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

Maliki’s government is in denial

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is in total denial about the daily killings, the uprooting of millions of Iraqis, the impoverishment of almost the whole country and even the imminent imploding of a whole nation.

Maliki’s government was formed about a year and half ago. It included 35 ministers to signal its national unity character. The parliament gave it confidence because he made a pledge to reach out to all factions and sects in the country and lead the path to national reconciliation.

But the course of events shows that Maliki has honored none of these promises.

This government’s performance has alienated many Iraqis and forced nearly half of its members to boycott it. And de****e its devastating performance, Maliki goes about his work as if he is leading a representative government with an impressive record.

The government Maliki leads fails the simplest test necessary to measure the success of any government in the world. It is weaker than the militia force of any of the political factions in the country. Its authority hardly goes beyond the U.S.-protected Green Zone in Baghdad. It cannot provide proper public services. It has drastically failed to reinstate security.

Maliki’s government is practically non-existent and if we were in a country with a sound political system, it should have resigned long time ago. The fact that Maliki lingers on is an added signal of the damage he is determined to inflict on the country’s political process.

Maliki’s administration only exists within the limited circles of unelected advisers known for their loyalty rather than efficiency. On these advisers he is showering privileges and powers that make them even stronger than the ministers in his own government.

Some of Maliki’s aides exercise even legislative and executive powers. These ‘yes men’ have isolated the government and estranged political factions that once were keen to join its ranks.

This is the reason why our prime minister’s conscience is in total denial of the astronomical figures of civilian casualties and millions of refugees who have fled the country or are languishing in camps inside it.

http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news\2007-09-06\kurd1.htm

Iraq chemicals found at UN 'may be harmless solvent'

Chemicals from a former Iraqi weapons plant found in UN offices in New York, last week, may, in fact, be a harmless solvent, a UN source said Thursday, citing preliminary findings from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said preliminary feeback from the FBI indicated the chemicals involved, which had been officially described as "potentially hazardous," may just be "a solvent."

Last Thursday, UN spokeswoman Marie Okabe said that United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) inspectors discovered "gram quantities of certain liquid substances including phosgene [COCl2]," a poisonous industrial chemical used extensively during World War I as a choking agent.

The substances, which had been shipped from a former Iraqi chemical weapons facility by UN inspectors in 1996, and stored in UNMOVIC offices in New York, were turned over to the FBI for analysis last Thursday.

The UN source said FBI experts gave no details on the nature of the solvent, but determined that it "was not dangerous."

The source said there was no word from the FBI as to when it might release final results of the analysis.
Last Friday, UN chief Ban Ki-moon ordered a high-level internal probe of the incident, and officials said that the investigation was continuing.

"I am not aware that we have been informed of the official result" of the FBI analysis, Ewen Buchanan, an UNMOVIC spokeswoman, said.

UNMOVIC was set up in 1999 to replace the former UN Special Commission, and continue its mandate to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.

But, four years after, the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, UNMOVIC inspectors failed to turn up any weapons of mass destruction allegedly stockpiled by Saddam Hussein and, as a result, their work was officially shut down by the UN Security Council in June.

The inspectors had pulled out of Iraq March 18, 2003, immediately before the US-led invasion that overthrew Hussein, and were not allowed to return.

Iraq chemicals found at UN 'may be harmless solvent' - Region - Middle East Times

US strikes in Baghdad kill 14 sleeping civilians say residents

US combat helicopters and tanks bombarded a Baghdad neighborhood in pre-dawn strikes Thursday, killing 14 sleeping civilians and destroying houses, angry residents and Iraqi officials said.

The US military, which has deployed thousands of extra troops in the Iraqi capital to try to stem rampant violence, said the operation was aimed at Shiite extremists and that the houses destroyed were "enemy strongholds."

Iraqi defense and interior ministry officials said US helicopters fired on houses in the Washash neighborhood of Mansour district in west Baghdad between 2 am (2200 GMT Wednesday) and 3 am.

Abu Ali Saad, a resident of the mainly-Shiite enclave, said US military vehicles had arrived in large numbers in Washash during the night.

"There were tanks and armored vehicles and many troops," 35-year-old Saad said while surveying the rubble of his neighbor's home.

