THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Reverberations of war in Iraq
http://archive.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/region/10118531.html

04/15/2007
By James J. Zogby, Special to Gulf News

Across the Middle East and North Africa, a series of tragic events occurred last week against the backdrop of still more bad news.

With the discovery of an Al Qaida cell in Morocco, and deadly suicide terrorist attacks in Algiers and the National Parliament in Baghdad, it is now clear that Bin Laden's cancerous group has metastasised, spawning affiliates and copy-cat groups across the region. What is also clear is that war in Iraq is aggravating this growth in two other ways.

On the one hand, the war itself, the occupation and the behaviour associated with it, have fuelled extremism. Of equally deadly consequence is the fact that Iraq is now playing the role once reserved for Afghanistan. Reports coming out of Morocco and Algeria, establish that hundreds of young men from both countries have travelled to Iraq for training and combat, and have returned to their home countries with evil intent.

And why does this condition exist? Because George Bush and the conservatives conned the world into attacking Iraq using lies, deceit and cooked intel so they could effect a regeime change. Over 3,000 dead Americans, billions of dollars wasted, no end in sight and an out of control AQ; thanks to George Bush. And does Bush and his supporters continue to scream?

VICTORY VICTORY VICTORY

Got news for you guys; you ain't gonna get it. You guys are gonna have to understand that our military may be one of the best, if not the best, against conventional forces but it helpless against unconventional warfare in which large masses of people are not supporting us. The Bush/Chaney tactics in the Middle East of torture, attack, kill, invade, don't negotiate, don't compromise are tactics that lead to defeat, not victory.

If all this were not bad enough, other news out of Iraq and Afghanistan combine to raise even more serious questions about the efficacy of the Bush Administration's approach to combating terrorism and extremism.

In Iraq, demonstrations led by Moqtada Al Sadr brought out hundreds of thousands of Iraqis calling for an end to the US presence in their country. In a surprising display of unity in Najaf, Sunni and Shiite clerics walked together, in the mass mobilisation. This outpouring came in response to Al Sadr's call to all Iraqis to cease fighting each other in sectarian attacks and to unite around a single cause: ending the United States' 'occupation' of Iraq. A possible contributing factor to this display of unity may be found in a US Pentagon report noting that casualties in Iraq have actually increased since the beginning of the Bush Administration's 'surge'. While it is true that violence has decreased in Baghdad, it is more than offset by killings in the rest of Iraq as insurgents and sectarian terrorists have dispersed to other locations.

But, Baghdad is still not safe, as was made clear on Thursday when a suicide bomber penetrated multiple layers of security to detonate his bomb in the cafeteria of the Iraqi Parliament building. All of this directly challenged the notion that the 'surge' is working. In Afghanistan things are no better; Taliban attacks are up, as are Nato casualties. A recent report by a former US army general claims that much of Afghanistan has reverted into a lawless narco-state. Others are now blaming the current setbacks in Afghanistan on the lack of US attention to unfinished business in that country, accusing the Bush Administration of diverting its resources and its focus to Iraq.

New strategy
Allied defence ministers met in Canada to deal with growing concerns about lack of forces and lack of adequate equipment, and increased lethality of Taliban attacks, with the fear that more are yet to come. With the spring thaw literally preparing the ground for a renewed Taliban offensive, the defence ministers of the six Nato nations with troops on the ground in Afghanistan discussed a new strategy that focused more heavily than ever before on providing assistance to the Afghan people, particularly in rural areas. Why? Because the assembled leaders realise that after five years of fighting they are no closer to a military solution than before. It is clear that the gathered defence ministers, retired military personnel, and analysts familiar with the situation agree that the effort will require at least 10 more years and tens of billions of dollars. Many doubt that there is sufficient commitment from the Bush Administration to get the job done. All in all, a bad week.

What is required is a change of course that would help stabilise and build Afghanistan, create national reconciliation and promote reconstruction in Iraq, and work toward a comprehensive Middle East peace that will foster the emergence of a strong regional coalition capable of defeating extremism and terrorism. That, of course, would require an admission that current policy is not working. But, despite bad news, the Bush Administration seems to believe that its policies are working and seems convinced that the way out of this hole they have dug for themselves and the region is just to keep on digging.

