Thread: Iraq/Dinar News. 09/05 to 01/14/07

WASHINGTON - President Bush is shaking up the team responsible for carrying out his military and diplomatic strategies in Iraq as he prepares to outline a new direction for the war that has raged for nearly four years.

Bush will replace Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. George Casey, the chief general in Iraq, in the coming weeks, according to media reports Thursday. A revamping of the administration's national security team was already under way.

Bush wants to replace Abizaid with Adm. William Fallon, the top U.S. commander in the Pacific, and Casey's replacement will be Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who headed the effort to train Iraqi security forces, the reports citing administration officials said.

Giving Fallon and Petraeus the top military posts in the Middle East would help Bush to assert that he is taking a fresh approach in the region and help pave the way for him to turn policy there in a new direction. Both Abizaid and Casey have expressed reservations about the potential effectiveness of boosting troop strength in Iraq.

Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (news, bio, voting record), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Defense appropriations subcommittee, told The Associated Press on Thursday that he understands Bush wants to appoint Fallon to head the U.S. Central Command, a position responsible for directing the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

"He's highly knowledgeable and well-educated and respected," Inouye said of Fallon. "I would think that his nomination, if the president is to submit it, would go flying through."

In a news conference Thursday, Bush said that he would go before the nation next week with his long-anticipated speech about the next steps in Iraq. The war was a major factor in the Republicans' loss of Congress and Bush's slide in the polls. More than 3,000 members of the U.S. military have lost their lives in the war.

"I'll be ready to outline a strategy that will help the Iraqis achieve the objective of a country that can govern, sustain and defend itself sometime next week," the president said. "I've still got consultations to go through." Some members of Congress have been invited to the White House on Friday for discussions about Iraq.

Considering more troops to deal with the rising violence in Baghdad, Bush said, "One thing is for certain: I will want to make sure the mission is clear and specific and can be accomplished." Senior generals have cautioned against sending additional troops unless their role is defined.

Abizaid and Casey have at times sounded skeptical about increasing the size of the U.S. force in Iraq.

In November, Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee that boosting the roughly 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by 20,000 would have a temporary impact, but he warned that the military's ability to maintain in increase of that size "is simply not something that we have right now."

Casey told reporters in Iraq last month that he is "not necessarily opposed to the idea" of sending in more troops, but said any increase would have to "help us progress to our strategic objectives."

Along with changes in policy in Iraq, Bush is rearranging his national security team. Retired Vice Adm. Mike McConnell, a veteran of more than 25 years in the intelligence field, will be named Friday to succeed John Negroponte as national intelligence director, officials said.

In addition, Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, will be nominated to become the U.S. envoy to the United Nations, according to a senior Bush administration official. He is likely to be replaced in Baghdad by Ryan Crocker, a veteran American diplomat now U.S. envoy to Pakistan.

Bush's new plan for Iraq is expected to contain economic, political and diplomatic components.

Given the need to reduce high unemployment and draw Iraqis away from Shiite militias and the Sunni insurgency, the president is considering loans to businesses. He is looking at getting Iraqis into short-term jobs by proposing a significant increase in the discretionary funds that military commanders can use for reconstruction projects.

Questions about what the president's plan will mean for the U.S. military presence in Iraq have gotten the most attention.

One option presented to Bush calls for an initial infusion of 8,000 to 9,000 troops, mainly to reinforce Baghdad. The option involves sending two additional Army brigades, or roughly 7,000 soldiers, to Baghdad, and two Marine battalions, totaling about 1,500 troops, to western Anbar Province, the center of the Sunni Arab insurgency.

Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record), a member of the Armed Services Committee, was one of those asked to Friday's meeting at the White House. Nelson, D-Neb., said he planned to urge the president to resist sending more troops without setting firm conditions.

Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki spoke on a secure video hookup for nearly two hours Thursday. He appeared later in the day with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and recounted some of his discussions with al-Maliki.

The president said he talked with the prime minister about the final moments of Saddam's life, when he was taunted before being hanged. An unauthorized video showed images of Saddam's dangling body. The White House has been reluctant to criticize the proceedings, which have been condemned by some world leaders as deplorable.

