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

Iraq governor escapes assassination attempt

Tikrit: The governor of Iraq's Salahuddin province escaped an assassination attempt on Monday when two bombs exploded near his convoy, police said.

Governor Hamad Al Qaisi escaped unhurt when the two roadside bombs exploded near his entourage. Two of his bodyguards were hurt, police said.

The incident took place in the Qadisiya neighbourhood of ousted leader Saddam Hussain's hometown of Tikrit.

On Sunday, US troops launched air strikes in the Salahuddin city of Samarra, where they killed 18 rebels. Five children and three women were among the dead, police said.

Gulfnews: Iraq governor escapes assassination attempt

Violence hits Salahuddin Province

Violence has returned to the relatively quiet Province of Salahudin and the past week saw some of the worst deadly attacks since the 2003 U.S. invasion.

Attacks of fuel tankers have soared with at least 11 drivers kidnapped. Fuel tankers are being increasingly used by Qaeda in Iraq in suicide bombing operations. One such attack this month wiped out two villages in northern Iraq, killing more than 500 members of a pre-Islamic sect known as Yazidis.

Unidentified gunmen now use silencer weapons to assassinate government and police officials. On Monday, the commander of the province’s police operations was gunned down prompting the authorities to slap a tight curfew on the city of Tikreet, the provincial capital.

The commander, Brigadier Othman Jaijan, was killed as he left his home. He was known for his tough tactics to hunt down insurgents and terrorists attacking civilians in the city.

Roadside bombs are making a comeback in Tikreet targeting police patrols and army units in the city. Two policemen were killed and several others wounded when a roadside bomb exploded in the central of Tikreet. Two police vehicles were also destroyed.

Most devastating has been last week’s suicide bombing attack on the city’s police headquarters in which 20 people, mainly police officers, were killed and 40 wounded. The building was smashed.

Another roadside bomb targeted a U.S. military convoy. The insurgents, using mainly light weapons, opened fire on the convoy immediately after the explosion. The convoy retreated in high speed when it became clear no vehicle was damaged and that there were no casualties.

The university has become target of frequent attacks. Gunmen have recently abducted deputy dean of the Pharmacy College and his whereabouts is still not known. Dr. Abbas Hadi was kidnapped as he left his clinical laboratory on his home.

Like Baghdad, the Tigris River, flowing close to Tikreet, has become a dumping ground for bodies of opponents. Two more bodies surfaced at Yatherb district on Monday. They had bullets in their heads with their hands cuffed and eyes folded.

http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news\2007-08-27\kurd.htm

Iran increasing Iraq militant support: U.S. commander

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq accused Iran on Sunday of stepping up support for anti-American Shi'ite militants in Iraq as U.S. policymakers await a crucial assessment of the violence-torn country.

Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno said Iraqi Shi'ite groups have received more weapons, ammunition, funding and training from Iran in the past two months, while President George W. Bush's "surge" strategy to quell violence in Baghdad has taken effect.

"It's clear to me that over the past 30 to 60 days they have increased their support," Odierno said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"They do it from providing weapons, ammunition -- specifically mortars and explosively formed projectiles," he said in a video link from Iraq.
"They are providing monetary support to some groups and they are conducting training within Iran of Iraqi extremists to come back here and fight the United States," he added.

Iran denies meddling in Iraq and says the U.S. invasion in 2003 is the cause of sectarian strife.

But U.S. military officials have long accused Iran of supplying deadly roadside bombs to anti-U.S. militants.

U.S. intelligence agencies said in a declassified report last week that Iran has been intensifying its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shi'ite militants since January.

The report predicted the support would continue over the next year because of Tehran's concerns about a Sunni reemergence in Iraq and U.S. efforts to limit Iranian influence.

In an interview with Reuters earlier this month, Odierno said he believed Iran was using its support for Shi'ite militants to influence the debate in Washington over whether to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq.

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and top U.S. commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus are due next month to issue a report on military and political progress in Iraq that could determine the course of U.S. policy.

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

Extorted U.S. cash funding militants
Contractors in Iraq padding their bids

BAGHDAD - Iraq's deadly insurgent groups have financed their war against U.S. troops, in part, with hundreds of thousands of dollars in U.S. rebuilding funds that they've extorted from Iraqi contractors in Anbar province.

