Dear BR:

Would you get a grip because if you don't Barack Obama and his media flunkies are going to drive you crazy. For the last time: Nothing has changed on the ground with regard to the issue of U.S. withdrawal troops from Iraq since my Ping Pong post on July 8.

In fact nothing had changed about the issue since even before the report I cited. Things have been the same since General Petraeus took over command in Iraq. Things will remain the same, at least until he makes his report in September, which will be based on not only the assessments of US commanders in Iraq but also those of Iraqi military commanders.

So all that has changed are choices of words. As reported in the July 8 post the word "treaty" was ditched in favor of “memorandum of understanding,” which “has the same spirit” as the treaty being drafted—and re-drafted and re-drafted—between Iraq and the U.S.

The word game was to throw red meat at Moqtada al-Sadr and his minions and masters in Iran, who want the U.S. out of Iraq yesterday. The somewhat silly hope was that shuffling words around might temporarily stop Mookie & Co. from chewing up Nouri al-Maliki.

Then, on July 18, Amer Moshen at Iraq Slogger reported on the latest word game:

Az-Zaman reported on the latest Iraqi-US negotiations regarding a “security agreement” between the two countries. According to Western reports, Az-Zaman said, Iraqi demands for a withdrawal timetable for US forces will likely be replaced with a timetable for “troop reduction” in Iraq. [emphasis mine]

Pro-government papers seemed to confirm these reports, with an al-Mada front-pager claiming that negotiations now center on “preludes for the reduction, and later on, the withdrawal, of American forces.”

Such an agreement would clearly fall below the expectations of government figures, who hoped for an arrangement that would end—even if in a matter of years—with a full US withdrawal, and defended their strategy of negotiations based on that principle.

As al-Mada’s piece showed, however, even a face-saving “timetable for troops reduction” could be painted as a victory for the current government. But popular discontent with the negotiations, already at a high despite promises of US withdrawal commitments, is now likely to grow.

As an example, al-Hayat published an attack on the prospective treaty by the Islamic Army (a Sunni insurgent faction), which claimed that the US “wants to impose an agreement of humiliation and submission” upon Iraqis. The Islamic Army statement—typically—doubted the capacity of “those appointed by the US” to negotiate on behalf of the Iraqi state. Now, if Maliki is unable to promise Iraqis “full liberation,” the popular view vis-à-vis the treaty is likely to worsen.

(But remember it's not a treaty, it's a memorandum of understanding.)

So how does all that square with Maliki's statement to Germany's der Spiegel (published on July 19) that he agreed with Obama's timetable of 16 months for troop withdrawal? And the controversy that arose from the statement? And the somewhat different reports on what Maliki's spokesperson said after Obama's meeting with Maliki on July 21? Regarding the latter:

[...] According to Reuters [Ali al-Dabbagh] said, “We cannot give any timetables or dates but the Iraqi government believes the end of 2010 is the appropriate time for the withdrawal.”

The Associated Press quoted Mr. Dabbagh as saying, “We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq,” but noting that any plans would have to change should violence rise.[...]

The answer is first that Maliki's statement to der Spiegel was almost assuredly properly translated, despite his protests to the contrary after State went through the roof.

Second and more importantly, everything that's been said by Maliki and his spokespersons in recent days with regard to timetables has to be viewed against the backdrop of Iraq politics.

Recently a serious issue arose for Maliki and his government when it became clear that because of the Parliament's foot-dragging, the planned October provincial and local elections would have to be pushed to the end of the year—and maybe even later, because of unresolved legalities.

The delay, coming on top of the controversy about the treaty—er, memorandum of understanding—means that Maliki is feeling the heat. Into that situation walked Barack Obama, who was seized on by Maliki as more red meat to hurl at Mookie.

In summary Obama fell into the role of useful idiot, which was okay with him because the statements from Maliki made him look good in the media.

He knew that the journalists reporting on his tour were poorly informed about the currents and eddies of Iraqi politics, and that any exceptions among the press corps following him around would not be inclined to rain on his parade. Not if they wanted to keep a seat on his plane.

