| |
News Center | Mason News | News Center |
| SEARCH: |  |
| TheSpringGarden Plants & trees, gardening products & equiptment, homedecor | SunglassesEyeglasses All stunning brand names sunglasses at the great prices | DIYHomeSupplies Do it yourself woodworking projects & home remodeling supplies | UnitedPlus Gift Ideas. Diecasts, Figurines, American Heroes, and much more |
| CarPartsAccessoriesEtc Search and shop for auto parts & accessories online. Simple & Convenient | Sewing Machines Top notch sewing machines, vacuums, and appliances. For home or commercial. | Patio & Landscape Ready for family BBQ party this summer? A Large selection of outdoor furnitures | FontsWorld Looking for those cool fonts? Here, variety of all around the world fonts. Free Download. |
03-10-2007, 02:45 AM
| ||||
| ||||
 Early Bird C U R R E N T N E W S E A R L Y B I R DMarch 9, 2007 placeRandomImg() Use of these news articles does not reflect official endorsement. Reproduction for private use or gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. Story numbers indicate order of appearance only. This is the single print version. Use the PRINT command in your browser to print the entire Early Bird as one document. (NOTE: This single file format is a long document and can use 50 or more pages of paper.) IRAQ
New York Times March 9, 2007 Pg. 1 Democrats Rally Behind A Pullout From Iraq In '08 By Jeff Zeleny and Robin Toner WASHINGTON, March 8 — Democratic leaders in the House and Senate began a new legislative push on Thursday for the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq in 2008, coalescing behind a fixed timetable to end the war. The plan to establish a specific date for removing troops intensifies the confrontation with the administration at a time when Congress is scrutinizing President Bush’s request for nearly $100 billion in additional spending toward military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Republicans vowed to block the new Democratic effort, which they said amounted to micromanaging the war, and the White House immediately signaled its opposition. “It would unnecessarily handcuff our generals on the ground, and it’s safe to say it’s a nonstarter for the president,” said Dan Bartlett, a senior White House adviser, speaking to reporters as he traveled with Mr. Bush to Latin America. Given the Republican opposition and the Democrats’ slender margin in the Senate, the significance of the new plans was as much political as it was legislative. Democratic leaders in the House were optimistic about passing their legislation, but their counterparts in the Senate faced immediate resistance from Republicans and acknowledged that their chances of attracting enough votes seemed slim. The new American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, warned on Thursday that American troops there faced a long road ahead and left open the possibility of calling in even more soldiers to calm the country. He stressed the long-term nature of the effort and asserted a need for open-endedness in the American commitment. The notion of Democratic leaders embracing a timetable to leave Iraq had ramifications beyond Congress, particularly in the presidential race. The Senate plan sets a goal for troops to be removed by March 31, 2008, similar to a proposal by Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois. A chief rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, has advocated a phased withdrawal of troops, but has not proposed setting a specific date. She said she intended to support the Democratic resolution. “It’s a goal; it’s not a hard deadline, it’s a goal,” Mrs. Clinton said in an interview Thursday evening as she left the Capitol. “We’re just trying to create some pressure on the president. That’s the whole point here.” The proposals in the House and Senate reflected the growing sentiment among Democrats that the American public was ready for an end to the war and would not punish their party for escalating the pressure on Mr. Bush to do so. Still, Democratic leaders worked behind the scenes, from dawn to dusk, to sell the plans to the party’s nervous conservatives and still unsatisfied liberals. “This is extremely painful,” said Representative Carol Shea-Porter, a New Hampshire Democrat elected last fall, in part, because of her opposition to the war. She is eager to end the conflict but intent on supporting the troops. “There are times that you have to search for a compromise for the good of the country.” In the House, Democratic leaders presented legislation to their members on Thursday that would place new conditions on military operations in Iraq as well as call for a troop withdrawal no later than August 2008. The proposals are attached to an emergency spending bill that will be considered next week in the Appropriations Committee and debated on the House floor before the end of the month. The Democratic proposal in the House would require Mr. Bush to certify that the Iraqi government is meeting a series of military, political and economic benchmarks. If Mr. Bush cannot verify any progress in Iraq, the legislation calls for the majority of all combat troops to be removed beginning July of this year and completed by Dec. 31. The legislation also would prohibit military action in Iran unless authorized by Congress. To build support for the plan among Republicans and inside their own caucus, Democrats also proposed spending an additional $900 million to help troops recover from brain injuries and post-traumatic stress. The plan also calls for $1.2 billion more than Mr. Bush requested to fight terrorists in Afghanistan. “This bill takes giant steps toward putting resources into that war, a war that is unfinished and nearly forgotten by the administration,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. Democratic leaders loaded the spending bill in the House with provisions intended to build support, or make it hard to vote against, including money for Gulf Coast recovery efforts, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, agriculture disaster programs and security. The Democratic spending bill is expected to add at least another $20 billion to the administration’s initial request of just over $100 billion — and it could still grow. For much of the day on Thursday, liberal Democrats in the House strolled in and out of the narrow hallway that leads to Ms. Pelosi’s office in the Capitol. Democratic leaders sought to allay concerns from some lawmakers that the proposal was not an aggressive enough stance against a four-year-old war. “All this bill will do is fund another year of the war, and I can’t vote for that,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, who rose at a closed-door meeting to express dissatisfaction with the plan, which he said he believed lacked provisions to force a troop withdrawal. Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who oversees defense spending and has been one of the party’s most visible war critics, was working with Ms. Pelosi. “It’s one vote at a time,” he said. “That’s what we’re working on.” In the Senate, Democrats said they had strong support in their caucus for a new resolution that would require the president to begin a gradual withdrawal of troops, aiming for a full removal of combat forces by March 31, 2008. The proposal would be binding, but it is unlikely to attract enough Republican support to pass the Senate. Still, Democrats see it as a major step in their effort to escalate pressure on the administration and Senate Republicans with a series of votes against Mr. Bush’s strategy in Iraq. They also said the resolution had wide support in the Democratic caucus, including that of centrists like Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who noted that the withdrawal date was a goal with some flexibility. Last June, Democratic leaders voted against a plan supported by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts calling for a similar withdrawal. Democratic strategists say that support for a timetable has steadily grown because of the conditions in Iraq, what they perceive as Mr. Bush’s resistance to change and the widespread support among the public for a clear-cut end to the war. