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

Bush says thanks for help in Iraq
US President George W. Bush has thanked all the APEC nations who have troops serving alongside Americans in other countries, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"By providing security we're creating conditions that will allow people to reconcile," Mr Bush said in a speech to an APEC business summit in Sydney today.

"It's hard for people to come together after years of tyranny," he said, referring to the continuing war in Iraq, "particularly after the brutal dictator did all he could to divide society in order to stay in power".

"For those of us who live in the comfort of free society it is hard for us to image what it is like to psychologically recover from life under a thug like Saddam Hussein."

He echoed previous comments by Prime Minister John Howard, saying the Iraqi people needed "time not a timetable".

"We're going to succeed in Iraq," he said.

"If given a chance, liberty will succeed every time, and liberty will help heal the peace we need.

"This is the calling of our time."

Mr Bush said a look at east Asia, an area once dogged by turmoil and danger, showed what could be achieved in Iraq.

"With resolve and strength of conviction, the same thing will happen in the Middle East," Mr Bush said.

"And they'll look back at this period, Mr Prime Minister, and say 'job well done'."

Mr Bush said it was an honour to be on the soil of an ally like Australia.



The Australian, News from Australia's National Newspaper

Shiite cleric blames "Baathists" for Karbala clashes that killed 50

Baghdad - Ten days after deadly clashes at a Shiite festival in Karbala killed over 50 Iraqis, Shiite leaders were Friday still pointing fingers at those behind the so-called 'great sedition.'

'Those who committed these acts are Baathists, even if they don't (officially) belong to the Baath party,' prominent Shiite preacher Jalal al-Din al-Sagheer said following Friday prayers, referring to Saddam Hussein loyalists.

Al-Sagheer belongs to the Badr Corps, the former paramilitary wing of the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq, members of the ruling coalition known as the United Iraqi Alliance.

On August 28, Shiites exchanged fire near two of the main Shiite shrines in Karbala during an annual pilgrimage where reportedly four million Shiites flocked to the holy city.

According to official reports, the Sadrists - enraged at being held back from visiting the shrines for security reasons - started shooting at Shiite security forces.

But the unprecedented incident sparked an outrage and a denial from Shiite zealots who claimed that Baathists, and the so-called 'takfiris' (excommunicators) were responsible for 'planting sedition' between members of the same sect.

Last Sunday, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki released a statement saying that terrorists had plotted an attempt on the shrine of Imam al-Hussein, the grandson of the Muslim prophet Mohammed and a revered Shiite figure.

He reiterated the now-popular Shiite theory that 'takfiris' were possibly behind the 'sedition' and the attempted attack.

Most of those arrested by Iraqi police in connection with the incident belong the Mahdi Army, the armed wing of the feared Sadr group loyal to cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

On Friday, in line with al-Maliki's statements, al-Sagheer dismissed Shiites as being responsible for Karbala's bloodbath, instead levelling attacks against former members of the Saddam regime.

'This cruelty and the ugliness in targeting people's lives and sacred places could only be done by Baathists,' he said during Friday sermons before hundreds of worshippers.

Addressing the government, he added that the 'takfiris' and Baathists would not be in Shiite-dominated cities if the Iraqi cabinet had beefed up military forces in these areas.

Shiite cleric blames "Baathists" for Karbala clashes that killed 50 - Middle East

US says Shiite militant chief held in Baghdad
US and Iraqi troops have detained a suspected Shiite militant who leads around 750 fighters, and is involved in attacks in Baghdad, the US military said Friday.

It said the man was known for carrying out bomb and sniper attacks, and was seized with another suspected militant Thursday in a raid in the Rahmaniyah area of central Baghdad.

The US statement said the senior militant was a brigade commander of a group of 750 fighters and was responsible for attacks in the capital's southwest Amel neighborhood.

"Intelligence reports indicate the suspects are cooperating with foreign fighters and assisting other insurgents in acquiring sniper training in Iran," the military said, in an oft-repeated charge of Iranian involvement, which Tehran denies.

The military also said the two detainees were suspected of carrying out an attack in May, targeting Sunni residents in the Saddam Place apartments in Rahmaniyah, which killed 13 civilians.

US says Shiite militant chief held in Baghdad - Region - Middle East Times

U.S. general, seeing gains as fragile, is wary of cuts

General David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, has told President George W. Bush that he wants to maintain heightened troop levels in Iraq well into next year to reduce the risk of military setbacks, but could accept the pullback of roughly 4,000 troops beginning in January, in part to assuage critics in Congress, according to senior administration and military officials.

Petraeus's view is considered overly cautious by some other senior military officials and some members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, officials said. But they said it reflected his concern that the security gains made so far in Baghdad, Anbar Province and other areas were fragile and easily reversed.