With regard to the statement you heard on a news outlet that Petraeus "agreed" with Obama that al Qaeda in Iraq was retreating to Afghanistan, that is not exactly what Petraeus said, according to Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff:

CHRIS WALLACE [FOX News]: [...] Petraeus, still the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq but headed on to become central commander, says that Al Qaida may no longer consider Iraq the front line in the war on terror and may, in fact, be shifting some of its foreign fighters from Iraq to Afghanistan. Do you see that shift?

MIKE MULLEN: I think he also said that there’s no firm evidence of that yet. In my trip there week before last, certainly the whole issue of the FATA and the safe havens for foreign fighters, for Al Qaida, for Taliban and the insurgents that are now freely — much more freely able to come across the borders — a big challenge for all of us.

I suggest you study the entire interview, which was aired July 20, and which goes into detail about the question of a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Refer to the interview whenever you're spooked by reports about the situation.

As to your question about the media and Barack Obama, I've received a couple questions in a similar vein so before I go on leave I'll finish a post I started more than a month ago, and get it up by Saturday. Then I'm gone from the blogosphere until September.

For the nonce: It could be that no matter what their political bias that professional pride may be causing journalists with a good reputation to chafe at playing the fool to Obama's media manipulation techniques—or George Soros's techniques, as the case may be.

I make this observation based on strong remarks that Andrea Mitchell, Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent for NBC News, made to Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball on July 21. She observed in part:

[...] MITCHELL: Let me just say something about the message management. [Obama] didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

What you're seeing is not reporters brought in. You're seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they're not interviews from a journalist. So, there's a real press issue here.

Politically it's smart as can be. But we've not seen a presidential candidate do this, in my recollection, ever before.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about access to the troops, Andrea. A lot of African-American faces over there, very happy, delighted faces. Is that a representation of the percentage of service people who are African-American, or did they all choose to join someone they like, apparently? What's the story?

MITCHELL: I can't really say that. Being a reporter who was not present in any of those situations, I just cannot report on what was edited out, what was, you know, on the sidelines. That's my issue. We don't know what we are seeing.

Welcome to the club, Ms Mitchell.

For many months, many bloggers have been jumping up and down and yelling and screaming that the news media have been putting on a magic show instead of reporting on Obama and his campaign.

(See the full report at News Busters, which also has the video of Mitchell's conversation with Matthews.)

* * * * * * * * * * *
Update:

This afternoon Merry at RBO (The Real Barack Obama) posted an entry titled What does Chalabi want from Obama? Merry explores Eli Lake's report for today's New York Sun about Ahmad Chalabi's role in prodding Malki to endorse Obama's 16 month timetable for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Merry's entry also returns to one her posts of yesterday, which points up:

[...] "the obvious irony that one of the three Iraqi officials with whom Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) met while “making the rounds in Baghdad” was Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who had served on the Iraqi Governing Council, appointed July 13, 2003, by Coalition Provisional Authority Administrator L. Paul Bremer, with Sen. Obama’s fellow Chicagoan, former Iraqi Minister of Electricity, Aiham Alsammarae, who was convicted in an Iraqi court in October 2006 in the theft of at least $650 million in Iraqi reconstruction dollars (i.e. U.S. tax dollars); who had contributed to Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign fund; and who put up three of his properties as surety for Obama political patron and convicted political fixer -- and Obama’s personal real estate fairy -- Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s bond this past spring.

The media, it appears, chooses either to be, or pretend to be, unaware of the irony.

Well, there is another member from Alsammarae’s days with the first Iraqi Governing Council in 2003 who has played a role in Sen. Obama’s “visit” to Iraq -- Ahmad Chalabi, who served as Deputy Prime Minister until his fall from grace in May 2004. [...]

There are lots more depressing facts at both links. Barack Obama's old buddies are quite a cast of characters. If you're not reading RBO every day there's no way you can keep up with all the twists and turns of Barack Obama's colorful career in Chicago and how it all intersects with his run for the presidency.

