| |
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. |
| |||||||
| Army What's up with the Army? |
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
03-19-2008, 04:26 PM
| ||||
| ||||
 The Pentagon Early Bird for March 19, 2008 Use of these news items does not reflect official endorsement. Reproduction for private use or gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. Item 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.) Please scroll down to read the headlines, then furtherscroll down to read the entire News Article. Url's will not link out in this format.GATES/RICE TRIP
New York Times March 19, 2008 Pg. 7 Progress In U.S.-Russia Talks By Thom Shanker MOSCOW — The United States and Russia said Tuesday that they had agreed to negotiate a “strategic framework” document that would formally put in writing the basic elements of their relationship, but the two nations failed to end the deep division over American plans to base missile defenses in Europe. Conciliation was the tone set by the American secretaries of state and defense and their Russian counterparts at the end of two days of negotiations here. Tangible results remained elusive as both sides agreed mostly that it would be important to keep talking into the next administrations in both countries as President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia leaves office, followed by President Bush. “We have agreed that there should be a joint strategic framework document for the presidents to be able to record all of the elements of the U.S.-Russian relationship as we go forward,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced. She said the negotiations had brought consensus on which aspects of the relationship would be in the document; the dozen or so issues include trade, counterterrorism and nuclear proliferation. Her counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov, said the talks also covered “some contentious issues where we have not reached agreement as of now,” in particular, missile defense and the exact legal form of a future bilateral limit on nuclear weapons. Mr. Lavrov acknowledged that Ms. Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates had made a significant effort in the talks to “try to allay our concerns” over American plans to put a tracking radar in the Czech Republic and 10 missile interceptors in Poland. The Americans have said the system is intended to thwart missile attacks launched from Iran. Russia has argued that the system could threaten its own missiles as well. Mr. Gates said the system would not pose any threat to the Russian arsenal. “We had the opportunity today to elaborate on a number of confidence-building measures and measures for transparency, to provide assurance to the Russians that our missile sites and radars do not constitute a threat to Russia,” Mr. Gates said. Among the offers, he added, was one to allow Russian inspectors into American missile defense sites, though that access would require approval from the Czech and Polish governments as well. “I think both President Putin and our Russian colleagues today found these ideas useful and important,” Mr. Gates said. “They will be studying them further.” A senior American official, speaking on traditional diplomatic ground rules of anonymity to describe the closed-door negotiations, said the Russian government had come to the realization that the United States had no intention of dropping its plans for missile defense bases in Eastern Europe. “The Russians are beginning to see that this is going to happen,” the official said. The question facing the Russian government now, the official said, is how to respond in a way that does not immediately and publicly validate the American position while striving to defend principles of Moscow’s foreign and military policy. Acknowledging that some of the Bush administration’s proposals on missile defense had not been clearly stated or perhaps had been misunderstood by the Russians, senior American officials agreed to work through Tuesday night putting the entire set of ideas into writing for study by Moscow. That effort is in part a repeat of what was done when Ms. Rice and Mr. Gates visited Moscow in October to discuss missile defense. The most negative assessment of the impasse on missile defense issues came from the Russian defense minister, Anatoly E. Serdyukov, who said, “In principle, our positions have not changed.” The two sides also failed to reach a deal — but agreed to continue talks — on what sort of pact might set limits on their nuclear arsenals after current treaties expire. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080319588555.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1730568_AEH PjkQAAKSzR%2BFU7AdJ%2BEwngzc&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilen ame=e20080319aaindex_concat.html&cred=FetTADx8M4Db T4iDUreqFXeMsCVW3gO3Fx5CDpZTnfPYOonjFF.DO.lD2EZn#T OP">RETURN TO TOP Washington Post March 19, 2008 Pg. 12 U.S., Russia Politely Dug In Over Missile Defense By Peter Finn, Washington Post Foreign Service MOSCOW, March 18 -- The United States and Russia failed again Tuesday to bridge their differences over U.S. plans to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe to guard against potential attacks from Iran. But in two days of talks here, both sides adopted a strikingly moderate tone after a long period of rancor between the two countries. The Americans "agreed that their project fuels our concerns and offered proposals aimed at lifting or easing these concerns," said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Gates told reporters after the talks that his side would submit written proposals seeking to temper Russian fears about the missile system. Russian military inspectors would have access to sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, and the system would not be activated until there was demonstrable evidence that Iran had tested missiles capable of reaching the United States or its allies in Western Europe, U.S. officials said. Russian officials have argued that placing a defense system on Russia's borders is not necessary because Iran is many years away from developing such long-range missiles. They also say they fear that any radar system placed in Eastern Europe would be used to peer into Russian airspace and undermine the country's strategic forces. "We've leaned very far forward in this in an effort to provide reassurance," Gates told reporters. He added, however, that the United States would not be dissuaded from going forward with the system. Lavrov described the U.S. proposals as "important and useful for the minimization of our concerns." But Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, who also took part in the talks, cautioned that "the positions of our two sides have not changed." Gates said the Bush administration expects an answer "reasonably quickly" after it submits its written offer, but some news reports here suggested that Moscow might be playing for time, knowing that a new administration in Washington could take a different position on the necessity of missile defense. The newspaper Vedomosti wrote Tuesday that "if the Democrats win the U.S. presidential election, they could review the missile defense program." It could also be that with the end of Russia's election season and the recent victory of President Vladimir Putin's handpicked successor, Dmitry Medvedev, the Kremlin sees no further domestic advantage in upbraiding the Bush administration and wants to reverse the deterioration in relations. When Rice and Gates visited Moscow in October, they were subjected to some public finger-wagging by Putin as the cameras rolled. This time Putin did not even mention missile defense when he first met the two Monday at a short session in front of the news media. "I would say they listened very carefully," Gates told reporters Tuesday. "President Putin took extensive notes last night, and there was a lot done during the day today. That said, the full range of what we are now prepared to offer to discuss with the Russians is really just now after the day's talks being put down on paper." In October, the Russians complained that U.S.