Early Bird 1 May 2007

[admin]

Washington Post
May 1, 2007
Pg. 1
April Toll Is Highest Of '07 For U.S. Troops
Over 100 Killed in Month; Iraqi Deaths Far Higher
By Sudarsan Raghavan and Karin Brulliard, Washington Post Foreign Service
BAGHDAD, April 30 -- The deaths of more than 100 American troops in April made it the deadliest month so far this year for U.S. forces in Iraq, underscoring the growing exposure of Americans as thousands of reinforcements arrive for an 11-week-old offensive to tame sectarian violence.
More than 60 Iraqis also were killed or found dead across Iraq on Monday. Casualties among Iraqi civilians and security forces have outstripped those of Americans throughout the war. In March, a total of 2,762 Iraqi civilians and policemen were killed, down 4 percent from the previous month, when 2,864 were killed. Iraq's government has yet to release any monthly totals for April.
Attacks killed a total of nine U.S. troops over the weekend, including five whose deaths were announced Monday. The weekend's fatalities brought the toll for the month to 104 Americans killed, in the sixth most-lethal month for American forces since the U.S.-led invasion four years ago.
Under the new counterinsurgency plan, many U.S. forces have left large, more secure bases to live in small combat outposts and to patrol hostile neighborhoods where the risk of insurgents targeting them has multiplied.
Highlighting the vulnerability of American forces, a series of explosions Monday night rocked Baghdad's Green Zone, the most heavily secured enclave in the capital and home to thousands of U.S. troops, Western diplomats and Iraqi government officials.
"There is a duck-and-cover going on right now," said Lt. Col. Christopher C. Garver, a U.S. military spokesman, before quickly getting off the phone. Later, Garver confirmed there had been an assault on the Green Zone, but it was unclear what had happened. Local Iraqi television stations reported 10 explosions inside the zone. There were no immediate reports of casualties, Garver said.
In eastern Baghdad on Sunday, a roadside bomb killed three U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter who were on patrol, the military said. Attackers shot dead another soldier in the same section of the capital on Saturday. Meanwhile, a Marine was killed in the Sunni insurgent bastion of Anbar province, west of Baghdad. On Saturday, the military reported four U.S. soldiers had been killed on that day.
Before the deaths announced Monday, 99 U.S. soldiers had been killed during April, according to iCasualties.org, an independent Web site that monitors military deaths. Nearly half have died in and around Baghdad, with the next greatest number of deaths occurring in Anbar and Diyala provinces. In December, 112 U.S. soldiers were killed.
With 11 combat deaths, April also was the deadliest month for British troops in Iraq since the beginning of the war, when 27 soldiers were killed in March 2003. This month's British casualties highlighted the growing tensions in southern Iraq as Shiite groups clash for power and Britain prepares to draw down its forces.
The deaths came as the largest bloc of Sunnis in Iraq's parliament, the Iraqi Accordance Front, threatened to pull out its ministers from the cabinet, saying that it "had lost hope" in having Sunni concerns addressed by the Shiite-led government. The threat prompted President Bush to phone one of Iraq's two vice presidents, Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni, in an attempt to defuse the potential political crisis, Hashimi's office said in a statement. A Sunni withdrawal could seriously hamper efforts at national reconciliation and further weaken the government. Only two weeks ago, six cabinet ministers loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr resigned from the cabinet.
In the province of Diyala, where scores of fighters have fled to escape the Baghdad security offensive, a car bomb exploded near a funeral tent in the town of Khalis, killing 22 and wounding 35, said Lt. Mohammed Hakman of the Diyala police Joint Coordination Center. Police said they expected the toll to rise.
The strike came four days after a suicide attacker detonated a car packed with bombs at a checkpoint in the town, 50 miles north of Baghdad, killing 10 Iraqi soldiers.
Near the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Ramadi, a car bomb exploded at a police checkpoint, killing four policemen and injuring six others, police said. In another attack near Ramadi, a truck exploded near a restaurant, killing four civilians, police said.
In Baghdad, a car bomb exploded in the al-Jihad neighborhood, killing four and wounding another seven, all civilians, while another car bomb detonated in a local market, killing five and wounding nine civilians. In the Shaab neighborhood, mortar shells rained down on a house, killing three and injuring eight, police said.
Meanwhile, police found 13 corpses -- all blindfolded, handcuffed and shot in the head -- in different parts of the capital.
On Monday, U.S. troops at Camp Victory, a sprawling base near Baghdad International Airport, reflected on April's deadly toll on their comrades.
Sitting at a picnic table outside a recreation center, four soldiers smoked Marlboros under a starry sky. Part of the Headquarters Headquarters Support Company for the 3rd Infantry Division out of Fort Stewart, Ga., they had arrived last month. They were on the base, just "sweeping parking lots and waiting for a sandstorm," as Pfc. Richard Gonzalez, 22, put it.
Still, they said, frequent news of troop deaths made even their mission more frightening.
"It makes me feel depressed to be in Iraq right now," said Gonzalez, who is on his second deployment. "It's a whole lot different than last time."
Now, he said, soldiers at the base must carry weapons. Return addresses on letters from home must be ripped off and burned, so as not to fall into the wrong hands. On his first deployment, eight months passed before his Baghdad base was hit by mortar fire. This time, he said, it seems the Camp Victory intercom announces incoming fire every day.
"There's a whole lot more activity," said Spec. Krystal Fowler, 21, of Hampton, Va. She said it "kind of bothers" her to know other troops are taking hits in the field and she can't help.
Spec. Natisha Jetter, 23, of Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, in the Virgin Islands, agreed.
"Our fellow soldiers are out there dying, and we're here not doing our job," Jetter said.
Gonzalez said the deaths made him realize that "there's a war going on out there."
Fowler sighed. It's a war between Iraqis, she said.
"We are just interfering, and letting our soldiers die."
"I'd rather be out there helping people survive," Fowler said. "The more of us that are out there, the more chances they have to survive."
There was a pause, as the soldiers mulled that.
"It's just terrifying, because you can drive the same road for eight months, and then one day it's over," Gonzalez said.
"Over," Fowler echoed.
Special correspondents Saad-al-Izzi, Waleed Saffar and Washington Post staff in Baqubah and Ramadi contributed to this report.

http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070501509782.html RETURN TO TOP

