British soldiers serving in Iraq could suffer as images of troops allegedly abusing Iraqi civilians are beamed around the world, it is feared.

Nine charges against three Royal Regiment of Fusiliers soldiers are being heard during a court martial.

Lance Corporal Darren Larkin admitted one charge of assaulting an unknown man in May 2003, but denied another charge.

Two other soldiers pleaded not guilty at the court martial in Germany.

Head of the British Army, General Sir Mike Jackson, condemned abuse but would not comment on the pictures.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4186581.stm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1285182.htm

Clashes have broken out in three areas of the western Iraqi city of Ramadi after insurgents fired rocket-propelled grenades at a US patrol.

US forces backed by at least 10 armoured vehicles are reinforcing positions as helicopter gunships and warplanes fly over the eastern part of the city, an area that has witnessed frequent fighting.

There is no immediate word on casualties but witnesses say the guerrillas have destroyed a US Humvee and civilians have been caught up in the fighting.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20050119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Violence Spurred by Iraq Rebels Kills 26

By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A wave of car bombings shook the Iraqi capital Wednesday, killing at least nine people as rebels stepped up their offensive to block the Jan. 30 national election. Other attacks were reported north and south of the capital, but the U.N. election chief said only a sustained onslaught could stop the ballot.

U.S. military officials put the death toll from the day's violence at 26, based on initial field reports. Iraqi authorities said 10 people were killed -- one in a drive-by shooting on a political party office and the other nine in the bombings. The discrepancy could not be immediately resolved.

The violence began about 7 a.m., when a bomb packed into a truck exploded outside the Australian Embassy in Baghdad, killing two people. Two Australian soldiers were injured.

A half hour later, another car bomb killed six at a police station located next to a hospital in eastern Baghdad.

A third car bombing struck at the main gate to an Iraqi military garrison located at a disused airport in central Baghdad. The U.S. military said two Iraqi army soldiers and two Iraqi civilians were killed in that attack.

The U.S. military also said a car bomb detonated southwest of Baghdad International Airport, killing two Iraqi security guards.

Hours later, another car bomb went off in northern Baghdad around noon near a bank and a Shiite Muslim mosque. Police said one person was killed and one killed at that bombing.

Elsewhere in the capital, insurgents in a car fired on a Baghdad office of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, killing one of its members and wounding another, PUK officials said.

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Release.asp?NewsRelease=20050186.txt

NEWS RELEASE

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND

7115 South Boundary Boulevard

MacDill AFB, Fla. 33621-5101

Phone: (813) 827-5894; FAX: (813) 827-2211; DSN 651-5894  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 19, 2005

Release Number: 05-01-86

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOUR CAR BOMBS DETONATE IN BAGHDAD, MISS INTENDED TARGETS

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Four vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices detonated in the Iraqi capital in the span of 90 minutes this morning. Initial reports indicate 26 people died in the blasts, with at least 21 more wounded.

The first attack occurred at approximately 7 a.m. near the Australian Embassy. Two Iraqis were killed, and two Australian Soldiers were among the wounded. An unknown number of Iraqis were also wounded in the attack.

Thirty minutes later, a car bomb detonated near the Al Alahi Hospital in central Baghdad. Initial reports indicate that 18 people died in the blast, including five Iraqi police. Another 15 Iraqis were reported wounded.

At approximately 8:15 a.m., a third car bomb exploded southwest of the Baghdad International Airport. Two Iraqi security guards died, and three others were injured.

The fourth attack came at 8:30 a.m., near the southern checkpoint to the Muthana Airfield. Two Iraqi Army Soldiers and two Iraqi civilians died in this attack. One Task Force Baghdad Soldier was wounded.

Despite loss of life, a spokesman with the 1st Cavalry Division said none of the suicide bombers hit their intended targets.

"All of these car bombers were stopped by security forces before they could reach their intended targets," said Lt. Col. James Hutton, the division's public affairs officer. "While the any loss of life is tragic, it could have been a lot worse."

The incidents are under investigation.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/019/world/Zarqawi_s_al_Qaida_in_Iraq_cla:.shtml

Zarqawi's al-Qaida in Iraq claims responsibility for Australian Embassy blast in Baghdad

By Associated Press, 1/19/2005 07:56

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) The al-Qaida in Iraq terror group claimed that it carried out a truck bombing at the Australian Embassy in Baghdad that killed two people Wednesday, according to a statement posted on an Islamic Web site.

The embassy blast was the first in a series of car bombings to hit Bagndad and surrounding area within 90 minutes of one another.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-poll-iraq,1,7305843.story?coll=sns-newsnation-he
adlines

By Doyle McManus | Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

Posted January 19, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Support for the war in Iraq has continued to erode, but most Americans still are inclined to give the Bush administration some time to try to stabilize the country before it withdraws U.S. troops, the Los Angeles Times Poll has found.

The poll, conducted Saturday through Monday, found that the percentage of Americans who believed the situation in Iraq was "worth going to war over" had sunk to a new low of 39%. When the same question was asked in a similar poll in October, 44% said it had been worth going to war.

But when asked whether the United States should begin withdrawing troops after Iraq's election Jan. 30, 52% said the administration should wait to see what the new Iraqi government wanted. More than a third, 37%, said the United States should begin drawing down at least some of its troop strength.