-written proposals failed to live up to earlier oral offers from Rice and Gates. In particular, the Russians expressed concern about the adequacy of access to the sites slated for Eastern Europe. The October statement may have stemmed from opposition in Poland and the Czech Republic to giving Russian military observers access to the facilities -- and particularly to the idea that they might be permanently stationed there. Both countries have bitter memories of the Soviet troops who were posted within their borders during the Cold War. Poland's new prime minister, Donald Tusk, struck a conciliatory note Tuesday about the possibility of Russian inspectors. "From our side there is a readiness to talk seriously about what this monitoring -- that would give our neighbors a sense of security -- could look like," said Tusk, who said he had spoken both to Putin and President Bush about the possibility. Rice and Gates, who also carried a letter from Bush to Putin, said the two countries had agreed to negotiate a "joint strategic framework document" that would build on existing cooperation in areas such as preventing the spreading of nuclear weapons and fighting terrorism. Rice said the document could "lay the foundation for the future" after Bush and Putin leave office. But she provided few details. Medvedev, who also met with Rice and Gates, will succeed Putin in May, but he has said that Putin will become his prime minister, a power-sharing arrangement whose parameters remain unclear. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080319588612.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1730568_AEH PjkQAAKSzR%2BFU7AdJ%2BEwngzc&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilen ame=e20080319aaindex_concat.html&cred=FetTADx8M4Db T4iDUreqFXeMsCVW3gO3Fx5CDpZTnfPYOonjFF.DO.lD2EZn#T OP">RETURN TO TOP Los Angeles Times March 19, 2008 U.S. Tries New Tack With Russia Officials hope that combining more than a dozen issues in one document will breathe life into talks. By Peter Spiegel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer MOSCOW — In an effort to repair its strained relationship with the Kremlin, the Bush administration announced Tuesday that it had combined more than a dozen bilateral issues into a single document that it hopes will breathe new life into intractable negotiations between the governments. But U.S. officials acknowledged that they had made little progress on the most difficult issue blocking such a grand bargain: a new missile defense system the administration plans to build in Eastern Europe, which Russia believes will threaten its security. The new arrangement, unveiled by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during two days of talks here, includes no new initiatives and, in some cases, simply restates existing agreements, such as those the countries have reached on nuclear terrorism. But a senior U.S. official involved in the negotiations said the administration thought bilateral security talks needed to be restructured because both sides had become overwhelmed by the fierce disagreement on a few disputes. "It was our judgment, looking at the whole of the U.S.-Russia relationship, that there was a dominant theme, on both sides, that things were slipping in a negative direction," said the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity when discussing internal decision-making. "That was becoming conventional wisdom, and there was obviously a basis for it." The document brought by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Rice included areas of agreement and dispute as diverse as the missile defense system, Russia's bid for membership in the World Trade Organization and nuclear proliferation. The goal was to use progress on some issues as a starting point for talks that would help focus attention on the tougher questions. Despite the new effort, daylong talks held by Rice and Gates with their Russian counterparts that focused on the missile defense system produced few results. Russian officials said their objections to placing the system in Eastern Europe remained and asked that the U.S. officials put their proposals in writing yet again for consideration by Russian experts. "In principle, our positions have not changed," Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said at a news conference attended by all four ministers. "Today, we have heard a number of measures, and we hope they will be presented to us in writing. "Our experts then will have an opportunity to discuss them and understand what stands behind them." The U.S. officials came to Moscow with no new proposals to assuage Russian concerns that the system, to be built in the former communist bloc countries of Poland and the Czech Republic, would be a threat to Russian rockets. The U.S. says the system is aimed at intercepting a possible missile strike by Iran. But Gates said he was able to clarify the Russians' misunderstandings of proposals offered to the Kremlin six months ago, which include offers to allow Moscow to link to the U.S.-built system and to delay turning the system on until it has been established that Iran has tested a long-range missile capable of reaching Europe. Still, Gates, who had suggested before the meetings that Moscow may be stalling and said it was time for the Russians to reciprocate to U.S. proposals, appeared frustrated that the Kremlin had not taken more concrete action. "Now they feel the need to study them in greater detail," Gates said at the news conference. "I would expect and hope we would hear back reasonably quickly." http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080319588621.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1730568_AEH PjkQAAKSzR%2BFU7AdJ%2BEwngzc&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilen ame=e20080319aaindex_concat.html&cred=FetTADx8M4Db T4iDUreqFXeMsCVW3gO3Fx5CDpZTnfPYOonjFF.DO.lD2EZn#T OP">RETURN TO TOP Chicago Tribune March 19, 2008 No Accord, But A Warmer Tone U.S. talks with Russia fail to sway Kremlin on missile shield By Alex Rodriguez, Tribune correspondent MOSCOW — U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrapped up talks with Russian leaders Tuesday without any Kremlin commitment to drop opposition to U.S. plans for a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. But unlike their last visit here, there were no lectures from the Russian side and no threats, a sign that relations between Washington and Moscow are warming after a long, deep chill. A tone of measured amicability pervaded Rice and Gates' two-day visit to Moscow that included talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, President-elect Dmitry Medvedev, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov. The centerpiece of the meetings was missile defense, as it was during the two Americans' last visit to the Russian capital in October, when they met with Putin and later with Lavrov and Serdyukov. That meeting was overshadowed by a tense encounter with Putin, who lectured and berated Rice and Gates for moving ahead with plans for missile defense on Russia's doorstep without taking into account Moscow's view. A warm reception On Tuesday, Putin warmly received Rice and Gates and called a letter from President Bush laying out a framework for future U.S.-Russian relations a "serious document." Reaching an accord on elements of the framework would enable both sides to say "that our dialogue is developing in a very productive manner," Putin told Rice and Gates. At a news conference after Tuesday's daylong talks Tuesday, Lavrov appeared equally cordial. "What happened in October happened in October. It's March and it's an optimistic month," he said. The difference in the tone, analysts said, lies in their timing. Rice and Gates' first visit came before crucial Russian parliament elections and the presidential election won by Medvedev, Putin's hand-picked successor and protege. "Putin had to take into account the great influence of anti-American sentiment in Russia, and he played the anti-American card in both campaigns," said Yevgeny Volk, an analyst with the Heritage Foundation's Moscow office. "But now it's not so important to be anti-American so openly, and Russian leadership understood that it perhaps went too far in its confrontation with the U.S." The change of Russian demeanor was evident in the Kremlin's posture toward U.S. plans to deploy a ballistic-missile defense system based in the Czech Republic and Poland that would shield Europe and American troops based there from a potential attack from Iran. The Kremlin has maintained