New York Times
May 1, 2007
Pg. 1
Sunni Ministers Threaten To Quit Cabinet In Iraq
By Alissa J. Rubin
BAGHDAD, April 30 — The largest bloc of Sunni Arabs in the Iraqi Parliament threatened to withdraw its ministers from the Shiite-dominated cabinet on Monday in frustration over the government’s failure to deal with Sunni concerns.
President Bush stepped in to forestall the move, calling one of Iraq’s two vice presidents, Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni Arab, and inviting him to Washington, according to a statement issued by Mr. Hashimi’s office and the White House.
The bloc, known as the Iraqi Consensus Front and made up of three Sunni Arab parties, “has lost hope in rectifying the situation despite all of its sincere and serious efforts to do so,” the statement said.
If the Sunni group followed through on its threat, it would further weaken a government already damaged by the pullout two weeks ago of six cabinet ministers aligned with the renegade Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr and further erode American efforts to promote reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites.
Also on Monday, the White House expressed concern about a report in The Washington Post that aides to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki were involved in the arrests or removal of at least 16 army and police commanders, at least nine of whom are Sunni, who had been fighting Shiite militias.
“We’re aware of the reports, we’re concerned about them, and those are the kinds of things we do discuss with the Iraqis that will be a focus of conversations,” said the White House spokesman, Tony Snow. But he added that the Maliki government had taken aggressive enforcement actions in Shiite neighborhoods in the past.
As the Sunni cabinet ministers were threatening to step down on Monday, bombs and mortars killed at least 22 Iraqis. American and Iraqi soldiers squelched a three-pronged attack in Mosul by insurgents who struck at the main American military base, a police station and a provincial government center.
At least 104 United States service members died in hostile actions in Iraq in April, the highest of any month so far this year. Another 13 deaths among other allied forces have been reported, making it the highest monthly death toll for combined allied forces in more than two years. Military reporting typically lags at least 24 hours, so the final total for the month could be higher.
In his phone call with President Bush, Mr. Hashimi “talked frankly about the faltering political process,” the statement from his office said.
The White House, in a statement from the National Security Council, added that the two leaders “focused on the importance of additional steps in the reconciliation process and the need for all Iraqi parties to come together to overcome common challenges they face.”
Gordon D. Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said Mr. Bush invited Mr. Hashimi to the White House for what would be their second meeting there as part of a continuing dialogue with Iraq’s highest-ranking Sunni official.
If the Sunni bloc pulled its five ministers from the cabinet, it would be a stark reflection of the difficulty Mr. Maliki’s government has had in mustering support from a broad spectrum of Iraqis. The Shiite ministers who walked out two weeks ago have yet to be replaced.
Such a move would also undo some of the work of Zalmay Khalilzad, the former United States ambassador, who spent much of his tenure here persuading Sunnis to participate in the government.
Neither Mr. Sadr’s bloc nor Mr. Hashimi’s has threatened to pull out of Parliament, so technically the government would remain standing, but further cabinet resignations would seriously undermine efforts to move forward on legislation needed to ensure that Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds all feel they have a stake in the government.
Members of the Sunni bloc said that they had not yet decided to pull out their ministers but that they were divided between those who wanted to pull out immediately and those who worried that pulling out would diminish the bloc’s influence on government policy even further.
“The first group is enraged by what is going on and is pushing for withdrawal, saying that there is no use in staying in the government,” said Nasir al-Ani, one of the bloc’s 44 representatives in the 275-member Parliament. “The second group takes a rational approach and is not in favor of withdrawing, but prefers to try to work within the government to deal with the problems.”
The crisis was set off by what Sunnis describe as a continued lack of services to Sunni areas of Baghdad. For months, those areas have been deprived of adequate food rations and hospital supplies.
But the latest problem takes place against a backdrop of broader, longstanding Sunni concerns. Sunni leaders say the government has failed to move forward on an array of issues including legislation to ensure a fair distribution of oil revenue, bringing Sunnis into all levels of government and weeding out Shiite militias within government security forces.
In the last several days, the Iraqi Army has worsened the situation by occupying one of the few hospitals used by Sunnis in the heavily Shiite east side of Baghdad, according to politicians. Doctors at Al Numan hospital said that patients had been frightened by the presence of soldiers and that most had left the hospital.
“The problem is not just with the sectarian practices, but with the government’s ineffectiveness,” said Mr. Ani, who emphasized that he was speaking for himself and not for the bloc.
“We see a lot of problems in Karkh on the western side of Baghdad, where the government is invisible,” he said. “People are suffering and the government cannot solve the problems.”
A cabinet minister who is not from the Sunni bloc said that Mr. Maliki had failed to make an effort to get the government to work. “He said he was going to appoint new ministers; he needs to do that,” said the minister, who asked not to be identified because of the delicacy of the situation. “What is he waiting for?”
The heavily fortified Green Zone, where the American and British Embassies are, suffered its second serious mortar attack in two weeks on Monday night when it was hit by a volley of mortar shells. The attack set off sirens, and loudspeakers broadcast messages warning residents that “cellphones are for emergency use only” and to “duck and cover.” There was no immediate information on casualties.
In Khalis, near the Iranian border, a suicide bomber killed 16 people and wounded 27 when he detonated his explosives next to a funeral tent, the local police said.
Three people were killed by roadside bombs in Baghdad, and a suicide bomb in the western Baya neighborhood killed one person, according to an Interior Ministry official. A suicide car bomb in the Harithia neighborhood killed two people. Nine bodies were found in Baghdad, the Interior Ministry official said.
In Kadhimiya, a Shiite neighborhood, a peaceful demonstration was interrupted by the heavy gunfire of a fight between soldiers at an Iraqi checkpoint and a gunman who had fired at a passing Iraqi Army convoy. The shootout may have been tied to repercussions from a raid on Sunday by the American military on the local office of Moktada al-Sadr.
In the Mosul attacks, insurgents popped out of manholes near the police station and fired rocket-propelled grenades while three suicide car bombs exploded near the station, said Lt. Col. Eric Welsh, commander of the single American combat battalion there.
An American patrol responding to the attack killed at least six insurgents in a firefight, the colonel said. At least one American soldier and four Iraqi policemen were wounded.
Reporting was contributed by Edward Wong, Ali Adeeb, Wisam A. Habeeb and Ahmad Fadam from Baghdad, Iraqi employees of The New York Times from Diyala and Mosul, and Jim Rutenberg from Washington.

http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070501509826.html RETURN TO TOP