The payments, in return for the insurgents' allowing supplies to move and construction work to begin, have taken place since the earliest projects in 2003, Iraqi contractors, politicians and interpreters involved with reconstruction efforts said.

A fresh round of rebuilding spurred by the U.S. military's recent alliance with some Anbar tribes provides another opportunity for militant groups such as al-Qaida in Iraq to siphon off more U.S. money, contractors and politicians warn as 200 new projects are scheduled.

"Now, we're back to the same old story in Anbar. The Americans are handing out contracts and jobs to terrorists, bandits and gangsters," said Sheik Ali Hatem Ali Suleiman, the deputy leader of the Dulaim, the largest and most powerful tribe in Anbar.

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad declined to provide anyone to discuss the allegations. An embassy spokesman, Noah Miller, said in an e-mailed statement, "(I)n terms of contracting practices, we have checks and balances in our contract awarding system to prevent any irregularities from occurring. Each contracted company is responsible for providing security for the project."

Providing that security is the source of the extortion, Iraqi contractors say. A U.S. company with a reconstruction contract hires an Iraqi subcontractor to haul supplies along insurgent-ridden roads. The Iraqi contractor sets his price at up to four times the going rate because he'll be forced to give 50 percent or more to gun-toting insurgents who demand cash payments in exchange for the supply convoys' safe passage.

By granting safe passage to a truck loaded with $10,000 in goods, they receive a "protection fee" that can buy more weapons and vehicles. Sometimes, the insurgents take the goods, too.

"The violence in Iraq has developed a political economy of its own that sustains it and keeps some of these terrorist groups afloat," said Barham Saleh, Iraq's deputy prime minister.

De****e several devastating U.S. military offensives to rout insurgents, the militants - or, in some cases, tribes with insurgent connections - still control the supply routes of the province, making reconstruction all but impossible without their protection.

As of July, the U.S. government had completed 3,300 projects in Anbar with a total value of $363 million, the U.S. Embassy said. An additional 250 projects with a total price tag of $353 million are under way.

None of the Iraqi contractors agreed to speak on the record. They risk losing future U.S. contracts and face retaliation from insurgent groups. "I put it right in my contracts as a line item for 'logistics and security,' " said one Iraqi contractor, who is still working for a major American company. "The Americans think you're hiring a security company, but how you execute it is something else entirely. This is how it's been working since Day 1."

One Iraqi contractor working on arebuilding project in Ramadi had two choices to bring in a crane, heavy machinery and workers from Baghdad: either hire a private security company for up to $6,000 a truck, or pay off locals with insurgent ties.

He chose the latter and got $120,000 for a U.S. contract he estimates to be worth no more than $20,000. "The insurgents always remind us they're there," the contractor said. "Sometimes, they hijack a truck or kidnap a driver and then we pay and, if we're lucky, we get our goods returned. It's just to make sure we know how it works.

Extorted U.S. cash funding militants

Local residents optimistic ahead of British withdrawal from Basra

BASRA: After four and a half inconclusive years of fighting, British forces are to pull out from their last base in the oil port of Basra and trust their Iraqi comrades to take their place.

When the 500 troops evacuate Saddam Hussein's former palace on the banks of the Shatt al-Arab waterway and withdraw to a desert airbase, they will leave behind a city in the grip of a brutal turf war between rival militia.

Nevertheless, Iraqi forces and war-weary local civilians are hopeful that the redeployment, which will leave 5,000 British troops in the country to train and support Iraqi forces, will herald a new start for Basra.

"I believe the security apparatus will be able to control the situation if [the British] withdraw completely," said Brigadier Ali Ibrahim of an Iraqi army border guards unit. "We want the British to leave so things will improve."

As he spoke, police and army units could be seen on most of downtown Basra's main roads, where shops and markets were open and busy, and hundreds of Shiite pilgrims gathered to ride buses to the holy city of Karbala.

For police Lieutenant Colonel Karim al-Zaydi, there is no reason why this sense of calm cannot continue once the British leave town.

