Thread: Archive Latest News - Think Tank - 16/08/07 - 03/11/07

9/11 and Iraq: fanaticism on both sides

This week's sixth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks against the United States sees the top American military and diplomatic officials in Iraq speaking to the US Congress about American strategy in the country. The juxtaposition is noteworthy: Six years ago a small band of Al-Qaeda militants attacked America and killed some 3,000 people. Today, a military force of over 160,000 Americans wages a war in Iraq that has seen tens of thousands of people killed since 2003. Neither policy makes much sense to anyone in the world, other than to those fanatics on both sides who have decided to pursue these actions.

If we wish to assess our world six years after 9/11, we should do so without perpetuating the crippling analytical mistakes that have been made on all sides - especially in the US. The main mistake continues to be the capacity to view one's own country, values and policies as righteous, innocent and well-intentioned, while viewing the enemy as evil and dangerous. We've seen this attitude among Arabs and Israelis, Americans and Islamic militants, Turks and Kurds, Syrians and Lebanese, and other such pairs of foes. To learn how we reached this point of ever-expanding conflict, in order to find a way out, we must transcend the habit of demonizing the other side while ignoring our own faults. Arabs, Israelis, Iranians and Americans, above all, must find a way to jointly examine the cycle of relationships, conditions, and policies that have bound them together in an increasingly violent sequence of events in recent decades.

Neither 9/11 nor the Anglo-American war on Iraq occurred in a vacuum. Anyone who followed events in this region honestly and comprehensively would have been aware of the growth of militant Islamist groups since the 1980s. These groups were motivated by, and targeted, three parallel foes: conservative Arab regimes, Israel, and the US. The Al-Qaeda phenomenon has continued to spread in the form of small, local militant groups, because the conditions for its nourishment remain largely unchanged. The war in Iraq and fate of the Palestinians only provide new incentives for the growth of Islamist and other radicals. We should expect more, not fewer, manifestations of Arab-Islamic extremism in the years ahead.

The same applies in the other direction. People throughout the Middle East should not be surprised if the US, Israel, or others soon launch overt or covert attacks against Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas. These are the four principal parties that the dominant Western-Israeli political elite has singled out as dangerous, and has designated for containment, punishment, or removal from the scene. Some form of assault on one or more of these parties is certain in the coming years, because of three main reasons why the US-led West and Israel will not leave the Middle East alone to define itself: global reliance on Middle Eastern energy; the strong American commitment to Israeli security (in the form of superiority over the rest of the Middle East); and continued anger and fear related to the 9/11 attacks and the Al-Qaeda phenomenon behind those attacks. American-British-Israeli extremism and militarism will certainly rear their heads in new forms in the months and years ahead.

Conditions for stability and prosperity throughout the Middle East are moving in two different directions. Small pockets of prosperity and stability are emerging in places like Dubai, western Amman, Doha, bits of Cairo, and other such isolated quarters that have joined the global economic train. Most of the rest of the region suffers from mass economic stagnation, mediocre educational standards, deteriorating environmental conditions, and limited opportunities for ideological expression.

Political stress, consequently, is a dominant condition throughout the Middle East. It will be made worse in the short run by three main issues: first, the continued treatment of Iraq as a problem of incompetent native Arabs (now called Sunnis and Shiites) who seem unable to grasp the gift of freedom that the benevolent American armed forces have given them; second, fantasy peace-making in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, shaped by the American and Israeli refusal to deal with a democratically elected Hamas; and third, application of a harsher standard to Arabs and Iranians than to Israel when applying United Nations resolutions and global treaties.

We cannot predict how and when mounting Arab and Iranian humiliation and a sense of dehumanization will manifest themselves, no more than we can say when the American-Israeli-led West will move against Iran, Syria or others. The sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, though - like this year's 60th anniversary of the partition of Palestine UN resolution - should remind us that traumatized people do not acquiesce passively in their agony and perplexity, but rather fight back, often violently and irrationally. To fight and eliminate the militarism and terrorism of our age, we must first acknowledge that they do not spring onto the world stage whimsically and without cause.

9/11 and Iraq: fanaticism on both sides | Iraq Updates

Iraqi premier to participate in UN donor conference

Iraq's Premier Nuri al-Maliki is to participate in the United Nations donor countries conference in UN headquarters in New York on September 21, Iraqi newspapers reported Wednesday.

On the sidelines of the forthcoming conference al-Maliki is expected to meet with US lawmakers, including Democrats who recently criticized the ability of the premier's cabinet to curb violence in the war-ravaged country and reach reconciliation with opposing political factions.

Al-Sabah newspaper, the government's mouthpiece, said al-Maliki is expected to brief the US officials on his 'government's achievements and how acts of violence in the country have decreased.'