USA Today
May 1, 2007
Pg. 1
Behind Success In Ramadi--An Army Colonel's Gamble
Brigade's Pragmatic Tactics In Working With Sheiks Reflect A New Emphasis On Flexible Battlefield Leadership. Now, The Goal Is To Apply The Strategy Elsewhere In Iraq.
By Jim Michaels, USA Today
FRIEDBERG, Germany — When U.S. strategy in Iraq called for pulling American forces back to large, heavily protected bases last year, Army Col. Sean MacFarland was moving in the opposite direction. He built small, more vulnerable combat outposts in Ramadi's most dangerous neighborhoods — places where al-Qaeda had taken root.
"I was going the wrong way down a one-way street," MacFarland says.
Soon after, MacFarland started negotiating with a group of Sunni sheiks, some of whom have had mixed loyalties in the war. His superiors initially were wary, fearful the plan could backfire, he says. He forged ahead anyway.
Today, with violence down in Ramadi and the surrounding Anbar province west of Baghdad, MacFarland's tactics have led to one of Iraq's rare success stories. Al-Qaeda's presence has diminished as Iraqis have begun to reclaim their neighborhoods. And Army officials are examining how MacFarland's approach might help the military make progress in other parts of the violence-racked country.
Pentagon officials say the encouraging episode in Ramadi is a poignant reflection of shifting leadership tactics within the U.S. military, which is trying to develop a generation of officers who can think creatively and are as comfortable dealing with tribal sheiks as they are with tank formations on a conventional battlefield.
"You can't take a conventional approach to an unconventional situation," says Col. Ralph Baker, a former brigade commander in Iraq who is assigned to the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon.
The Army is training its officers to be more collaborative with non-military types and to be able to work with relief groups and local reporters, says Col. Steve Mains, director of the Center for Army Lessons Learned, an office based at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., that analyzes battlefield tactics and distributes its findings across the Army.
As shown by MacFarland, 48, such a pragmatic style can run counter to the traditional image of a hard-charging, swagger stick-carrying Army commander epitomized by Hollywood's version of Gen. George Patton. It's also an adjustment for a fighting force that has been armed and organized for conventional wars.
"There are big changes coming," Mains says. "It's not like we turned into a debating party. … It's just the way we try to draw in other people to get the other viewpoint." The military's new counterinsurgency manual makes clear that firepower is only part of the equation.
Mains acknowledges that in the current Army, "not every brigade or battalion commander has gotten that." He says MacFarland, whose brigade returned to its home base here in Germany in February, "really understood this is an argument between us and the insurgents."
Last week, the Army sent a team here to interview MacFarland and other key leaders in the brigade to examine what they accomplished in their 14-month tour in Iraq.
"A lot of ideas are out there," says Col. Eric Jenkins, who headed the team from the Center for Army Lessons Learned. "Everybody's looking for solutions."
MacFarland said he was willing to try just about anything to win over the population and reduce violence in Ramadi. "You name it, I tried it," he says.
MacFarland grew up amid dairy farms in Upstate New York. He exudes confidence but little swagger, he doesn't sport a traditional buzz cut, and he speaks softly — not exactly the stereotypical Army leader on the battlefield.
MacFarland attended Catholic schools as a youth. He graduated from West Point in 1981 and later received a master's degree in aerospace engineering from Georgia Tech as well as two graduate degrees from military schools.
When most of his 1st Brigade was ordered from Tal Afar in northern Iraq to Ramadi in late May 2006, "I was given very broad guidance," MacFarland says. "Fix Ramadi, but don't destroy it. Don't do a Fallujah," he recalls, referring to the 2004 offensive in which U.S. Marines and Army soldiers fought block by block to expel insurgents from that Sunni stronghold. The operation leveled large parts of the city and angered many Sunni Muslims there and across Iraq.
In Ramadi, MacFarland embraced the freedom and accepted risk.
"I had a lot of flexibility, so I ran with it," he says.
He lacked the number of troops required for a large offensive. The combat outposts allowed him to secure Ramadi "a chunk at a time," he says, adding that he pursued the sheiks because of their "leverage" over the population.
The brigade, which commanded about 5,500 soldiers and Marines, immediately began building combat outposts in Ramadi.
"We did it where al-Qaeda was strongest," MacFarland says. The outposts housed U.S. troops, Iraqi security forces and civil affairs teams.
It was a risky strategy that put U.S. soldiers in daily battles with insurgents.
The brigade lost 95 soldiers; another 600 suffered wounds over the course of its tour in Iraq.
Taking troops out of heavily fortified bases as MacFarland did often produces results but increases risk, says Hy Rothstein, a retired Special Forces officer who teaches at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif.
MacFarland put a battalion under Lt. Col. V.J. Tedesco in the southern part of the city, where al-Qaeda fighters were concentrated.
Before the battalion arrived, that part of the city "was largely off-limits to coalition forces," Tedesco said at a briefing for the Army Lessons Learned team last week.
His battalion lost 25 tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and trucks to roadside bombs as they began patrolling and setting up bases.
"We just absorbed IEDs," Tedesco said, referring to roadside bombs.
MacFarland's brigade didn't wait until a neighborhood was entirely secure before launching construction projects, recruiting police and trying to establish a government. Lt. Col. John Tien, commander of 2nd Battalion, 37th Armor, says the brigade was "aggressive" about pushing ahead on projects as soldiers were establishing security.
By the time the unit returned to Germany, the brigade had built 18 combat outposts in and around Ramadi.
The combat outposts helped reduce violence last summer, but the brigade wasn't close to winning over the population, an essential part of defeating an insurgency.
Anbar province, population 1.2 million, is a vast tract of desert dotted by cities and villages, stretching from outside Baghdad to the Syrian border. It's a region of very religious Sunnis governed largely by sheiks, imams and tribal law. Ramadi's population is 300,000.
MacFarland says he soon realized the key was to win over the tribal leaders, or sheiks.
"The prize in the counterinsurgency fight is not terrain," he says. "It's the people. When you've secured the people, you have won the war. The sheiks lead the people."
But the sheiks were sitting on the fence.
They were not sympathetic to al-Qaeda, but they tolerated its members, MacFarland says.
The sheiks' outlook had been shaped by watching an earlier clash between Iraqi nationalists — primarily former members of Saddam Hussein's ruling Baath Party — and hard-core al-Qaeda operatives who were a mix of foreign fighters and Iraqis. Al-Qaeda beat the nationalists. That rattled the sheiks.
"Al-Qaeda just mopped up the floor with those guys," he says.
"We get there in late May and early June 2006, and the tribes are on the sidelines. They'd seen the insurgents take a beating. After watching that, they're like, 'Let's see which way this is going to go.' "
MacFarland's brigade initially struggled to build an Iraqi police force, a critical step in establishing order in the city.
"We said to the sheiks, 'What's it going to take to get you guys off the fence?' " MacFarland says.
The sheiks said their main concern was protecting their own tribes and families.
The brigade made an offer: If the tribal leaders encouraged their members to join the police, the Army would build police stations in the tribal areas and let the recruits protect their own tribes and families. They wouldn't have to leave their neighborhoods.
"We said, 'How about if we recruit them to join the police and they go right back into their tribal areas?' " MacFarland recalls.
Some tribes agreed.
The number of police recruits in Ramadi jumped from about 30 a month to 100 in June 2006 and about 300 in July. More than 3,000 new recruits had joined the police by the time MacFarland's brigade left in February.
Trying to blunt police recruitment, al-Qaeda fighters simultaneously attacked one of the new Ramadi police stations with a car bomb in August 2006, killing several Iraqi police, and assassinated the leader of the Abu Ali Jassim tribe.
They hid the sheik's body, denying him a proper Muslim burial, and his remains were not found until four days later. Members of the tribe were outraged.
A couple of weeks later, one of the brigade's officers went to visit Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi, a local tribal leader. The officer was shocked to see a gathering of 20-30 sheiks jammed into al-Rishawi's home. Al-Rishawi was asked what was going on.
"We are forming an alliance against al-Qaeda," the sheik replied, according to MacFarland. "Are you with us?"
MacFarland was. Now he needed to convince his bosses.
Officials at MacFarland's higher headquarters, the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force based near Fallujah, were worried. The U.S. military was supposed to be supporting Iraq's government. A tribal alliance could pose a threat to Anbar Gov. Maamoun Sami Rashid al-Awani.
Al-Awani's government wasn't popular and had been thinned by threats and assassinations. Still, U.S. policy was to back Iraqi government institutions.
The tribal leaders didn't like al-Awani and wanted him replaced. MacFarland said the sheiks agreed to back off their demand that al-Awani step down.
There were other concerns. Al-Rishawi and his colleagues were second-tier sheiks. Most of Anbar's senior tribal leaders, some of whom amassed considerable wealth in a variety of businesses, had decamped to Jordan because of the growing violence after the U.S.-led invasion.
The Marine headquarters in Anbar was in contact with the tribal leaders in Jordan and was concerned that an alliance involving the U.S. military and junior leaders — the ones who remained in Ramadi — would jeopardize that relationship.
MacFarland says he saw it differently. The contacts in Jordan had yielded little. "Maybe there is a power struggle between the sheiks in Jordan and the sheiks in Anbar," MacFarland says. "But let's back the sheiks in Anbar. Let's pick a horse and back it."
He says the results were immediate when a sheik pledged to support the alliance with the U.S. Army, an agreement some of the sheiks involved would grandly name The Awakening. "Once a tribal leader flips, attacks on American forces in that area stop almost overnight," MacFarland says.
Marine headquarters officers also raised concerns about the backgrounds of some of the tribal leaders involved in The Awakening. Anbar's desolate roads and stretches of empty desert have long been home to smugglers.
"I've read the reports" on al-Rishawi, MacFarland says. "You don't get to be a sheik by being a nice guy. These guys are ruthless characters. … That doesn't mean they can't be reliable partners."
Despite its concerns, the Marine headquarters allowed MacFarland to pursue his work with the tribes and ultimately supported it.
The alliance grew to more than 50 sheiks by the time the brigade left Iraq, spreading throughout the province. Police recruiting continued to increase. The tribes began attacking al-Qaeda leaders who were on U.S. target lists, according to brigade documents.
More than 200 sheiks are now part of the alliance. They plan to form a political party.
Military analysts say there are no textbook guides for what MacFarland did. Battling a counterinsurgency demands leaders "who understand that this is a different kind of war than the Army and Marine Corps have trained for," says Andrew Krepinevich, a counterinsurgency expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. "The big difference is in the leadership."
Some military analysts question whether the Army has made enough institutional changes to prepare officers for the demands of a counterinsurgency effort, even if some leaders such as MacFarland do well in such situations.
"This type of warfare is so much (more) fundamentally different than what the U.S. armed forces stand for," says Rothstein, the instructor at Naval Postgraduate School. "On the margin there will be some people who get it, but whether the entire institution is going to make a 180-degree turn is doubtful."
From MacFarland's standpoint, it was less about leadership style and more about necessity.
"Maybe I was a bit of a drowning man in Ramadi," he says. "I was reaching for anything that would help me float. And that was the tribes."
The MacFarland file
Army Col. Sean MacFarland, 48, commander, 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division:
Education: Undergraduate degree, U.S. Military Academy at West Point, 1981; Master of science degree, aerospace engineering, Georgia Tech; Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kan.; Master's degree, School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, Kan.; Master's degree, Industrial College of the Armed Forces, Fort McNair, Washington, D.C.
Served in: Bosnia; Macedonia
Recognition: Two Bronze Stars; Six Meritorious Service Medals; Joint Service Commendation Medal; Army Commendation Medal; Five Army Achievement Medals
Source: U.S. Army

http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070501509863.html RETURN TO TOP

Washington Times
May 1, 2007
Pg. 1
Corpses Held For Ransoms In Baghdad
By Aqeel Hussein, London Sunday Telegraph
BAGHDAD - Criminals in Baghdad are stealing corpses from the scenes of car bombings and killings in order to extract ransoms from grieving relatives.
In a macabre offshoot of the capital's kidnapping epidemic, the gangs pose as medics collecting bodies to be taken back to the city's overflowing morgues.
Instead, they take the corpses to secret places and demand payments of up to $5,000 to release each body to relatives for burial. Because Muslim custom dictates that a body must be buried as soon as possible after death, many families simply pay up, rather than involve the police.
"We have seen 40 families to whom this has happened, where people said that they have had to pay money to receive bodies," said Dr. Mohammed al-Nasrawi, an official at the Baghdad city morgue.
The new racket in "dead hostage taking" is thought to be run by gangs connected to the city's sectarian militias, many of whom are involved in conventional kidnappings.
Iraqi police said the gangs often respond to car bombings, which can leave more than 100 corpses on the streets. In the chaos, police and army units seldom question the credentials of people posing as ambulance crews.
Capt. Falah Saab al Mamouri of Iraq's Interior Ministry described how one such gang since apprehended operated: "They would look for bodies that had identity cards on them and then get in touch with the family.
"They would then ring the family of the dead person, tell them that their relative has been killed, and then demand between $3,000 and $5,000 to return the body.
"Once the family had handed the money over to a middle man, they would dump the corpse near the city morgue with the name written on a piece of paper pinned on the chest. Sooner or later someone would hand it over to the morgue, and the family would find it there."
The process is made simpler for the gangs by the current Iraqi habit of carrying around details of their next of kin in case they are unexpectedly killed. Frequently, such contact details are stored in a mobile phone.
Capt. al Mamouri added: "We noticed two ambulance crews at the scene of a bombing that were only taking away bodies with mobile phones on them. The Iraqi National Guard arrested the crews and they confessed what they had been doing."
He said that subsequent inquiries revealed that the crews had been employees of the Health Ministry, and they had been stashing the bodies in hospital mortuaries.
The ministry is run by Shi'ite groups loyal to the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and often has been accused of being infiltrated by sectarian gangs.
Police think, however, that up to a dozen other gangs are operating the same way.
Some get their pickings from areas known as "dead men's corners" garbage dumps and other secluded spots, where victims of sectarian gangs are often dumped.