Dr James Zogby is the president of the Arab American Institute in Washington, DC.

A shadowy Pentagon unit -- the Office of Special Plans, headed by Douglas Feith, former U.S. Under Secretary of Defence for Policy -- deliberately fabricated intelligence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to al-Qaida in order to incite the United States to make war on Iraq.

This conclusion, long suspected by most observers of the Middle East, has now been confirmed by Thomas F. Gimble, Inspector General of the U.S. Defence Department, in a declassified report, released on April 5 at the request of Carl M. Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Together with his boss, Paul Wolfowitz, then Deputy Defence Secretary, Douglas Feith was one of an influential group of pro-Israeli neo-conservatives in the Bush administration who exploited the 11 September 2001 terrorist attack on the U.S. to campaign and intrigue for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

According to the Inspector General's report, Feith produced intelligence assessments which claimed that there was a 'mature, symbiotic relationship [between Iraq and al-Qaida]' in no fewer than ten specific areas, including training, financing and logistics. To bolster his case, Feith made much of an alleged meeting in Prague in April 2001 between Muhammad Atta, one of the Al-Qaida hijackers, and an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ahmad al-Ani.

To mobilize the American public for an attack on Iraq, Feith leaked his fraudulent conclusions to the Weekly Standard, the neo-con magazine which, under its editor William Kristol, had been stridently calling for 'regime change' in Iraq since the late 1990s - and which has now turned its attention to calling for war against Iran.

After a thorough examination of the evidence, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) both concluded that Feith was wrong. They found 'no conclusive signs' of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida and no evidence of 'direct cooperation.'

Why did Feith and his neo-con associates do it? And how did they manage to get away with it?

Clearly, in pressing for war, they were primarily concerned to enhance Israel's security by smashing a major Arab state, thereby removing any potential threat to Israel from the east. As they schemed to transform the region with America's military power, they dreamed of defeating all of Israel's enemies -- Arab nationalists, Islamic radicals and Palestinian militants -- at a single stroke. Overthrowing Saddam was to be only the first step in a thorough transformation of the region to the advantage of both Israel and the United States.

In the event, the United States has suffered a devastating blow to its political influence and moral authority, as well as to its finances and to the fighting ability of its armed services, while Israel, confronted by a resurgent Iran, is itself less secure than before the war.

The reckless enterprise of Feith and his fellow neo-cons would probably have had little chance of success had they not managed to team up with men like Dick Cheney and former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who were evidently seduced by the prospect of taking control of Iraq's oil reserves, second-largest in the world after Saudi Arabia's, and of turning a submissive Iraqi client state into a base for the projection of American power throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.

President George W Bush himself bought their agenda - a decision he must now bitterly regret, as he and his advisers seek desperately to find a way out of the Iraqi quagmire.

It's been nearly three months since David Broder predicted that George Bush was "poised for a political comeback," but given the results of the latest CBS News poll (pdf), it looks like the Broder Bounce is still on hold, with Bush holding steady at a 61% disapproval rating. And while respondents were not specifically asked about the current battle between Congress and the White House over the supplemental spending bill, it's clear where the American people stand when it comes to Iraq.

Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008?

Should 57
Should not 38
DK/NA 5


Which of these comes closest to your opinion? 1. Congress should block all funding war in Iraq no matter what OR 2. Congress should allow funding only for a limited period of time OR 3. Congress should allow all funding for the war in Iraq without a time limit.

Block all funding 9
Allow only w/time limit 58
Should allow all funding 29
Don't know/No answer 4


Perhaps next week the pollster can ask nearly 6 in 10 Americans for their thoughts on being accused of offering "our enemies the victory they desperately want."

President Bush has threatened to veto any funding bills that would set a timetable for the removal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, but most Americans believe that such timetables are necessary. 57% of Americans say the U.S. should set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008, while 38% say it should not. A majority of Americans has supported some form of timetable for troop withdrawal since July 2005.

Americans overall are also pessimistic about Iraq when looking ahead to the future. Less than half of all Americans think success in Iraq is even somewhat likely, and only 12% that it is very likely. Most Americans - 53% - say success in Iraq is not very likely. Only 40% felt that way a year ago.