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said he would try to bring the resolution to the Senate floor on Tuesday. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, did not immediately agree to debate the measure, so it was almost certain to be shelved as other Iraq bills have been this year. “Funding the troops is the goal of the Senate Republicans,” Mr. McConnell said. “Democrats in the Senate have, at latest count, had 16 versions of various proposals to interfere with the president’s ability and General Petraeus’s ability to conduct this mission successfully.” Michael Luo contributed reporting. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070309495719.html <A href="http://attach.mud.mail.yahoo.com/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter/?box=Inbox&MsgId=8085_64302735_3060014_3333_149623 _0_1074362_330017_754685758&bodyPart=2&filename=&t nef=&download=1&YY=47896&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&ord er=down&sort=date&pos=0&v#TOP">RETURN TO TOP Washington Post March 9, 2007 Pg. 1 Bush Threatens To Veto Democrats' Iraq Plan By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray, Washington Post Staff Writers Bush administration officials escalated the fight over a new spending package for the Iraq war yesterday, saying for the first time that the president will veto a House Democratic plan because it includes a timetable to start bringing troops home within a year and would undermine military efforts. The veto threat came as House and Senate Democrats announced aggressive new measures to narrow U.S. involvement in Iraq, although party leaders acknowledged that their members are far from united on the efforts. Liberals want to start troop withdrawals immediately, but more conservative members worry that they are micromanaging the war, and House leaders have been struggling to come up with a compromise. The House spending bill could lead to troop withdrawals before the end of the year and would end combat duties by Aug. 31, 2008. To help win votes in both parties, Democratic leaders have included billions of dollars in new spending for military health care and would redirect some money to the fight in Afghanistan. In the Senate, Democratic leaders proposed a joint resolution, intended for consideration in the House as well, that would limit the authority Congress gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq. It would require that troops start returning home within four months of passage and sets March 31, 2008, as a goal for withdrawing most troops. But it would require Republican votes to overcome parliamentary obstacles from GOP leaders. That has left the fate of both measures far from certain. What is more, although public support for the war has plummeted, Republicans have remained remarkably united behind Bush and an open-ended Iraq commitment. White House counselor Dan Barlett told reporters aboard Air Force One, as the president left for a six-day trip to Latin America, that the House's $105 billion spending package is tailored more to solving infighting among Democrats over how to proceed on the war than in helping troops on the ground. "It's safe to say it's a nonstarter for the president," Bartlett said. But Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has been in negotiations with divergent House factions all week, was dismissive of Bush's threat. "Never confine your best work, your hopes, your dreams, the aspirations of the American people to what will be signed by George W. Bush, because that is too limiting a factor," she said. In the Senate, the challenge will be to overcome Republican parliamentary obstacles that will force Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) to find 60 votes in a chamber he controls by a 51 to 49 margin. When Reid went to the floor yesterday evening to introduce the resolution, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was ready with an objection, to slow the debate before if starts. Democrats hope to thwart the GOP strategy by granting votes on three Republican alternative measures. "We sincerely hope, this time, when we are offering the amendments, which they have asked for before, that they will join us in a bipartisan debate, one that America is ready for," Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said. Despite the obstacles ahead, both Democratic efforts represent an unprecedented attempt to change the course of the conflict, entering its fifth year. Democratic unity is not absolute, especially in the House, where the antiwar left wants to take tougher steps, and conservative Democrats would prefer to tread more carefully. But when Reid unveiled the resolution yesterday, he was flanked by colleagues from both the left and right in his party. "I look forward to even stronger steps," said Sen. Russell Feingold (Wis.), a leading antiwar Democrat. "But this is a major moment in the history of ending the Iraq war." Under the House plan, Congress would institute the same tough benchmarks for the Iraqi government that Bush detailed in a national address in January. The president would have to certify by July 1 that the Iraqi government had made progress toward those goals. If he could not, troops would begin withdrawing, with all troops out of combat by year's end. If Bush could certify progress, he would have until Oct. 1 to certify that all of the benchmarks had been met. If they had not, troops would have to be withdrawn by March. Whatever happened with the benchmarks, troop withdrawals would have to begin by March 1, 2008, under the House bill, and all troops would be out of combat roles by Aug. 31. Despite the continued Democratic squabbling, Pelosi enjoys an important piece of leverage: money. At stake are billions for military health care and housing, homeland security, Gulf Coast hurricane relief and agriculture assistance. Republicans denounced that as crass vote buying, while conceding it could prove hard to leave such perks on the table. "It's worked in the past," Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said. GOP leaders tried to keep the debate focused on Iraq policy, saying the House proposal would restrict commanders on the ground. "Arbitrary timelines are little more than a road map for the terrorists, a tool they'll use to plot their maneuvers against American men and women in uniform," Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said. Other Republicans warned that the Democratic proposals are reckless, lending "encouragement to our enemies in this battle of wills," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), a leading Bush ally. Some Democrats voiced their own concerns. Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired admiral and Iraq war veteran, worried that military commanders would try to spare Bush the need to invoke a waiver to deploy troops deemed not fully ready, leading to unnecessary training, for instance. Rep. Jim Cooper (Tenn.), a leading conservative Democrat, fretted about the timetable. "My personal opinion is, deadlines are not a good idea," Cooper complained. But Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), an antiwar liberal, said she could not accept legislation that gives Bush too much latitude. "They're asking me to trust the president of the United States, who everybody agrees has mismanaged, misled and lied to us," she said. Similar concerns were raised in the Senate, as Democratic leaders have worked through at least three drafts over the past two weeks. The provisions did not change much from the original draft, written by Armed Services Chairman Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) But the language did. For instance, the word "reauthorizing" was stricken at the insistence of Feingold, who had voted against the 2002 resolution, and wanted to avoid the appearance of granting permission now. The biggest sticking point in the Senate is likely to be the March 31, 2008, date for