"The tanks started firing, then the helicopters came. Missiles were fired from the air. Houses were destroyed. A family of five was killed in this house," he said, referring to his neighbors.

"We are a peaceful neighborhood. There are no militia here. There were no exchanges of fire. We were all sleeping."

The US military said Iraqi and US forces had engaged Shiite extremists who were part of a "terrorist cell" operating in Washash.

When the forces entered the area, they came under fire from "more than a dozen extremists firing from the rooftops of surrounding buildings," a statement said.

The fire was returned and airstrikes were carried out against "positively-identified armed gunmen directing small arms fire onto the assault force.

"A total of four buildings were damaged, including two enemy strongholds that sustained major damage and two surrounding buildings that sustained moderate damage."

A later US military statement suggested that the targets of the operation in Washash were dissident elements of the Mehdi army militia of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr.

It said that while "many honorable" Mehdi army members were heeding a call by Sadr, last week, to halt their militia activities, others were ignoring it.

These groups, it warned, "will not be subject to the restraint we have observed for those who are responding to Sadr's orders."

An Agence France-Presse photographer on the scene said three houses were destroyed and two damaged.

Amid the rubble of one house was a mattress covered in blood, with body parts scattered about. Neighbors said a family of six had been killed in the house, including a 12-year-old girl.

Bloodstains could also be seen amid the wreckage of other houses, where angry residents gathered to denounce the US military.

Washington has deployed an extra 28,500 troops as part of a "surge" in Baghdad and surrounding areas, aimed at quelling sectarian violence that has killed thousands of Iraqis since it erupted 18 months ago.

The latest killings come just days before the White House is to make a formal report to the Democratic-controlled Congress, aimed at persuading lawmakers to continue funding the Iraq war.

In other violence, a bomb exploded near a queue of day laborers in Baghdad's southeastern Zafaraniya district, killing one and wounding five, a defense ministry official said.

In executed dictator Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, a car bomb aimed at a police patrol killed two civilians and wounded 17, police said.

In Hawra Haajab village on the southern outskirts of Baghdad, US troops killed two suspected Al Qaeda militants and captured at least two more, said Captain Chad Klascius, who was leading the assault launched early Thursday.

"We've moved into the town, and are taking it back. We are trying to push Al Qaeda out," Klascius said. "We are shooting machine guns and they are returning fire, as well as shooting mortar rounds.

"We have killed two Al Qaeda and have around 30 detainees, two of whom have confessed to being Al Qaeda," the captain said.

US strikes in Baghdad kill 14 sleeping civilians say residents - Region - Middle East Times

Oil field

TEHRAN, Sept 5: Iran and Belarus on Wednesday signed a deal worth an initial $250 million to develop an oil field in southwest Iran, the latest sign of the expanding relationship between the two US foes.

The deal to develop the Jofeir oil field was signed in Tehran by Iranian officials and the president of the Belarusneft oil company, Alexander Lyakov.

Naji Saadoni, the head of Iranian oil projects in the region, told reporters the deal was worth $250 million and then up to another $250 million if Iran’s national oil company agreed to go ahead with a second phase.

The field, which lies in an oil-rich region of Ilam province close to the border with Iraq, will supply 15,000 barrels of oil a day in the first phase and then 25,000 barrels should the second phase go ahead, he added.

Oil field -DAWN - Business; September 06, 2007

Senate Democrats willing to compromise on Iraq

With a mixed picture emerging about progress in Iraq, Senate Democratic leaders are showing a new openness to compromise as they try to attract Republican support for forcing at least modest troop withdrawals in the coming months.

After short-circuiting consideration of votes on some bipartisan proposals on Iraq before the August break, senior Democrats now say they are willing to rethink their push to establish a withdrawal deadline of next spring if doing so will attract the 60 Senate votes needed to prevail.

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said, "If we have to make the spring part a goal, rather than something that is binding, and if that is able to produce some additional votes to get us over the filibuster, my own inclination would be to consider that."

Democrats would need to lure the 60 senators in order to cut off a likely Republican filibuster.

The emerging proposal by Levin and Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, would still order the administration to begin pulling at least some combat troops out of Iraq, probably by the end of the year. It is not clear what other provisions the measure may include.

But Levin, who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee and who met Wednesday with the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said a compromise might be worth making. It would allow Congress to assert its own voice on Iraq policy, after falling short of that goal in most such votes throughout the year, he said.