"My personal reaction is that Saddam Hussein was given a trial that he was unwilling to give the thousands of people he killed," Bush said. "I wish, obviously, that the proceedings had gone on in a more dignified way."

Bush could send up to 40,000 more US troops to Iraq
(AFP)

4 January 2007



WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush could send up to 40,000 more US troops to Iraq when he unveils his revised Iraq policy, US media said on Thursday.


Reports gave estimates of between 9,000 and 40,000 extra troops to be sent to Iraq, where military sources say there are currently some 130,000 US troops.

The move could be controversial as the Iraq war is increasingly unpopular with the US public.

CNN television said Bush is looking at sending 20,000-40,000 additional troops and that the announcement could come early next week.

A “targeted increase in troop strength” is “an active subject of discussion,” an unnamed senior administration official told CNN, adding that Bush was “significantly along in the process.”

CBS News, citing US military sources, said Bush is preparing to send some 9,000 soldiers and marines into Iraq, with another 11,000 on alert in Kuwait and the United States.

Two army brigades of about 7,500 troops would go to Baghdad, while some 1,500 marines would be sent to the volatile Sunni western province of Al-Anbar, according to CBS.

Why America should operate from Iraq's borders

Friday, Jan 05, 2007

As the US administration has made very clear, the report of the Iraq Study Group will in no way represent the final word on American strategy in Iraq. The White House accepts that there has to be a change in approach. But its underlying premises that Iraq's sectarian strife is not a civil war and that the keys to a stable Iraq are a stable Baghdad and Anbar province are the same as before. These assumptions need to be revisited, fast.

As government has followed government in Baghdad, the promise of strength has been succeeded by the reality of weakness, incompetence and corruption. Meanwhile, too many Americans are being maimed or dying in a war that seems to have no end and no clear path to victory. It is not enough for government officials to mourn the dead or to hand out medals and personalised coins to the wounded. We must give our forces a fighting chance to succeed in their mission. This is not the case at present.

There is no doubt that Iraq is enmeshed in a bitter civil war. The US has had minimal impact on the course of that war. Iraqi casualties continue to mount, as do the number of Iraqis who have decided to kill their fellow citizens. Americans are caught in the crossfire. They cannot stop the sectarian forces that are determined to kill one another. The US could not do so in Lebanon during the 1980s and cannot do so today in Iraq.

It is equally clear that democracy, as it is understood in the west in general and in Washington in particular, is nowhere in sight in Iraq. It is hardly the highest priority for most Iraqis. What they want is stability. So do their neighbours throughout the region.

Continuing to rely on the Iraqi government to provide stability throughout the country is doomed. But pulling out of Iraq would further undermine stability in the region as a whole. Thus the US objective should be framed in terms of the wider region: stopping Iraq from launching attacks against its neighbours, preventing any invasion by Turkey in the north and barring Iranian domination in the south.

The first step is recognising that primary responsibility for pacifying Baghdad, where we are having minimal success and suffering the most casualties, lies with the Iraqi army and police. Efforts to train the Iraqis to cope with the civil war that has ravaged their capital must be stepped up. But why train them while they are in harm's way? Only when they are truly ready for combat should they be deployed to Baghdad or other violent areas.

Then the US must reposition its forces to foster regional stability and minimise casualties. Up to two brigades should be devoted to Kurdistan and a roughly equal number to the far west of Anbar province.

The forces in Kurdistan would help forestall a Kurdish declaration of independence that would prompt a Turkish invasion. The troops in western Iraq would help prevent both terrorist infiltration into Jordan and serious incursions from Syria. They would also indicate to Damascus that it should not misinterpret a readiness to talk as a concession.

The Pentagon should also move a division-sized force to the south, with a significant presence on the border with Iran. Tehran must understand that the US will not tolerate its domination of Iraq's south. Nor, as with Syria, would Washington's willingness to talk mean a readiness to appease.

Finally, US allies must be pressed to take the lead in establishing a network of provincial reconstruction teams similar to those that have met with some success in Afghanistan.

No doubt some will see this as the US giving up on democracy and being content to stand by as Iraqis kill each other. Yet clearly democracy in Iraq must await the end of the civil war. The quicker the Iraqis can be trained and equipped, the quicker the warring parties will exhaust themselves. It took 14 years in Lebanon; it is still notcompletely over in the Balkans. Peace will not come any time soon in Iraq, but the war need not last as long as a decade if there is a viable Iraqi army in place.