there is no evidence Iran would have long-range missile ability any time soon. And they worry that future modifications to the shield could pose a strategic threat to Russian national security. While Lavrov made clear that Russia continues to oppose the missile defense system, he said Russia is willing to scrutinize measures Rice and Gates proposed that are meant to allay the Kremlin's concerns. At the news conference, neither side would discuss what those measures are. In the past, U.S. officials have proposed holding off on activating the shield until Washington has proof that Iran has missiles capable of striking European territory. Gates has said the U.S. would allow Russia monitoring access to the shield's interceptor missiles in Poland and radar system in the Czech Republic as a means of ensuring that the system isn't directed at Russia. Framework for progress Both sides agreed that the Rice and Gates delegation would put their proposals in writing by Tuesday evening and submit them to Russian experts for review. "Since the U.S. is going to carry this out," Lavrov said, "those proposals that we are expecting to receive on paper today seemed to us, as I said, important and useful for the minimization of our concerns." Rice and Gates said they were encouraged by the Russian side's receptiveness to their proposed concessions. Asked when he expected the Kremlin to respond, Gates said, "reasonably quickly." "We've leaned very far forward in this in an effort to provide reassurance," Gates said. Underpinning the tone of cooperation that both sides tried to convey is a "strategic framework" for U.S.-Russian relations that Rice and Gates discussed with their Russian counterparts. Rice said the document lists issues on which Russia and the U.S. share interests, such as combating nuclear terrorism, as well as difficult, unresolved matters such as missile defense. The document will provide a framework for U.S.-Russian ties as both countries prepare for leadership changes. Medvedev will succeed Putin as president May 7, and Bush leaves office in January. "We've agreed on essentially what elements would go into this strategic framework," Rice said. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080319588628.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1730568_AEH PjkQAAKSzR%2BFU7AdJ%2BEwngzc&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilen ame=e20080319aaindex_concat.html&cred=FetTADx8M4Db T4iDUreqFXeMsCVW3gO3Fx5CDpZTnfPYOonjFF.DO.lD2EZn#T OP">RETURN TO TOP Reuters.com March 19, 2008 Russia Complains U.S. Has Not Kept Missile Shield Promise MOSCOW (Reuters) -- Russia complained on Wednesday that the United States had not kept a promise to deliver written proposals on its missile defense plan after ministerial talks ended without agreement. Following the talks between foreign and defense ministers of both countries in Moscow on Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pledged at a news conference to deliver the proposals in writing hours later. "In spite of promises yesterday, written proposals from the American side have not yet been received by us," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said on Wednesday. A U.S embassy spokeswoman on Wednesday said she had "no information" on the issue. Gates and Rice left Moscow on Wednesday morning and their officials could not immediately be reached for comment. The United States wants to install parts of the shield in former Soviet satellites Poland and the Czech Republic to protect against missiles from what it terms "rogue states" but Russia opposes the plan, saying it will threaten its security. Russia complained late last year that a previous oral suggestion from the United States on how to allay Moscow's concerns on the shield had not been followed up in writing. Gates committed the U.S. side on Tuesday to putting down on paper its suggestions on confidence-building measures. "The full range of what we are prepared to offer and discuss with the Russians is just now being put down on paper and the Russian side will not receive this in writing until this evening," said Gates at a media briefing in Moscow on Tuesday afternoon. The two sides failed to agree on the missile defense shield, one of the key issues dividing them, at the talks on Tuesday. Russian Defence Minister Anatoly Serkyukov said that "on the matter of principle, the positions of our two sides have not changed". http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080319588536.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1730568_AEH PjkQAAKSzR%2BFU7AdJ%2BEwngzc&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilen ame=e20080319aaindex_concat.html&cred=FetTADx8M4Db T4iDUreqFXeMsCVW3gO3Fx5CDpZTnfPYOonjFF.DO.lD2EZn#T OP">RETURN TO TOP FNC March 18, 2008 Little Progress Seen In U.S.-Russian Talks Special Report with Brit Hume (FNC), 6:00 PM BRIT HUME: Secretary of State Rice and Defense Secretary Gates came out of their meetings with their Russian counterparts in Moscow with little progress to report on a key issue they went there to discuss, missile defense. But the tone of the talks appeared to be considerably lighter than in recent months. Correspondent Dana Lewis reports. DANA LEWIS: After almost a year of growing tension between Russia and America, suddenly today someone dialed up defrost on the diplomatic deepfreeze. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov called talks here in Moscow fruitful. There was progress, he said, except on missile defense. U.S. Defense Secretary Bob Gates again told the Russians a missile defense radar site in the Czech Republic and rocket interceptors in Poland will move ahead, but said the Russians, including President Vladimir Putin, whom Gates and Secretary Rice met with last night in the Kremlin, appeared to be listening to America’s message. DEFENSE SECRETARY GATES: Our missile sites and radars would not constitute a threat to Russia. We’ve leaned very far forward in this in an effort to provide reassurance. LEWIS: The U.S. will now provide written assurances to the Russians of confidence-building measures by placing Russian observers at the radar site which will point to Iran and not Russia. And now it’s been revealed in a letter sent by President Bush to President Putin America has proposed something called a strategic framework agreement. Rice explained today the agreement would formally lay out issues between America and Russia that need to be addressed, including missile defense. A Kremlin source told Fox News it would be a legacy left by current presidents. SECRETARY OF STATE RICE: To use this document to lay a foundation for the future of U.S./Russian relations, not a treaty or anything of that kind. LEWIS: Russia and American have also begun working on a legally-binding document to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which governs nuclear arsenals of both country. START I expires next year. President Putin has been unpredictable this past year, even threatening Europe with nuclear missiles. Putin has said he will attend the annual NATO conference in Bucharest two weeks from now. And at least today it appears it won’t be the fiery showdown some had predicted. In Moscow, Dana Lewis, Fox News. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080319588624.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1730568_AEH PjkQAAKSzR%2BFU7AdJ%2BEwngzc&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilen ame=e20080319aaindex_concat.html&cred=FetTADx8M4Db T4iDUreqFXeMsCVW3gO3Fx5CDpZTnfPYOonjFF.DO.lD2EZn#T OP">RETURN TO TOP Washingtonpost.com March 19, 2008 Bush Says Iraq War Was Worth It By Terence Hunt, Associated Press WASHINGTON -- President Bush says he has no doubts about launching the unpopular war in Iraq despite the "high cost in lives and treasure," arguing that retreat now would embolden Iran and provide al-Qaida with money for weapons of mass destruction to attack the United States. Bush is to mark the fifth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq on Wednesday with a speech at the Pentagon. Excerpts of his address were released Tuesday night by the White House. At least 3,990 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the war in 2003. It has cost taxpayers about $500 billion and estimates of the final tab run far higher. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglizt and Harvard University public finance expert Linda Bilmes have estimated the eventual cost at $3 trillion when all the expenses, including long-term care for veterans, are calculated. Democrats offered a different view from Bush's. "On this grim milestone, it is worth remembering how we got into this situation, and thinking about how best we can get out," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. "The tasks that remain in Iraq -- to bring an end to sectarian conflict, to devise a way to share political power, and to create a functioning government that is capable of providing for the needs of the Iraqi people are tasks that only the Iraqis can complete." In his remarks, Bush repeated his oft-stated determination to prosecute the war into the unforeseen future. "The successes we are seeing in Iraq are undeniable, yet some in Washington still call for retreat," the president said. "War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so now they argue the war costs too much. In recent months, we have heard exaggerated estimates of the costs of this war. "No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure, but those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq," Bush said. Bush has successfully defied efforts by the Democratic-led Congress to force troop withdrawals or set deadlines for pullouts. It is widely believed he will endorse a recommendation from Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, for no additional troop reductions, beyond those already planned, until at least September. The U.S. now has about 158,000 troops in Iraq. That number is expected to drop to 140,000 by summer in drawdowns meant to erase all but about 8,000 troops from last year's buildup. "If we were to allow our enemies to prevail in Iraq, the violence that is now declining would accelerate and Iraq could descend into chaos," Bush said. "Al-Qaida would regain its lost sanctuaries and establish new ones fomenting violence and terror that could spread beyond Iraq's borders, with serious consequences to the world economy. "Out of such chaos in Iraq, the terrorist movement could emerge emboldened with new recruits ... new resources ... and an even greater determination to dominate the region and harm America," Bush said in his remarks. "An emboldened al-Qaida with access to Iraq's oil resources could pursue its ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction to attack America and other free nations. Iran could be emboldened as well with a renewed determination to develop nuclear weapons and impose its brand of hegemony across the broader Middle East. And our enemies would see an American failure in Iraq as evidence of weakness and lack of resolve." Looking back, Bush said, "Five years into this battle, there is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting ... whether the fight is worth winning ... and whether we can win it. The answers are clear to me: Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision and this is a fight America can and must win." Bush said the past five years have brought "moments of triumph and moments of tragedy," from free elections in Iraq to acts of brutality and violence. "The terrorists who murder the innocent in the streets of Baghdad want to murder the innocent in the streets of American cities. Defeating this enemy in Iraq will make it less likely we will face this enemy here at home," Bush said. Bush said anew that the war was faltering a little more than a year ago, prompting him in January 2007 to order a big troop buildup known as the "surge." "The surge has done more than turn the situation in Iraq around; it has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror," he said. "In Iraq, we are witnessing the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden, his grim ideology, and his terror network. And the significance of this development cannot be overstated ," the president said. "The challenge in the period ahead is to consolidate the gains we have made and seal the extremists' defeat. We have learned through hard experience what happens when we pull our forces back too fast -- the terrorists and extremists step in, fill the vacuum, establish safe havens and use them to spread chaos and carnage." http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080319588550.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1730568_AEH PjkQAAKSzR%2BFU7AdJ%2BEwngzc&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilen ame=e20080319aaindex_concat.html&cred=FetTADx8M4Db T4iDUreqFXeMsCVW3gO3Fx5CDpZTnfPYOonjFF.DO.lD2EZn#T OP">RETURN TO TOP Washington Post March 19, 2008 Pg. 1 Five Years In Iraq Iraqis and Americans Offer Perspectives on the War By Karen DeYoung, Washington Post Staff Writer For a majority of Americans, today marks the fifth anniversary of the start of an Iraq war that was not worth fighting, one that has cost thousands of lives and more than half a trillion dollars. For the Bush administration, however, it is the first anniversary of an Iraq strategy that it believes has finally started to succeed. It has been about a year since Army Gen. David H. Petraeus arrived to command U.S. forces in Iraq, Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker took over as the chief U.S. diplomat, and the military deployed 30,000 more troops to protect and rebuild neighborhoods. Officials now running the U.S. effort express frustration that the gains wrought by their new political, security and economic policies -- in particular, sharply reduced violence -- are continually weighed against the first four years of the war, when Iraq unraveled in insurgency and sectarian strife. "I came to Washington to describe what we're doing," Charles P. Ries, Crocker's senior deputy in charge of reconstruction and the Iraqi economy, said during a visit last week. "At almost every meeting, somebody wants me to describe what we used to do. . . . I know why people raise these questions, but I don't feel it's something I can speak to. The times were different then." Today's policy is fundamentally different from the impatient mind-set of 2003, in both lowered U.S. expectations and a less imperious approach to dealing with Iraqi authorities. "In those days," Ries said, "we decided what [the Iraqis] needed, and we built it." Today, he said, Iraqis are asked what they want, and then told that while the United States will help, they will have to pay for most of it themselves. Yet as the administration requests additional war funding and calls for a pause in promised troop withdrawals, some question its right to a second chance. "Like a tourniquet," the troop increase "has stopped the bleeding," Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a former Army Ranger and senior member of the Armed Services Committee, reported last week after his 11th trip to Iraq. What he has not seen, Reed said, are the surgery and recovery that would begin to heal the wound that Iraq has become. And even U.S. officials acknowledge that the "surge" has not led to the political reconciliation the administration had hoped for. Others see the past year's successes as fragile and reversible, and less consequential than the pain that preceded them. "I think they have it righter than they ever have before," Daniel P. Serwer, an Iraq expert with the U.S. Institute of Peace, said of the administration. "But the fact is that those four other years did exist, and they condition a lot of what can and cannot happen now. There's a history here, there's a lot of blood and guts on the floor -- literally." The White House tends to dismiss such longer memories. While it recognizes the inclination to "relitigate the past" when a milestone such as the fifth anniversary is reached, National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, "our focus is on the way ahead and making sure that the current situation and the future situation gets better." In addition to new directions on the ground in Iraq, officials point to a newly effective structure designed to avoid the kind of ad hoc decision-making that led to early bureaucratic gridlock and mistakes, such as decrees dissolving the Iraqi army and banning Baath Party members from government jobs. President Bush's appointment last spring of Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute as deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan has "helped streamline the process and made sure that there