Do we smell impeachment yet?

Betcha dollars to donuts those 12% very likely group has no understanding about the history of Iraq or the fraud perpetrated against the American People for going to war in Iraq. They also have not kept up with all the goings-on including what Patreaus said and is now doing.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Betcha dollars to donuts those 12% very likely group has no understanding about the history of Iraq or the fraud perpetrated against the American People for going to war in Iraq. They also have not kept up with all the goings-on including what Patreaus said and is now doing.

I thing those 12% are just people driven by idealogy rather than any facts or changed situations.

Congress and the White House will move this week toward a final showdown over a contested war funding bill, with most Americans trusting Democrats over President Bush to set Iraq policy but with sentiment deeply divided over Congress's push to set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces.

Democratic leaders will formally convene House and Senate negotiators tomorrow to hammer out a final version of the bill, hoping to have the compromise on Bush's desk by the end of next week. The president and Democratic leaders again exchanged verbal fire yesterday.

Bush used a backdrop of military families to declare: "We should not legislate defeat in this vital war." Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), flanked by retired Army generals, fired back, "The president and the vice president continue to desperately cling to their failed escalation strategy and attack those who disagree with them."

Democrats appear to be standing on firm political ground, as they work toward a final bill. A Washington Post-ABC News poll of 1,141 adults, conducted April 12-15, found that 58 percent trusted the Democrats in Congress to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq, compared with 33 percent who trusted Bush.

The president has taken advantage of Congress's spring recess to pound Democrats over their legislation, which would impose benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet; create strict rules for resting, equipping and training combat troops; and set a 2008 date for the final withdrawal of U.S. troops. Despite those efforts, Bush has lost a little ground to Democrats, who in February were trusted by 54 percent to set Iraq policy.

Pessimism about the war has continued to grow. For the first time, a narrow majority of Americans, 51 percent, said the United States will lose the battle, compared with 35 percent who said the United States will win. Bush continued yesterday to say that victory in Iraq is pivotal to the larger fight against terrorism, but Americans are increasingly agreeing with the Democratic view that the issues are separate. About 57 percent now say the United States can succeed in the terrorism fight without winning the Iraq war, an increase of 10 percentage points since January, when Americans were almost evenly divided on the question.

The number of Americans who favor withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, even if that means civil order is not restored, held steady from February at 56 percent.

But Americans remain divided over specific policy changes. About 51 percent support legislation similar to the House bill, which would continue funding the war but would set a deadline of no later than August 2008 for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces; 46 percent oppose such a bill.

While they fare better when compared with Bush, 62 percent of poll respondents disliked the way congressional Democrats have handled the situation in Iraq. Bush's disapproval on his handling of the war was 70 percent.

The strength of Democrats' positions comes in part because the president's overall job approval rating stands at 35 percent. A majority of Americans have not approved of Bush's job performance since January 2005, according to Post-ABC News polling.

With such uncertainties, Democratic aides and lawmakers acknowledged yesterday that reaching a final agreement in the coming days will be difficult. Leadership aides and lawmakers say negotiators are likely to accept language in the House bill that mandates that troops be given a year off between combat tours, and those tours be limited to a year -- a mandate breached last week, when the administration announced combat tours would be extended to 15 months. Under the bill, Bush would be allowed to waive such mandates with a public explanation.

The final version is also expected to include House language that would establish binding benchmarks -- such as the passage of an oil-revenue-sharing law and the quelling of sectarian violence -- for the Iraqi government to meet to ensure full U.S. military support into next year.

But on troop-withdrawal language, negotiators are likely to bend toward the Senate bill, which says troop withdrawals must begin within 120 days after bill passage but set a date of March 31, 2008, only as a goal for final withdrawals. The idea, aides said, is to show Democrats as willing to compromise with Bush and to make a veto more difficult to defend.

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Tuesday he would soon name independent technocrat ministers to replace ministers loyal to radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr who quit a day earlier.

In the biggest cabinet shakeup since Maliki took office a year ago, the six Sadrist ministers pulled out of the government in protest at his refusal to set a timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal, a demand of the anti-American cleric.