http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070501509851.html RETURN TO TOP

Arizona Daily Star (Tucson)
May 1, 2007
Bomber Kills 32 At Funeral; A Deadly Day For Iraqi Public
By Wire Reports
BAGHDAD — A wave of violence battered Iraqi civilians on Monday, including a suicide bombing at a Shiite funeral that claimed 32 lives and wounded 63.
The attack against the mourners north of Baghdad was the deadliest in a series of bombings and shootings that killed at least 102 people nationwide.
The April death toll among U.S. troops reached 104, the deadliest month for American forces since December, when 112 were killed, the military said Monday.
Also Monday, the largest bloc of Sunni Arabs in the parliament threatened to withdraw its ministers from the Shiite-dominated Cabinet in frustration over the government's failure to deal with Sunni concerns.
President Bush stepped in to forestall the move, calling one of Iraq's two vice presidents, Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni Arab, and inviting him to Washington.
All but one of the latest U.S. deaths occurred in Iraq's capital, where a nearly 11-week security crackdown has put thousands of additional American soldiers on the streets — making them targets for both Shiite and Sunni extremists.
Bush has committed about 30,000 extra American troops to the security operation in Baghdad, but he is facing legislation by the Democratic-led Congress calling for U.S. troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq by Oct. 1. Bush has promised to veto the measure; he said Monday that he wants to work with Democrats on compromise legislation to pay for the Iraq war.
Police said the suicide bomber who struck the Shiite funeral in Khalis, about 50 miles north of Baghdad, walked into a tent filled with mourners and detonated a belt of explosives hidden beneath his clothes.
Officials said the funeral was for a Shiite man who died of natural causes but who had about 20 relatives in the army and police.
Elsewhere, a tanker truck exploded near a restaurant just west of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, killing four people and wounding six, police said.
In a Web posting Monday, an al-Qaida front organization — the Islamic State in Iraq — announced it was preparing a "long-term war of attrition" in the Anbar province against the Americans and the U.S.-backed Sunni sheiks.
At least 66 other people were killed or found dead nationwide on Monday, police reported. They included 27 bullet-riddled bodies found in Baghdad, apparent victims of sectarian death squads.
Also on Monday, prosecutors alleged that a U.S. officer gave computer programs to a prisoner's daughter, beginning to lay out their case at a hearing to determine if evidence warrants a trial on charges that include the capital offense of aiding the enemy.
Lt. Col. William H. Steele, 51, an Army reservist from Virginia serving full time, also is accused of fraternizing with the detainee's daughter, illegally storing classified material, maintaining an inappropriate relationship with an interpreter, possessing pornographic videos, failing to obey an order, and dereliction of duty regarding government funds.
The most serious allegation — aiding the enemy — is tied to Steele's time as a military police commander at the Camp Cropper jail and carries a maximum penalty of death. The prison, near Baghdad airport, held former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein before he was hanged.

http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070501509872.html RETURN TO TOP

Los Angeles Times
May 1, 2007
U.S. Military Shows Its Side Of Iraq War On YouTube
Channel offers a 'boots-on-the-ground' perspective of the conflict.
By Alexandra Zavis, Times Staff Writer
BAGHDAD — In one video, a U.S. soldier blasts insurgent gunmen with a heavy sniper rifle as the room fills with smoke. In another, members of an Iraqi family throw their arms around soldiers, weeping and rejoicing, after learning that their kidnapped relative has been freed.
The U.S. military has opened a new front in the Iraq war: cyberspace.
Moving into a realm long dominated by Islamic militants, the military has launched its own YouTube channel offering what it calls a boots-on-the-ground perspective of the conflict. The move recognizes that the Internet is becoming a key battleground for public opinion at a time when domestic support for the war is dwindling.
Islamic militants use the Internet to promote themselves and recruit followers with videos of tearful hostages, exploding military vehicles and U.S. soldiers cut down by sniper fire. No longer confined to a few obscure websites, the footage is turning up on popular video-sharing sites such as YouTube.
Now the U.S. military is offering up its side of the war. Available for download are blistering firefights across rooftops, nighttime raids filmed through the green glow of night-vision devices and a "precision strike" that wiped out an insurgent antiaircraft gun in a huge ball of fire.
"This effort was not designed to combat what ends up on extremist websites," said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a spokesman for the U.S. military in Iraq. "But we understand that it is a battle space in which we have not been active, and this is a media we can use to get our story told."
Military commanders have long complained about the "negative" slant of Iraq reporting, with its focus on the violence that has claimed tens of thousands of lives since U.S.-led forces invaded in March 2003.
"There are moments when there is no violence going on in Iraq," Garver said. "Even Baghdad is a neighborhood-by-neighborhood story…. Unfortunately, news being news, you tend to get the car bomb of the day."
'The soccer ball story'
The YouTube channel is a way to get other stories told by linking directly to a generation that gets its news from multiple sources, Garver said.
Even on a quiet day, footage of soldiers handing out soccer balls to Iraqi children is unlikely to feature on most newscasts. But, Garver said, "the soccer ball story is part of what is happening in Iraq … and that needs to be recorded somewhere."
Some YouTube viewers didn't seem to realize how common a sight it is here.
"Maybe they should do this more often," suggested one viewer, who logged on as lilspys456.
"How about everyday … which is what they do," snapped back NJRocks281.
The channel was the brainchild of the U.S. military's "Web masters": Brent Walker and Erick Barnes, two former Marines contracted to maintain the Multi-National Force-Iraq website from a small office in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone.
"I think these clips humanize the war for a lot of people who only see statistics," Walker said. "You see troops talking to each other. You hear the foot crunches. You see they are ordinary, everyday Americans."
The military says its channel provides an "unfiltered perspective" on the war, but any footage posted is carefully vetted to ensure it does not compromise the security of its troops and operations, violate laws or include excessively gory, disturbing or offensive material. Swearing is out, as is material that mocks U.S. and Iraqi troops and civilians.
In its first month, the channel was viewed more than 120,000 times and collected more than 1,900 subscribers.
The most popular video is of a gun battle in Haifa Street, an insurgent enclave in Baghdad.
A clip of U.S. soldiers shooting out a window at gunmen hidden in the surrounding buildings has already been featured on CNN and Fox News. But on YouTube, you can see the rest of the footage: Iraqi soldiers firing out the same window, underscoring a favorite U.S. message, that its forces stand side by side with their Iraqi counterparts.
The footage generated lively comments on YouTube. Many fixated on the size of the sniper rifle used by one U.S. soldier.
"Sweet! That .50 cal is not for the silent sniper," enthused TrunkFunk.
Others wondered whether U.S. soldiers were now using AK-47s, prompting Walker to interject several times: "NOTE TO EVERYONE (because this has become a recurring misunderstanding): The troops using AK-47s in this clip are Iraqi Army Soldiers, not Americans. This was a joint operation."
Debating the war
But the clip also generated serious discussion between the war's supporters and critics.
"Pretty disturbing to see that kid enjoying killing people, whatever they might be up to, or that comment about aiming a little higher next time — makes you wonder what 'collateral damage' he may have caused to some grandmother when his aim was off," said swede42.
To which superpimp8000 responded, "Look into the eyes of the Iraqi soldiers at the end. That is a man experiencing success at defending his country. We should finish this thing the right way and not leave people like that man hanging. Literally."
If the comments are too rude or extreme, the military will take them off the site. But it is pleased that the footage is generating debate.
"That conversation is important," Barnes said. "That's why we use this media."
This is not the first time the military has delved into the world of online video sharing. The U.S. Navy launched a YouTube channel in November, and the Army followed in February. But they served mostly as recruiting tools, and have drawn a fraction of the viewers of the Multi-National Force-Iraq channel, with its raw footage from the battlefront.
So far, the videos posted on the MNF-I channel have been shot by the military's professional combat cameramen, as well as public affairs and Armed Forces Network teams. However, contributions have been solicited from the troops in the field.
Back in the U.S., many are posting their own video montages — sometimes to the chagrin of the military command.
Last year, a video of a Marine singing his song, "Hadji Girl," sparked outrage. The word Hadji refers to a Muslim who has made a religious pilgrimage to Mecca, but it is often used by U.S. troops as a pejorative term for Iraqis.
The song was about a U.S. soldier who falls in love with an Iraqi woman and is ambushed by her family when he is taken to meet them. The Marine, Cpl. Joshua Belile, was required to apologize.
"About every other month, we will get a call about some video on YouTube that shows questionable behavior by the troops," Garver said. His section investigates each call.
"It has been frustrating," he said. "There are 150,000 troops out here doing great work every day, but what you see is the one knucklehead who shot the three-legged dog and put it up on YouTube…. Well, here is our chance to show there are troops doing the right thing."

http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070501509911.html RETURN TO TOP

