those were armed with chemical and biological weapons training.

Now, as members of the cell are awaiting a verdict in their case, French and other European intelligence and law enforcement officials are saying those fears appeared to be overblown. Those officials requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

The logistical challenges and expense of reaching Iraq has been one deterrent, they said, particularly with Syria making episodic efforts to halt the use of its territory as a transit route. Compared with the thousands of European Muslims who joined the fight in Afghanistan in the 1990s through organized networks in Britain, the number of fighters going to Iraq has been extremely small, according to senior French intelligence officials.

Another factor, the officials say, is that Iraqi insurgents neither needed nor welcomed European Muslims lacking military training and good Arabic-language skills — except if they were willing to conduct suicide missions.

The nature of the battle also has changed, making Iraq an alien destination for many would-be insurgents. The fight in Iraq is no longer just a jihad against foreign occupiers, but also a confusing civil war pitting Muslim against Muslim. Many young people have family and ethnic ties to Pakistan or North Africa, making those places more attractive destinations, and further advancing those regions’ potential for recruiting and radicalizing young Muslims.

______________________________________________________________________

Lemme see if I've got this straight - radical young European Muslims have the good sense not to get involved in Iraq's civil war.... and we don't?

Link to ABC Article

Seumas Milne The Guardian, Tuesday April 8 2008

A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country.

The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked "secret" and "sensitive", is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorises the US to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security" without time limit.

The authorisation is described as "temporary" and the agreement says the US "does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq". But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and other coalition forces - including the British - in the country means it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.

Iraqi critics point out that the agreement contains no limits on numbers of US forces, the weapons they are able to deploy, their legal status or powers over Iraqi citizens, going far beyond long-term US security agreements with other countries. The agreement is intended to govern the status of the US military and other members of the multinational force.

Link to NYT Article

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: April 8, 2008

BAGHDAD — After an overall decline in attacks against civilians and American and Iraqi security forces in Baghdad over the past several months, the number more than doubled in March from the previous month, according to statistics compiled by the American military in Baghdad.

The sharp increase in overall attacks, to 631 in March from 239 in February, reflects new strikes against the Green Zone, the heavily fortified headquarters for Iraq’s central government and the American Embassy here, as well as renewed fighting in the Sadr City district of Baghdad between Shiite militias and Iraqi government and American forces.

Violence in Sadr City first flared more than a week ago after Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki started a poorly coordinated military campaign to retake the southern port city of Basra from Shiite militias. The fighting has had repercussions in other Shiite enclaves across the country, but nowhere is it as severe as in Sadr City.

Nearly all of the increase came in attacks against American and Iraqi security forces, which rose to 562 in March from 177 in February. Attacks against civilians in the capital remained relatively unchanged: 69 in March from 62 in February.

However, another yardstick, the number of civilian deaths tracked by the Iraqi government, shot up last month after several months of decline. Iraqi officials recorded 472 civilian deaths in Baghdad in March, a 43 percent increase over February. That increase is believed to have been caused mainly by battles between security forces and the Shiite militias.

Three U.S. troops are killed in Baghdad on the eve of Gen. David H. Petraeus' testimony before Congress.

Los Angeles Times, By Tina Susman, April 8

BAGHDAD -- Three more U.S. troops were killed Monday as Iraqis struggled to bury their dead amid fierce street battles between Shiite Muslim militias and Iraqi and American soldiers in the nation's capital.

In one of the most intense days of fighting here involving U.S. troops in recent months, American helicopters fired at least four Hellfire missiles and an Air Force jet dropped a bomb on a suspected militia target. Rockets and missiles launched from militia strongholds pounded U.S. bases around the city, where U.S. troops also came under fire from small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. Targets included the Green Zone, where the U.S. Embassy and most Iraqi government buildings are located.

The latest American casualties brought to nine the number of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq since Sunday. At least 18 U.S. service members have been killed in and around Baghdad since March 25, when fighting spread to the capital after Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's decision to launch an offensive against Shiite militiamen in the southern city of Basra.

The fighting and rising death toll are likely to raise new questions about the role of the U.S. in Iraq, and how to define progress or success, as Army Gen. David H. Petraeus appears before Congress today with his latest assessment of the war. The long-awaited testimony will take place before committees that include all three major U.S. presidential candidates: Republican John McCain and Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, all of whom will be afforded the chance to question the general.

Talking to the Taliban, the remarkable research series by The Globe and Mail, has revealed many interesting things about Taliban foot soldiers: Their overriding goal is to rid Afghanistan of foreigners. They are not global jihadists – they don't even know Canada is a country, much less have intentions to harm it. Many have lost relatives in aerial bombing. Many have lost their livelihood because of poppy eradication. They want to be included in the governance of their country. They want to protect fundamentalist Muslim values.

Many are favourable to a negotiated peace, but will not be bought off by money. As an aggregate force, they are doing fairly well, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, including Canada, is not. Among Canadian decision-makers, there is frequent reference to the assertion that this war cannot be won by military action alone, but will also require diplomacy. So far, however, diplomacy has largely meant persuading our NATO allies to do more of the fighting. Whereas Dutch NATO forces engage in dialogue with Taliban in Uruzgan, and the British in Helmand, Canada's position has mirrored that of the United States: “We don't talk to terrorists.”

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, whose government we are supposedly supporting, has repeatedly stated a desire to negotiate with the Taliban and other armed opposition, but has received little evident support from NATO. The terms of the United Nations engagement, set by Western allies, contains no peace mandate.

Let us make some clear assertions. This war, which is partly a continuation of the pre-2001 Afghan civil war, cannot be ended through military means. The Taliban and other armed opposition groups have some war goals we would regard as illegitimate (for example, ending female education and institution of a Taliban regime) and some we should seriously consider as legitimate (for example, ending the categorical exclusion of one faction from the political process and eventually having foreign troops leave the country).
More

Reuters, By Ahmed Rasheed, April 8

BAGHDAD - Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr threatened on Tuesday to end a ceasefire he imposed on his militia last August, raising the prospect of further violence just as top U.S. officials get set to testify on Iraq's progress.

Despite the ceasefire, Sadr's followers have clashed with Iraqi government troops and U.S. forces in the south of the country and Baghdad in recent weeks, leading to Iraq's worst violence since the first half of 2007.

Sadr's warning came a day after Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, in a television interview, threatened to bar Sadr's movement from political life if the cleric did not disband his Mehdi Army militia.

"If it is required to lift the freeze (ceasefire) in order to carry out our goals, objectives, doctrines and religious principles and patriotism, we will do that later," Sadr said in a statement on his Web site.