"We're expecting the British forces to withdraw any time now," he told AFP at a Basra police station. "The Iraqi army and police have been cooperating for a long time and are ready to take charge of security."

The apparent optimism among Iraqis, however, stands in marked contrast to the pessimism of foreign observers. Many policy experts now speak candidly of a British defeat in southern Iraq and warn of more chaos ahead.

The International Crisis Group think tank warned in June that the withdrawal would be seen as a victory by the Shiite militias who bombard British bases daily and control much of the city's economic and political life.

"Basra's residents and militiamen view this as not an orderly withdrawal but rather as an ignominious defeat. Today, the city is controlled by militias, seemingly more powerful and unconstrained than before," its report said.

This month, Anthony Cordesman of Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies warned that Iraq's eastern neighbor Iran would also be encouraged by what he called "the British defeat."

"British weakness and failure in the south has both encouraged Shiite extremism and partially opened the door to Iran," he said, warning US forces in north and central Iraq not to rush to follow the Basra model.

British commanders, who have had 159 troops killed in Iraq, defend their tactics, insisting they never intended to rule Basra on behalf of the Iraqis.
"Our mission there was to get the place and the people to a state where the Iraqis could run the country if they chose to, and we are very nearly there," the head of British forces, Air Chief Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup, said.

"Our mission was not to make the place look somewhere green and peaceful, because that was never going to be achievable in that timescale, and, in any case, only the Iraqis can fulfill that aspiration," he told the BBC.

Who will rule Basra now is, however, an open question. One figure last week tried to claim credit for the British retreat.

"We heard and you heard, too, of the intention of British troops to withdraw from our beloved southern Iraq. Congratulations are due to us, to you and to the honest resistance," hard-line cleric Moqtada al-Sadr told supporters.

Sadr's Mehdi Army militia is a loosely organized force of neighborhood Shiite groups and may not be entirely under his control, but it remains one of Iraq's most powerful factions and a serious contender for control in Basra.

It will dispute the city with other Shiite groups, and clashes have already broken out with the Fadhila Party for control of a port that dominates Iraq's oil exports, which in turn account for 97 percent of government revenue.

No date has been set for the British departure from Basra Palace. Press reports from London suggest that it may be imminent, while the official line in Iraq is simply that it will be before the end of the year.

But for many Basrawis, living on top of one of the world's largest supplies of energy but enjoying less than eight hours of power per day in 45-degree heat, the troops have long since worn out their welcome.

"They did not develop the city as the people in Basra had dreamt of. They did nothing, so their departure is for the best," said Munir Abdel-Jalil, a 25-year-old carpenter from the al-Ashar district. - AFP

The Daily Star - Politics - Local residents optimistic ahead of British withdrawal from Basra

UK spending on Iraq hits £6.6bn

The conflict in Iraq and efforts to rebuild the country have cost British taxpayers about £6.6bn ($13.3bn), almost a third more than the funds Prime Minister Gordon Brown set aside for the military to fight the war.

Public accounts show that departmental spending on aid, debt relief and security adds about £1.6bn to the most commonly referenced estimate of UK war costs – a £5bn calculation based on money drawn down by the military from a Treasury contingency reserve.

The £6.6bn tally, calculated by the Financial Times, is the most recent estimate of Britain’s costs in Iraq. It provides a fuller picture than military spending alone, but could still be an underestimate; hidden expenses, such as salaries or sunk costs, are excluded.

The UK has significantly reduced its presence in Iraq since the 2003 US-led invasion but this has done little to quell public dismay over the war. Opposition politicians have attacked the government for placing too many demands on an overstretched military and for diverting valuable resources to Iraq. Explaining ongoing expense may be harder for Mr Brown as a withdrawal date nears.

Vince Cable, deputy leader of the opposition Liberal Democrat party, said that while the costs of the war are “primarily human and political”, the financial costs were “staggering”. “Even this figure is almost certainly an understatement,” he said. “There are continuing legacy costs, including caring for servicemen who have a lifetime of mental and physical disability.”

Iraq is probably the most costly overseas conflict for the UK since the second world war, according to the Iraq Analysis Group, a research organisation monitoring war costs.