Washington Times
May 1, 2007
Pg. 15
Insurgents Obtain Green Zone Passes
Documents captured in recent fighting in Baghdad included two identification cards for access to the fortified Green Zone, which contains Iraqi government headquarters, and one for access to the U.S. Embassy, the Pentagon said.
The area where the documents were captured -- west of the Green Zone -- has been a stronghold of Sunni extremists linked to al Qaeda, said Army Col. Steven Townsend, commander of 3rd Stryker Brigade that led the operation.
Col. Townsend, speaking to reporters at the Pentagon yesterday in a video conference from Baghdad, did not mention the discovery of the ID cards. Pentagon officials provided that information after he spoke.

http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070501509921.html RETURN TO TOP

Baltimore Sun
May 1, 2007
U.S. Troops Called Crucial To Iraq
Country's ambassador to U.S. addresses Baltimore Council on Foreign Affairs
By Brent Jones, Sun Reporter
Iraq's ambassador to the United States urged yesterday an indefinite stay for American troops in Iraq, telling a Baltimore audience that a withdrawal before the country is stabilized would fuel the al-Qaida terrorist network.
Samir Sumaidaie said al-Qaida is responsible for the majority of mass murders in his home country and railed against setting what he called "arbitrary deadlines" for American troop withdrawal - instead asking for more troops to help combat the steady stream of violence.
Sumaidaie, in an address at the Renaissance Harborplace Hotel sponsored by the Baltimore Council on Foreign Affairs, offered no timetable for when he believes Iraq can sustain itself.
"Nobody likes war," he said. "It's an evil thing. But if it's thrust upon you, you have to defend yourself. We welcome Americans as liberators, not occupiers."
Sumaidaie said Iraq has many citizens loyal to the former dictator Saddam Hussein, and that they would combine with al-Qaida if the country remains unstable. Sumaidaie said that before Hussein was removed from power, he put aside billions of dollars in oil revenues to allow his party a return to power. Hussein was executed in December.
"We're talking about well-funded individuals," Sumaidaie said.
Born in Baghdad in 1942, Sumaidaie served as a member of the U.S.-backed Governing Council in Iraq. He was appointed as Iraq's permanent representative to the United Nations in 2004. In April 2006, he moved to Washington as Iraq's first ambassador to the United States.
Sumaidaie spoke of the "good things that go on in Iraq," which he said the American public does not get a chance to see. He said construction is going on in two-thirds of the country at a breakneck rate. Sumaidaie said Americans primarily see the violence.
"They don't see young people going to school," he said. "They don't see the teacher who used to get $10 a month now gets $400 a month."
Bob Boyer, a computer engineer from Baltimore, said he appreciated Sumaidaie's perspective.
"I thought his talk was outstanding, and it's a picture we don't get in our media," Boyer said. "We focus on newsworthy subjects, which is the negative stuff. It was refreshing to hear his talk and to hear that the Iraqis are not giving up. They want freedom."

http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070501509725.html RETURN TO TOP

Wall Street Journal
May 1, 2007
Pg. 11
Iraq Debt-Forgiveness Plan Faces Arab Resistance
By Neil King Jr. and Mariam Fam
The Bush administration will face a skeptical reception from many Arab partners when it pushes Iraq's neighbors this week to offer aid and slash debts to Iraq in exchange for Baghdad implementing economic and political reforms.
The U.S. wants regional governments to back a five-year agreement in which the Iraqi government will promise to enact a list of reforms, including an oil-revenue law and better legal protections for Iraq's minorities. In response, countries are supposed to offer aid, debt relief and other assistance.
But leaders in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait and other Arab states remain leery of showing unreserved support for the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are expected to announce some debt relief during a two-day Iraq summit in Egypt this week, but Kuwait and several other Persian Gulf countries are withholding any firm action.
The summit in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh will mark the highest-level meeting between Iran and the U.S. for several years. But U.S. officials say the gathering won't be a forum for detailed talks between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. Ms. Rice may meet with the Iranian delegation while in Egypt, the officials said, but discussions would focus only on Iraq's future and not Iran's nuclear program or other irritants between the U.S. and Tehran.
Some European diplomats said that after months of intense friction between Washington and Tehran, both governments may use the summit to try to forge a path toward more substantive discussions.
The U.S. accuses Iran of abetting militias in Iraq and supplying them with explosives for use as roadside bombs.
"Should the foreign minister of Iran bump into Condi Rice, Condi won't be rude," President Bush told reporters yesterday. "But she'll also be firm in reminding this representative of the Iranian government that there's a better way forward for the Iranian people than isolation."
The summit, which has been in the works for months, also comes at a time of continued tension between Baghdad and several of its Sunni Arab neighbors. The major Arab states last month demanded that Iraq change various policies that have excluded Sunnis from positions of authority, and have since made clear that cooperation will hinge on whether Mr. Maliki's government takes steps to reach out to Iraq's Sunni Arabs.
During a tour of Arab states last week, Mr. Maliki said that his government wouldn't entertain "conditions or dictation" put forth by neighboring states.
Efforts to secure debt forgiveness for Iraq also have met some resistance. In Kuwait, the chairman of the Parliament's foreign affairs committee, Mohammed al-Sager, said "the majority in Parliament is against forgiving the Iraqi debt."
The International Monetary Fund estimates Iraq owes about $56 billion in external debt, down from about $113 billion in 2004. The U.S. is pushing for countries to forgive at least 80% of the debt that Iraq piled up during the 1980s.
Mustafa Alani, the director of security and terrorism studies at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai and an Iraqi, said he expected the conference to have little impact on the security situation in Iraq.

http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070501509835.html RETURN TO TOP

Washington Times
May 1, 2007
Pg. 1
Democrats Conceding On War Bill
Reid seeks GOP support for post-veto legislation
By S.A. Miller, Washington Times
Democratic leaders in Congress are slowly backing down from a standoff with the White House over tying war funding to a troop-withdrawal timetable, saying they can use other bills to confront President Bush on Iraq.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, is courting Republican support for compromise war-funding legislation to follow Mr. Bush's promised veto this week of a $124 billion bill that would start a pullout as soon as July.
Senior Democratic aides say that although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not similarly talking to Republicans about a post-veto agreement, she privately acknowledges that eventually the "money will get to the troops without timetables."
"Probably a weakening of is what is going to happen," said an aide close to Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat.
House Democrats are expected to attempt to override the veto this week, although they likely are at least 70 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to succeed. The failure of the House vote would make a Senate action unnecessary because both chambers are needed to defeat a veto.
"There are a number of opportunities to try to force a change of policy in Iraq," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said, citing upcoming Defense Department budget bills and legislation to limit war funding to noncombat missions in Iraq.
But, for now, Mr. Reid, who along with congressional leaders from both parties will meet with Mr. Bush tomorrow, is focused on the emergency war-funding bill, which would pay for the war in Iran and Iraq until Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.
"We have to see if we can get that is acceptable to Republicans," Mr. Manley said. "I don't know if that is possible."
Still, Mr. Reid took to the Senate floor yesterday and implored Mr. Bush to sign the bill that is scheduled to reach the White House today, citing unyielding bloodshed in Iraq.
"There is still time to come to grips with the facts on the streets of Baghdad and throughout Iraq," Mr. Reid said. "There is still time to sign this bill and change course in Iraq."
Congressional Democrats say the troop-withdrawal plan answers the American people's call to end the war.
The president and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill say a pullout timetable would hamstring U.S. commanders on the front lines and represent a declaration of surrender on the main battleground of the war on terror.
Mr. Bush again said he would veto the troop-withdrawal timetable that "imposes the judgment of people here in Washington on our military commanders and diplomats."
He also criticized the $20 billion in domestic spending, including pork-barrel projects, included in the bill.
"I have made my position very clear, the Congress chose to ignore it, and so I will veto the bill," Mr. Bush said at a White House press conference.
"That's not to say that I'm not interested in their opinions I am," he said. "I believe that there's a lot of Democrats that understand that we need to get the money to the troops as soon as possible, and so I'm optimistic we can get something done in a positive way."
The White House also questioned the delay in getting the bill without accusing the Democrat-controlled Congress of timing its arrival to coincide with the fourth anniversary of Mr. Bush's aircraft carrier speech in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
"It's now been passed for five days. We're not quite sure why it's been so difficult to convey it one mile up Pennsylvania Avenue, but we will get back to you when we know," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.
Under the legislation that passed both chambers of Congress in near party-line votes, the troop withdrawal would commence July 1 if the Iraqi government does not meet certain policy benchmarks.
The benchmarks include reduced sectarian violence, the establishment of a militia-disarmament program and laws that share oil revenue among all Iraqi factions. If they satisfy the benchmarks, U.S. troops would start to pull out Oct. 1 with a goal of most troops coming home by April.
The Democratic strategy would limit combat operations by rolling back security patrols by the U.S. military in sectarian hot spots and by barring participation in the systematic search for insurgents tasks typically determined by commanders on the scene and Mr. Bush as the commander in chief.
Jon Ward contributed to this report.

http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070501509759.html RETURN TO TOP