The Sadrists, who form the single biggest parliamentary bloc in the ruling Shi'ite Alliance, called on Maliki to appoint non-partisan independents, a move the prime minister welcomed.

Bombers seek to turn Algeria into 'second Iraq'
Reuters

Algiers: The founder of the group that claimed responsibility for last week's deadly Algiers bombings called on militants to put down their weapons under a government amnesty and stop trying to turn Algeria into a 'second Iraq'.

Hassan Hattab made the comments in a letter to President Abdul Aziz Bouteflika published yesterday by Echorouk daily after three bombs exploded in Algiers on Wednesday killing 33 people.

He described the group that claimed responsibility for the bombings, which changed its name in January from the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) to Al Qaida Organisation in the Islamic Maghreb, as "a small group that wants to transform Algeria into a second Iraq".

Taliban using Iraq-style tactics and targeting civilians, rights group says

Qaeda group says Iraq a "university of terror"
17 Apr 2007 03:55:45 GMT
Source: Reuters

More DUBAI, April 17 (Reuters) - The leader of an al Qaeda-led group in Iraq said on Tuesday he agreed with those who say the country has become a "university of terrorism" in a growing insurgency since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

"From the military point of view, one of the (enemy) devils was right in saying that if Afghanistan was a school of terror, then Iraq is a university of terrorism," the leader of the self-styled Islamic State in Iraq said in a Web audio recording.

The profoundly tragic events at Virginia Tech yesterday have produced sorrow and grief across the country. While this massacre deserves the nation's attention, it is also worth noting that such grief rips apart Iraqi lives nearly every day in the same manner.

University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole pointed out last night on PBS's Newshour:

Remember that we're all concerned, as we should be, about these events at Virginia Tech today. In Iraq this is a daily event. Imagine how horrible it would be if this kind of massacre were occurring every single day. And the people of Iraq feel that either the Americans are not stopping it or they're actually causing it.

Echoing Cole, Iraq Slogger published a post today recounting the brutal scenes of violence that Iraq's universities have witnessed in recent months:

On Monday, the same day as the Virginia Tech mass shooting, two separate shooting incidents struck Mosul University, one killing Dr. Talal Younis al-Jelili, the dean of the college of Political Science as he walked through the university gate, and another killing Dr. Jaafar Hassan Sadeq, a professor from the Faculty of Arts at the school, who was targeted in front of his home in the al-Kifaat area, according to Aswat al-Iraq.

In January, Baghdad's Mustansiriya University sufferred a double suicide bombing in January that killed at least 70 people, including students, faculty, and staff. A month later, another suicide bomber struck at Mustansiriya, killing 40.

Kidnappings of students and faculty are another all-too-common occurrence on Iraq's campuses. Members of the univerisity community have been abducted and murdered for sectarian reasons, or simply held for ransom. […]

In January, students reported that violent events had threatened students that attendance rates at Baghdad University had dropped to six percent.

Earlier this month, the Dr. Qais Jawad al-Azzawi, head of the Geneva-based Committee International Committee of Solidarity with Iraqi Professors said that 232 university professors were killed and 56 were reported missing in Iraq, while more than 3,000 others had left the country after the 2003 invasion.

Majority Expect U.S. Will 'Lose' War In Iraq
By GARY LANGER, ABC NEWS POLLING DIRECTOR
Apr. 17 - ABC News/Washington Post poll finds 51 percent think U.S. will lose war, 66 percent think Iraq was not worth fight; Dems, Pelosi get higher marks in approval and trust.

A bare majority of Americans for the first time believe the United States will lose the war in Iraq, and a new high -- two-thirds -- say the war was not worth fighting. Yet the public divides on setting a deadline for withdrawal.

That mix of sentiments -- unhappy with the war, unclear what to do about it -- is keeping George W. Bush in deep disfavor. Just 35 percent approve of his job performance overall, a scant two points above his career low. And just 29 percent like how he's dealing with the situation in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/18/iraq.main/index.html

Over 170 dead - today alone.

Think about how badly this country is f*cked now.

Cycloptichorn