Iraqi premier to participate in UN donor conference - Middle East

Report will not solve US problems in Iraq, says Tehran

Tehran on Wednesday said that the latest report on the situation in Iraq would not solve the United States' problems in that country.

Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini told states news agency IRNA that the report could neither save the US from the 'swamp' in Iraq nor secure peace in the Persian Gulf region.

Hosseini was referring to the report by General David Petraeus, commander of US forces in Iraq, and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker testified to the US Congress on Monday.

'The report is further based on repetitious and baseless allegations against Iran in line with the efforts by the (George W) Bush administration to blame others for parts of their problems,' the spokesman said.

Report will not solve US problems in Iraq, says Tehran - Middle East

Foreign troops in Iraq under 100,000 by late 2008: Iraqi official

Foreign troops in Iraq are likely to be fewer than 100,000 by the end of 2008 depending on the situation in Iraq, Iraqi National Security Advisor Muwaffaq al-Rubaie said on Wednesday.

'It is not far from reality to say that the multinational forces in Iraq can be reduced to less than 100,000 by the end of next year,' al-Rubaie told reporters at a Baghdad press conference.

'It all depends on the circumstances, the security threats facing the country and the readiness and capability of Iraqi forces,' al- Rubaie said.
On Monday and Tuesday, both US commander in Iraq General David Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker recommended to the United States Congress that the US would need fewer forces in Iraq in the near future.

Bush in January announced a boost in US troop strength from about 130,000 to more than 160,000.

Bush has urged Americans to give the 'surge' time to work and has portrayed Petraeus' report as crucial to the future US course in Iraq.
Al-Rubaie had announced the Iraqi government's approval of the US report on Tuesday, describing it as being 'transparent' in assessing the situation in Iraq.

'Iraq's government and the security forces would remain in need of the support of the US-coalition forces' until they were fully prepared to take on Iraq's security themselves, he noted.

Al-Rubaie's comments came as Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced that he would go to Washington on September 21 to convince opponents of Bush's Iraq policies in the US that the Iraqi government and US forces had made progress in Iraq.

During the trip, he intended to convince the US public that 'the situation in Iraq is in some aspects different from that portrayed by US diplomats,' al-Maliki was quoted by al-Saban newspaper as saying.

Foreign troops in Iraq under 100,000 by late 2008: Iraqi official - Middle East

US ambassador sees increased European support for Iraq

The US ambassador to Baghdad said Wednesday that he has seen a greater recognition from some European countries that they have a stake in the outcome in Iraq.

Ryan Crocker, who was in Washington to testify before Congress about the situation in Iraq along with the top military commander, General David Petraeus, referred to the recents visits to Baghdad by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and his Swedish counterpart, Carl Bildt.

'It seems to me that some major European countries are now taking another look, a new look at Iraq,' Crocker said, 'and recognizing that four-and a-half years after the fall of Saddam that they have long-term interests in how things turn out in Iraq.'

Kouchner flew to Iraq in August and Bildt in early September. Kouchner has emphasized that Europe needs to play a greater diplomatic role helping Iraq emerge from turmoil and put differences over the American decision to invade in March 2003.

French President Nicholas Sarkozy has taken a friendlier approach to US-French relations since succeeding Jacques Chirac in May. Bildt returned from his visit persuaded that Sweden needed to beef up its diplomatic presence in Baghdad.

'This expanded European engagement is a very positive thing,' Crocker said.

The United Nations and Iraqi government plan to host an international gathering September 22-23 to discuss the UN-backed International Compact for Iraq which provides reconstruction aid while requiring Baghdad to carry out democratic reforms.

US ambassador sees increased European support for Iraq - Middle East

UIC will not give up any of its components – MP

Baghdad, Sept 12, (VOI)- A member of the parliament from the Shiite Unified Iraqi Coalition (UIC) said on Wednesday that the Shiite bloc will not give up any of its components, noting that failure and weakness can be tackled.

Abbas al-Bayati told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI) over the phone that “the Sadrist bloc’s official positions still assert its keenness to work within the UIC.”

“The Sadrist bloc is part of the UIC and we will not give up any of our main components,” the parliamentarian affirmed, noting that “weaknesses could be tackled within the UIC.”

The official Spokesman for al-Sadr Salah al-Ubeidi said yesterday that the Sadrist bloc, MPs loyal to the Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, may withdraw from the Shiite Unified Iraqi Coalition (UIC).

"The Sadrist bloc may announce a decision to withdraw from the UIC unless the bloc would try to fulfill the promises it made. We decided to think carefully in this issue within the upcoming days," the spokesman also said.

The spokesman blamed the inefficiency of the Shiite bloc for that possible decision.

He criticized also the UIC's policy, underlining that certain parties are dominating it and deciding its policies.

The Sadrist bloc occupies 30 out of a total 275 seats in the Iraqi parliament.