Washington Post
May 1, 2007
Pg. 5
Republicans Buck Bush On Iraq Benchmarks
By Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writer
Brushing aside White House opposition, Republican leaders in Congress said yesterday that negotiations on a second war spending bill should begin with benchmarks of success for the Iraqi government, and possible consequences if those benchmarks are not met.
Democratic leaders will send a $124 billion war funding bill to President Bush today that would establish such benchmarks and tie them to troop withdrawals, which would begin as early as July 1 if they are not met. The bill will arrive at the White House on the fourth anniversary of Bush's speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, when he declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq before a banner that proclaimed "Mission Accomplished."
The administration dispatched Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday to try to slam shut bipartisan talk of punishing the Iraqi government for not meeting benchmarks. Bush took the same uncompromising tone yesterday when he reiterated his veto promise.
"That's not to say I'm not interested in their opinions. I am," he said of congressional leaders. "I look forward to working with members of both parties to get a bill that doesn't set artificial timetables and doesn't micromanage and gets the money to our troops."
But GOP leaders did not take the benchmark issue off the table. House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) suggested last week that although Republicans could not accept linking benchmarks to troop withdrawals, they could tie them to $5.7 billion in nonmilitary assistance for the Iraqi government.
Blunt spokeswoman Burson Snyder said yesterday that it would be "premature" to rule out such a proposal, in spite of Rice's comments. "We haven't even begun substantive conversations with the Democratic leadership, so how can we start ruling in or out certain provisions?" she said.
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) took a similar tack. Boehner "believes members and the administration can and will discuss benchmarks as a way of measuring progress and holding the Iraqi government accountable, and that's where members need to start," said his spokesman Kevin Smith. He added that "tying benchmarks to withdrawal dates or deadlines are a non-starter," but he did not rule out consequences for Iraqi government inaction.
Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) has suggested that benchmarks be tied to U.S. troop positions within Iraq. If the benchmarks are not met, troops would remain in the country but would be removed from combat zones.
Appearing on several Sunday talk shows, Rice said any compromise on benchmarks would not give the Iraqi government and U.S. troops the flexibility they need. Her comments left Democratic leaders convinced that the White House is not ready to negotiate on a war funding bill that includes policy changes for Iraq. Instead, Democrats will have to negotiate with congressional Republicans, hoping a measure with broad, bipartisan support would force Bush to the table.
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters in New Hampshire that he has already reached out to Boehner and Blunt, a statement that Boehner denied yesterday. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) held their second meeting on Iraq yesterday.
House Democrats are beginning to coalesce around a $19 billion bill -- enough to fund the war for about 60 days -- without any withdrawal dates, according to aides. The measure would include additional funds for military health care; new standards for resting, training and equipping troops before deployment; and prohibitions on torture and permanent bases in Iraq. Benchmarks would be included, but with no punishments for failing to meet them.
The idea would be to pass the measure quickly, as soon as early next week, to deprive Bush of the argument that Democrats are withholding needed funds from the troops. Then negotiations would begin immediately on yet another bill.
Staff writer Shailagh Murray contributed to this report.

http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070501509795.html RETURN TO TOP

New York Times
May 1, 2007
Pg. 10
Bill On Iraq To Be Delivered 4 Years After Bush's Words
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Jeff Zeleny
WASHINGTON, April 30 — Democratic leaders in Congress are planning a special ceremony on Tuesday afternoon to send President Bush a bill that sets timetables for troop withdrawal from Iraq.
The timing is no accident. It comes on the fourth anniversary of the day Mr. Bush stood on an aircraft carrier under the banner “Mission Accomplished” and declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.
The Democrats’ ceremony, featuring the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, is part of the elaborate political theater at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue surrounding the Iraq spending bill, which is destined to produce only the second veto of Mr. Bush’s presidency.
But with Mr. Bush planning to spend Tuesday in Florida talking with military commanders, the White House was being coy on Monday about what kind of theatrics of his own — if any — he might stage. Democrats, however, said they expected the veto to come Wednesday.
Mr. Bush’s spokesman, Tony Snow, said, “We’ll make clear what we intend and how we intend to do it at the proper time.”
Mr. Bush, speaking to reporters in the Rose Garden after meeting with leaders of the European Union, expressed optimism that the two sides could reach a compromise after his veto, which Democrats concede they will not be able to override.
“I believe that there’s a lot of Democrats that understand that we need to get the money to the troops as soon as possible,” he said, “and so I’m optimistic we can get something done in a positive way.”
Mr. Bush first exercised his veto last year, when the Republican-controlled Congress sent him a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research. On that occasion, the president spoke at the White House surrounded by so-called “snowflake babies,” those born from frozen embryos and then adopted.
The spending bill veto would be the first since Democrats took control of Congress this year and would open a new chapter in the confrontation between the legislative and executive branches over the Iraq war. The path to legislation the president might sign remained unclear on Monday.
Mr. Bush has asked Congressional leaders to meet at the White House on Wednesday to discuss the legislation. Democrats have already been considering possible alternatives.
One leading option, put forth by Representative John P. Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, is to pass a measure that includes benchmarks for the Iraqis to advance on establishing a stable government and reconciling ethnic differences.
That proposal would not include timetables for troop withdrawal — a move that would anger some in the party’s liberal wing who believe voters gave them a mandate last election to force Mr. Bush to end the war.
“These new members are upset,” Mr. Murtha said. “They were sent here to stop the war. This is a very delicate thing that we’re working with.”
The bill will be sent to the White House via a legislative courier after Tuesday afternoon’s ceremony. After the expected presidential veto, the legislation would return to the House for consideration. If the House fails to override the veto, with a two-thirds vote, the legislation is considered dead and the Senate would not try to override the veto.
Democratic leaders delivered a final argument on Monday for Mr. Bush to sign the bill.
“We ask him again to listen to the American people and his own military experts,” Mr. Reid said on the Senate floor. “We ask that he finally summon the courage to admit his mistakes and take the steps we propose to begin to heal the grave wounds he has caused.”

http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070501509887.html RETURN TO TOP

Los Angeles Times
May 1, 2007
Feinstein Seeks To Close Guantanamo
The senator's proposal comes on the day the justices decline to hear detainees' appeal on the legality of military trials there.
By Julian E. Barnes, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced a measure Monday to force the Pentagon to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and move the trials of Al Qaeda suspects to the United States.
But the Defense Department got another green light for those Guantanamo tribunals to continue, when the Supreme Court declined Monday to hear the appeal of two detainees who challenged the legality of the military commissions.
In a statement, Feinstein said the detention facility had hurt America's credibility around the world because of allegations of abuse there and doubts about the legal rights afforded detainees.
"We must recognize the sustained damage this facility is doing to our international standing," she said in the statement. "We are better served by closing this facility and transferring the detainees elsewhere."
Feinstein's measure would transfer Guantanamo detainees to military or civilian detention facilities in the United States or to their home countries. The legislation allows detainees who "pose no continuing security threat" to be released. Feinstein said she opposed "releasing any terrorists."
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said this year that he had sought to close Guantanamo when he took the helm of the Pentagon in December. Like Feinstein, Gates has said he fears that trials at Guantanamo lack credibility.
Gates canceled a $102-million project to build a Guantanamo courthouse. But administration lawyers' concerns prevented Gates from closing the prison or moving trials to the United States.
Under current law, detainees have no habeas corpus rights but can appeal the results of trials and status hearings to U.S. courts.
In Monday's Supreme Court action, three justices — David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer — voted to hear the case of the two Guantanamo Bay detainees challenging their confinement. Court rules require four votes to hear a case.

http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070501509829.html RETURN TO TOP