Beyond the gesture of pulling back one brigade, officials who have been involved in the preparation of Petraeus's congressional testimony to be delivered next week say he will discuss the possibility of far deeper withdrawals beyond January that, over a number of months, could bring American force levels down to about 130,000 troops, where they stood at the beginning of 2007. But they said it was unclear how specific the general would be in publicly discussing the timing of pullbacks, and they said that even in internal administration deliberations he had described conditions that must be met before a reduction.

White House officials said Thursday night that Bush had yet to make any final decisions about the recommendations. But Petraeus's apparent agreement to a small withdrawal beginning early next year could fit into a narrow consensus that is beginning to emerge on Capitol Hill. Many Republicans and Democrats agree that some troop withdrawal should begin soon, though major disagreements remain about how quick and deep the subsequent withdrawals should be.

Petraeus "is worried about risk, and all things being equal he'd like to keep as much as he could for as long as he could," a senior military officer said. Petraeus returned unannounced to Washington late on Tuesday, officials said, to prepare for the testimony he will deliver beginning Monday. It will be paired with a political assessment of the Maliki government delivered by Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Iraq. Several officials involved in internal discussions about the testimony said that both Petraeus and Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, the ground commander in Iraq, were worried about signing on to a timetable that would commit them to steep withdrawals in the spring. In recent weeks, the ground commanders have said they need the option to halt any pullback if security conditions deteriorate.

With more than 160,000 American troops now in Iraq, the withdrawal in January of one brigade, roughly 3,500 to 4,500 troops, would not amount to a large drain on Petraeus's forces. Bush has indicated to aides that he will be likely to embrace the outlines of Petraeus's recommendations, after declaring publicly that he will rely for advice on his ground commanders, rather than bowing to political pressure from those in Congress who are pushing for a speedier withdrawal.

Still, some members of the Joint Chiefs, including the outgoing chairman, General Peter Pace, and senior officers at Central Command, which has overall responsibility for the Middle East, are said to be pushing for a faster drawdown of the 30,000 additional American troops sent to Iraq. Several officers involved said Admiral William Fallon, the head of Central Command, had joined in that effort because he was worried about having enough forces in reserve to handle contingencies elsewhere, presumably including any future confrontation with Iran.

Fallon is also said to believe that giving the Iraqi government a clearer sense that the American troop commitment is limited will help prompt the Iraqis to take steps aimed at achieving reconciliation among Iraq's warring sectarian factions.

The slow progress of the Iraqi forces dominated debate on Capitol Hill on Thursday as General James Jones, the retired supreme American commander in Europe, reported to Congress that it would be 12 to 18 months before the Iraqi forces were capable of operations independent of American assistance. But Jones also said he could envision a pullback of the American forces starting early next year.

An embrace by the White House of a plan to take a combat brigade off the front lines could help to ease pressure from Republican lawmakers, including Senator John Warner of Virginia, who have called for a visible gesture to show that the White House is changing course.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has told colleagues privately that he would like to see a withdrawal of some troops as a Christmas gesture to the troops this year and an effort to lower the heat of the political debate in the United States.

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. Instead, the Democratic senators are now discussing legislation that might set nonbinding goals for the completion of a drawdown that would shift most remaining American forces into support roles.

Still, the White House is nowhere close to committing to the deep reductions being discussed by Democrats and some Republicans, which would extend beyond the additional five combat brigades that Bush sent to Iraq. Some have endorsed a recommendation by the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan advisory panel, which called in late 2006 for a pullback of all combat brigades by the end of March 2008.

There are now some 20 American combat brigades in Iraq. 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 2008, down from the 15 in place before the troop increase began.

Concern about the strain on the force is said to be driving Pace and General George Casey Jr., the army chief of staff, who are said to favor that aggressive administration plan.

Another key voice in the debate could be Gates, who told reporters during a visit to Iraq with Bush earlier this week that he had formulated an opinion about troop adjustments. Gates declined to reveal it publicly, but Gates has long hoped to use the September review to forge a consensus of members of Congress on how to proceed in Iraq, a goal that may require accepting deeper troop reductions sooner than Petraeus wants.
A spokesman for Petraeus, Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Yoswa, declined to comment on the coming testimony.

U.S. general, seeing gains as fragile, is wary of cuts - International Herald Tribune

The management of ports and airports by the private sector

Iraqi Ministry of Transport is currently studying the proposal of managing ports and airports by the private sector.

An official source at the Ministry of Transport said in a statement that the ministry is considering the proposal submitted by the Cabinet in this regard in accordance with specific criteria set by the two Iraqi companies of ports and airports, pointing out that the ministry has proposed the management of one port only by the private sector initially, on condition that it would include debt repayment, rehabilitation and maintenance.