is . . . a senior-level official who can devote his full, undivided attention" to the subject, Johndroe said. The once-bickering State Department and Pentagon are reporting new levels of cooperation. Diplomats who recall Donald H. Rumsfeld's insistence that the Defense Department control all aspects of early postwar policy note approvingly that it was his successor as defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, who recently called on Congress to increase the State Department's budget. Many U.S. officials participating in the new efforts talk about those years as though they belonged to another administration. "We weren't here five years ago," said one who, like several interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity about past policy on the grounds that it would undermine the present. "In the early days, they had an idea of something, a plan, of how it was going to be," the official said. "They would remove Saddam, and democracy would flower. They took this plan and rammed it down into the reality of Iraq, which nobody understood. What did they know about Iraq? Who were they listening to?" In the past year, the official said, "there has been a coming to grips across the board with Iraqi reality." One of the more troublesome realities is that Iraqi leaders have been slow to take advantage of the "breathing space" that the troop increase was supposed to create. The administration has often noted that Washington and Baghdad operate on different clocks, with the U.S. timetable for demonstrable progress running far faster than its Iraqi counterpart. In an interview last week, Petraeus, the U.S. military commander, acknowledged that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation" or in the provision of basic public services. In congressional testimony scheduled for early next month, both Petraeus and Crocker are expected to make the case that enough forward movement has been made to justify continuing the current strategy, and to warn that an abrupt withdrawal of U.S. troops could jeopardize the gains of the past year. But while a strong congressional appearance by the two men last September quieted talk of funding cutoffs and brought a brief rise in public attention, their upcoming testimony appears to have sparked little anticipation. As the administration struggles to focus on Iraq's future, it is competing with a presidential race locked in debate about how the war began and how to end it, a Democratic Congress determined to fight over every additional dollar, and a weary, distracted public. Indeed, once a top public concern, Iraq has been muscled aside by the economy and the political campaigns. In a survey released last week by the Pew Research Center, more people knew the names of the head of the Federal Reserve Board and the president of Venezuela than knew the approximate number of U.S. casualties in Iraq. Some public views about the situation in Iraq have eased over the past year. But others, including baseline judgments about the war itself, have hardly budged. In the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, nearly two-thirds said the war was not worth waging. Less than half, 43 percent, think the United States is making significant progress, and majorities continue to judge the war's benefits as not worth its costs. Polling director Jon Cohen contributed to this report. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080319588600.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1730568_AEH PjkQAAKSzR%2BFU7AdJ%2BEwngzc&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilen ame=e20080319aaindex_concat.html&cred=FetTADx8M4Db T4iDUreqFXeMsCVW3gO3Fx5CDpZTnfPYOonjFF.DO.lD2EZn#T OP">RETURN TO TOP Washington Times March 19, 2008 Pg. 15 U.S. Troops Resolute After 5 Years In Iraq By Richard Tomkins, The Washington Times FORWARD OPERATING BASE NORMANDY, Iraq -- At the five-year mark since U.S. troops entered Iraq, warriors here continue fighting and dealing with the consequences. It is doubtful that Army Capt. Vince Morris, a hard-charging company commander with the 3rd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment normally stationed in Vilsek, Germany, is tracking the anniversary debates. He is in a military hospital recovering from the severe concussion he suffered when his armored vehicle exploded immediately outside the entrance to this base, northeast of Baqouba. Sgt. Rob Robertson will be working from his combat operations post — without television, radio or newspapers — in the town of Himbus, in Diyala's "breadbasket." He will be conducting foot patrols and searching for improvised explosive devices (IEDs), weapons caches and terrorists who went into hiding after a major U.S. and Iraqi push into the region in January. When he is not on combat duty, he and other men of Iron Company will comb through scores of applications from people in his area wanting to join Concerned Local Citizens groups, the armed neighborhood-watch units renamed Sons of Iraq, which are viewed as a major contributor to increased security in parts of the country. "What about this one, this Ahmed guy?" he asked a colleague recently while sitting in his tent. "He was a sergeant in Saddam's army." Ahmed was photographed, questioned and fingerprinted during a recruitment drive. If he passes initial vetting, he could be given a midlevel leadership spot in a Sons of Iraq unit at $450 a month. Capt. Matt Ross and Lt. Andy Teague of Golf Company are absorbed elsewhere. They are trying to persuade Sunni residents forced from their village by Shi'ite Mahdi militiamen — who also are thought to be members of the local Iraqi police force — to identify the culprits so they can be arrested. "I showed [one of the displaced families] the book of photographs of the IPs," Lt. Teague told the captain, referencing the records of Iraqi police. "They picked 10. When I told them I needed statements to see about arresting the guys who forced them out they suddenly picked every Shi'ite IP they could recognize. I don't know what's true. How do we sort this out?" "Joes," as soldiers call themselves, will be immersed in other, usually monotonous, duties elsewhere across Iraq. They will show their presence in the streets of villages, towns and cities to enhance a sense of security for the locals and to gather information on al Qaeda and nationalist insurgent groups. They will turn wrenches to keep aircraft aloft and armored vehicles running. They will push the piles of paper that coordinate with deployment and operations. It is dangerous out here. Every journey off a forward operating base or combat operations post risks an encounter with a mine, a vehicle packed with bombs or a terrorist wearing an explosive vest. Nearly 4,000 Americans have died in Iraq since 2003, most as a result of hostile action. In the past year, the majority of deaths have resulted from IEDs, U.S. military officials say. About 160,000 Army, Marine, airmen and Navy personnel are serving in Iraq this year, many back for their second or third tours. Those working "outside the wire" — nonadministrative or nonsupport personnel — are less likely now to be assigned to kick down doors in search of the enemy. Their duties involve peacekeeping: mediating community disputes, helping rebuild infrastructure, fostering projects to create local jobs and mentoring their Iraqi counterparts. All of those 160,000 know how many months they have left in their 15-month deployments, and as departure nears it becomes an exact number of days. "I'm great — 78 more days," Ensign Jamie Allen called out to his fellow troops when one asked how he was. "Just 78 more days." Ask Ensign Allen or other members of U.S. forces here what day of the week it is, though, and there will be a pause as they try to figure it out. "What day is it?" a soldier said with a laugh when asked by a reporter who was equally without a clue, before he added, "How ... do I know? This is Iraq, man. Who cares?" His attitude is understandable. One day blends into the next here. One year has blended into five now. Soldiers don't speak about it. Gripes accumulate by the truckload, of course, and expletives flow like rivers, but deeper thoughts are revealed in quieter moments. Most are convinced they are doing good. They see children playing in the streets or going to school, people filling the open-air markets and life proceeding almost as usual. They marvel at the potential of Iraq, its agricultural land, its history. Then, of course, they swear profusely over the slow progress Iraqis seem to be making in taking control of their communities, but note that under Saddam Hussein, and even earlier, they were never allowed to. All want to leave as soon as they can. The question for them, as for all Americans, is how soon and in what manner. "[The soldiers] always say they hate it here, but this is our job," said a lieutenant who had been in Iraq just seven months. "We all signed up in a time of war. We can't just say we don't want to do it anymore. We go out of the wire, see [al Qaeda Iraq] cut off heads and others burn down homes, and we do our best to fight it, to stop it. "We'll go home with a sense of accomplishment. We'll go home knowing we did something in our lives that nothing will compare with. But most people don't care what the soldier wants to say. They'll hear what they want to hear." http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080319588554.