Tampa Tribune
May 1, 2007
Iraq Conflict Converges On MacDill
By William March and Billy House, The Tampa Tribune
TAMPA - President Bush will defend the war in Iraq in an appearance at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa today on the fourth anniversary of his "Mission Accomplished" declaration.
Bush's appearance comes the same day he is expected to receive legislation intended to bring the war to an end. He has vowed to veto the bill, but that likely will happen after he leaves Tampa.
The $124 billion Iraq spending bill passed by Congress includes deadlines for beginning a withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Bush has said he considers a mandatory timetable unacceptable and will veto the bill as soon as he receives it.
The Tampa events come four years to the day after Bush donned a military flight suit and landed on the deck of aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, parked off the California coast near San Diego.
He declared victory in Iraq that day, saying "major combat operations in Iraq have ended" and that "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror." Behind him, a banner on the ship's superstructure read, "Mission Accomplished."
Democrats deny they purposely chose to deliver the legislation to the White House on the anniversary of that event, which has been used to criticize Bush.
The House passed the bill Wednesday, and the Senate passed it Thursday.
Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said preparation of the bill for transmission to the president was not handled any differently from any other bill. Hammill noted that no legislative business was done Monday, as many Congress members attended the funeral of Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, D-Calif.
Nevertheless, White House spokesman Tony Snow suggested Democrats were taking advantage of the calendar.
"It's now been passed for five days," Snow told reporters Monday. "We're not quite sure why it's been so difficult to convey it one mile up Pennsylvania Avenue."
Hammill said the White House probably won't get the bill until after Bush leaves for Florida, meaning any veto won't occur until he returns to Washington.
The Iraq supplemental spending bill orders President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq no later than this fall.
After the veto, House and Senate Democratic leaders are expected to begin negotiating with the White House on what to include in a bill to provide continued spending to support U.S. troops in Iraq.
To war opponents, the anniversary is resonant.
"His speech several years ago was not true - another false claim," said Chrystal Hutchison, of Florida Consumer Action Network, a group organizing a protest of Bush's visit. The protest will be at Gandy Boulevard and Dale Mabry Highway.
"The mission is not accomplished. We have not achieved what we set out to do, and it's time to wrap it up and bring a responsible end," she said.
Pasco County Democratic Party Chairman Alison Morano sent an e-mail to party members urging them to participate in the demonstration, noting that the bill Bush is expected to veto includes a minimum wage increase.
While he's here, Bush will confer the President's Volunteer Service Award on Daniel Middaugh, 16, of Riverview, an East Bay High School sophomore who has done extensive volunteer work for charitable agencies.
Bush then will participate in a briefing by officers of Central Command, which has its headquarters at the base.
After the briefing, he will speak to a gathering of military officers of the nations involved in the military coalition fighting in Iraq.
Bush has no other announced activities, but when he visits military bases, he typically spends at least some time meeting with military families of casualties in the Iraq war.
The speech is open to the media, but Bush is not expected to participate in any activities open to the public or to take questions from reporters during the visit.

http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070501509794.html RETURN TO TOP

New York Times
May 1, 2007
Pg. 8
Bush Steps Up Effort To Persuade Putin On Missile Defense Plan
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg
WASHINGTON, April 30 — President Bush, under pressure from allies in Europe to be more forthcoming about his plans for basing missile interceptors in the region, said Monday that he was intensifying his efforts to persuade Russia to cooperate with the United States on the initiative “so that they don’t see us as an antagonistic force, but see us as a friendly force.”
Mr. Bush said he was trying to convince President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that cooperation was “in Russia’s security interests,” even though Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates did not win Mr. Putin’s support during a trip to Moscow last week.
The president spoke in the Rose Garden after a meeting with leaders of the European Union that produced an agreement for the United States and Europe to work together to reduce pollution, which scientists say leads to climate change. But the agreement did not address the enormous differences that remain between the United States and Europe over those greenhouse gas emissions, and what role governments should play in reducing them.
Mr. Bush has been criticized for coming late to the idea that human actions contribute to the threat of global warming, and in his first term he renounced the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which European states agreed to.
On Monday, with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who currently holds the European Union’s presidency, and José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, the union’s governing body, by his side, the president said the three “share a common interest,” adding, “We recognize that we have a problem with greenhouse gases.”
But Mr. Barroso characterized the agreement as “a work in progress,” adding, “To be very frank, it was better than what I was planning.”
On the missile defense issue, Mr. Bush spoke publicly for the first time about his administration’s continuing efforts to ease tensions with Mr. Putin over the plan to place American missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic — efforts that, he said, began at Ms. Merkel’s urging.
“She expressed her concerns that the U.S. position wasn’t very clear about the missile defense systems and that there were some people concerned in Germany, as well as Europe, about our intentions,” Mr. Bush said. “And she also suggested that it might make sense for me to share my intentions more clearly with President Putin. And I took her advice very seriously.”
So, Mr. Bush said, he sent Mr. Gates to Moscow last week, and called Mr. Putin to ask him to meet with Mr. Gates. But the Kremlin not only refused to drop its opposition to the plan, it also threatened to pull out of a conventional weapons treaty. Still, Mr. Bush defended the plan, which officials have said was intended to protect against missiles being developed by Iran.
“Our intention, of course, is to have a defense system that prevents rogue regimes from holding Western Europe and/or America to hostage,” the president said. “Evidently, the Russians see it differently.”

http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070501509820.html RETURN TO TOP

Washington Post
May 1, 2007
Pg. 2
Bush Seeks To Reassure Russia On Arms, E.U. On Warming
By Peter Baker and Glenn Kessler, Washington Post Staff Writers
President Bush tried to reassure Russia yesterday that his proposed new missile defense system represents no threat and tried to reassure Europe that he understands climate change does.
Kicking off a week heavy on international diplomacy, Bush met with visiting European Union leaders and labored to address transatlantic concerns on a host of issues. But he refused to yield in his escalating confrontation with Moscow over arms control and offered no movement toward Europe's position on global warming.
Bush said Russia should not view the United States as "an antagonistic force," despite plans to deploy a limited missile defense system in Eastern Europe and repeated longstanding invitations to Moscow to join the project. Russian President Vladimir Putin suspended compliance last week with the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe to protest U.S. plans.
"Our intention, of course, is to have a defense system that prevents rogue regimes from holding Western Europe and/or America to hostage," Bush said. "Evidently, the Russians view it differently." It is in Russia's interest, he said, "to have a system that could prevent a future Iranian regime, for example, from launching a weapon."
Bush and the Europeans papered over differences on global warming. Bush promoted his plan to expand alternative fuels and raise vehicle mileage standards, but resisted European-style limits on carbon dioxide emissions. "Each country needs to recognize that we must reduce our greenhouse gasses and deal, obviously, with their own internal politics to come up with an effective strategy that, hopefully, when added together, that it leads to a real reduction," he said.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the E.U. president, who wanted more aggressive action, tempered any disappointment. "We should be clear about the glass being half full instead of half empty," she said. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso of Portugal went further, praising Bush for recognizing that global warming is serious. "To be very frank," he said, "it's better than what I was planning. I think it was real progress."
In a separate interview, Benita Ferrero-Waldner of Austria, the E.U. commissioner for external relations, said the tone of Bush's comments was important. "There was, I would say, a first opening from the American side," she said. "It is a consciousness that indeed climate change exists, and the question has to be tackled urgently and globally."

http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070501509962.html RETURN TO TOP

Boston Globe
May 1, 2007
Pg. 1
Pentagon Study Says Oil Reliance Strains Military
Urges development of alternative fuels
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON -- A new study ordered by the Pentagon warns that the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil -- the lifeblood of fighter jets, warships, and tanks -- will make the US military's ability to respond to hot spots around the world "unsustainable in the long term."
The study, produced by a defense consulting firm, concludes that all four branches of the military must "fundamentally transform" their assumptions about energy, including taking immediate steps toward fielding weapons systems and aircraft that run on alternative and renewable fuels. It is "imperative" that the Department of Defense "apply new energy technologies that address alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects of military operations," according to the report, which was provided to the Globe.
Weaning the military from fossil fuels quickly, however, would be a herculean task -- especially because the bulk of the US arsenal, the world's most advanced, is dependent on fossil fuels and many of those military systems have been designed to remain in service for at least several decades.
Moving to alternative energy sources on a large scale would "challenge some of the department's most deeply held assumptions, interests, and processes," the report acknowledges.
But Pentagon advisers believe the military's growing consumption of fossil fuels -- an increasingly expensive and scarce commodity -- leaves Pentagon leaders with little choice but to break with the past as soon as possible. Compared with World War II, according to the report, the military in Iraq and Afghanistan is using 16 times more fuel per soldier.
"We have to wake up," said Milton R. Copulos , National Defense Council Foundation president and an authority on the military's energy needs. "We are at the edge of a precipice and we have one foot over the edge. The only way to avoid going over is to move forward and move forward aggressively with initiatives to develop alternative fuels. Just cutting back won't work."
The Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation and Resources, which is responsible for addressing future security challenges, commissioned LMI, a government - consulting firm, to produce the report. Called "Transforming the Way DoD Looks at Energy," the study is intended as a potential blueprint for a new military energy strategy and includes a detailed survey of potential alternatives to oil -- including synthetic fuels, renewable biofuels, ethanol, and biodiesel fuel as well as solar and wind power, among many others.
The military is considered a technology leader and how it decides to meet future energy needs could influence broader national efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil. The report adds a powerful voice to the growing chorus warning that, as oil supplies dwindle during the next half-century, US reliance on fossil fuels poses a serious risk to national security.
"The Pentagon's efforts in this area would have a huge impact on the rest of the country," Copulos said.
The Department of Defense is the largest single energy consumer in the country. The Air Force spends about $5 billion a year on fuel, mostly to support flight operations. The Navy and Army are close behind.
Of all the cargo the military transports, more than half consists of fuel. About 80 percent of all material transported on the battlefield is fuel.
The military's energy consumption has steadily grown as its arsenal has become more mechanized and as US forces have had to travel farther distances.
In World War II, the United States consumed about a gallon of fuel per soldier per day, according to the report. In the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War, about 4 gallons of fuel per soldier was consumed per day. In 2006, the US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan burned about 16 gallons of fuel per soldier on average per day , almost twice as much as the year before.
Higher fuel consumption is a consequence of the US military's changing posture in recent years. During the Cold War, US forces were deployed at numerous bases across the world; since then, the United States has downsized its force and closed many of its former bases in Asia and Europe.
The Pentagon's strategic planning has placed a premium on being able to deploy forces quickly around the world from bases in the United States.
The National Defense Strategy, which lays out the Pentagon's anticipated missions, calls for an increased US military presence around the globe to be able to combat international terrorist groups and respond to humanitarian and security crises. But aviation fuel consumption for example, has increased 6 percent over the last decade. And the report predicts that trend will continue.
"The US military will have to be even more energy intense, locate in more regions of the world, employ new technologies, and manage a more complex logistics system," according to the report. "Simply put, more miles will be traveled, both by combat units and the supply units that sustain them, which will result in increased energy consumption."
The costs of relying on oil to power the military are consuming an increasing share of the military's budget, the report asserts. Energy costs have doubled since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it says, and the cost of conducting operations could become so expensive in the future that the military will not be able to pay for some of its new weapon systems.
Ensuring access to dwindling oil supplies also carries a big price tag. The United States, relying largely on military patrols, spends an average of $44 billion per year safeguarding oil supplies in the Persian Gulf. And the United States is often dependent on some of the same countries that pose the greatest threats to US interests.
Achieving an energy transformation at the Department of Defense "will require the commitment, personal involvement , and leadership of the secretary of defense and his key subordinates," the report says.