The willingness to consider alternatives represents a shift by Democrats and is a recognition of changing political and practical realities they face in grappling with Iraq and its future.

Democrats had been counting on more Republicans to make a clean break from the president after the summer recess, but the White House has managed, at least temporarily, to hold on to much of its support.

Some Democrats have concluded that their decision this summer to thwart votes on alternatives left them open to criticism that they were being intransigent. Democrats had wanted to keep pressure on Republicans over the summer by denying them votes on Iraq.

Now, with the recess over, Democratic leaders are more willing to allow alternatives to a firm withdrawal date to reach the floor to keep pressure on President George W. Bush.

Levin and other Democrats said this week that they were reaching out to Republicans who had expressed reservations about Bush's policy to generate momentum for a proposal by Senator John Warner, Republican of Virginia, to begin to remove at least a limited number of troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

Republicans and Democrats are also discussing ways to tweak a bipartisan plan by Ken Salazar, Democrat of Colorado, and Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, to address Democratic concerns that it did not have enough teeth. That plan, which would enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, is drawing new backing in the House of Representatives from Republicans looking for an alternative to the status quo.

"I think there is a general feeling that people would like to pull something together that would have bipartisan support," Salazar said.

In addition, Democrats want to try again on a proposal by Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, to prohibit troops from being returned to Iraq unless they have spent at least an identical amount of time back in the United States. The plan attracted 56 votes in July.

Reid, who has had preliminary discussions with Warner, acknowledged that there was new interest in trying to coalesce around a middle-ground proposal, but he said there was no agreement on a plan.
"That's not there yet," he said.

Reid and other Democrats said they would continue to press their preferred approach of setting a date to have most combat troops out of Iraq even while pursuing a compromise with Republicans. Party strategists say that withdrawal is a top priority of the party's antiwar base and that polls continue to show that much of the public favors a withdrawal from Iraq.

The timing of future Iraq votes remains uncertain.

Leaders in both the House and the Senate appear inclined to allow General David Petraeus and the U.S. ambassador, Ryan Crocker, the top two Americans in Iraq, to present their findings next week on conditions there and give lawmakers time to digest them before moving forward.

Senate Democrats willing to compromise on Iraq - International Herald Tribune

U.S. general tells Bush he'll consider pulling brigade from Iraq in January

General David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, has told President George W. Bush that he is reluctant to commit to a major drawdown of American troops in Iraq until he can determine whether recent gains are sustainable, but he could accept a pullback of an initial brigade, beginning in January, according to senior administration and military officials.

In congressional testimony next week, the officials said, Petraeus will most likely outline additional withdrawals that may be possible from January to April, with the caveat that any pullback could be halted if the security situation deteriorated.

"He's not willing to accept a lot of risk," said one senior official who has talked at length with Petraeus, who will be testifying with the American ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker.

With 20 combat brigades in Iraq now, the withdrawal in January of one such unit, about 3,500 to 4,500 troops, would not amount to a large drain on Petraeus's forces. It would still leave the United States with more than 20,000 more troops in Iraq in January 2008 than were there at the beginning of 2007.

The officials said Bush had indicated to aides that he would embrace the outlines of Petraeus's recommendations, though some officials said he had little choice, after declaring publicly that he took his advice from his ground commanders, rather than responding to political pressure and threats that Congress would withdraw support.

In testimony Thursday, the head of a commission assigned by Congress to review the status of Iraqi forces also threw his weight behind the idea, saying that while the Iraqi Army would remain incapable of acting independently for at least a year, it would be possible for the United States to begin to draw down its forces in Iraq by earlier next year.

An embrace by the White House of a plan to take a combat brigade off the front lines could serve as a political down payment in advance of future withdrawals, a gesture that the White House is betting may satisfy enough Republican legislators to stem defections.

Such a gesture could also open the way to forging some common ground with Democrats. In recent days, some Senate Democratic leaders have indicated a willingness to drop their insistence on a strict timetable for withdrawal, which President George W. Bush has insisted would aid insurgents and Qaeda forces.

Instead, the Democratic senators are now considering setting nonbinding "goals" for withdrawals, much as the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan advisory commission, did when it called in late 2006 for a pullback of all combat brigades by the end of March 2008.