And now we have the fun of contemplating Chalabi as an Obama booster.

Chalabi, by the way, is seriously ticked off at Washington -- again. May 14, 2008 NBC:

Sources in Baghdad tell NBC News that as of this week American military and civilian officials have cut off all contact with controversial Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi [...] The reason, the sources say, is "unauthorized" contacts with Iran's government, an allegation Chalabi denies. Iran has been accused of arming and training rebel Shiite forces in Iraq.

Chalabi had been making a remarkable comeback in Iraq, but that may now be in question, American officials tell NBC News on condition of anonymity.

If you ask why in the Sam Hill it took this long to cut off ties with Chalabi, who has been accused by various quarters of too-close involvement with Tehran since as early as 2003 -- it's been an on-again, off-again affair between Chalabi and US officials.

Since September 2007 [...] American military officials and civilian officials working out of the U.S. Embassy had contacts with Chalabi. At that time he was installed as the head of a "services" committee for Baghdad that was to coordinate the restoration of services to the city's residents. [...]

* * * * * * * * * * *
Update 7:05 PM Eastern:

Stop, Merry! I can't take any more Obama antics in one day! This just in from RBO:

[...]Obama “believes the survival of US combat forces in Kurdistan does not pose any real danger to the lives of US troops and therefore it would be appropriate to redeploy US troops there in the future.”

So, you ask, what’s the deal with Kurdistan? Well, it just so happens that Chamchamal in Northern Kurdistan is the location chosen in 2003 for a power plant by convicted political fixer—and Obama political patron and personal real estate fairy—Antoin “Tony” Rezko and his partner, former Minister of Electricity Aiham Alsammarae who was convicted October 2006 in an Iraqi court for the theft of $650 million in Iraqi reconstruction funds.

Let me out, let me out! Oh, but, that's right, there's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.

The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) the Bush administration was pushing hard to get signed by the end of this month to leave in a place a military-diplomatic framework amenable to their view of a longer term US occupation (er "presence") in Iraq is now officially done. Must read article from Karen DeYoung in WAPO on the subject here.

The same new resolve (so argued) by the US pro-occupation right in the Iraqi Army's recent operations in Basra, Sadr City, Amara, Mosul is the same resolve that is causing him to call for an end to the US presence and refusing to sign a SOFA without a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops (and no permanent bases) both of which both the President and John McCain oppose.

[Extra Credit: Look for McCain to begin parroting the new right-wing talking point that this turn of event proves that we have won--the government is standing up!!! While likely continuing to send signals that he will take his own counsel on troops numbers--i.e doesn't matter what the Iraqis think on the subject.]

While the US post-Baathist/Saddam war in Iraq failed on numerous fronts--failing to predict and/or deal with for 3 years the insurgency, jerry-rigged and failed electoral process, failing to prevent ethnic cleansing & civil war, the humanitarian disaster/refugee problem--this is the first major attack at the nerve center of the occupation by a more united Iraqi resistance.

While Bush, almost alone in his cocoon, continued to believe that a long term occupation would lead Iraq to become the beacon of democracy to the Middle East/world thereby securing his future standing in history as a late-redeemed figure (a la his hero Truman), the Iraqi government's stance puts an end to his vision for Iraq.

It is the opening scene of Act IV of the Iraq Drama. [I=the Invasion II=The Insurgency/Gov't III=Surge IV=Post-US draw down, i.e. "the training wheels coming off."]

For the inside story on who was behind this new pressure, look to none other than (one of the best in the business) Gareth Porter.

And if there is any doubt who holds the power in Iraq, read this:

The statement by Rubaie came immediately after he had met with Sistani, thus confirming earlier reports that Sistani was opposed to any continuing US military presence.

The government takes its orders from the moral authority (and political power) of a cleric. I.e. Clearly it is a theocracy definitionallly (predicted by the value memetics of the country prior to invasion)

And this--Silly Bush Tricks are for Kids:

The Bush administration has had doubts in the past about the loyalties of those two Shi'ite groups and of the SIIC's Badr Corps paramilitary organization, and it maneuvered in 2005 and early 2006 to try to weaken their grip on the Interior Ministry and the police.