Americans are almost evenly divided over how long U.S. forces should stay in Iraq, the poll found: 47% said they would like to see most of the troops out within a year, while 49% say they could support a longer deployment -- including 37% who say the troops should remain "as long as it takes" to secure and stabilize the country.

The results suggest that while Americans have grown more pessimistic about the chances for success in Iraq, most are willing to give President Bush some time to try to turn the operation into a success.

Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay & John Walcott  | Washington DC | January 18

Knight-Ridder - A series of new U.S. intelligence assessments on Iraq paints a grim picture of the road ahead and concludes that there's little likelihood that President Bush's goals can be attained in the near future.

All major U.S. intelligence agencies share a pessimistic prognosis for Iraq's future, according to a senior administration official. The assessment of the State Department's intelligence bureau is so grim that it's referred to as the "I agree with Scowcroft's analysis" report.

That's a reference to retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser to Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush. Scowcroft said earlier this month that the Iraqi elections could deepen the conflict and "we may be seeing an incipient civil war."

via The Cursor:

U.S. Will Shift From Fighting to Training

 Mark Mazzetti | Washington DC | January 18

LA Times - U.S. military commanders increasingly believe that American troops will never entirely defeat Iraqi insurgents and now plan to reduce  offensive operations and focus on training Iraqi security forces.

Under the plan, expected to be launched after the nation's Jan. 30 parliamentary election, up to half of the U.S. troops in Iraq eventually could be enlisted to train police officers, national guard troops and other forces, said a senior military official in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity.

In recent interviews, officials in Baghdad and at the Pentagon have acknowledged that the insurgency remains potent and resilient despite sustained U.S. assaults. Although U.S. commanders have long said that training Iraqi forces is an important aspect of securing the country, the planned shift in focus reflects a new, sober assessment by top military and Bush administration officials.

Offensive operations "are not the long-term solution. The long-term solution is with the Iraqis," a senior administration official said. "Training Iraqis is the whole nine yards right now. If they don't get better, we can't get out of there."

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target%20Homepage.db&command=view
one&op=t&id=101&rnd=659.9335125117103

By David H. Hackworth

The invasion of Iraq was sledgehammer-simple: Slug in some "shock and awe" and kiss Saddam Hussein goodbye.      

But while our troops and generals deserve a big "bravo" for their brilliance and bravery during the initial war-fighting phase, the occupation - which went wrong right from the get-go and has bled along for almost two more terrible years - is going down as one of the biggest snafus in U.S. military history.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Our grunts have been letting me know since the early days of the invasion that there has never been enough people power on deck to do the job. "We're stretched too thin" has been a constant complaint. "Battalions are doing the work of brigades and brigades divisions," snorts an infantry skipper now in the Mosul area of operations.

So far, not one general has had the guts to stand tall and demand more troops from either Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers - who was selected for the job because he's a technical whiz, not a warfighter - or his boss, SecDef Donald Rumsfeld. And late last year, when a reporter tore into Rummy on CNN about how our forces were knee-deep in an insurgency war that wasn't going well, Rummy remained in undaunted denial, defending the one-note, high-tech 21st-century force he keeps pushing - in spite of the overwhelming evidence that this war is now all about insurgency.

Meanwhile, our brass hats appear to be suffering from the Shinseki disease they caught bearing witness to then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki's being treated as a leper for standing up to Rummy over the number of troops needed for the occupation. The lesson learned from this telling example: Don't cross Rummy. So even though Shinseki was dead-right, the brass went along - to get along - with a shamefully inadequate troop strength.

In my judgment, the war in Iraq against the insurgents is still winnable: if Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran are told to stop supporting the insurgents or else; if we get enough boots on the ground ASAP to saturate and dominate the badlands; and if the brass allow the small-unit leaders to do their thing without the obsessive micromanagement that infects our Army.

http://www.10tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2829077

As Iraq violence worsens, Bush phones Iraqi leader, huddles with aides

WHITE HOUSE As pre-election violence worsens in Iraq, President Bush has been huddling with top aides -- and speaking by phone with a top Iraqi leader.

Bush's phone call to President Gazi al-Yawer (GAH'-zee ahl-YOW'-ur) came a day after a similar talk with Prime Minister Ayad Allawi (EE'-yahd ah-LAH'-wee). Afterward, the president discussed Iraq with his National Security Council.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan says Bush and al-Yawer talked over security concerns -- and ways to encourage turnout in spite of it.

Iraq was hit by a wave of car bombings today -- just eleven days before planned elections.

McClellan says the attacks show that insurgents "recognize how high the stakes are." He says the elections in Iraq will be "an important step toward derailing" the plans of terrorists.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20050119-0531-energy-iraq-north.html

5:31 a.m. January 19, 2005

BAGHDAD - A sabotage attack on Iraq's northern pipeline is expected to keep oil exports through Turkey at a standstill for another two-three weeks, an oil official said on Wednesday.

A bomb blew off a section of the Iraq-Turkey pipeline in the Fatha area near Baiji on Monday, soon after crews had finished repairing damage to the line in the same area from a previous blast, the official said.

"We don't see hope of resuming northern exports for another 15-20 days," said the official, who is familiar with repairs to the line.

Iraqi oil officials were hoping to restart the line, which has been idle since a sabotage attack on Dec. 18, after the end of a main Muslim holiday next week.