“This money has not grown on trees,” said Liam Wren-Lewis of the Iraq Analysis Group. “It could have been spent on public services or in more effective development assistance to other countries.”

However, the total costs remain tiny compared with the hundreds of billions spent by the US. Just 34 days of American military operations in Iraq cost about $10bn – more than Britain’s entire armed campaign, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. US troops have outnumbered UK troops by a factor of 20 or more.

Mr Brown, the then chancellor of the exchequer, set up a “special reserve” in 2002 to fund the extra costs of wars in Afghanistan and the other “international obligations”. On the day jubilant crowds tore down the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad in the spring of 2003, Mr Brown allocated £3bn to the reserve to cover war costs. Since then, it has been topped up to a total of at least £7.4bn, primarily to cover rising costs in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Treasury do not specify how the money has been spent or what is left.

The Ministry of Defence says it has drawn down about £5bn for the extra costs of operations in Iraq and about £1.6bn for Afghanistan.

Government departments, with no support from the reserve, have shouldered more than a quarter of the £6.6bn burden for the full Iraq effort. The Department for International Development has committed £744m to aid and development and has written off £680m of Iraqi debt. It has claimed just £6m from the reserve, officials say.

The Foreign Office, in turn, has spent about £170m to pay for private security companies to protect its staff and offices.

Many hidden costs are excluded from the calculation of total spending. The armed forces cannot claim against the reserves for salaries or bonuses. Fighting on two fronts means that equipment is exhausted at a faster rate and that the cost increases of making sure forces are ready to deploy.

The new cost estimate comes as the British military denied reports that Shia militiamen from the Mahdi Army had taken over the police joint command centre in Basra after its soldiers had withdrawn and handed control to the Iraqi police.

British officers said the Iraqi general in charge of security in Basra had told them that the Mahdi Army was not present. But witnesses reported the Mahdi Army emptying the building and occupying it.

FT.com / In depth - UK spending on Iraq hits £6.6bn

CIA said to step up operations against Iran as hawks seek to tie Iraq bombs to Tehran
‘They still need a trigger,’ former official says

In an effort to build congressional and Pentagon support for military options against Iran, the Bush administration has shifted from its earlier strategy of building a case based on an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program to one invoking improvised explosive devices (IEDs) purportedly manufactured in Iran that are killing US soldiers in Iraq.

According to officials – including two former Central Intelligence Agency case officers with experience in the Middle East – the administration believes that by focusing on the alleged ties between IEDs and Iran, they can link the Iranian government directly to attacks on US forces in Iraq.

The US military has provided credible evidence that the specialized IEDs known as explosively formed penetrators (EFPs), which have been killing US troops in Iraq, appear to have been manufactured in Iran. Intelligence and military officials caution, however, that there is nothing tying the weapons directly to the Iranian government, nor is there a direct evidentiary chain of custody linking the IEDs to Iran.

“There is clear evidence that someone in Iran is manufacturing the EFPs,” said a source currently working with military and intelligence joint operations in the Middle East, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the topic. “They have a distinctive signature. These devices are being used against US troops, Sunnis, and even some Shi'as.”

“This is viewed by some in the Bush Administration as sufficient justification for taking military action against Iran,” the source concluded.
Nearly half of all fatalities and serious injuries among US forces in Iraq are caused by IED attacks, including 43% of US casualties in Iraq this month.

CIA reported to step up operations

A senior intelligence official told RAW STORY Tuesday that the CIA had stepped up operations in the region, shifting their Iran focus to ”other” approaches in preference to the “black propaganda” that Raw Story “has already reported on.”

The source would not elaborate on what these “other” approaches are. A recent Washington Post report indicated that the US plans to label Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist group, the first such designation for a foreign nation's military.

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano would neither confirm nor deny that “other” operations were taking place.

“The CIA does not, as a matter of course, comment on allegations involving clandestine operations, de****e the large amount of misinformation that circulates publicly on the subject," responded Gimigliano in a late Thursday email.

RAW STORY revealed in June that, according to sources, Iran was being targeted by CIA activities promoting a “pro-democracy” message and that the agency was supporting overt “pro-democracy” groups.