The White House is still nowhere close to committing to so steep or deep a reduction of troops, and administration officials have signaled that even the most aggressive drawdown being contemplated by the White House would leave at least 10 combat brigades in Iraq by the end of the year.

But a senior Defense Department official said he anticipated that Petraeus would discuss the possibility of withdrawals beyond an initial brigade in January in his testimony to Congress, if security conditions continued to improve.

Though reluctant to commit himself to any firm timetable, Petraeus has come around to the idea of laying out a tentative schedule after discussions in recent weeks with officials in Washington and pressure from Congress and the Joint Chiefs to make steeper reductions, the official said.

"He will probably lay down a plan that extends a couple more months" beyond January, he added.

But Petraeus and General Raymond Odierno, the senior ground commander in Iraq, want to retain the flexibility to maintain elevated force levels well into 2008 if conditions in Iraq deteriorate, officials familiar with their views said.

Odierno is already exploring how the boundaries of his subordinate commanders' forces could be redrawn so that even with the withdrawal of a brigade, gaps would be filled.

This would probably be accomplished by spreading troops more widely from the north, and from Anbar Province, where attacks are down significantly.

U.S. general tells Bush he'll consider pulling brigade from Iraq in January - International Herald Tribune

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

Noozz.com | IRAQ



EDITORIAL
Egyptians & Gulf Investors Pump Millions into the Iraq Stock Exchange
Noozz Editorial
Sep 7 2007
Taha Ahmad Abdul-Salam, executive manager of the Iraq Stock Exchange, has disclosed that Egyptian, Gulf and other investors have pumped 2.5 billion Iraqi dinars ($2.02 million) in Iraq’s financial market.

The money has entered Iraq since non-Iraqi’s were permitted to trade in the ISX from August 2nd, who have been involved in the trade of over one billion shares, reported Al-Sharq Al-Awsat.

Abdul-Salam describes these the sums pumped in as “minimal”, and considers these activities as a “feeler” for the Iraqi market, expecting more substantial sums to make their way into Iraq once investors are confident in the stability of the ISX and sporadic price fluctuations have steadied.

He stressed that in addition to the Egyptian investors, there has been interest from from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia whilst other regional speculators are still monitoring the situation. The biggest proportion of foreign money has come from the United States.

The executive manager of Iraq’s Stock Exchange expressed his hope that activity on the ISX may one day propel Iraq’s market to the top three exchanges in the Middle East. De****e his optimism he is under no illusion that this will not be possible until the security situation in Iraq has stabilised, which in turn will aid economic growth and attract large-scale foreign investment.

OPEC President Says Oil Market Is Adequately Supplied (Update1)

By Wang Ying and Winnie Zhu

Sept. 6 (Bloomberg) -- The world oil market has sufficient supplies, Mohammed bin Dhaen al-Hamli, president of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, said in an interview five days before the producer group meets to set output targets.

``At the moment the market is adequately supplied,'' al-Hamli said today in Dalian city, China, when asked if OPEC will raise output. ``If there is a need we are happy to talk about the availability.''

OPEC, which supplies about 40 percent of the world's oil, will discuss output quotas at its meeting in Vienna on Sept. 11. The 12- nation group is currently producing about 30 million barrels of crude a day, he said. Al-Hamli, who is also the oil minister for the United Arab Emirates, was in Dalian to attend a World Economic Forum meeting.

MPs Warn Government on Iraq Oil Meddling

LONDON - September 6 - Over 100 MPs have called on the British government to come clean over its involvement in the drafting of Iraq's controversial new Oil Law. The call for disclosure comes as Iraqi MPs return from their summer recess to debate the law this week.

The Law would transfer control over most of Iraq's oil from the public sector, where it has been since the 1970s, to multinational companies such as BP and Shell, under long-term contracts.

In an Early Day Motion tabled by Katy Clark MP [1], the cross-party group of 118 MPs insisted 'that decisions on the Iraqi oil industry should be made by the Iraqi people without outside interference'.

They expressed 'concern that the British Government, in its involvement in the drafting of Iraq's new oil laws, has sought the views of international oil companies regarding the possible types of contracts that the Iraqi government should offer', and called on the Government to disclose to the House all representations it has made in relation to the oil law.