Senior oil official Dhiaa al-Bakkaa has said Iraq could export 250,000 barrels per day from the north if the attacks stopped, but sabotage has been relentless.

Iraq is exporting around 1.5 million bpd from its southern Basra terminal offshore in the Gulf. Power cuts have forced reductions in the southern flows.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4189347.stm

Two workers for a British security firm have been killed in an attack in central Iraq, the US military has said.

The pair, one British and one Iraqi, died when the two-vehicle convoy they were travelling in was attacked near the town of Beiji, a spokesman said.

A third contractor, a Brazilian, was said to be missing.

Employer Janusian Security Risk Management said the workers' convoy had been ambushed by insurgents near the power station they were protecting.

http://csmonitor.com/2005/0119/p01s01-usgn.html

from the January 19, 2005 edition

Up to 1 million Iraqis outside the country are expected to cast ballots in the most extensive expatriate vote ever organized.

By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - After many of them left their country to flee a repressive political system, Iraqis around the world will now have a say in the direction Iraq takes by voting in this month's national elections.

In what is being called the most extensive, complex - and rushed - expatriate vote ever organized, up to 1 million Iraqis are expected to cast a ballot in their country's first democratic elections at voting sites in Amman, Damascus, and Tehran - as well as in Sydney, Copenhagen, Detroit, and Nashville.

In all, 14 countries will have voting stations in an exercise that is creating excitement and mustering patriotic fervor among thousands of expatriate Iraqis - but which is also reviving old worries about the expatriate community's influence in postwar Iraq.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&slug=Iraq%20Election%20
Offensive

Wednesday, January 19, 2005 · Last updated 11:12 a.m. PT

By ELLEN KNICKMEYER

ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

CAMP KALSU, Iraq -- The sound of boots clattering up helicopter ramps at dawn kicked off a series of raids Wednesday by U.S. Marines, who are using everything from concrete barriers to no-parking signs to help secure Iraq's elections in 10 days.

Marines are working side by side with Iraqi SWAT teams-in-training and conferring with sheiks and police chiefs. They are clearing out health clinics to make room for potential casualties - and prison cells for captured insurgents.

U.S. efforts to safeguard the Jan. 30 vote are as multipronged as any military offensive.

"It's going to be a surge of operations. We're hoping to keep them off-balance prior to elections; keep them guessing," Col. Ronald Jackson of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit said of his get-out-the-vote offensive in south Baghdad and north Babil provinces.

Dubbed Operation Checkmate, Jackson's series of raids opened Wednesday and will seek out suspected insurgents and munitions caches ahead of the elections. Marine commandos and Iraqis boarded the squat U.S. CH-46 helicopters in the dark of morning, in disciplined single-file silence.

The trainees are among 500 Iraqis being rushed through Marine reconnaissance force training in arms, tactics and martial arts before election day.

The SWAT teams will form the Iraqi front line of defense at the polls. Other Iraqi SWAT members and Americans will be ready as backup.

Americans, and many Iraqis, are adamant that U.S. forces hang back, recognizing that the vote needs to be seen as Iraqi run if it is to have any hope of winning legitimacy.

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/breaking_news/10682422.htm

Posted on Wed, Jan. 19, 2005

Associated Press

TIKRIT, Iraq - Gunmen kidnapped a Japanese engineer in a highway ambush in central Iraq on Wednesday, police said.

The engineer, who worked at a power station in the city of Beiji, was traveling with two Iraqi policemen when gunmen stopped their car, killed the two officers and abducted the Japanese, said police Lt. Shaalan Allawi.

The engineer was not identified by name and no further details were immediately available.

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wocheck0120,0,6724054.story?coll=ny-world-big-pix

January 19, 2005

The following is an account by Getty Images photographer Chris Hondros of an incident on Jan. 18 in Tal Afar, Iraq, that left two civilians dead.

A routine foot patrol -- a dozen or so men from a platoon, carefully walking the dusky streets of Tal Afar, Iraq, just after sundown.

Usually little more happens than finding someone out after curfew, patting him down, and then sending him home. On daylight patrols, sometimes, troops stop to briefly play with children or even drink tea. On evening patrols - past curfew - no one is on the streets, and the men are extra-vigilant and professional.

Tal Afar is an ethnically mixed town -- though primarily Turkoman, and had only days before been the scene of a gun battle between U.S. forces and local insurgents.

On the evening of Jan. 18, as we made our way up a broad boulevard, I could see car making its way toward us. As a defense against potential car bombs, it is now standard practice for foot patrols to stop oncoming vehicles, particularly after dark. "We have a car coming," someone called out, as we entered an intersection. We could see the car about 100 meters away. The car continued coming; I couldn't see it anymore from my perch but could hear its engine now, a high whine that sounded more like acceleration than slowing down. It was maybe 50 yards away now.

"Stop that car!" someone shouted out, seemingly simultaneously with someone firing what sounded like warning shots -- a staccato, measured burst. The car continued coming. And then perhaps less than a second later a cacophony of fire, shots rattling off in a chaotic overlapping din. The car entered the intersection on its momentum and still shots were penetrating it and slicing it. Finally the shooting stopped, the car drifted listlessly, clearly no longer being steered, and came to a rest on a curb. Soldiers began to approach it warily.