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1730568_AEH PjkQAAKSzR%2BFU7AdJ%2BEwngzc&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilen ame=e20080319aaindex_concat.html&cred=FetTADx8M4Db T4iDUreqFXeMsCVW3gO3Fx5CDpZTnfPYOonjFF.DO.lD2EZn#T OP">RETURN TO TOP Washington Post March 19, 2008 Pg. 11 Major Iraqi Blocs Boycott Reconciliation Gathering By Joshua Partlow and Naseer Nouri, Washington Post Foreign Service BAGHDAD, March 18 -- A conference intended to bring together Iraq's rival sectarian groups foundered Tuesday when the leading Sunni political bloc boycotted the event and reiterated its demands for greater participation in the Shiite-led government. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki opened the conference here in the Green Zone, the fortified seat of government and the U.S. diplomatic mission, by saying that reconciliation among rival factions is the "only rescue boat and the best solution to build a federal democratic Iraq." "We seriously regret that some stand watching and others try to bring down the political process and obstruct the work of the government," said Maliki, who is Shiite. "At a time when their patriotic duty requires them to help and support the government." National reconciliation here has always been primarily about bringing Shiites and Sunnis into closer political partnership, a chief reason the Bush administration increased U.S. troop levels last year. But the boycott of the Baghdad conference by the Iraqi Accordance Front, a Sunni political bloc, illustrated how divided the two groups remain. The walkout came a day after Vice President Cheney, on a visit to Baghdad, said the improvement in Iraq's security and political situation was "phenomenal" and "remarkable." But Sunni leaders warned Tuesday that reconciliation remained elusive. "We are used to the prime minister speaking in a beautiful way about reconciliation and brotherhood. That's all well, but on the ground there are a lot of obstacles he has put in the way of reconciliation," said Alaa Makki, a Sunni parliament member with the Iraqi Islamic Party, part of the Accordance Front. Makki said his Sunni colleagues boycotted the conference because certain Sunni political and tribal leaders were not invited. He said the boycott was also meant to underscore the fact that their basic demands -- greater participation in the political process and in the security forces -- remain unmet. He criticized the government's position of limiting the number of U.S.-backed Sunni volunteer fighters to be incorporated into the predominantly Shiite Iraqi security forces. "The army is mainly from one component of the Iraqi people, the police also," he said. "We want this to be distributed in a fair way and to give us chances to have a role in controlling security, at least in our provinces." Shiite politicians loyal to cleric Moqtada al-Sadr were more dramatic in rejecting the conference, arriving before it began and departing once it was underway. Smaller political parties also avoided the meeting. Sadr's Mahdi Army militia is involved in a power struggle in southern Iraq with the Iraqi security forces, some of them aligned with the rival militia, the Badr Organization. Liwa Smaysim, a leader of the Sadrist political bloc, said its members chose to walk out of the conference because the central government is not enforcing arrest warrants against some senior government and security officials in southern cities. "Where is the rule of law and where is the constitution that they are talking about?" he said. In the northern city of Mosul on Tuesday, a car bomb killed three Iraqis and wounded 40 when it blew up outside an electronics store, destroying the four-story building, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials. In Babil province, a roadside bomb exploded near a patrol of volunteer Sunni fighters aligned with U.S. forces, killing one of the fighters and injuring another, a provincial police spokesman said. Special correspondents Saad Sarhan in Najaf and K.I. Ibrahim in Baghdad contributed to this report. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080319588606.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1730568_AEH PjkQAAKSzR%2BFU7AdJ%2BEwngzc&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilen ame=e20080319aaindex_concat.html&cred=FetTADx8M4Db T4iDUreqFXeMsCVW3gO3Fx5CDpZTnfPYOonjFF.DO.lD2EZn#T OP">RETURN TO TOP Wall Street Journal March 19, 2008 Pg. 4 Cheney Secures Pledges For A U.S.-Iraqi Blueprint Vice President Dick Cheney played the part of backroom power broker for two days and came away from talks in Iraq yesterday with pledges from Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to firm up a new blueprint for U.S.-Iraq relations that will stretch beyond the Bush presidency. Topics of talks ranged from security in Iraq to Iran's rising influence in the Mideast, but a key item was about crafting a long-term pact between the U.S. and Iraq, plus a narrower deal to define the legal basis for a continued U.S. troop presence. The deal would take the place of a United Nations Security Council resolution that expires in December. The administration says the deal won't seek permanent U.S. bases in Iraq or codify troop levels, nor tie the hands of a future president. Administration officials say they probably won't seek Senate approval because the agreement won't be a treaty that provides Iraq with specific security guarantees. -- Associated Press http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080319588619.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1730568_AEH PjkQAAKSzR%2BFU7AdJ%2BEwngzc&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilen ame=e20080319aaindex_concat.html&cred=FetTADx8M4Db T4iDUreqFXeMsCVW3gO3Fx5CDpZTnfPYOonjFF.DO.lD2EZn#T OP">RETURN TO TOP Miami Herald March 19, 2008 Cheney Again Links Iraq Invasion To 9/11 Attacks Vice President Dick Cheney told soldiers in Iraq that the 9/11 attacks spurred the decision to invade Iraq. By Hannah Allam and Laith Hammoudi, McClatchy News Service BAGHDAD -- Amid tears and wails, mourners in the southern city of Najaf on Tuesday began burying victims from a suicide bombing that killed nearly 50 worshipers and injured dozens just before evening prayers Monday in nearby Karbala. In Baghdad, a long-anticipated reconciliation conference began with great fanfare, then quickly dissolved into the usual sectarian and political stalemates that have marred several similar gatherings in recent years. But Vice President Dick Cheney gave an upbeat view of conditions in Iraq as he concluded his trip to mark the fifth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion. Cheney defended the toppling of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as part of the struggle against terrorism following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This month, an exhaustive Pentagon-sponsored review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents captured during the 2003 U.S. invasion found no evidence that Hussein's regime had any operational links with al Qaeda. But Cheney, who spent the night at a sprawling U.S. base in the northern town of Balad, told soldiers they were defending future generations of Americans from terrorism. ''This long-term struggle became urgent on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. That