withdrawal. It is presented as a goal, and it matches the timeframe set by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which issued lengthy recommendations on war policy in December. But some conservative Democrats said they are reluctant to sign on to any measure that could be construed as limiting Bush's options. "I'm bothered by dates," Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said. "I think you still have to go on conditions for staying." http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070309495655.html <A href="http://attach.mud.mail.yahoo.com/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter/?box=Inbox&MsgId=8085_64302735_3060014_3333_149623 _0_1074362_330017_754685758&bodyPart=2&filename=&t nef=&download=1&YY=47896&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&ord er=down&sort=date&pos=0&v#TOP">RETURN TO TOP New York Times March 9, 2007 New U.S. Commander In Iraq Won't Rule Out Need For Added Troops By Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Alissa J. Rubin BAGHDAD, March 8 — The new American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, warned Thursday that American troops here faced a long road ahead and left open the possibility of calling in even more soldiers as he described the difficult task of calming the country. In a broad review of the challenges he faces, General Petraeus suggested the need to be open to working with some of the groups at the center of Iraq’s security struggle. He said the future of the Mahdi Army, the ubiquitous Shiite militia that has fought battles with United States troops, should be left up to Iraqi leaders and noted that many countries had “auxiliary police.” He also suggested that political dialogue with some Sunni militants and Sunni leaders was crucial to finding a solution for problems that military action alone would never be able to fix. General Petraeus repeatedly stressed the long-term nature of the troop increase, but his assertions about the need for open-endedness in the American commitment came as Congressional Democrats in Washington worked toward a fixed date for withdrawal. He said there were no “looming” requests for additional troops and that he had not yet taken a position on an assessment by the second-ranking commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, that the greatly enlarged American force remain until February 2008. But he added, “If you’re going to achieve the kinds of effects that we probably need, it would need to be sustained certainly for some time well beyond the summer.” Military officials in Iraq have indicated that they would need a large American troop presence for at least a year and probably far longer to achieve lasting stability. For now, Congress seems persuaded to give General Petraeus’s strategy a year to yield results, setting the summer of 2008 as a deadline for the return of all troops. General Petraeus’s open-ended strategy appeared to be an effort to avoid a repeat of the pattern that has doomed past American efforts to halt the insurgency. In hot spots including Tal Afar and Diyala, United States soldiers have cracked down on insurgents and then reduced the American presence only to see insurgents retake old ground. In his first extended public comments since taking over one month ago, General Petraeus, 54, cited a handful of early favorable indicators since American and Iraqi forces began sweeping through militia- and insurgent-dominated neighborhoods and building new outposts as part of a Baghdad security plan widely seen as a last-ditch effort to stave off civil war. “While too early to discern significant trends, there have been a few encouraging signs,” General Petraeus said. “Sectarian killings, for example, have been lower in Baghdad over the past several weeks than in the previous month.” He also said that fewer families were being forced out of homes by sectarian gangs and that troops had uncovered significant illegal stashes of bombs and weapons. But he emphasized that successes had come with devastating setbacks. “Schools, health clinics and marketplaces have all been attacked,” he said. “Car bombs have targeted hundreds of innocent Iraqis,” including worshipers in Habbaniya and college students in Baghdad. He also underscored how crucial it would be to prevent the insurgents and death squad members who are believed to have fled Baghdad from exporting violence to nearby areas — like attacks in Hilla on Tuesday that killed more than 100 Shiite religious pilgrims — and to block efforts by insurgents forced to abandon Baghdad from returning. “Anyone who knows about securing Baghdad knows that you must also secure the Baghdad belts, in other words, the areas that surround Baghdad,” he said. One especially violent area, Diyala Province, is “very likely” to get more troops, he said. More American soldiers have been killed already in Diyala this year than in all of 2006 — 29 in 2007 and 20 in 2006, according to icasualties.org. The first two additional brigades coming to Iraq will work in Baghdad; military officials say a large number of troops in the remaining three brigades may have to patrol areas just outside the capital. General Petraeus repeated observations by previous commanders that there is “no military solution” to Iraq’s grave problems. The only long-run success, he said, will come after “reconciling differences with some of those who have felt that the new Iraq did not have a place for them.” According to one government official, some coalition and Iraqi officials have been holding talks with some Sunni insurgent groups who reject the more extremist approaches of groups like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Similarly, General Petraeus appeared to take a softer line on the Mahdi militia led by the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr, saying that many coalition countries had a “variety of auxiliary police” but that Iraqi leaders must ultimately decide the Mahdi militia’s fate. The challenge, he said, “has been to determine how do you incorporate those who want to serve in a positive way, as neighborhood watches, let’s say, but unarmed in our own communities, but without turning into something much more than that.” With barely a third of the additional American and Iraqi troops on the ground, the new security plan is only beginning to take effect. The troops are in the initial phase of clearing out insurgent bases and taking up residence in neighborhoods. Later phases will involve building trust with the communities so that the Iraqi government can undertake the repairs to infrastructure and the job creation programs that the architects of the troop increase believe are critical to the project’s success. Nonetheless for Iraqis living in Baghdad there already are some perceptible differences. Checkpoints, manned by Iraqi military or police, have sprung up all over the city and security officers appear to be more systematic in determining which cars to pull over and which to let go. In several neighborhoods, most notably Sadr City, the joint American and Iraqi forces have begun to set up operating bases from which they plan to conduct foot patrols and re-establish links with the community to improve intelligence. This is a reversal of the past practice of keeping American troops on large bases except for periodic drives through the neighborhoods or combat missions against suspected militants. Larger neighborhoods, like Sadr City, will eventually have several small, joint bases, though for the moment only a couple are in place. Foot patrols, long viewed as too dangerous for American soldiers to undertake on a regular basis, have begun again even in some of the most violent Sunni neighborhoods as a part of the counterinsurgency effort. The effect on violence in Baghdad is hard to judge, but on a daily basis it appears that the police have found fewer victims of sectarian violence in the city’s empty lots and back alleys, according to reports from the Interior Ministry. General Petraeus also noted that United States troops working with their Iraqi counterparts had tried to improve security at markets, which are especially vulnerable to suicide bombings, and had been sweeping through neighborhoods and arresting people they believed were violent militants or criminals. While military officials point to positive signs emerging from the three-week-old effort, the United States cannot point to any Arab-dominated region in Iraq where it has completely vanquished the indigenous insurgency. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070309495732.html <A href="http://attach.mud.mail.yahoo.com/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter/?box=Inbox&MsgId=8085_64302735_3060014_3333_149623 _0_1074362_330017_754685758&bodyPart=2&filename=&t nef=&download=1&YY=47896&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&ord er=down&sort=date&pos=0&v#TOP">RETURN TO TOP Washington Post March 9, 2007 Pg. 14 Petraeus Says Boost In Troops May Be Needed Past Summer Top U.S. Commander In Iraq Diverges From Stance of Predecessor By Ernesto Londono and Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Staff Writers BAGHDAD, March 8 -- Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday that he would examine "some months" from now whether to seek an extension of the administration's troop increase and that he had no plans "right now" to request additional forces. "If you're going to achieve the kinds of effects that we probably need," Petraeus said during his first news conference since taking command a month ago, the increased troop level "would need to be sustained certainly for some time well beyond the summer." That comment represented a shift from his predecessor's assessment of when results would be visible. Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said in January that "it's probably going to be the summer, late summer, before we get to the point where the people in Baghdad feel safe in their neighborhoods." Petraeus requested the additional troops to implement a counterinsurgency strategy that calls for deploying forces in small bases and outposts among civilians in order to protect them from militants. By raising the possibility of extending the increase, Petraeus is addressing a key concern of U.S. military officials: that Iraqi insurgents and militias will simply wait out the Baghdad security plan being implemented by U.S. and Iraqi forces. In recent weeks, there have been indications that militias, especially anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, are lying low while the U.S. military boosts its troop levels in Baghdad. One perceived advantage that militias and insurgents have over the U.S. military is that they are operating on a longer time span, and have more patience, than the Americans. Yet if Petraeus does recommend later this year keeping troop numbers at a higher level into the winter and perhaps beyond, and the Bush administration accepts that proposal, providing the extra forces would place new strains on the Army and Marine Corps. Troops would have to be sent back to Iraq sooner than planned, perhaps with their training curtailed. Petraeus also said 2,200 new military police will be arriving in Baghdad in a few months to support the 21,500 additional troops being deployed to secure Baghdad and other volatile areas of Iraq. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told U.S. lawmakers this week that as many as 7,000 additional support troops would be sent to Iraq to back up the extra combat personnel being deployed. Petraeus said two of the five U.S. Army combat brigades being deployed to Baghdad had entered the capital, along with increased numbers of Iraqi troops. He said all the new U.S. troops, including about 4,000 Marines, would be in place in June. He did not confirm a report in Thursday's New York Times saying that his second in command, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, has recommended that the additional U.S. troops stay in Iraq through February 2008. "I have certainly not reached a conclusion yet about that," Petraeus said. He said he and Odierno had discussed troop levels Thursday morning, "and right now we do not see other requests looming out there." Petraeus added: "We're some months from starting -- from saying, 'Okay, let's continue at this level or determine what else we might do.' " U.S. and Iraqi officials say they believe militia and insurgent leaders have left Baghdad to avoid the temporary troop increase. Petraeus said commanders are watching areas outside the capital where many insurgents are believed to have traveled. "The belt areas obviously have to get attention, and that includes portions of Diyala province," he said. "Those areas over which we have concerns will see additional forces flowing into them." Petraeus also said Thursday that military efforts need to be coupled with political reforms, including the absorption of what he termed "reconcilable" outlaw groups into society. U.S. and Iraqi officials are "trying to determine over time who are the irreconcilables and who are the reconcilables," Petraeus said. "What the government is trying to do, what those supporting the government are trying to do, are to split the irreconcilables from the reconcilables and to make the reconcilables part of the solution rather than a continuing part of a problem, and then dealing with the irreconcilables differently." Petraeus, who left Iraq nearly a year and a half ago at the close of a previous tour, said he was struck by the bad shape of some neighborhoods in the capital. "I must tell you that I was taken aback by what I saw in driving around," he said, listing several sectors of the city that were once heavily populated by Sunnis or that were home to people of both sects. "When I left 17 months ago now, there certainly was not the kind of emptiness in some of the neighborhoods of Baghdad." The general also said he spoke to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki about an attack on a prison Tuesday night in Mosul during which 140 inmates fled, among them many suspected Sunni insurgents. "He is very concerned about it," Petraeus said. "He has directed an investigation into it." The Islamic State of Iraq, a Sunni insurgent group, asserted responsibility for the attack. Petraeus also highlighted the need to expand Iraq's correctional system, which is already crowded, in light of an expected increase in detentions as the security plan gets further underway. "Iraq has a very, very small capacity in that regard," Petraeus said, adding that short-term and long-term detention facilities are being prepared to take in more inmates. Tens of thousands of people have been detained in recent years by U.S. and Iraqi officials. Few cases go before a judge. Ricks reported from Washington. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070309495833.html <A href="http://attach.mud.mail.yahoo.com/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter/?box=Inbox&MsgId=8085_64302735_3060014_3333_149623 _0_1074362_330017_754685758&bodyPart=2&filename=&t nef=&download=1&YY=47896&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&ord er=down&sort=date&pos=0&v#TOP">RETURN TO TOP Los Angeles Times March 9, 2007 U.S. Says It Can't Protect Every Iraqi New commander says troops will strive to prevent attacks, but that 'thugs' bent on deadly strikes are hard to stop. By Alexandra Zavis, Times Staff Writer BAGHDAD — The new U.S. commander in Iraq acknowledged Thursday that U.S.