The sound of children crying came from the car. I walked up to the car and a teenage girl with her head covered emerged from the back, wailing and gesturing wildly. After her came a boy, tumbling onto the ground from the seat, already leaving a pool of blood.

"Civilians!" someone shouted, and soldiers ran up. More children -- it ended up being six all told -- started emerging, crying, their faces mottled with blood in long streaks. The troops carried them all off to a nearby sidewalk.

It was by now almost completely dark. There, working only by lights mounted on ends of their rifles, an Army medic began assessing the children's injuries, running his hands up and down their bodies, looking for wounds. Incredibly, the only injuries were a girl with a cut hand and a boy with a superficial gash in the small of his back that was bleeding heavily but wasn't life-threatening. The medic immediately began to bind it, while the boy crouched against a wall.

From the sidewalk I could see into the bullet-mottled windshield more clearly. The driver of the car, a man, was penetrated by so many bullets that his skull had collapsed, leaving his body grotesquely disfigured. A woman also lay dead in the front, still covered in her Muslim clothing and harder to see.

Meanwhile, the children continued to wail and scream, huddled against a wall, sandwiched between soldiers either binding their wounds or trying to comfort them. The Army's translator later told me that this was a Turkoman family and that the teenaged girl kept shouting, "Why did they shoot us? We have no weapons! We were just going home!"

There was a small delay in getting the armored vehicles lined up and ready, and soon the convoy moved to the main Tal Afar hospital. It was fairly large and surprisingly well outfitted, with sober-looking doctors in white coats ambling about its sea-green halls. The young children were carried in by soldiers and by their teenaged sister. Only the boy with the gash on his back needed any further medical attention, and the Army medic and an Iraqi doctor quickly chatted over his prognosis, deciding that his wound would be easily repaired.

The Army told me it will probably launch a full investigation.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/One-million-sign-against-Iraqi-elections/2005/01/20/1106110843023.h
tml?oneclick=true

January 20, 2005 - 8:49AM

An Iraqi opposition group has said it had collected the signatures of one million locals opposed to the January 30 election and warned holding the vote under US occupation would plunge Iraq into further turmoil.

Abdel-Amir al-Rikabi, secretary-general of the Baghdad-based preparatory congress of the Iraqi National Constituent Assembly, accused the United States of seeking to dominate the region through its occupation.

"The one million signatures covered Iraqis of all walks of life and of all sects and communities from north to south Iraq," al-Rikabi said.

The petition opposes the poll under US occupation and calls for emergency laws imposed by Iraq's interim government to be lifted.

"We strongly oppose the holding of elections under occupation and under emergency laws," al-Rikabi said.

"Holding the election now will lead to further tension and instability in Iraq."

Al-Rikabi, whose group is one of hundreds of political organisations that mushroomed after the fall of Saddam Hussein, said his campaign to collect anti-election signatures in Iraq began on November 13.

He displayed the names of the one million signatories at a news conference in Beirut

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0120/p01s04-woiq.html

The Shiite cleric seeks an Islam-friendly Iraq, but not a theocracy.

By Dan Murphy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

BAGHDAD - Car-bombs and assassinations that have killed hundreds and a threatened Sunni boycott haven't slowed the march toward Iraq's Jan. 30 election. Neither President Bush nor Iraq's Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is willing to change this trajectory now. Neither is the man who is, arguably, setting the pace of Iraq's democratic process: Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

While it's difficult to predict much about Iraq's election and the country that will emerge, the leading Shiite cleric and the ayatollahs who follow him say that they are not planning to remake Iraq in Iran's image, with direct clerical rule.

"What we want is a constitution that respects differences, but also works for the Islamic identity of the Iraqi people and builds a society that doesn't oppose Islam, says Jalal Eddin al-Sagheer, a cleric who represents Mr. Sistani in Baghdad.

Sistani has indicated that involvement in politics can corrupt religious leaders and their message. But he also says that he wants Iraq to move in a much more Islamic direction than under the secular Saddam Hussein, says Juan Cole, a history professor at the University of Michigan and an expert on the Shiites of Iran and Iraq.

After Iraq's election, analysts say, there is little doubt that the man in the black turban with a long white beard will also guide the evolution of the constitution and its new laws by issuing occasional religious rulings on moral and social matters.

With the force of his estimated 4 million followers, and many more admirers behind him, he holds great sway over Iraqi popular opinion.

But a predominant Shiite influence over the new government could further upset Sunni militias who have already vowed to disrupt the election. The latest round of preelection violence occurred Wednesday when four car bombs rocked Baghdad killing at least 26 people. The Al Qaeda branch in Iraq, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, claimed responsibility.

Posted on Wed, Jan. 19, 2005

Suspected supporters of Iraq's insurgency voice distrust, anger

By Nancy A. Youssef

Knight Ridder Newspapers

BAQOUBA, Iraq - Wednesday was billed as "peace day" by the governor of Diyala province, and its goal was simple enough: Persuade people suspected of supporting the insurgency here to come over to the government's side. In return, the government would help solve the problems that supposedly drove them to the insurgents.

Instead, the day became a window on the difficulty that officials here face in trying to undercut the insurgency. Rather than sign a pledge to back the government, most of those taking part in "peace day" voiced distrust for a government installed by Americans. Some were open in their support for the insurgency.