day we clearly saw that dangers can gather far from our own shores and find us right there at home,'' said Cheney, who was accompanied by his wife, Lynne, and their daughter, Elizabeth. ''So the United States made a decision: to hunt down the evil of terrorism and kill it where it grows, to hold the supporters of terror to account and to confront regimes that harbor terrorists and threaten the peace,'' Cheney said. ``Understanding all the dangers of this new era, we have no intention of abandoning our friends or allowing this country of 170,000 square miles to become a staging area for further attacks against Americans.'' Cheney later traveled to Irbil, the capital of the mostly autonomous Kurdish region, for a meeting with Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani, before flying to Oman. Meanwhile, at the graveyard in Najaf, police restricted funerals to eight family members, out of fears that the funerals would become a target for attacks. Emotions ran high among mourners of the bombing victims. One man draped himself over a coffin and sobbed, ``My father, my father.'' ''Security forces have been negligent in securing the city and the pilgrims,'' said Mohamed Hassan Ali, who buried his cousin, a policeman who was killed in the blast. ``This area should have had camera monitoring, searches and equipment to detect explosives.'' The devastating security breach at one of Iraq's most sacred places added to the pressure on Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki to make recent security gains stick and to keep the country on track for October elections. The Baghdad reconciliation conference was intended to bring the country's warring factions to the negotiating table. But only half of the 700 invited guests showed up, and any real chance for negotiations dissolved when both the leading Sunni Muslim bloc and the powerful faction loyal to the rebel Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al Sadr announced boycotts. ''We entered the conference to reaffirm our support for national reconciliation, and we left to show our rejection of all these fake conferences,'' Nassar al Rubaiye, a Sadr-allied lawmaker, said of the walkout. Most Sunnis and Sadrists didn't participate, and Shiite lawmakers in attendance hinted that the groups weren't missed. Sunni lawmakers boycotted because they believe Maliki hasn't made good on pledges to disband Shiite militias, release detainees not charged with crimes and include Sunni legislators in security decisions. Members of Sadr's militant Shiite movement said they walked out because of the lack of dialogue in preparations, a crackdown on Sadr's forces in the south and to protest thousands of Iraqi detainees in U.S. custody. Across the board, there were complaints of late invitations, snubs and general disarray. Even Wathab Shaker, head of the parliament's national reconciliation committee, said he was left out of all planning for the conference. He is a Sunni. ''No contact had been made between the preparation committee for the conference and the parliament's reconciliation committee. Absolutely no contact,'' Shaker said. ``I wish them good luck.'' Tuesday's roster of attacks included two roadside bombs in Baghdad -- one targeting civilians at a market in Shaab, the other at a busy intersection in al Bunook -- that killed four Iraqis and wounded at least 13, authorities said. A car bomb outside an electronics store in Mosul killed three and wounded 40, the U.S. military said. Laith Hammoudi is a special correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers. Mohammed al Dulaimy contributed from Baghdad; Qassim Zein reported from Najaf. Both are special correspondents. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080319588542.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1730568_AEH PjkQAAKSzR%2BFU7AdJ%2BEwngzc&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilen ame=e20080319aaindex_concat.html&cred=FetTADx8M4Db T4iDUreqFXeMsCVW3gO3Fx5CDpZTnfPYOonjFF.DO.lD2EZn#T OP">RETURN TO TOP New York Times March 19, 2008 Pg. 9 Estimates Of Iraq War Cost Were Not Close To Ballpark By David M. Herszenhorn WASHINGTON — At the outset of the Iraq war, the Bush administration predicted that it would cost $50 billion to $60 billion to oust Saddam Hussein, restore order and install a new government. Five years in, the Pentagon tags the cost of the Iraq war at roughly $600 billion and counting. Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and critic of the war, pegs the long-term cost at more than $4 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office and other analysts say that $1 trillion to $2 trillion is more realistic, depending on troop levels and on how long the American occupation continues. Among economists and policymakers, the question of how to tally the cost of the war is a matter of hot dispute. And the costs continue to climb. Congressional Democrats fiercely criticize the White House over war expenditures. But it is virtually certain that the Democrats will provide tens of billions more in a military spending bill next month. Some Democrats are even arguing against attaching strings, like a deadline for withdrawal, saying the tactic will fail as it has in the past. All of the war-price tallies include operations in the war zone, support for troops, repair or replacement of equipment, reservists’ salaries, special combat pay for regular forces and some care for wounded veterans — expenses that typically fall outside the regular Defense Department or Veterans Affairs budgets. The highest estimates often include projections for future operations, long-term health care and disability costs for veterans, a portion of the regular, annual defense budget, and, in some cases, wider economic effects, including a percentage of higher oil prices and the impact of raising the national debt to cover increased war spending. The debate raging on Capitol Hill, on the presidential campaign trail, in research institutes and in academia touches on such esoteric factors as the right inflation index for veterans’ health care costs; the monetary value of nearly 4,000 soldiers killed; and what role, if any, the war has had in higher oil prices. Some economists who track the war expenses say they worry that politicians are making mistakes similar to those made in 2002, by failing to fully come to grips with the short- and long-term financial costs. “The relevant question now is: what do we do now going forward? Because we can’t do anything about the costs that have already happened,” said Scott Wallsten, an economist and vice president of research with iGrowthGlobal, a Washington research institute. “We still don’t hear people talking about that.” Congressional Democrats, led by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, have sought to spotlight the rising costs and limited political progress in Iraq. “This administration still has no clear exit strategy for our troops, no path to political reconciliation, and no accounting of the costs to our budget or economy,” Mr. Schumer said. The White House press secretary, Dana M. Perino, acknowledged that costs had risen higher than predicted, but said the administration was committed to giving the military everything it needed for success. “None of these calculations take into account the cost of failure in Iraq,” Ms. Perino said. “Should Al Qaeda have safe haven in Iraq, we are more likely to be attacked again on our homeland. We know the cost of that.” On the campaign trail, the Democratic candidates, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, often say that money for the war would be better spent at home, as Mrs. Clinton did Tuesday when she pegged the war costs at “well over $1 trillion.” “That is enough,” she continued, “to provide health care for all 47 million uninsured Americans and quality pre-kindergarten for every American child, solve the housing crisis once and for all, make college affordable for every American student and provide tax relief to tens of millions of middle-class families.” But what the candidates often fail to note when making such points is that the full cost of the war has been added to the national debt, and that the money spent in Iraq would not necessarily be available for other programs. And, of course, anything short of an immediate withdrawal will entail billions more in continuing expenses. Debate aside, there is general consensus that Congress will have allocated slightly more than $600 billion for Iraq operations through the 2008 fiscal year. And some analysts say that may be half the final price. “Under reasonable scenarios, assuming we don’t pull out rapidly, we may only be halfway through,” said Steven M. Koziak, of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, a nonpartisan research group. “Even in direct budgetary costs, it’s quite easy to get up on the order of $1 trillion for Iraq alone.” Meanwhile, the five-year anniversary of the war has focused a spotlight on the costs so far and on future projections. In a new book, called “The Three Trillion War,” Mr. Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate, and a co-author, Linda J. Bilmes, a professor at Harvard, say the total economic impact may be a staggering $4 trillion or more. Even some economists who call themselves fans of Mr. Stiglitz say they think that number is exaggerated; the authors insist their projections are moderate. Lawrence B. Lindsey, who was ousted as President Bush’s first economic adviser partly because he predicted the war might cost $100 billion to $200 billion, also has a new book that serves in part as an I-told-you-so. “Five years after the fact, I believe that one of the reasons the administration’s efforts are so unpopular is that they chose not to engage in an open public discussion of what the consequences of the war might be, including its economic cost,” Mr. Lindsey wrote in an excerpt in Fortune magazine. Mr. Lindsey insists that his projections were partly right. “My hypothetical estimate got the annual cost about right,” he wrote. “But I misjudged an important factor: how long we would be involved.” He was not alone. Congressional Democrats, for instance, predicted that the Iraq war would cost roughly $93 billion, not including reconstruction. Virtually every forecast was off in this way. “It’s clear that operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have gone on longer and have been more expensive than the projections initially suggested,” Peter R. Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office, said in an interview. Only one economist, William D. Nordhaus of Yale, seems to have come close. In a paper in December 2002, he offered a worst-case estimate of $1.9 trillion, “if the war drags on, occupation is lengthy, nation-building is costly.” Getting at the true costs is difficult though. Expenses like an overall increase in troops were paid from the base defense budget, not the war bills. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080319588587.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1730568_AEH PjkQAAKSzR%2BFU7AdJ%2BEwngzc&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilen ame=e20080319aaindex_concat.html&cred=FetTADx8M4Db T4iDUreqFXeMsCVW3gO3Fx5CDpZTnfPYOonjFF.DO.lD2EZn#T OP">RETURN TO TOP San Diego Union-Tribune March 18, 2008 'Triangle Of Death' City Much Safer, Says Top U.S. Commander For Area By Patrick Quinn, Associated Press ISKANDARIYAH, Iraq – The top U.S. commander south of Baghdad stepped across a pile of trash to talk to an Iraqi man. “What do you need?” asked Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch. Mohammed Ahmed smiled back and gave his wish list: better public services, smoother streets, more electricity. “And security?” Lynch asked. “Security is good,” the man said, noting that he got his chickens from Hillah, about 30 miles to the south along a highway that was prowled by bandits and killers a year ago. Lynch's stroll last week through Iskandariyah – once part of the notorious “triangle of death” south of Baghdad – was most noticeable for its nonchalance. At the top of the triangle is Mahmudiyah, a town of low-slung, ocher-colored buildings. To the west is Yusufiyah. At the southern end is Iskandariyah, about 30 miles south of Baghdad. In between is Latifiyah. While in Iskandariyah, Lynch took off his helmet, smoked a cigar and meandered through a marketplace on a visit intended to showcase the dramatic drop in violence in the former Sunni insurgent belt. His trip sought to tap into the same upbeat tone expressed in Baghdad yesterday by Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee. Both cited the drop in attacks – in areas such as Lynch's zone – as evidence that the insurgency is weakened and internal rivalries are being worked out. “The enemy is still out there. We never said they left. ... But it's not the same,” Lynch said. “I'm very comfortable walking down the street. That is how you get a sense of what is going on. You need to get on your feet and you need to move.” Children ran around their legs as a chicken vendor waved at Lynch – who lost five soldiers to a suicide bomber last week on a Baghdad street corner within a couple of miles from where Cheney and McCain met with the Iraqi leadership. “We have a lot less problems than we had even three or four months ago,” Iraqi police Col. Ali al-Zahami said. As recently as Christmas Day, one of the U.S. Army captains accompanying Lynch last week was sitting in a ring of Bradley fighting vehicles in a nearby field still smoldering from a fight with insurgents. For a visiting reporter familiar with the area's violent days, the easygoing market scene had a surreal tinge to it – something that would have seemed an impossibility. “It's not OK yet, but it is improving,” Lynch said of the security as he examined some cherry red tomatoes. Earlier, he walked by an intersection where a suicide bomber on Feb. 25 killed at least 40 Shiite pilgrims heading to Karbala. “We still had almost 9 million people walk on that pilgrimage. What does that tell you?” Lynch said. Violence has dropped nearly 80 percent from a year ago in the area Lynch controls, about the size of West Virginia. Many of the former insurgents and militiamen are now part of U.S.-funded Sunni and Shiite groups – called the Sons of Iraq or Awakening Councils. Also on Saturday, Lynch walked unannounced into the meeting comprising both Shiite and Sunni leaders. Their main topic of discussion: repairing a local Sunni mosque. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080319588560.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1730568_AEH PjkQAAKSzR%2BFU7AdJ%2BEwngzc&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilen ame=e20080319aaindex_concat.html&cred=FetTADx8M4Db T4iDUreqFXeMsCVW3gO3Fx5CDpZTnfPYOonjFF.DO.lD2EZn#T OP">RETURN TO TOP Washington Post March 19, 2008 Pg. 16 Ex-Soldier Blames Media for Abu Ghraib Scandal Lynndie R. England, the public face of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, told a German magazine that she was sorry for appearing in photographs of detainees in the notorious Iraq prison. She said she thinks the scenes of torture and humiliation served as a powerful rallying point for anti-American insurgents. England conceded to the newsweekly Stern that the published photos incensed insurgents in Iraq, "but I didn't make it worldwide." She added: "I feel sorry and wrong about what I did. But it would not have escalated to what it did all over the world if it wouldn't have been for someone leaking it to the media." http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080319588552.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1730568_AEH PjkQAAKSzR%2BFU7AdJ%2BEwngzc&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilen ame=e20080319aaindex_concat.html&cred=FetTADx8M4Db T4iDUreqFXeMsCVW3gO3Fx5CDpZTnfPYOonjFF.DO.lD2EZn#T OP">RETURN TO TOP Washington Post March 19, 2008 Pg. 10 Iraqis And Americans Offer Perspectives On The War By Josh White et al. A soldier's mother When Peggy Buryj sent her son off to war, she was in favor of the mission but was "scared to death" for Jesse. She knew that soldiers were dying but also that her son felt a deep responsibility to defend his country. "He would have been pissed off if there wasn't a war to go fight," said Buryj, of Canton, Ohio. "He was a warrior." Buryj's worst fears were realized on May 5, 2004. A panicked Iraqi drove his dump truck through a military checkpoint in Karbala, eliciting gunfire from U.S. and Polish soldiers. Pfc. Jesse Buryj was shot in the back. The Army at first ruled it a car accident but months later acknowledged it was a case of friendly fire. Peggy Buryj remains committed to the conflict nonetheless. "Yes, I am frustra |