Earlier parliamentary questions had forced Ministers to admit the government had been working on Iraq’s oil law, including consultations with the oil majors, although they denied any wrongdoing. [2]

Katy Clark, MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, said:

"118 MPs have signed Early Day Motion 1180 calling for the UK Government to disclose the representations made in relation to the Iraqi Oil Law. This represents a significant breadth of opinion right across the House of Commons. There is widespread opposition to this proposed law from within Iraq itself from Iraqi MPs, trade unions and the general public. I hope that the Government will take stock and look at the concerns being raised."

Greg Muttitt, Co-Director of PLATFORM [3], added:

"Tony Blair's government used its military occupation of Iraq to promote the interests of BP and Shell, whilst violating the wishes of the Iraqi people. Now 118 MPs are sending a clear message to Gordon Brown that his new foreign policy must not do the same".

Public opinion inside Iraq is opposed to the Oil Law and the signing of long-term contracts, which the British government has pushed. A recent poll found that two thirds of Iraqis believe oil production should remain in the public sector, rather than being carried out by foreign companies; and three quarters felt kept in the dark about the Oil Law. [4]

For more information

Greg Muttitt, Co-Director PLATFORM and expert on Iraqi oil policy 07970 589 611

Katy Clark MP for Ayrshire North and Arran 020 7219 4113 or 01505 684 127

Notes for Editors

[1] EDM 1180 Iraqi Oil: Tabled by Katy Clark MP on March 20th 2007 EDMDetails

[2] Kim Howells (Foreign Office Minister of State), in response to parliamentary question (PQ) by Alan Simpson MP, 19 February 2007:

“Exchanges have included discussion of Iraq’s evolving hydrocarbons legislation where British international oil companies' have valuable perspectives to offer based on their experience in other countries. Discussions with international oil companies on hydrocarbons legislation have included the range of contract types which Iraq is considering. http://www.publications.parliament.u...70219/text/702 19w0024.htm

Lord Triesman (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Foreign & Commonwealth Office), in response to PQ by Lord Beaumont, 25 June 2007:

“The current draft law is a result of negotiations between representatives of all Iraq's main political parties. The UK has during those negotiations encouraged balanced, technically unambiguous legislation, acceptable to Iraq's main political parties, which will provide a legal framework to facilitate much-needed investment in Iraq's oil industry, domestic and international. Were commercial opportunities to become available after the passage of the hydrocarbons legislation, we would be keen to promote UK companies and their expertise in the oil and gas sector”. http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/70625w0006.h tm#07062539000535

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by PLATFORM also reveal that British diplomats in Baghdad and civil servants in Whitehall have worked with oil company lobbyists, helping them obtain direct contact with Iraqi decision-makers.

See PLATFORM's submission to the Iraq Commission http://www.carbonweb.org/documents/Iraq_commission.pdf

[3] PLATFORM is a member of a coalition calling for 'Hands off Iraqi Oil' along with War on Want, Jubilee Iraq, Iraq Occupation Focus, Naftana, CorporateWatch, and Voices UK Hands off Iraqi oil

[4] PLATFORM - Iraqis oppose oil development plans, poll finds

Platform: MPs Warn Government on Iraq Oil Meddling

y ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
53 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - U.S. forces in Iraq should be reduced significantly, according to a new study on Iraq's security forces that inflamed debate in Congress on how quickly that can happen without hurling the country into chaos.

The report, authored by a 20-member panel comprised mostly of retired senior military and police officers and led by retired Gen. James Jones, said the massive deployment of U.S. forces and sprawl of U.S.-run facilities in and around Baghdad has given Iraqis the impression that Americans are an occupying, permanent force.

Accordingly, the panel said the Iraqis should assume more control of its security and U.S. forces should step back, emboldening Democrats who want troop withdrawals to start this fall.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said he will recommend to Congress on Monday a gradual reduction of forces beginning in the spring and acknowledged that the slow pace of political solutions in Baghdad had frustrated him, The Boston Globe reported.

"Based on the progress our forces are achieving, I expect to be able to recommend that some of our forces will be redeployed without replacement," Petraeus told the Globe in a series of e-mails, according to a report in the paper's Friday editions. "That will, over time, reduce the total number of troops in Iraq. The process will take time, but we want to be sure to maintain the security gains that coalition and Iraqi forces have worked so hard to achieve."