http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070501509764.html RETURN TO TOP

Washington Post
May 1, 2007
Pg. 13
Officers Testify Against Accused U.S. Colonel
Gifts to Iraqi Inmate's Daughter Described
By Karin Brulliard, Washington Post Staff Writer
BAGHDAD, April 30 -- A senior U.S. military officer accused of aiding the enemy gave gifts to the daughter of a "high-value" detainee, angering the prisoner by violating cultural norms and acting as a father figure, a witness said Monday in the opening day of a hearing to determine whether the officer will stand trial.
Lt. Col. William H. Steele, 51, an Army reservist who served as a commander at a detention camp in west Baghdad, is accused of nine offenses, including fraternizing with the daughter of a detainee, having an "inappropriate relationship" with a female interpreter, possessing pornography and illegally storing classified documents.
Steele, a resident of Prince George County in southeastern Virginia, is also accused of aiding the enemy. It is a rare allegation that, if proved, can be punishable by death. A court liaison said Monday that the accusation against Steele is not currently a capital offense but could be elevated as the case moves forward.
Steele commanded the 451st Military Police Detachment at Camp Cropper -- where high-ranking detainees, including former president Saddam Hussein, have been held -- from October 2005 to October 2006. He then volunteered to stay in Iraq and joined the 89th Military Police Brigade in Baghdad.
Only the barest outlines of the case against Steele emerged in Monday's hearing, much of which was closed to reporters because it dealt with classified information. Steele, dark-haired and square-jawed, sat next to his two appointed attorneys with his hands clasped, listening attentively.
Capt. Mike Borgel, an operations officer with the unit that succeeded Steele's at Camp Cropper in October, said Steele called the camp in February -- after he was no longer supervising detainees -- and said he would be coming to drop off "some college papers" for the daughter of a detainee during family visitation hours.
Lt. Col. Quentin Crank, commander of the unit that took over from Steele's, said Steele met with the daughter and gave her a box of educational items that included computer programs, literature and two sets of large blueprints. He said he believed some of the items had to do with architecture or engineering. The daughter's mother and sister were with her, and the exchange was photographed, he said.
Crank said he had never given gifts to a detainee's relatives, calling it "inappropriate." Asked by a defense attorney whether the detainee was upset because "Colonel Steele was supplanting his role as the father in the family," Crank replied: "That's basically what [the detainee] led up to, yes."
The detainee is a former Baath Party official, a U.S. military official told The Washington Post last week.
The hearing, called an Article 32 investigation, amounts to a formal probe in the case against Steele and is expected to last two to three days. When testimony is finished, the investigating officer, Col. Elizabeth Fleming, will decide whether to refer the case to a court-martial.
The other accusations against Steele, covering the period October 2005 to February 2007, are providing a cellphone to a detainee, failure to obey an order and dereliction of duty regarding government funds.
Several of the accusations were referred to only indirectly by military prosecutors. In response to a line of questioning that appeared intended to determine the typical boundaries between detention camp officers and the Iraqis with whom they interact, Crank testified that he does not visit interpreters at other bases or dine with them every evening.
"Do you call any of them gorgeous or beautiful or sweet?" Capt. Michael A. Rizzotti asked.
"No, I do not," Crank responded.
Crank said he also does not spend time individually with detainees, nor does he trust them. He said his job is to "make sure they're taken care of."
Crank testified that detainees under his watch are allowed to make phone calls only on speakerphone and in the presence of a U.S. soldier and an interpreter. He said it was "against policy" to allow them to use military cellphones. Borgel said detainees are not allowed to possess cellphones.
Special Agent Patrick Rasmussen, an Army computer forensics investigator, testified that he inspected two government laptop computers -- a Dell and an IBM -- recovered as part of the investigation. He said the IBM's hard drives contained 37 adult pornographic videos, 122 adult pornographic images, evidence of pornographic Web sites visited and "the suspect's e-mail that appeared to be adulterous in nature." The Dell, he said, contained text from a "secret document."
Crank, who said he shared an office with Steele for six days as their units overlapped at Camp Cropper, said he saw Steele download more than 20 computer disks from a secure Panasonic government laptop.

http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070501509796.html RETURN TO TOP

New York Times
May 1, 2007
Pg. 10
Officer Testifies Against U.S. Military Jailer In Iraq
By Damien Cave
BAGHDAD, April 30 — A senior commander in the American military’s main detention center here testified Monday at a military hearing that his predecessor, Lt. Col. William H. Steele, gave computer programs and other gifts to the daughter of a high-value detainee.
The commander, Lt. Col. Quentin Crank, whose military police unit took over for Colonel Steele’s at Camp Cropper in October 2006, said the gifts, which would be a breach of military law and Iraqi cultural norms, were given after Colonel Steele had moved to another assignment in Iraq. The detainee was said to be outraged by the personal contact with his daughter, telling American officials that Colonel Steele was trying to supplant his role as father.
A computer forensics expert testified that an IBM laptop recovered during the investigation contained classified material, 37 adult pornographic videos, 122 adult pornographic images and an e-mail message to an undisclosed person that “appeared to be adulterous in nature.” A second laptop, a Dell, contained the text of a secret document, the investigator said.
The testimony once again cast the ethical conduct of American jailers in Iraq in an unfavorable light, even as the military sets in motion plans to expand its detention facilities to make room for the rapidly growing ranks of prisoners captured during the new security plan.
The hearing is to weigh the evidence against Colonel Steele, 51, a married reservist from Prince George, Va., who has had prior scrapes with the law. In November 1993, he was charged with aggravated child abuse and resisting an officer with violence, both felonies, according to Hernando County, Fla., court records.
A state prosecutor accused Colonel Steele, a former Hernando County sheriff’s deputy, of physically and verbally abusing his 11-year-old stepson for homework errors, and of padlocking the family’s refrigerator and food cabinets to prevent the boy from eating, according to court records. The charges were dropped when Colonel Steele, an Army reservist at the time, agreed to give up custody of the boy.
Colonel’s Steele’s wife, Judith, did not return phone calls and e-mail messages seeking comment.
Colonel Steele has been accused of nine violations of military law, including “aiding the enemy,” related to the allegation that he passed an unmonitored cellphone to detainees. He is also accused of mishandling classified information and government funds, fraternizing with the daughter of a detainee, engaging in an inappropriate relationship with an interpreter and possessing pornography.
The allegations cover Oct. 1, 2005, to Feb. 22, 2007. The officer overseeing the hearing, Col. Elizabeth Fleming, will determine if the evidence warrants a court-martial, which would have to be approved by Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, commander of daily operations in Iraq.
The most serious of the nine allegations, “aiding the enemy,” carries a potential death sentence, though a military liaison with the court said that life in prison would be more likely if Colonel Steele were found guilty.
Some details of the accusations were handled in closed sessions because they involved classified evidence. Many of the allegations were raised in vague terms in the public sessions. The “aiding the enemy” accusation was raised obliquely, when Colonel Crank explained how every detainee phone call is supposed to be listened to and logged by an interpreter and an American soldier.
Colonel Steele’s supposed mishandling of classified information was also described opaquely, with Colonel Crank saying that he saw Colonel Steele downloading more than 20 CD-ROMs from a third government laptop when they worked together during the transfer of command. It was not established that the information he downloaded was classified.
But mainly, on the first day of what is expected to be at least a two-day hearing, the government’s lawyers and Colonel Steele’s military-appointed defenders focused on the accusations that the former commander mishandled government finances and information and that he had improper relations with women he encountered as the prison’s commanding officer.
Colonel Crank, commander of the 494th Military Police unit, said Colonel Steele returned to th