Two former CIA case officers interviewed said that the administration has zeroed in on the EFPs as proof positive of Iran's involvement in Iraq, de****e lacking any direct trail to Tehran.

One former CIA case officer who served in the Middle East even suggested that politically framing the Iranians for its own failures in Iraq would allow the Bush administration to avoid accountability, as well as providing a casus belli for an attack.

The Bush Administration “can say it’s [the Iranians'] fault we are losing the war in Iraq and that would be a convenient out for their failed policy,” the officer said Monday.

The Iranians “have declared war against the US by sabotaging the war on terror is how they might sell it. I would not be surprised to next hear of Al Qaeda-Iranian connections because these people don't know the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'a.”

Some continue to press for 'surgical strikes'

Another former CIA case officer with experience in the Middle East said that some in the administration have continued to make a case for limited or surgical strikes inside Iran, and that preparations are well underway for such an operation to occur before next year’s presidential election.

“If you were to report that a US surgical strike against key targets in Iran were to happen sooner rather than later, you would not be wrong,” said this source, who wished to remain unnamed due to the sensitivity of the topic.

None of the sources interviewed for this article referenced President George W. Bush or alluded to the end of the Bush presidency as the deadline for an Iranian offensive. Each, instead, mentioned either the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney or Cheney himself.

Intelligence expert Steven Aftergood, Research Director for the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said he doesn’t believe a surgical strike would be wise.

“A surgical strike simply refers to a precisely targeted attack on a particular installation, conducted so as to minimize collateral damage. Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor would be an example,” Aftergood remarked.

“I don't believe there is a consensus that a surgical strike could be used effectively to disable Iran's nuclear program, or that it would be wise to attempt such a strike.”

Iranian's Revolutionary Guard

In addition to shifting from a strategy that uses an alleged immediate threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran to one featuring IEDs as the tool by which Iran is allegedly trying to sabotage the efforts of US forces in Iraq, the administration has also moved toward directly implicating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps – sometimes referred to as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard – by labeling the group a "specially designated global terrorist" organizations.

According to an August 15, Washington Post article, the Guard will be designated a global terrorist organization under Executive Order 13224, which was issued shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001 to target and block funding to terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is the largest branch of Iran's military, boasting well over 100,000 elite active duty soldiers and roughly 300,000 reservists. The designation of the Guard as a "specially designated global terrorist” would be the first time a foreign military has been declared a terrorist organization.

Some officials speculate that the administration is trying to provoke the Iranians into an incident that will justify an airstrike in response, suggesting that the combined effect of circumstantial evidence tying Iran to the IEDs and an event or incident involving the Iranian Revolutionary Guard might “just be enough” to justify military action against Iran.

Experts and officials in the US military and intelligence communities read the administration's move to declare the Guard a terrorist organization as an indication that something ominous is looming over the horizon.

One of the former CIA case officers interviewed for this article explained that the Office of the Vice President is making this drastic move in order to lay the groundwork for a possible incident.

“They still need a trigger and I would not be surprised if we will see some event in Iraq which implicates the Iranians,” said this source. “They need a pretext.”

The motivations for an Iran strike were laid out as far back as 1992. In classified defense planning guidance – written for then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney by then-Pentagon staffers I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and current UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad – Cheney's aides called for the United States to assume the position of lone superpower and act preemptively to prevent the emergence of even regional competitors. The draft document was leaked at the time to the New York Times and the Washington Post and caused an uproar among Democrats and many in George H. W. Bush's Administration.

Previous attempts at “fixing the facts” around the policy of a military strike against Iran have failed on several occasions, including ramped up allegations of an Iranian WMD program being close to completion that culminated in a near-offensive in March of 2006 and attempts at provocation by positioning US aircraft carriers in the region during the summer of 2006.

The Raw Story | CIA said to step up operations against Iran as hawks seek to tie Iraq bombs to Tehran

Shortage of new armed forces recruits 'putting lives at risk'

The Armed Forces are desperately short of thousands of spe******t personnel essential to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, new figures reveal.

The statistics show there are severe shortages in the Navy, RAF and Army in jobs ranging from intelligence operators to medics.

In some spe******t jobs, more than eight in ten posts are vacant.