The source confirmed that the ministry is considering the possibility of extending its control over the border crossings through rehabilitating them and provide the necessary protection, explaining that there is a lack of coordination between the concerned ministries on the management and control of border crossings, in particular among the ministries of Interior, Finance and Trade.

http://www.iraqdirectory.com/DisplayNews.aspx?id=4483

The American Office of Contracts and Projects spends about $ 700 million on health sector

The Office of Contracts and Projects of the multinational forces, said that the budget allocated to the health sector in Iraq amounted to about $ 700 million spent to build centers and medical projects.

Captain Angel Kerry, in charge of the health sector in the Office of Contracts and Projects, said about the size of accomplished medical centers and ho****als in Iraq, "the health sector submitted 54 projects of health centers in our office, and they were all completed for the interest of the Ministry of Health, out of 142 centers prepared for delivery within our program. We are working on another 54 health centers, to be delivered to the ministry soon ..."

Kerry said that the Office of Contracts and Projects in the Gulf region is preparing a program to develop the medical capacity of Iraqi doctors, "We know the magnitude of the education problem in Iraq, therefore, there is an intention to open a program in the Gulf region for developing the Iraqi medical capabilities through starting a study or training courses for spe******t doctors outside Iraq."

http://www.iraqdirectory.com/DisplayNews.aspx?id=4484
Captain Angel Kerry confirmed that the health sector in the Office of Contracts and Projects seeks to create a spe******t technical cadre to sustain the devices and equipments with which the Office furnished the ho****als and medical centers.

Real estate activity

Real estate activity at Baghdad's Al-Rusafa has witnessed remarkable steps led to a gradual rise in real estate prices when selling and renting, and especially renting which was more active than selling; this prompted the return of the owners of companies and real estate offices in most regions of Al-Rusafa to work, and this indicates the recovery of real estate activity. Some observers attributed this to the relatively stable security at Al-Rusafa, which made the population flee and congregate in those areas and this is natural, but it may lead to unnatural repercussions represented in the high real estate prices when renting and selling and the imbalance of the theoretical number of the population with the size of municipal services, health and education, which burdens those service institutions and requires them to take into consideration the exodus of the population from Karkh in Baghdad and the surrounding areas to work on providing services commensurate with the amount of their numbers. Although real estate movement throughout Baghdad were and still linked to the security situation, however, it did not indicate any stable or positive feature but rather confusion in most aspects of economic life because of the deterioration of security and its negative points; de****e the active real estate movement in the areas of Al-Rusafa, however, this movement was marked with higher prices and rents on an irregular basis, without specific levels that can be followed by economic analyst for the real estate sector in Baghdad .. This confusion... This imbalance would cast a shadow over the economic cycle which the housing sector makes an important and vital pillar of it.

This active movement of housing at Al-Rasafa is linked to the security situation throughout the capital, which means that Al-Karkh may witness the same active movement if the security situation became better; however, this can not be regarded as positive, even though it had a positive impact on the owners of companies and real estate offices. According to the economic perspectives, this situation is confused and chaotic that will soon fade and disappear along with the security situation.

http://www.iraqdirectory.com/DisplayNews.aspx?id=4487

McCain says Iraq withdrawl could impact oil supplies

Citing a new report on Iraq, U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said a U.S. defeat or premature exit from Iraq could destabilize the Middle East and disrupt international oil supplies.

The Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq reported its finding to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday. McCain, a Republican presidential contender and Iraq War supporter, serves on the panel.

McCain cited the report in defending his argument that a U.S. withdraw from the war zone could embolden terrorists and send the region into chaos. He also said destabilization and anarchy could impact energy and oil supplies and encourage terrorists to strike U.S. economic and political interests in other countries.

"The report states that 'the strategic consequences of failure, or even perceived failure, for the United States and the coalition are enormous,'" McCain said in a statement Thursday.

McCain quotes the reporter further: "Iraq's regional geo-strategic position, the balance of power in the Middle East, the economic stability made possible by the flow of energy to many parts of the world, and the ability to defeat and contain terrorism where it is most manifest are issues that do not lend themselves to easy or quick solution."

The Arizona Republican has taken heat from Democrats and moderates over his support for the Iraq War and U.S. troop surge. But McCain is sticking to his position.

"For if we withdraw from Iraq, if we choose to lose there, there is no doubt in my mind that we will be back - in Iraq and elsewhere - many more desperate fights to protect our security and at an even greater cost in American lives and treasure. That would be a catastrophe," McCain said.

McCain says Iraq withdrawl could impact oil supplies - The Business Journal of Phoenix:

SAS man killed on Iraq mission

A member of the SAS has been killed in what is understood to have been a special forces mission in Iraq.
The Ministry of Defence said that a member of the Parachute Regiment was killed in the early hours of Wednesday while carrying out "routine operations in support of coalition activity".