"Is it right that somebody is trying to tarnish my reputation?" asked Sheik Walid al Rujail, 50, who said police had raided his home repeatedly and yet no one had ever told him why his name appears on a list of suspected supporters of the insurgents.

Al Rujail was one of dozens of suspected insurgent sympathizers invited to the governor's house Wednesday for the peace day ceremony.

The invitees were led into a grand room where a large banner greeted them. Someone served them coffee. On the chairs were forms for the suspected sympathizers to sign promising to forsake violence in return for government help.

http://www.asahi.com/english/opinion/TKY200501200129.html

U.S. must admit its mistakes on Iraq to make fresh start.

U.S. President George W. Bush officially kicks off his second term Thursday. In an interview with The Washington Post just days before the inauguration ceremony, Bush reiterated his pledge to win the war against terrorists and spread freedom and democracy around the world. He also claimed proudly that his re-election vindicated his decision to go to war with Iraq.

But Bush surely must be aware by now that there is no room for optimism about Iraq's future.

Iraq's reconstruction cannot be accomplished by only the United States and its ``alliance of the willing.'' It is crucial that the effort is strongly supported by the Iraqi people and the entire international community is behind the endeavor. However, the United States has failed to win broad international support for its case to wage war.

The U.S. investigation team that went to Iraq to hunt for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) returned home without fanfare late last year without having found any. The existence of WMD was cited as the primary reason for the U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq. Terminating the search amounts to acknowledging that it was an odd war aimed at eliminating an imminent danger that didn't actually exist.

The WMD is no longer an issue, says the Bush administration. It maintains that toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein has made the United States safer and reassured people around the world.

But this assertion is open to question, given the reality in Iraq. In an attempt to nip future threats to its security in the bud, the United States has actually made itself an even more inviting target of terrorist attacks.

Even the National Intelligence Council, which works under the Central Intelligence Agency, has released a report that states Iraq has become a new breeding ground for terrorists and warning that Muslim extremists trained in Iraq could spread around the world and use biological and other types of WMD.

Meanwhile, people in Iraq are weary of the fighting. They will be happy to see the backs of U.S. forces. That's probably the sentiment shared more or less by most Iraqis.

But it remains far from clear what scheduled national assembly elections on Jan. 30 will bring to Iraq, or even whether the process can go ahead. Indeed, the elections could intensify racial and religious conflicts within Iraq.

Bush should remember one thing. The chain of misguided U.S. actions concerning Iraq started when he rejected a request from U.N. weapons inspectors for several more months to uncover the truth about WMD and rushed into the war.

What has been done cannot be undone. But it is time for the president to admit frankly that he was wrong to invade Iraq and make fresh calls on both the Iraqi people and the international community to support efforts to rebuild the nation.

We think the United States would be better advised to submit its WMD-related information and materials to U.N. inspectors so that the world body can rule on the matter.

The current situation in Iraq leaves little doubt that U.S.-led efforts to rehabilitate Iraq must be replaced by broader international cooperation under U.N. leadership.

The war has created a bitter rift between the United States and its key European allies. Many major powers, including France, Germany and Russia, still refuse to join forces with the United States and other countries working to put Iraq back on its feet.

Bush's second term offers a good opportunity to change this situation. If the Bush administration sticks to its current course, it will be America that suffers in years to come.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Jan. 19(IHT/Asahi: January 20,2005)

http://arguscourier.com/news/news/woolsey050119.html

January 19, 2005

By EMILY BRADY

ARGUS-COURIER STAFF

It wasn't fan mail that Lynn Woolsey sent President Bush last week, but rather a request for a complete change of foreign policy.

In the letter the Petaluma Democrat sent Jan. 12, signed by 15 fellow members of the House of Representatives, Woolsey called for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

"While it may be logistically difficult to immediately remove every American soldier, we urge you to take immediate action to begin the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. This is the only way to truly support our troops," her letter stated.

Woolsey, who represents Sonoma and Marin counties in Congress, was joined in signing the letter by fellow House Democrats that included Reps. Sam Farr of Carmel, Barbara Lee of Oakland, Pete Stark of Fremont and former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich from Ohio.

The Democrats' letter stated that the March 19, 2003 invasion of the Middle Eastern country and subsequent occupation has been anything but successful and that Iraq is no closer to being a stable democracy today than it was two years ago.

Mounting casualties of both U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians were called into question and the on-going American presence was described as "infuriating" to Iraqis and people throughout the Arab world, especially in light of the absence of weapons of mass destruction and links to the al Qaeda terrorist organization.

"The events of the last two years have not only intensified the rage of the extremist terrorists," the letter read, "they have also ignited civil hostilities in Iraq that have made American and Iraqis substantially less safe."

The solution, the letter states, is for U.S. soldiers to come home.

"By removing our troops from the country, we will remove the main focus of the insurgents' rage," the letter said.

Woolsey's letter came one week after she issued a Jan. 3 statement calling for the return of U.S. troops.

The "final straw," Woolsey said, was the resignation of 700 election officials in the Iraqi city of Mosul on Dec. 30.

"If the men and women charged with administering the Iraqi election fear for their safety, then our American troops are sitting ducks," she said.

"We should not abandon Iraq; there is still a critical role for the United States in providing the development aid that can help create a civil society, support education and rebuild Iraq's economic infrastructure," Woolsey said Tuesday. "But the military option is clearly not working."