Experts are leaving because they are sick of the demands of continuous operation and are lured by lucrative security jobs in the private sector.

It has emerged the MoD is so desperate to stem the exodus that it is offering £2,000 "golden hellos" to people joining spe******t trades, reservists or civilian contractors.

The statistics, released in a parliamentary answer, show one of the worst-affected areas is medical staff, with more than a quarter of all posts unfilled.

One in five officers from the Intelligence Corps left in the last three years, hampering the military's ability to fight terrorism.

Elsewhere, there are only 15 per cent of Navy Harrier pilot instructors, at a time when the aircraft is in constant use in Afghanistan, and a quarter of bomb disposal jobs are not filled.

The figures emerged as Britain is engaged in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, where fighting in Helmand is as intense as any seen since the Second World War.

Those spe******ts who have remained are being put under even more pressure than before and are spending longer and longer away from home.

Since Labour came to power in 1997, the Armed Forces have been cut by 30,000 troops.

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said the Government was ordering the Forces to do more but not increasing their resources.

"For all Gordon Brown's warm words on the military, the small print is clear: Labour's failure to cut waste and get resources to the front line is putting lives at risk," he said.

The MoD said it was taking action on recruitment and retention.

A spokesman said: "Latest Army figures show a 25 per cent increase in enlistments into the Infantry. Challenges remain in other areas, but action is being taken to address this.

"The significant steps we have taken include the recently increased Operational Bonus of £2,320, and the pay rise of 9.2 per cent for junior ranks."

Shortage of new armed forces recruits 'putting lives at risk' | the Daily Mail

Bush renews PR blitz for the war in Iraq

CRAWFORD, Texas: President George W. Bush's Iraq strategy faces a crisis of faith these days - from the American public. And he is confronting it the way he has previous crises: with a relentless campaign to persuade people to see things his way.

Bush interrupted his annual August retreat here last week for a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars replete with historical references to Vietnam, including a surprising citation from Graham Greene's "The Quiet American."

"I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused," he quoted from the book, criticizing Greene for portraying an American character as naïve and dangerous. Bush, back at the Prairie Chapel Ranch, went on to record a radio address that showed neither doubt nor any intention of reducing the American commitment in Iraq. On Tuesday, he will make another speech in Reno, Nevada, arguing that a hasty withdrawal of troops would prove disastrous for the Middle East and for American security.

"We are still in the early stages of our new operations," Bush said in the radio address broadcast Saturday, as if there were not those who fervently wished the country was in the later stages, preparing to bring home the troops.

The White House's strategy is as unwavering as it is familiar. In military parlance, it is called preparing the battlefield - in this case for the series of reports and hearings scheduled on Capitol Hill next month to debate the wisdom of struggling on in the midst of sectarian chaos and bloodshed in Iraq.

If recent history is a guide, Bush may well prevail, as he did in January when he made a similar blitz to build the case for dispatching more troops to Iraq, de****e swelling public opposition to the war and a Democratic rout in elections last November.

"If there's one thing that they're good at, it is their ability to campaign for something," said Tara McGuinness, deputy campaign manager for Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, a coalition of antiwar groups that has organized its own public-relations effort.

That is not to say the White House's campaign does not face obstacles.
Public opinion remains sour. Republicans appear increasingly frustrated, chief among them Senator John Warner of Virginia, who last week called for at least a symbolic reduction of troops by Christmas.

And a new National Intelligence Estimate concluded that violence in Iraq remained high, that terrorists could still attack in spectacular fashion and that the country's leaders "remain unable to govern effectively."

The White House response was a classic look at the bright side.
"The National Intelligence Estimate's updated judgments show that our strategy has improved the security environment in Iraq," a spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, said Thursday.

Critics have called Bush's ever-upbeat message delusional. His rationale for the war has shifted so much since 2003 that any new pitch will have skeptics. His analogy last week between the war in Iraq and the epic struggles of World War II, the Korean War and, especially, the Vietnam War was ridiculed by some as revisionist or simply inaccurate.

"I know that all the PR in the world didn't change the truth on the ground in Vietnam and won't change the truth on the ground today in Iraq," Max Cleland, a Vietnam veteran and former Democratic senator from Georgia, said in a radio rebuttal on Saturday.