Regarding criticisms made by the parliament’s Speaker Mahmud al-Mashhadani to Nouri al-Maliki’s government, the lawmaker also said that “the government of the national unity under al-Maliki realized several achievements.”

“The government managed to prevent a sectarian war and made a progress towards the political reconciliation,” the Shiite legislature explained.

He said there is a failure in the government’s performance, justifying this as the premier did not select his cabinet freely.

Aswat Aliraq

Baghdad neighbours protest over dividing wall

Hundreds of Shiites and Sunnis marched on Wednesday in protest at the building by US troops of a tall concrete wall separating their northwest Baghdad neighbourhoods, an AFP photographer said.

The protesters complained that the wall would promote sectarianism and demanded its removal.

Residents said that US forces last week began building the two-kilometre (1.25 mile) wall along the border of the mainly Shiite al-Shuala and adjoining Sunni-majority al-Ghazaliyah neighbourhoods without consulting them.

The demonstrators -- tribal leaders, clerics and local residents -- marched from one neighbourhood to the other carrying banners reading "No to the dividing wall" and "The wall is US terrorism."

The protesters demanded in a statement that the government intervene to halt the wall and ensure that the section already completed is demolished.

"The wall is in accordance with Al-Qaeda's plans," the statement said, adding that the barrier was being built to "separate family from family."
"The wall is dividing small neighbourhoods and will lead to the partitioning of Iraq," said Hassan al-Taii, a leader of the large Taii Sunni tribe.

He demanded that the Baghdad government destroy the wall and act against those "planting division and sectarianism among Iraqis."

Since early this year, US and Iraqi forces have been erecting walls around or between some Baghdad neighbourhoods in what their commanders call a "concrete caterpillar" designed to protect residents from sectarian violence.

In April the military came under flak when it began constructing a ring of six-tonne (14,000 pounds) concrete blocks around the Sunni Adhamiyah neighbourhood to prevent it from being mortared from the nearby Shiite areas.

Many Iraqis argue that the barricades will only heighten tensions between Sunnis and Shiites by segregating the once mixed city.

During Wednesday's protest, demonstrators carried Iarqi flags and chanted, "No, no to terrorism", and "Yes, yes to unity."

"This wall does not provide security and stability," said Shiite cleric Abdul Baqir al-Subaihawi.

"The government must maintain security in Baghdad rather than separate its neighbourhoods," he added.

Shiite radical leader Moqtada al-Sadr has urged artists to paint the concrete barriers springing up around Baghdad with murals showing what he dubbed the "ugly face" of the US military in Iraq.

The Baghdad council has employed professional artists to paint the walls with calming landscapes and scenes depicting Iraq's natural beauty, but Sadr -- a firebrand preacher and militia leader -- had something more dramatic in mind.

"I call on you to draw magnificent tableaux that depict the ugliness and terrorist nature of the occupier, and the sedition, car bombings, blood and the like he has brought upon Iraqis," he said.


Baghdad neighbours protest over dividing wall - Yahoo! News UK

Iran dismisses US Iraq report and wants serious talks

Iran on Wednesday dismissed the latest US strategy report on Iraq as "unrealistic" and warned it would not take part in future talks on Iraqi security unless Washington was serious.

Iran's top national security official Ali Larijani said Washington was wrong to say improvements in security in Iraq were thanks to its "surge" in troop numbers. Credit should go to the Iraqi government and its neighbours, he said.

The top US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, told Congress in testimony on Monday that the "surge" of some 30,000 more troops into Baghdad was working and that US troop numbers could recede by next summer.

"They are giving the credit to a few troops that they added. I think that the picture of Iraq portrayed in the report was unrealistic. It was not in line with reality," Larijani told reporters.

Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini added: "This report will not save the United States from the Iraqi quagmire.

"It was clear from the very start that this report was being prepared in advance of the next US (presidential) elections as a response to the needs of the neo-conservatives to justify continuing to occupy Iraq," he added, according to the official IRNA news agency.

Larijani meanwhile warned the United States that Tehran would not be interested in having further talks over security in Iraq if all Washington wanted was to have "fun" in the discussions.

The US and Iranian ambassadors to Baghdad have held two rounds of talks on Iraqi security this year in landmark meetings that were the highest level contact between the two sides in years.

"If the main objective is to help the Iraqi government and improve security, definitely we will support such a move and continue our negotiations with the United States," Larijani said.

"But if it is going to be a kind of fun, we are beyond that stage and we should look at the issue in a more serious way. We should be serious about the fate of the Iraqi people."

Petraeus had on Monday also accused Iran of fighting a "proxy war" in Iraq through the covert operations unit of the Revolutionary Guards -- the Quds force.

His remarks were the latest complaint over Iran's role in Iraq by the United States, which accuses Tehran of shipping bombs into the country for attacks on US troops and of helping to train Shiite militias.