Woolsey has received no response from the White House.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/politics/19intel.html?oref=login

By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: January 19, 2005

WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 - The Iraqi government that emerges from elections on Jan. 30 will almost certainly ask the United States to set a specific timetable for withdrawing its troops, according to new American intelligence estimates described by senior administration officials.

The reports also warn that the elections will be followed by more violence, including an increased likelihood of clashes between Shiites and Sunnis, possibly even leading to civil war, the officials said.

This pessimism is consistent with other assessments over the past six months, including a classified cable sent in November by the Central Intelligence Agency's departing station chief in Baghdad. But the new assessments, from the C.I.A. and the Defense and State Departments, focus more closely on the aftermath of the election, including its potential implications for American policy, the officials said.

The assessments are based on the expectation that a Shiite Arab coalition will win the elections, in which Shiites are expected to make up a vast majority of voters, the officials said. Leaders of the coalition have promised voters they will press Washington for a timetable for withdrawal, and the assessments say the new Iraqi government will feel bound, at least publicly, to meet that commitment.

Such a request would put new pressure on the Bush administration, which has said it would honor an Iraqi request but has declined to set a timetable for withdrawing the 173,000 American and other foreign troops now in Iraq. Officials, including Colin L. Powell, the secretary of state, have said such decisions should be based on security needs, which include training more Iraqis.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/19/opinion/edbarton.html

Frederick Barton, Bathsheba Crocker and Craig Cohen The New York Times  Thursday, January 20, 2005

WASHINGTON With Iraqi elections scheduled in two weeks, many Americans already have one eye on the exit. The Bush administration insists that American troops will stay until a free, stable and peaceful Iraq is established. But it seems likely that momentum for a speedy withdrawal will increase after the elections no matter the degree of stability in Iraq.

When is the proper time, then, to withdraw the bulk of the 150,000 troops from Iraq? The answer does not lie in the corridors of Washington, but on the streets of Baghdad, Tikrit, Mosul and Falluja - with the people of Iraq.

As it now stands, there are three situations under which America could withdraw its forces: It achieves its goals and departs in triumph; its is asked to leave by the Iraqi government; or it leaves Iraq in chaos but spins it as a win. There are problems with all three.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/dfd3d284-6a87-11d9-858c-00000e2511c8.html

By Gareth Smyth

Published: January 20 2005 02:00 | Last updated: January 20 2005 02:00

The shrapnel holes in the blue dome of the mosque in Biyara have been patched up and the bones of Sufi holy men restored to their shrine, but memories of Ansar al-Islam are still fresh for the Iraqi Kurdish villagers.

"May God damn them," said Hussein Mahmoud, keeper of the shrine, an elderly man with a traditional turban. "How can they defile holy men who did only good for the people?"

For 18 months, Ansar al-Islam imposed a Taliban-style rule in Biyara and the neighbouring village of Tawella, high on the slopes of the Hawraman mountains of north-eastern Iraq near the Iranian border.

Ansar hid the holy men's bones, regarding it as idolatrous to visit their shrine.

The group was dislodged in March 2003 by a US missile barrage and a ground assault by US special forces and fighters of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), the mainstream Kurdish party.

But it regrouped, despite losing hundreds of fighters. While other extremists have switched identities in Iraq's violence, Ansar and its offshoot, Ansar al-Sunna, have remained a constant.

Its hardline Sunni Islamist ideology has been used to justify attacks on US forces, Shia Muslims, Kurds and anyone seen as "heretical" or part of Iraq's new order.

Ansar, which has Arab and Kurdish members, has claimed responsibility for much of Iraq's most savage violence, including last week's killing of Sheikh Mahmoud Finjan, aid to Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most influential Shia cleric, and February's suicide bombs that killed more than 100 Kurds in Arbil.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d9d20972-6a88-11d9-858c-00000e2511c8.html

By Gareth Smyth in Suleimaniya

Published: January 20 2005 02:00 | Last updated: January 20 2005 02:00

Mohammad Tawfiq, a leading Kurdish official, said yesterday the government of Iyad Allawi appeared to have no coherent plan to improve security and that Mr Allawi was unlikely to remain in office after the January 30 elections.

"For a lot of people in Iraq, the Iraqi government exists only on television," he said.

Mr Tawfiq, a leading member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, one of two main Kurdish parties, said Mr Allawi's government had, with US support, fed violence by reversing Washington's earlier policy of removing known Ba'athists from official positions.

"De-Ba'athification went on seriously for only three or four months," he said. When it ended, in April, Ba'athists began to plan violent actions to gain further concessions, said Mr Tawfiq.

Mr Allawi's government and the previous US-led administration had allowed the Ba'athists to gain "inside information", through penetrating the new Iraqi police force, which the Americans had mistakenly reconstituted "from the bottom up", said Mr Tawfiq.

"Co-operation and co-ordination" between the Ba'athists and radical Islamists was based on the Ba'athists providing "money, weapons, transportation and safe houses" while the Islamists provided suicide bombers.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/208556_vandyk20.html

Thursday, January 20, 2005

By TED VAN DYK

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST

Now we have taken open-ended responsibility for trying to build a stable democracy in a country historically torn by ethnic, religious, tribal and national rivalries. Shiites seem certain to dominate national elections and an eventual government. Anticipating that outcome, Sunni insurgents already are killing Shiite leaders who, in turn, have factional disputes of their own.