We should not "cut and run". Nevertheless, by assigning the lead for military operations in Baghdad where it properly belongs, with the Iraqi forces, the US can refocus. With a total force that would probably not exceed 75,000 troops, buttressed by perhaps 15,000 troops in the southern Gulf, the Pentagon could ease pressure on the active forces and reserves. At the same time, US forces could give better training to more Iraqi soldiers and police in relative safety.

By operating from Iraq's borders American forces would be well placed to prevent the establishment of terrorist training camps anywhere in Iraq, including Anbar province. In addition, it ensures that US forces have a realisable mission. They may be unable to bring stability to all of Iraq, but they can certainly bring a degree of stability to the region. The US can thus reassert its leading role in a peaceful Middle East.

The strategic shift would bring relief to our overstretched and over-deployed military. It would reduce combat losses. Above all, it would give the military a mission that they can achieve. This way we can finally bring to an end a bitter domestic debate over Iraq policy that has so undermined public faith in the judgment and wisdom of their leaders on both sides of the political aisle.

The writer was US under-secretary of defence (comptroller) from 2001 to 2004

Dov Zakheim


© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2007. Privacy policy.

El Salvador to send more troops to Iraq 1 hour, 1 minute ago



SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador - El Salvador will send its eighth contingent of soldiers to Iraq, the president said Thursday.

The new soldiers will replace those scheduled to return to the Central American country in February, said President Tony Saca, who is one of the strongest U.S. allies in the region.

El Salvador is the only Latin American country that still has soldiers in Iraq. The country's Congress has approved maintaining a presence in Iraq until the end of 2007.

Since the first Salvadoran troops arrived in Iraq in 2003, five soldiers have been killed and 24 others have been wounded.

Defense Minister Otto Romero said his soldiers were strengthening security measures after the execution of Saddam Hussein. He said retaliation attacks were possible.

"As part of the multinational force, we have taken precautions in Iraq and here in El Salvador," he said. "No one can dispute that we live in a world that is a little more troubled. There are fanatics all over."

Iran denies the presence of representatives of the execution of Saddam

(صوت العراق) - 05-01-2007(Voice of Iraq) - 05-01-2007
ارسل هذا الموضوع لصديقThis issue was sent to a friend

نفت سفارة الجمهورية الإسلامية الإيرانية في الكويت أن يكون ممثلون عن السفارة الإيرانية في بغداد قد حضروا عملية تنفيذ حكم الإعدام بالرئيس العراقي المخلوع صدام حسين.Denied embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Kuwait to be representatives of the Iranian embassy in Baghdad had attended the execution of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
وقالت السفارة في بيان تلقت »السياسة« نسخة منه أمس ردا على ما نشر في عدد يوم أمس إن إعدام المومى إليه (صدام) هو أمر داخلي بحت يتعلق بشؤون الحكومة العراقية الشرعية التي سبق ان اعلنت رسميا عن اسماء المسؤولين الذين حضروا مراسم تنفيذ الحكم ولم يكن هناك أي مبرر لحضور ممثلين عن دول أخرى«.The embassy said in a statement received »« copy of the policy yesterday, in response to what was published in yesterday that the execution of the registry (Saddam) is a purely internal matter for the Iraqi government's legitimacy already formally announced the names of the officials who attended the ceremony execution of the sentence and there was no justification for the presence of representatives of the other countries «.
و»السياسة« إذ تنشر هذا التوضيح عملاً بقانون المطبوعات والتزاما بالمصداقية الصحافية فإنها تؤكد أن الخبر المنشور كان منقولا عن وكالة »قدس برس« للأنباء وهو لا يعود إلى أي من مراسلي أو مكاتب »السياسة«.»,« Policy, which publishes this clarification pursuant to the law of publications and a credible journalist, it confirms that the news published was transferred from the Agency »« Quds Press news is not due to any of the correspondents or offices »« policy.