It is believed the soldier was killed in central Iraq as part of the special forces operation and was a member of the Hereford-based SAS.

But an MoD spokesman would only confirm that the death did not take place in southern Iraq, which has been under British control and where the majority of British troops are based.

The spokesman would not comment further for "operational reasons".

In a statement, the MoD said the soldier's family had been informed and more details would be released in the next 24 hours. It was also confirmed that the soldier died in action.

The statement said: "It is with deep sadness that the MoD must confirm the death of a soldier in Iraq.

"A member of the Parachute Regiment sustained fatal injuries in the early hours of Wednesday, September 5, whilst conducting routine operations in support of ongoing coalition activity in Iraq.

"The individual's next of kin have been informed and further details of the individual will be released after 24 hours period of grace, in accordance with the family's wishes."

The death of the soldier brings the military death toll in Iraq to 169. Of those, the number to have been killed in action now stands at 133.

http://www.pendletoday.co.uk/latest-...raq.3185261.jp

Other Nations Key to Salvaging Iraq

The threshold question in any war is: What are we fighting for? Our troops, especially, deserve a convincing answer.

In Iraq, the list of missions that were tried on but didn't fit includes: protection from weapons of mass destruction, creating a model democracy in the Arab world, punishing those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and stopping terrorists from catching the next plane to New York.

The latest mission, linked to the surge of troops this year, was to give Iraqi leaders the security and maneuvering room needed to make stabilizing political arrangements, which they have thus far shown little interest in doing.

A cynic might suggest that the military's real mission is to enable President Bush to continue denying that his invasion has evolved into disaster. A less jaded view might identify three goals: to prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for al-Qaida, a client state of Iran or a spark that inflames regional war. These goals respond not to dangers that prompted the invasion but to those that resulted from it. Our troops are being asked to risk their lives to solve problems our civilian leaders created. The president is beseeching us to fear failure, but he has yet to explain how our military can succeed given Iraq's tangled politics and his administration's lack of credibility.

This disconnect between mission and capabilities should be at the center of debate as Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker report on the war's status and congressional leaders prepare their fall strategies. De****e the hopes of many, this debate is unlikely to end the war soon; nor will it produce fresh support for our present dismal course. Although U.S. troop levels will surely start to come down, big decisions about whether and under what circumstances to complete the withdrawal seem certain to remain for the next president, when he or she takes office. Yet this should not preclude Democrats and Republicans from trying to agree on ways to minimize the damage before then.

According to the National Intelligence Estimate released last month, the recent modest but extremely hard-won military gains will mean little "unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security developments."

Given the depth of the sectarian divisions within Iraq, such a fundamental shift will not occur through Iraqi actions alone. Given America's lack of leverage, it will not result from our patrols, benchmarks, speeches or surprise presidential visits to Anbar province. That leaves coordinated international assistance as the only option.

The Balkans are at peace today through the joint efforts of the United States, the European Union and the United Nations, all of which worked to help moderate leaders inside the region. A similar strategy should have been part of our Iraq policy from the outset but has never been seriously attempted.

Is such an initiative still viable? Perhaps. The United Nations has pledged to become more involved. Europe's new leaders, led by France's Nicolas Sarkozy, Germany's Angela Merkel and Britain's Gordon Brown, understand their region's stake in Iraq's future and seem willing to assist. The Saudi, Jordanian and Syrian governments all view Iraqi instability as a profound security threat. Turkish and Kurdish representatives recently signed an agreement to cooperate along their troubled border. Iran is the wildest of cards, but it would be unlikely to isolate itself from a broad international program aimed at reconciliation. If it does, it would only hand a political victory to us and to the many Iraqi leaders, Shiite and Sunni alike, who would prefer to minimize Iranian influence.

President Bush could do his part by admitting what the world knows: many prewar criticisms of the invasion were on target. Such an admission would be just the shock a serious diplomatic project would need. It would make it easier for European and Arab leaders to help, as their constituents are reluctant to bail out a president who still insists that he was right and they were wrong. Our troops face death every day; the least the president can do is face the truth.

A coordinated international effort could help Iraq by patrolling borders, aiding reconstruction, further training its army and police, and strengthening legislative and judicial institutions. It could also send a unified message to Iraq's sectarian leaders that a political power-sharing arrangement that recognizes majority rule and protects minority rights is the only solution and is also attainable.

If there is a chance to avoid deeper disaster in Iraq, it depends on a psychological transformation so people begin preparing to compete for power peacefully instead of plotting how to survive amid anarchy. The international community cannot ensure such a shift, but we can and should do more to encourage it.

Madeleine K. Albright was secretary of state from 1997 to 2001 and is principal of Albright Group, a Washington-based strategy firm. She wrote this for The Washington Post.

The Columbus Dispatch : Madeleine K. Albright: Other nations key to salvaging Iraq