Other major countries will not join us in Iraq unless guaranteed some later economic or financial plunder. Our troops cannot come home while Iraq is unstable. Federal red ink will continue to flow so long as we carry this responsibility. The Iraq war and aftermath almost certainly will be a central issue in next year's U.S. congressional elections.

In the end, we may have no option but to leave Iraq while a Shiite-dominated regime finishes off insurgents in pockets where they remain. That regime might not resemble the one we hoped to see.

What the Vietnam and Iraq interventions do have in common is this: Both were undertaken without realistic forethought about the time, money and lives we might have to expend on what might be an ultimately unmanageable enterprise in a place we did not understand. Bush is only one of many U.S. presidents who have acted accordingly over the past century.

If you, as I, see fiction as truth and much history as distortion, this is a time to reread British author and intelligence agent Graham Greene's: "The Quiet American," written between 1952-55 during Greene's time in Vietnam. We Americans are never drawn so clearly as by Greene's cold eye -- rich, powerful and well intended but proceeding confidently in alien cultures and, thus, sometimes doing harm to others and ourselves.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/225bb912-6a8a-11d9-858c-00000e2511c8.html

By Roula Khalaf in London

Published: January 20 2005 02:00 | Last updated: January 20 2005 02:00

In the run-up to the Iraq war, General Amer al-Saadi, top scientific adviser to Saddam Hussein, never wavered in his assertion that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would not be found. They had been destroyed after the 1990-91 Gulf war, he insisted.

With the US now admitting that the investigation into the alleged weapons has been concluded without finding any stockpiles, the British-educated Mr Saadi seems to have been telling the truth.

Yet, nearly two years after the war, Mr Saadi, who acted as the main liaison with United Nations inspectors, continues to languish in jail in Iraq without charge.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=26656

By Lisa Burgess, Stars and Stripes

European edition, Thursday, January 20, 2005

ARLINGTON, Va. -- Half the Individual Ready Reserves members given orders by the Army to fight the war on terror have asked for either a delay or an exemption to the order, and Army officials are approving the majority -- 66 percent -- of the requests.

Hundreds of other IRR members, meanwhile, simply have failed to show up at deployment stations when ordered to do so.

And instead of declaring the scofflaws as "absent without leave," or AWOL, the Army is choosing to give these people "the benefit of the doubt," Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, an Army spokeswoman in the Pentagon, said in a Tuesday interview.

The combination of IRR deferments and no-shows is slowing the Army's effort to fill critical slots in deploying units.

"It would be fair to say there's a delay," Hart said.

Nevertheless, "the [Army] leadership is not alarmed" by the state of the IRR call-up, Hart said.

"We haven't even called the [full] number [of IRR members] we were authorized to call," Hart said.

In January 2004, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the Army could call up to 6,500 people from the IRR in order to fill empty slots in units mostly bound for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The IRR is a category of servicemembers who have left active duty or active reserves service but still have time left on their obligation to serve.

With the intention of minimizing the disruption to civilians no longer in uniform, Army officials said they "scrubbed the lists" of requests to pinpoint 4,402 "absolutely must-fill" positions.

Knowing that not everyone called would make the cut, the same officials decided to send orders to 5,674 IRR members to report for training and deployment, a process that will extend through March 2005.

But attrition is turning out to be higher than Army officials had anticipated.

Of the 3,845 mobilization orders sent to IRR members as of Dec. 28, 1,919 people requested either a delay or an exemption from the deployment, Hart said.

An adjudication board at the Army's Human Resources Command in St. Louis has approved 1,258 of the requests, Hart said.

Only 85 requests have been disapproved, while 576 requests are pending a decision.

Meanwhile, another 452 IRR members who were supposed to report to their mobilization stations before Dec. 28 not only did not contact the board, they did not show up at all.

They failed to report "for varying reasons," Hart said, such as not understanding that they have a legal obligation to do so, or because Army personnel officials "did not have the correct mailing address."

However, the Army "hasn't categorized anyone in AWOL status," Hart said, and is not moving to prosecute or punish any IRR member who did not report as ordered.

Instead, officials in the Army's Human Resource Command "is contacting [these 452 people] by phone ... to inform them of their different options," such as formally requesting an exemption or delay, Hart said.

Asked why the Army officials appear to be treating the IRR so leniently, Hart replied, "This is a special group of people."

"We're being compassionate with this group of individuals, and giving them the benefit of the doubt," she said.

washingtonpost.com

Threads Unravel in Iraqi's Tale

Relatives, Others Dispute Account of Refugee Who Accused Officials of Abuse

By Peter Finn

Washington Post Foreign Service

Thursday, January 20, 2005; Page A18

An Iraqi woman who was granted refugee status in the United States after telling The Washington Post and U.S. officials that she had been imprisoned, tortured and sexually assaulted in Iraq during the 1990s appears to have made false claims about her past, according to a fresh examination of her statements.

Jumana Michael Hanna also claimed her husband, Haitam Jamil Anwar, had been executed during the rule of ousted Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. Her testimony led to the arrest of several Iraqi security officials. Based on her testimony, U.S. officials took her into protective custody in Baghdad, and then to the United States.

She was the subject of a lengthy article in The Washington Post in July 2003. Later, a writer who was interested in collaborating on a book about Hanna concluded that she was not telling the truth. Her article appears in the January issue of Esquire magazine.