Even so, the White House has the advantage of consistency and being able to play defense. Bush simply has to hold on to enough lawmakers to thwart, with a veto if necessary, any congressionally mandated reductions or timetables for withdrawal.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have to make the case for a new approach that not all of them appear able to agree on. They remain torn between a passionate base that wants U.S. involvement over now and a pragmatic middle that believes a rapid or complete withdrawal of troops would carry risks - exactly the point the White House intends to drive home.

On Tuesday, Bush is to appear before the American Legion in Reno and deliver a bookend to the VFW speech last week. A new group with close ties to the White House, Freedom's Watch, joined Bush's effort last week with a $15 million advertising campaign that revives "cut and run" accusations against the war's opponents. One of its leaders, Ari Fleischer, the former White House spokesman, said Bush was doing what was necessary to explain why he was leading the nation into war.

"Any president that fails to communicate that will lose public support," Fleischer said by telephone. "That's where we are today."

Within the White House, there is growing confidence that Bush will be able to withstand Democrats' efforts to force a change in strategy.
"The end of August feels much better than the beginning of August," a senior aide said Saturday.

Success in this campaign, however, does not necessarily mean success in winning the war itself.

Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution recently wrote an op-ed in The New York Times with his colleague Kenneth Pollack arguing that the troop increase should have a chance to work. The article prompted denunciations from the war's critics and an invitation to meet with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

O'Hanlon said their conversation focused mostly on tactics of the troop increase, not on the broader strategy of what happens after September. Assuming that the administration keeps a substantial number of U.S. troops in Iraq, what then?

"That's a very good question," he said.

Bush renews PR blitz for the war in Iraq - International Herald Tribune

Returning to Iraq

France had to return to Iraq. With 1,600 civilians killed in July, a massive exodus, and political and social fragmentation, the country is experiencing a humanitarian disaster that nobody can ignore. France less than any country, as it judged correctly in warning of the consequences of the military intervention launched more than four years ago.

Claiming, as some opposition leaders are doing, that [Foreign Minister] Bernard Kouchner's visit is ill timed, or that it represents an alignment with George W. Bush's policy, is an absurdity that shows a curious conception of French diplomacy. One can remain locked for four years in the belief of having been right, but that does nothing to boost our country's role on the international stage. The United States is in search of a solution. It is talking openly with Iran and with Saudi Arabia, in particular. It is time to show that France, and Europe along with it, is available: That it is ready, when the time comes, to play a role in stabilizing Iraq.

This is all the more urgent as an exit from the Iraqi quagmire is dominating the US election campaign and will be the priority for George W Bush's successor in the White House.

Bernard Kouchner is well placed to make this shift. He was one of the few French politicians to adopt a well-balanced stance when the war broke out. The Iraqi leaders acknowledge this today. As in many other crisis zones, the French minister can find support in long-standing friendships, notably the bond that unites him with Kurdish leader Jalai Talabani, now leader of Iraq.

Kouchner's arrival in Baghdad, after such a long French absence, is highly symbolic. The fourth anniversary of the attack against the United Nations, which cost the lives of Sergio Vieira de Mello and 21 other UN workers, provided him with the occasion to remind people that he was himself the UN man in Kosovo, a way of showing France's commitment to a multilateral resolution to crises, in Iraq as elsewhere.

But there is more than the symbolic value to this visit that otherwise would not extend to three days amid conditions of extreme insecurity. Beyond the expression of an elementary and, let us admit it, tardy solidarity, there is the desire to listen to all of the parties involved, to the Shi'is, the Sunni, and the Kurds, at present engaged in furious squabbling over the formation of a new government.

The Kouchner method is the one already tried and tested in Lebanon, where listening to all sides helped the resumption of inter-Lebanese dialogue. Also in Darfur, where the Paris conference overcame general scepticism and imposed a regional response to the crisis.

In Iraq, the chaos is such that short-term ambitions are necessarily modest. What is essential is to set dates and to prepare for the day when the inevitable withdrawal of US troops will open the door to diplomacy.

Returning to Iraq