"Such accusations are without foundation and only seek to transfer responsibility for the grave errors committed by American leaders to neighbouring countries," said Hosseini.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States would focus on protecting the territorial integrity of Iraq after warnings by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Iran would fill the vacuum left behind with a planned US troop withdrawal.

Iraq "has very troublesome neighbours... And I would note that President Ahmadinejad said if the United States leaves Iraq, Iran is prepared to fill the vacuum," said the chief US diplomat. "That is what is at stake here."

Rice said that together with the allies in the "war on terror," the United States would "resist both terrorism and Iranian aggression" in Iraq.

Iran dismisses US Iraq report and wants serious talks - Yahoo! News UK

Quiet diplomat lays out long-term US role in Iraq

Low-key Baghdad ambassador Ryan Crocker stepped out from the shadow of the top US commander in Iraq to urge Congress not to abandon the bloodstained country, not now or years into the future.

In hotly anticipated congressional hearings this week, Crocker appeared the forgotten man alongside the illustrious General David Petraeus, whose mission to pacify Iraq dominated the headlines and the attention of lawmakers.

But Crocker, a fluent Arabic speaker who is acknowledged as one of the US government’s foremost experts on the Middle East, has the no-less arduous job of cajoling Iraq’s warring politicians into a durable compact.

“I am frustrated every day I spend in Iraq on the lack of progress on legislative initiatives. Iraqis themselves are frustrated,” he said.

“My level of confidence (in the Iraqi government) is under control,” he said, his dry wit drawing laughter from members of the Senate foreign relations committee.

Methodical, thoughtful, and at times morose, Crocker’s rhetoric was a long remove from the White House’s triumphalist past declarations about remaking Iraq into a bastion of democracy in a restive, oil-rich region.

“I think in the past we have set some expectations that simply couldn’t be met,” he told the senators.

“There will be no single moment at which we can claim victory,” he said Monday to members of the House of Representatives, four years after President George W. Bush appeared on a US aircraft carrier under the giant banner “Mission accomplished.”

In recent months, Bush himself has expressed frustration with the slow pace of change under Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki, but insists that the United States will not walk away from the shattered country.

Bush was to make a televised speech late Thursday on his plans for future US troop levels in Iraq, after Petraeus argued for a continuation of the “surge” of nearly 30,000 more soldiers.

Many Democrats are baying for an early withdrawal, arguing that US troops are paying with their lives while politicians in Baghdad bicker.

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton said reading the reports by Petraeus and Crocker demanded the “willing suspension of disbelief.”

The ambassador, however, took his congressional audiences back to the infant days of US democracy in warning that rebuilding Iraq will be a long and hard business.

US lawmakers should not look to short-term benchmarks for progress in Iraq, Crocker said, estimating that just to provide adequate electricity throughout the country will take 25 billion dollars up to 2016.

Many of Iraq’s neighbours and European countries are slowly coming on board the need to assist in rebuilding the country, which ”almost completely unravelled” in 2006 owing to an orgy of sectarian killings.

But now, with security gains under the “surge” strategy, Iraqi politicians at last are gaining the space needed to reflect on their bitter differences, according to Crocker.

Grassroots political change in long-restive provinces such as Anbar and Diyala could be the “seeds of reconciliation,” even if in Baghdad reforms to oil revenues, the electoral system and the constitution remain stalled.

The alternative to success in Iraq is “massive human suffering” from even greater chaos or civil war, intervention from regional rivals such as Iran, and “safe havens” for Al Qaeda’s band of Islamic extremists.

The United States has already “given a great deal in blood and treasure” in Iraq, but must guard against the short-termist belief that “the chapter comes to a close, the movie ends, and we all go on to other things,” Crocker warned.
“Iraq will still be there.”

Khaleej Times Online - Quiet diplomat lays out long-term US role in Iraq=

From a Blog - different thought.

Is Hunt Oil Deal a Political Threat for more Iraqi Oil?

Ray L Hunt, the MD of Hunt Oil Company was appointed in October 2001 and January 2006 by President George W Bush to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

Furthermore, Ray Hunt serves on the National Petroleum Council which advises the Secretary of Energy. As interesting is Hunt Oil's Senior Vice President and Director, Tom Muerer, who serves on the board of The Middle East Institute, a "think tank" whose major funders are Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Raytheon, Saudi Aramco, Shell. In a not unrelated note, both Hunt and Muerer are or have been trustees for the Southern Methodist University, where, de****e the protests of actual Methodist ministers, the George W. Bush presidential library is likely to be housed. Source Anythingtheysay.

Considering this, is the oil deal with the Texan friend of George Bush and the KRG, a political threat and warning to the Iraqi Government to come up with major oil concessions for US oil companies such as Exxon Mobil in Iraq? Or spoils of war? Or both?

Hevallo: Is Hunt Oil Deal a Political Threat for More Iraqi Oil?