In recent interviews in Baghdad, Hanna's in-laws -- including her husband's brother, uncle and cousin -- all said the husband, Haitam Jamil Anwar, was alive and had left Iraq several months ago. They also said that while Hanna was imprisoned in Baghdad in the 1990s, it was not for the reason she told The Post.

"I don't believe this," Hanna said in a telephone interview Wednesday about The Post's finding. "You write what you like. I have nothing else to say." Hanna is currently living in Chicago. Her mother and two children were also granted refugee status.

This Post reporter met Hanna in July 2003 at the Human Rights Society of Iraq in Baghdad, where she was seeking assistance. Over the next week, she was interviewed three times in the company of an Iraqi interpreter and a Post correspondent who spoke fluent Arabic.

Hanna said at the time that she was imprisoned after she had eloped with her husband, whom she said was of Indian origin. The marriage, she said, was not valid under Iraqi law because she had not received the proper permission to marry a foreign national. She said she went to the Iraqi Olympic Committee building in Baghdad, hoping that Saddam Hussein's son, Uday, would help.

Instead, she said, she was arrested, and between November 1993 and early 1996, was held in cells at the adjoining police academy where she said she and other female prisoners were beaten and raped.

In July 2003, a Post correspondent, photographer and interpreter asked her to accompany them to the police academy. She appeared to know the grounds well, pointing out certain landmarks that she had described in earlier interviews. While at the academy, she appeared to be deeply traumatized. Photos taken of her at the academy showed her wailing and on the verge of collapse. American officials took her into protective custody shortly afterward.

Toma Kalabat, a cousin of Hanna's husband, offered a different account in an interview with The Post. He said Hanna had been imprisoned, but said he believed she was jailed for cheating people out of money on the promise that she could get them visas to emigrate to Western Europe. Kalabat and other family members said Anwar, the husband, had also been imprisoned.

In a separate interview this week in Baghdad, a priest who knew Hanna said on the condition of anonymity that she had conned people out of money on the promise of getting them visas. The priest was contacted at the suggestion of Hanna, who said he could verify her story.

In 2003, The Post interviewed members of Hanna's family, including her mother, and others who she said had sheltered her mother while she was imprisoned. They supported Hanna's story. This week, some of her relatives in Iraq who had earlier corroborated parts of her story again told a Post correspondent that her husband was dead.

Hanna also produced Iraqi documents, including a stamped certificate of naturalization, that noted her husband' was Indian and that gave his original Indian name. Anwar was a Christian of Indian origin, according to his family and Iraqi documents, but he adopted an Arab name.

Hanna claimed in 2003 that none of her husband's relatives was in Baghdad; that she believed his mother had returned to India; and that she had no contact information for his mother. But the husband's family said Anwar's mother was living in Baghdad. The Post was unable to reach her Wednesday at her home, which was visited by a Post correspondent. Anwar's brother, Faisal, said his mother had Anwar's phone number abroad, although The Post was unable to locate him.

For the past three weeks, Hanna continued to insist in telephone interviews that she had told the truth.

more at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22249-2005Jan19.html

the version played on public television here in the U.S. The coverage seemed to be very much be a replay of the initial Abu Ghraib relevations here, i.e., a really big deal, with worldwide reaction. I'm not seeing it presented that way here in the U.S. at all seems it is getting minor, low key coverage. Just interesting--is it a case of British press overplaying the story's importance and impact or vice-versa? I really don't know, and am not judging, just shocked at the difference in coverage.

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/world/sns-ap-iraq-checkpoint-shooting,0,7673972.story?coll
=ny-world-big-pix

U.S. Troops Kill Two Civilians in Iraq

By Associated Press

January 19, 2005, 3:56 AM EST

MOSUL, Iraq -- U.S. soldiers opened fire on a car as it approached their checkpoint in northern Iraq, killing two civilians in the vehicle's front seats, the military said Wednesday. Six children riding in the backseat were unhurt.

U.S. troops trying to stop the car used hand signals and fired warning shots before firing directly at the car, killing the driver and front seat passenger, a military statement said. The shooting occurred Tuesday in the city of Tal Afar, about 40 miles west of Mosul.

It wasn't clear from the military statement whether the two victims were the children's parents.

"Military officials extend their condolences for this unfortunate incident," the statement said.

The military said that so far this year, at least five suicide car bombers have struck Iraqi security troops and U.S. military patrols and checkpoints in the area.

I think he's right to point out Greene. I've seen a lot of non-Americans on the left label the support for the whole Iraq invasion with a simplistic imperialist interpretation. Personally, I think that's a misunderstanding of the majority of Americans that won't get you anywhere. Greene knew the difference, pegged the difference, between the British empire and America. Americans in general, those who don't travel and are not part of the educated elite (and even many who do) have been arrogant, stupid, or naive, or a mixture of same, regarding other countries, but not imperialistic. That's because their experience of other cultures is of people that come to their country from other cultures with the intent to assimilate into the U.S. So they have often wrongly presume everyone will be like that, that everyone would prefer "the American way." I think this is why many fell for the neo-con line. He's right that it's the same as Vietnam for supporters in this: an eternally naive "why aren't they grateful?" which swtiches to "well, they'll become grateful with time" when things don't work out.