-led forces cannot protect all Iraqis from "thugs with no soul" who are bent on reigniting sectarian warfare and derailing a major security crackdown. In his first news conference since taking over last month, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus said he shared "the horror and the sorrow and the sadness" at seeing more than 100 Shiite Muslim pilgrims killed Tuesday by two suicide bombers who mingled in the town of Hillah with throngs heading for a religious commemoration in the nearby holy city of Karbala. What he did not offer was a strategy for dealing with such attacks, underscoring a major dilemma facing U.S. and Iraqi forces as they carry out what has been described as a last-ditch effort to curb the deadly civil war. "Some sensational attacks inevitably will continue to take place, though every effort will be made to reduce their numbers," Petraeus told journalists gathered in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone. Estimates of the number of pilgrims currently on the roads to Karbala range as high as 7 million, he said, and it was "an enormous task to protect all of them." In the months leading up to the crackdown, U.S. officials thought Shiite Muslim militants would cause the biggest headache. A Pentagon assessment in December said Shiite militias such as the powerful Al Mahdi army, loyal to radical anti-American cleric Muqtada Sadr, were killing more civilians than were Sunni Arab terrorist groups. Sadr's followers have staged two major uprisings against U.S. troops since the American-led invasion in March 2003. Hoping to avoid a repetition, U.S. and Iraqi commanders spent weeks negotiating, through community leaders, for access to the Al Mahdi militia's Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City, a vast, teeming slum named after the cleric's revered late father. Under intense government pressure, Sadr ordered his followers off the streets and has so far refused to be goaded back into the fight, despite his insistence that the security plan should be implemented by Iraqis only. When U.S. and Iraqi forces finally politely knocked on residents' doors in Sadr City this week, they were allowed in without incident. The number of execution-style killings blamed largely on Sadr's followers has dropped. Police recovered five unidentified bodies in Baghdad on Thursday, compared with more than 30 on many days before the crackdown. Two other bodies, showing signs of torture, were found south of the northern city of Kirkuk, police said. "In many ways, the United States has lost the argument that the Shiites are the main problem in Iraq, because they are not fighting," said Vali Nasr, an expert on Iraq's Sunni-Shiite conflict at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. "They disappeared." By waiting out the conflict, some analysts believe, Sadr could come out the winner, securing the gratitude of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, a fellow Shiite, while allowing the United States to take care of the insurgency. The fiery bombings that are the signature of Sunni Arab insurgents have continued unabated, with at least 192 Shiites killed in four days of sustained attacks on the columns of pilgrims carrying brightly colored flags and banners inscribed with religious sayings. Gunmen firing from orchards Thursday killed at least one pilgrim and injured two others as they walked through Yousifiya, south of Baghdad, police said. Police also recovered the bodies of three elderly men who they believe were kidnapped and killed along the pilgrimage route through Sunni-dominated west Baghdad. At least 11 other Iraqis were killed in unrelated bomb blasts, mortar fire and drive-by shootings, police said. Petraeus stressed that it was still early and that the joint security effort would take months to show results. The additional 21,500 U.S. combat troops promised for Baghdad and Al Anbar province to the west won't be fully deployed until early June, he said. U.S. and Iraqi forces have taken initial steps to respond to the latest threats. Major markets, a favorite target of car bombers, are being reinforced with blast walls, with deliveries allowed only during specific hours of the morning, Petraeus said. But, he acknowledged, "There is a point at which, if someone is willing to blow up himself, particularly perhaps disguise himself and use a vest rather than a vehicle, the problem becomes very, very difficult." Some of the most dramatic attacks of recent weeks have taken place outside Baghdad. They include the bombing of a Sunni mosque in Al Anbar province that killed 37 people; the abduction and slaying of 14 policemen in Diyala province; and the suicide attacks on Shiite pilgrims in Hillah, which is in Babil province. Although Baghdad will remain the focus of the crackdown, Petraeus said, some additional troops are to be deployed to outlying areas, including Diyala. "We always anticipated that some of the bad guys would go other places and the Iraqi and coalition forces will go after them," he said. U.S. and Iraqi troops captured 32 suspected insurgents in raids Thursday north of Baghdad in Baiji, Duluiya and the Jabouri peninsula along the Tigris River, the military said in a statement. Petraeus does not see any immediate need for additional troops to implement the crackdown after the Pentagon approved his request for 2,200 military police to handle the expected increase in detainees. Ultimately, he said, the solution in Iraq would have to be a political one. "Any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq," he said. "Military action is necessary to help improve security … but it is not sufficient." It is a point U.S. officials, including Petraeus' predecessor, Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., have been making for several years as they pressed Iraqis to assume control of their country after the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein. Previous attempts to reconcile the warring ethnic and religious communities have faltered over issues such as the role of private militias, integration of former members of Hussein's regime and the division of power and resources. But Petraeus said there were some signs of progress, including the agreement on draft legislation governing the distribution of Iraq's massive oil wealth. Times staff writer Tina Susman in Baghdad and special correspondents in Baghdad, Kirkuk and Hillah contributed to this report. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070309495796.html <A href="http://attach.mud.mail.yahoo.com/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter/?box=Inbox&MsgId=8085_64302735_3060014_3333_149623 _0_1074362_330017_754685758&bodyPart=2&filename=&t nef=&download=1&YY=47896&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&ord er=down&sort=date&pos=0&v#TOP">RETURN TO TOP USA Today March 9, 2007 Pg. 8 Security Effort Expanding Beyond Baghdad 8 suspects captured as hunt for insurgents enters Sunni refuges By Lauren Frayer, Associated Press BAGHDAD — U.S. and Iraqi troops captured eight men suspected of being insurgents Thursday in raids north of Baghdad. The raids were part of a campaign to prevent insurgents from regrouping outside the city during a security crackdown. The operation took place in the city of Duluiyah and the Jabouri Peninsula, a bend in the Tigris River about 55 miles north of Baghdad. Insurgents from Baghdad have sought refuge in those and other Sunni Arab areas since the security operation in the capital began last month. The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, said the Baghdad security operation will be extended beyond the city limits to target these Sunni areas, which he referred to as "the Baghdad belts." "The priority clearly is Baghdad, (but) anyone who knows about security in Baghdad knows you must also secure the Baghdad belts," Petraeus told reporters at his first news conference since taking command last month. Petraeus declined to specify how long the security operation will last but said it will continue as long as necessary "to achieve its desired effect." "We are still in the early days of this endeavor — an endeavor that will take months, not weeks, to fully implement," he said. Petraeus also said he had not decided whether to ask for more troops beyond the 17,500 additional combat forces already ordered to Baghdad. The last of those reinforcements are due in early June, he said. Baghdad was relatively quiet Thursday. Police reported finding 10 bodies with signs of torture — presumably victims of Sunni-Shiite reprisal killings. That figure was down from the average of 40 to 50 bodies found each day before the operation began. Three mortar shells exploded in the Baghdad International Airport compound, breaking windows at the headquarters of Iraqi Airways but causing no casualties. To the south, Shiite pilgrims continued their trek to the holy city of Karbala, where rituals were to begin today to mark the end of a 40-day mourning period after the anniversary of the death of Imam Hussein, grandson of the prophet Mohammed and a revered figure to Shiites. Hussein's death in battle near Karbala in the seventh century cemented the rift between Sunnis and Shiites. Millions were on their way to attend the observance. There were no major attacks Thursday, but more than 340 people have been killed across Iraq this week, mostly in assaults on Shiite pilgrims. Iraqi forces have set up checkpoints on roads leading into Karbala, 50 miles south of Baghdad, and at least 10,000 policemen have been deployed to the city. In scattered violence elsewhere, police said a car bomb exploded near an Iraqi police patrol in Mosul, killing two policemen and wounding seven civilians. Two Iraqi soldiers were killed in a drive-by shooting in Hawija, 150 miles north of Baghdad. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070309495640.html <A href="http://attach.mud.mail.yahoo.com/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter/?box=Inbox&MsgId=8085_64302735_3060014_3333_149623 _0_1074362_330017_754685758&bodyPart=2&filename=&t nef=&download=1&YY=47896&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&ord er=down&sort=date&pos=0&v#TOP">RETURN TO TOP Wall Street Journal March 9, 2007 Pg. 4 Iraq Oil Plan Avoids Key Issues Draft Law Is Ambiguous On Revenue Sharing, Role of Foreign Firms By Chip Cummins, Hassan Hafidh and Philip Shishkin Lawmakers in Iraq will soon debate a draft petroleum law for the oil-rich country, but the legislation's current form fails to clarify two issues crucial to the nation's future: how to lure foreign investment into the vast oil sector and how to distribute the new revenue that results. Bush administration officials and Iraqi politicians have hailed the draft law, which won cabinet approval late last month, as a milestone in the country's attempted comeback. By allowing foreign investment into the politically charged oil sector, officials hope to start rebuilding a dilapidated and war-torn industry. They also hope that new oil revenue, distributed fairly to the country's fractious regional, ethnic and religious groups, will underpin Baghdad's shaky central government. But the legislation before Parliament may do very little in either regard, according to Western executives and Iraqi and outside experts familiar with it. In recent days, oil-company executives have said the legislation is still too ambiguous to trigger any meaningful negotiations between companies and government officials. "There is still quite a bit of work to be done before players feel comfortable sitting down to negotiate," one Western oil-company executive said. If passed, the initiative would legally permit some sort of foreign participation in the oil sector. That in itself would be a very big step, because the country's oil wealth is a political sacred cow. The nationalization of the oil industry in the early 1970s under Saddam Hussein was a hugely popular move, and many Iraqis are still wary of foreigners exploiting their fields. But the legislation punts for now on crucial questions for foreign oil executives weighing a move into Iraq, including: Who can negotiate contracts on behalf of the government? What investment terms can be expected? How will taxes and royalties be collected? And which fields will be open to foreign development? Government officials say they hope that these and other details can be addressed in subsequent rule-making. Meanwhile, civil strife across Iraq will keep out most big companies until stability returns. Since the March 2003 U.S. invasion, the country has splintered along regional, ethnic and religious lines. The Kurdish-dominated north and the mostly Shiite Muslim south produce most of Iraq's crude oil. Though hobbled by years of war, underinvestment and postinvasion chaos, Iraq still manages to pump two million barrels of oil a day, compared with about 2.5 million barrels a day before the war. But the central and western provinces, dominated by Sunni Muslims, aren't significant oil-producing regions, stoking fear among Sunni politicians that their people could be left behind by any new development. During months of negotiations over the draft, Kurdish officials have insisted on retaining the right to hammer out deals with oil companies in their autonomous northern enclave. They have already signed several contracts, and some oil companies have started work there. Last month, the Iraqi cabinet appeared to have brokered a compromise, agreeing to a complex scheme whereby regional governments can negotiate contracts with some measure of federal oversight. But many lawmakers are still unclear as to how that system would work in practice, and whether other regional or local governments -- for instance, a bloc of southern Shiite provinces -- could negotiate contracts on their own as well. "Until now, we don't know how much authority is reserved for the regions and how much for the central government," says Omar Abdul Sattar, a member of Parliament from the Iraqi Islamic Party, a major Sunni political group. Several annexes to the draft legislation list specific fields that could be open to foreign companies. For now, the choicest ones -- those already producing, or near already developed fields -- are set aside for a new state-run oil company that could develop the fields on its own or enter into joint ventures. It isn't clear, however, whether Iraq can put together a state oil company anytime soon, because a mass exodus by many of the country's oil technocrats has drained the sector of talent. It also is still unclear how the legislation would divvy up the revenue from any new development that someday may flow from foreign participation. The draft that Parliament is expected to take up states only that Iraq's oil wealth belongs to all of its citizens. Officials in Baghdad, however, say an agreement has been reached to dole out revenue to regions according to population numbers. But the legislation doesn't detail any specific mechanism for doing this. Iraqi officials are saying that important clause, too, will be left for future debate. Ashti Hawrami, the Kurdish region's oil minister, said the Kurdish regional government has agreed to "voluntarily pool" all of its oil revenue to be shared with other regions. But Kurdish officials have fought hard to retain their ability to negotiate with oil companies, and they aren't likely to give up all say in how revenue from those deals is spent. "It is the most important point, but if you see the draft, it doesn't clearly lay it out," one expert familiar with the draft said. "An outsider looking at it would be puzzled." The details of revenue sharing are to be addressed in a separate law, Iraqi officials said. Rampant corruption throughout the government and the oil industry will be another big hurdle in working out how to spread around money. In Nigeria, a revenue-sharing system between the federal and regional governments long ago collapsed under the weight of large-scale graft, theft and corruption. And it is still unclear whether even Iraq's current draft will pass in Parliament. The measure is expected to face sharp opposition from Sunni legislators, who may press for a stronger federal role in negotiations. Several former Iraqi oil-ministry officials have criticized the bill as hastily put together. And recently, some lawmakers with the Fadhila Shiite party, which is influential in southern Iraq's oil-rich governorates, have said they oppose the initiative because it could favor foreign oil companies over local ones. --Jabbar Yaseen in Baghdad contributed to this article. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070309495656.html <A href="http://attach.mud.mail.yahoo.com/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter/?box=Inbox&MsgId=8085_64302735_3060014_3333_149623 _0_1074362_330017_754685758&bodyPart=2&filename=&t nef=&download=1&YY=47896&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&ord er=down&sort=date&pos=0&v#TOP">RETURN TO TOP New York Times March 9, 2007 Iraqis Seek Role In Rebuilding Their Nation By Damien Cave BAGHDAD, March 8 — When Rahim al-Daraji looks at the dusty lots just east of Sadr City where scores of bodies have been dumped in the past year, he sees a Ferris wheel, a roller coaster, coffee shops and restaurants. “We should have an amusement park,” said Mr. Daraji, one of two elected mayors in Sadr City, the sprawling Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad where American and Iraqi troops have been peacefully clearing homes since Sunday. “We want to rehabilitate the area so that families can have fun.” In an interview at his office, Mr. Daraji said the amusement park was one of several projects that community leaders were pushing American officials to finance in negotiations about how to handle the Shiite Mahdi Army, a militia that has controlled the neighborhood for years. A concentrated makeover of Sadr City, he said, would support the plan’s goals in two important ways: by giving young Mahdi militants jobs as an alternative to lives of violence and by providing residents with proof of the government’s ability to improve their daily lives. Mr. Daraji’s requests, however, also reflect a broader effort by Iraqi leaders to dart past “clear and hold” to the more lucrative phase of the new security plan known as “build.” Even as bombings and killings here continue, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has labeled the plan a success. His Shiite-led government has allotted $10 billion this year for reconstruction throughout the country, and, with billions more expected from the United States, Iraqi leaders at all levels are scrambling for a say in how the windfall might be spent. They are also pressing for veto power over contracts, blaming an unwieldy American system of subcontracting that was impossible to police for the loss or theft of billions in reconstruction dollars since the war began. Iraqi figures, political veterans and up and comers are seeking an advisory role. Ahmad Chalabi, for example, the political chameleon and advocate for the war, has re-emerged as an intermediary between Baghdad residents and the Iraqi and American security forces. At a freshly renovated compound in the Green Zone, Mr. Chalabi now regularly meets with leaders from all over Baghdad as they compete for roles in managing the expected infusion of projects and jobs. At a recent gathering, representatives from 15 neighborhoods in eastern Baghdad stood one after another to explain why they should be chosen to lead. For American officials, Sadr City’s calls for an amusement park, job training programs and other projects raise a particularly thorny question of trust. In 2004, American troops battled Mahdi militants here for days. More recently, United States military officials have accused the militia of using roadside bombs, possibly linked to Iran, that have killed at least 170 American service members. At the same time, the negotiations over the Mahdi militia, along with the arrest or flight of several commanders, appear to have led to a temporary truce. American soldiers were welcomed into people’s homes this week on streets where they once came under fire. Gen. David H. Petraeus, at his first news conference as the top commander in Iraq, acknowledged Thursday that the Mahdi militia included a mix of violent extremists and people with more benign motivations. “The challenge,” he said, “has been to determine, how do you incorporate those who want to serve in a positive way — as neighborhood watches, let’s say, but unarmed — in our own communities, but without turning into something much more than that?” Mr. Daraji emphasized that Sadr City as a whole “wants to open a new page in its story.” He said that Mahdi fighters had laid down their weapons to give the government a chance, and that the opportunity should not be missed. He said the prime minister’s office was already seizing the moment with an expanded job recruitment drive for neighborhood residents. As proof, Mr. Daraji — a chain-smoking tribal sheik partial to tailored suits — opened a door near his office and pointed to a pile of red, green and yellow folders that he said were job applications for every part of the government, from the Oil Ministry to the police. “We’ve collected more than 2,000 applications,” he said. “We’re classifying them according to whether people have college degrees, whether they are men or women.” He and other Baghdad government leaders said that the United States military would be smart to add hundreds of additional jobs in the neighborhood because it contained at least 1.5 million people, or about a third of the city, and had just begun to revive after decades of neglect. They said the neighborhood deserved to become a model of government effectiveness. “The plan is not only about security,” said Naeem al-Kabbi, Baghdad’s deputy mayor in charge of municipal services. “It’s about security, services and reconstruction.” Mr. Daraji said he had asked American officials for money to build small playgrounds, with tennis and volleyball courts, every few blocks — not unlike what can be found in planned communities like Levittown. He said he had pressed the Americans for money to rehabilitate a handful of lakes on the western edge of the neighborhood and for more control over the contracts so they could be assigned faster with less waste. “We need to engage people as soon as possible, get them working, make them busy,” he said. “These are quick projects. After these we will move on to medium and larger plans.” “The security process,” he added, “accelerates the economic possibilities.” Khalid al-Ansary contributed reporting. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070309495827.html <A href="http://attach.mud.mail.yahoo.com/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter/?box=Inbox&MsgId=8085_64302735_3060014_3333_149623 _0_1074362_330017_754685758&bodyPart=2&filename=&t nef=&download=1&YY=47896&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&ord er=down&sort=date&pos=0&v#TOP">RETURN TO TOP Wall Street Journal March 9, 2007 Pg. 4 U.S. Backs Talks On Iraq With Iran By Neil King Jr. WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration signaled that it is open to holding direct talks with either Iran or Syria over how to help mend Iraq at a regional conference this weekend but said the main goal will be to win Arab support for Iraq's beleaguered government. Any talks between the U.S. and Iran or Syria could pave the way for higher-level discussions with Washington's chief adversaries in the region. The U.S. alleges that the two countries are fueling insurgent attacks in Iraq and aiding terrorist groups in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories -- charges they deny. David Satterfield, the State Department's Iraq coordinator, yesterday declined to say whether the U.S. plans to initiate private talks with either Iran or Syria during the Baghdad gathering. But "if we are approached over orange juice by the Syrians or the Iranians to discuss an Iraq-related issue that is germane to this topic -- stable, secure, peaceful, democratic Iraq -- we are not going to turn and walk away," he told reporters. The so-called neighbors conference, scheduled for tomorrow, will seek to win wider support for measures to tamp down violence in Iraq. The Baghdad government is organizing the event, which will include ambassadors and officials from all of Iraq's neighboring countries, as well as the U.S., France, Britain, Russia and China. The Bush administration had previously dismissed widespread calls to open bilateral talks with Iran and Syria, not just on the situation in Iraq but also on issues such as Iran's nuclear program or Syria's involvement in Lebanon. Mr. Satterfield described this weekend's gathering as the start of an important new diplomatic campaign on the Iraq front, to be followed by a larger ministerial meeting next month. Both Baghdad and Washington are eager to win support from key Sunni Arab states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia for Iraq's Shiite-led government. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070309495922.html <A href="http://attach.mud.mail.yahoo.com/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter/?box=Inbox&MsgId=8085_64302735_3060014_3333_149623 _0_1074362_330017_754685758&bodyPart=2&filename=&t nef=&download=1&YY=47896&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&ord er=down&sort=date&pos=0&v#TOP">RETURN TO TOP USA Today March 9, 2007 Pg. 8 Iraq To Seek Neighbor Nations' Help Government firm on constitution By Rick Jervis, USA Today BAGHDAD — Iraq will ask neighboring countries to help improve its security at a rare regional summit in Baghdad on Saturday that will be attended by the United States. The Iraqi government will lobby Iran, Syria and other countries to tighten their borders, stop funding sectarian militias and crack down on religious leaders in their countries who encourage violence in Iraq, said Sami Alaskary, a Shiite lawmaker close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The government will oppose any calls by Sunni-dominated countries to abolish Iraq's constitution and start the process over, Alaskary said. Some Arab countries think such a move is necessary for Sunni insurgents to put down their arms and join the government, he said. "There will be no going back to square one," Alaskary said. "They have to accept that we have a constitution, that this is the army that Iraq has built. There will be no going back." The Cairo-based Arab League, which includes many Sunni-led countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, said in a statement this week that its delegation to the conference would press for changes to Iraq's constitution. Sixteen countries are expected to send delegates, Alaskary said. Attendees will include all the countries that border Iraq — Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and Turkey — as well as members of the Arab League, representatives of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the United States, Britain and others. Most of the officials will be midlevel diplomats such as deputy foreign ministers, Alaskary said. A second conference, with higher ranking representatives, may be proposed for the near future, he said. "This is the first small movement in the right direction. It's a long process," said Mithal al-Alusi, an independent Iraqi Sunni lawmaker. "Our neighbors have to understand that they cannot succeed if Iraq's political process fails." The summit also may result in a rare meeting between the United States and Iran, which have not had formal relations since 1979. Washington has accused Iran of supplying arms to Iraqi militias. "If we are approached over orange juice by the Syrians or the Iranians to discuss an Iraq-related issue that is germane to this topic — stable, secure, peaceful, democratic Iraq — we are not going to turn and walk away," David Satterfield, the State Department's Iraq coordinator, told reporters. Iraqi leaders will ask the delegates to send ambassadors back to Iraq, Alaskary said. Many Arab countries pulled envoys from Baghdad after a rash of kidnappings and assassination attempts in 2005. Contributing: The Associated Press http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070309495874.html <A href="http://attach.mud.mail.yahoo.com/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter/?box=Inbox&MsgId=8085_64302735_3060014_3333_149623 _0_1074362_330017_754685758&bodyPart=2&filename=&t nef=&download=1&YY=47896&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&ord er=down&sort=date&pos=0&v#TOP">RETURN TO TOP Boston Globe March 9, 2007 Iraq-Arab Tensions Rise Before Regional Meeting By Salah Nasrawi, Associated Press CAIRO -- The Iraqi government and Arab countries have broken into bitter squabbling ahead of a Baghdad conference tomorrow that the United States had hoped would finally unite them in efforts to stabilize the war-torn nation. Sunni-led Arab governments plan to use the conference to press for a greater Sunni role in Iraq. That has rankled Iraq's Shi'ite leaders, who believe the Arabs are trying to reverse their newfound power after decades of being marginalized under Sunni minority rule. The dispute reflects the complicated tensions that are likely to surface at the Baghdad meeting, which gathers diplomats from Iraq's Arab neighbors, Iran, the United States, Turkey, and the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Arab states are likely to try to win US support for their demands, increasing the pressure on Baghdad. Iran has vowed to support its Shi'ite allies in the Iraqi government but is also concerned the United States will press it on accusations that Tehran is supporting Shi'ite militants fueling Iraq's bloodshed. The United States has struggled to rally its Arab allies behind the Shi'ite-led government since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. US officials hope the meeting tomorrow will be a chance to show Arab support for Baghdad. But Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan -- which opposed the US-led invasion that toppled Hussein -- have remained deeply suspicious of the Shi'ites, accusing them of sidelining Iraq's Sunni minority and being proxies for extending Iran's power in the Middle East. Earlier this week, the Cairo-based Arab League said its delegation to the conference would press for changes in Iraq's constitution and government to give Sunnis more political power. Arab nations contend that such a step is necessary to ease the Sunni-led insurgency that has bloodied Iraq for three years. Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa suggested that Arab governments would take their proposals to the UN Security Council, a move that would be seen as challenging the legitimacy of Iraq's government, led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shi'ite . The Shi'ite coalition that dominates al-Maliki's government angrily denounced Moussa's comments yesterday, saying that they were a "flagrant interference in Iraq's internal affairs" and "ignored the march of the Iraqi people to build a free and democratic state." "While we regret these irresponsible positions which incite discord and acts of violence inside Iraq, we hope they will not cast their shadow on the conference," the Shi'ite United Iraqi Alliance said in a statement. Iraq's Shi'ite deputy Parliament speaker, Khalid al-Atiyah, said Moussa's comments "might encourage some parties to take some Arab countries to their sides to accomplish their political desires" -- referring to Iraqi Sunnis. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070309495577.html <A href="http://attach.mud.mail.yahoo.com/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter/?box=Inbox&MsgId=8085_64302735_3060014_3333_149623 _0_1074362_330017_754685758&bodyPart=2&filename=&t nef=&download=1&YY=47896&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&ord er=down&sort=date&pos=0&v#TOP">RETURN TO TOP Chicago Tribune March 8, 2007 Pg. 1 Iranian Influence Soaring In Iraq Shiites, Sunnis say Tehran is winner of U.S. invasion By Liz Sly, Tribune foreign correspondent BAGHDAD -- In the cafeteria of Iraq's parliament, Shiite legislators slip into Persian when they don't want their conversations overheard. In the holy city of Najaf, an Iranian charity helps newlyweds buy furniture. Iranian weapons, freshly manufactured, are turning up in arms caches seized from insurgents in and around Baghdad. These are among the many ways in which Iran's soaring influence is being felt in Iraq, where Iran's complex entanglement in the affairs of its neighbor lies at the heart of the schism threatening to tear Iraq--and the region--apart. To Iraq's Sunnis, Iran's ascendancy as a regional power and its close relationship with the Shiite-led government represent a pernicious threat to the survival of Iraq's Arab identity. "America handed Iraq to |