The force reduction Petraeus expected would come as the five additional brigades deployed to Iraq as part of the current increase in troops ended their tours of duty over the spring and summer and were not replaced, the Globe reported.

Petraeus said he doesn't envision the need to send more troops. "In fact, we are in the process of doing the 'battlefield geometry' to determine the way ahead as the surge of forces inevitably runs its course," he said in the Globe interview.

The Associated Press reported Tuesday that administration officials said Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker recommended to President Bush that he stand by his current war strategy and that Bush was unlikely to order more than a symbolic reduction in troops by year's end.

The report from the group led by Jones, a former Marine Corps commandant, contended that "significant reductions, consolidations and realignments would appear to be possible and prudent."

The recommendation echoed previous independent assessments on the war, including the high-profile Iraq Study Group that said the combat mission could be transferred to the Iraqis by early 2008. But the burning question, left mostly unanswered by the panel, was precisely when Iraqi security units could take control and U.S. troops could leave.

The study concluded only that the Iraqis could not assume control of the country without U.S. help in the next 12 to 18 months.

"We need to start transitioning to an Iraqi lead," no matter the timeframe, said retired Army Gen. George Joulwan, a panel member and former NATO commander in Europe.

"I think the signs are there to do that, and we have to reduce that dependency," he added in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The study sparked ongoing debate among committee members on whether to pass legislation ordering troops home.

Democrats want a firm deadline to pressure Iraqi leaders into taking more control. Most Republicans have so far balked at the suggestion, saying military commanders should make the decision.

"There's a lot of people who are armchair generals who reside here in the air-conditioned comfort of Capitol Hill, who somehow do not trust the judgment of some of the finest leaders that our nation has produced," said Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a GOP presidential hopeful.

Democrats and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., expressed skepticism that the Iraqis will reach the necessary political consensus without incentive.

"At the end of the day, we have to make judgments on whether or not we believe continuing military presence by American troops — whether they're in Iraq for a day, a year or 10 years — will make any difference to the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and another presidential hopeful.

Clinton sent a letter to President Bush on Wednesday, asking him to address 20 questions in his upcoming assessment on Iraq, including why the troop buildup has not prompted a political settlement.

The panel's finding that the U.S. should reduce its visibility in Iraq is not necessarily at odds with the Bush administration. President Bush has long said the combat mission must be transferred to the Iraqis as soon as they can take over and security conditions improve.

But the study suggests that lowering the profile of U.S. forces is a precondition to improving security conditions. It also says helpful "adjustments" could begin in early 2008.

The Pentagon said Thursday that U.S. troop levels — currently at 168,000 — are expected to hit a record high of 172,000 in the coming weeks.

When asked by McCain whether he would support a deadline for troop withdrawals, Jones said he would not.

"I think deadlines can work against us," Jones said. "I think a deadline of this magnitude would be against our national interest."

Jones' report, released Thursday, concluded that Iraqi security forces would be unable to take control of their country in the next 18 months. If Iraqi troops were given more of a lead, as envisioned by the panel, it is expected that U.S. troops would still play a substantial role by providing logistics and other support, as well as continued training.

Overall, the study found the Iraqi military, in particular its Army, shows the most promise of becoming a viable, independent security force with time. It predicted an adequate logistics system to support these ground forces is at least two years away.

"They are gaining size and strength, and will increasingly be capable of assuming greater responsibility for Iraq's security," the report says of military units, adding that special forces in particular are "highly capable and extremely effective."

Worse off is the Iraqi police force. It describes them as fragile, ill-equipped and infiltrated by militia forces. And they are led by the Ministry of Interior, which is "a ministry in name only" that is "widely regarded as being dysfunctional and sectarian, and suffers from ineffective leadership."

Jones' panel recommended scrapping Baghdad's national police force and starting over.

The U.S. has spent $19.2 billion developing Iraq's forces and plans to spend another $5.5 billion next year. According to Jones' study, the Iraqi military comprises more than 152,000 service members operating under the Ministry of Defense, while the Ministry of Interior oversees some 194,000 civilian security personnel, including police and border control.

The review is one of several studies Congress commissioned in May, when it agreed to fund the war for several more months but demanded that the Bush administration and outside groups assess U.S. progress in the war.