The new strategy in Iraq

(صوت العراق) - 05-01-2007(Voice of Iraq) - 05-01-2007
ارسل هذا الموضوع لصديقThis issue was sent to a friend

كDave Prodder wrote an article published in the Washington Post under the title 'first proposal', in which he referred to speculations about President Bush's decision on the new strategy in Iraq, and to the popular belief among the political elite in Washington that he will announce next steps themselves without relying on the report of a study of Iraq. Prodder and goes on to say that the ability of President Bush to become limited movement, and handcuffs at the internal and external levels. The commentator explains that the external constraints begin in Iraq, where any policy choice depends on the cooperation of the Iraqi government in Baghdad, which has not yet been able to curb the domination and which is still unable to reach any kind of settlement with the rebel Sunni minority. It goes on to say that Prodder purge corrupt police and the Iraqi national delinquent violence is the first prerequisite to any plan to restore order in Iraq, and that only the Iraqis can do this. And Bush could have hoped, but could not he wants. As well as Vidah tied when it comes to the Iraqi government efficiency and accelerate constitutional reforms or ensure an equitable distribution of oil wealth. Here, too, has no more appeals. Where the American rules, the new Congress is no longer such an institution negative ratified the decision to proceed to war, and gave him the upper hand in its management. When the White House to increase the number of American forces in Iraq for an indefinite period, so it goes in the opposite direction and orientation of the stated policy of the majority of the new democracy and key members of Congress. He concludes Prodder article in the Washington Post newspaper warning that after the half-term elections had shown that the American revulsion of Republicans and the Iraqi war, the fact that President Bush must face is that the only resolution on Iraq, which had popular support is a collective decision, which passed by the Congress, not the resolution of individual and has in the past.
ويخلص برودر إلى أن أي تحرك يسلكه قد يضيعه في خضم الانقسامات العراقية، وأنه إن لم يشرك الكونغرس والحزبين في هذه العملية فمصير سياسته إلى الفشل حتما، وسيواجه يقينا الواقع المر الذي ما زال يحاول تجاهله.Prodder and concludes that any move to adopt may lose in the midst of the Iraqi divisions, and that it did not involve Congress and the two parties in this process to its fate to fail, and certainly will face the bitter reality, which is still trying to ignore.

القبسAl-Qabas

EDITORIAL


Police Storm Sharqiya TV Offices in Baghdad
(Nooozz Editorial) Jan 5 2007

Trade with Turkey Booms Despite Political Strains
(Noozz Editorial) Jan 4 2007

Social Safety Net Offers University Students 15,000 dinar Grant
(Noozz Editorial) Jan 4 2007

BREAKING NEWS


Bush voices regrets on handling of Saddam hanging
(Reuters) Jan 5 2007 2:27

Bush: No peace with Iran developing nuclear arms
(Reuters) Jan 5 2007 0:4

Bush says to outline new Iraq policy next week
(Reuters) Jan 5 2007 0:2

Originally Posted by Webster

It will be a long time before Iraq is a member of the WTO. It took Vietnam 12 years. They were only admitted last month.

But surely Iraq may reval without being WTO member?

Iraq banking reforms are on track: Central bank

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...IRAQ-CBANK.xml

Iraqi Central Bank Governor Sinan al-Shabibi said on Thursday the country was making solid progress in reforming its financial sector despite the ongoing violence and had enough reserves to defend the currency. "I can say that we are succeeding in maintaining a stable financial situation in Iraq," he told Reuters at the Arab Economic Forum in Beirut. "This level of reserves is helping us keep the currency exchange rate stable." Shabibi said net foreign reserves stood at $10 billion, up $2 billion since January, meeting the target set under an IMF program...

Originally Posted by H2O_Lover

This article is not new as i read it over a year ago ...it does say what maybe happening and it seems that iraq maybe on a fast track. The author this article is not pleased with this happening and it maybe tainted with her opinion. It is a very good read thoug for those who have not done so

Accession through the backdoor: how the US is pushing Iraq into the WTO
Archives - WTO info: Accession through the backdoor: how the US is pushing Iraq into the WTO (28/1/2006)

Thanks so much for this post! This is definitely a 'must read'. A real confidence booster - that Iraq will soon be a member of the WTO. And to think that this has been so carefully and brilliantly orchestrated by the US from the first days of the Provisional Authority!