By 2007, however, the Bush administration hoped that it had forged a new level of cooperation with Maliki aimed at weakening their common enemy, Muqtada al-Sadr's anti-occupation Mahdi Army. SIIC leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim was invited to the White House in December 2006 and met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in November 2007.

As has been argued on the pages of this blog (and elsewhere) the US army was always in a militia on militia fight and was being used by the other militias for their own internal fights and never had anything to do with the US objectives for the region or ideas concerning governance/alliances. With the possible October parliamentary elections, Maliki and SIIC needed the US to help them defeat Sadr. The US having learned in the Gaza Elections that the "bad guys" would win (i.e. Sadrists) decided to ditch the pretense to fair elections and use the interim period to undercut the Sadrist movement, politically under the guise of a military-only operation.

Though even in this round of intra-Shia fighting, Maliki went with the Iranian brokered "ceasefires" with Sadr. (Ceasefires in quotes because fighting continued during the peace time). This was, as Porter demonstrates, against Gen. Petraeus' plan to link publicly the Iranians to funding for Sadr and a larger full scale assault on the Sadrist movement.

Maliki knowing the terrain better knew I bet that such a full out attack on Sadr would only have further undermined his own parties (and his allies) chances. Their plan seems to have been some deals to gain security in some strongholds, open up some markets, and try to pull a "win the hearts and minds" strategy for electoral success. As well as undermine the capacity for Sadr and his movement to run their campaign unencumbered.

Nevertheless though Moqtada's party may be suffering some setbacks, he is achieving his goal--ending the US occupation. His cagey embrace of the street and politics--weekly rally protests against the US occupation--and playing the role of persecuted minority for religio-political truth (in the tradition of the great Shia martyr Husayn) has put the pressure on both Sistani and Maliki to take this hard line. Even in (partial) defeat, Sadr is winning.

So now the Bush administration has been double-crossed by the other Shia parties and surprise--the two political parties funded by and started in Iran side with Iran over the US. What are the odds? Who would have seen that coming?  This is why Obama shrewdly got both Petraeus and Crocker to admit in their last Senate testimony that Iran would always have influence in Iraq and any attempt to eradicate it as a definitional plank for victory in Iraq is/was self-defeating lunacy.

All of which all of course would make for the thinking person a laughingstock of the new right wing meme that this is a sign of victory--given the cost of US dead and killed, the perfect outcome this entails for Iran and its ascendancy to regional hegemon, the massive debt the US has now bankrolled to install an Iranian-puppet regime, and the loss of international support over the mission, as well as the resurgence of al-Qaeda in Pakistan and the deterioration of Afghanistan as a result of the near absolute focus on Iraq.

But of course admitting such isn't going to happen of course. Their entire dream (more like hallucination) of imposing some order has been unmasked.

Obama has to come out swinging on this one.  Force McCain into the corner--what does this mean for his policy?  The Iraqis clearly want a timetable--will he give one?  If not, is he simply going to keep US forces in Iraq against the will of the majority of the US populace AND the majority of the Iraqi populace AND the Iraqi government?  Not to mention the Legislative Branch of the US.

This lets Obama shift away from McCain's stupid question about "is the surge working" to the central issue:  the occupation is unsustainable. It has been rejected by both countries populations and is putting stress on the military it can not afford. And leaves untouched the actual culprits behind the attack on the US who continue to pose a threat to US national security, clearly seeking to attack US soil (unlike any actors in Iraq).

Obama can then say he was both right about the not getting into the war in the first place and has been right in his judgment of where strategically the country has to move (draw down Iraq, focus on the Afghan-Pak border region).

]]> http://indistinctunion.wordpress.com/?p=2108 Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:57:25 +0000 cjsmith http://indistinctunion.wordpress.com/?p=2108 From a reporter who actually is in Iraq and sees many different angles than that of the pre-approved US Army tours given to the US media, a very lucid analysis of the current state of play in Iraq.  Much subtler than say this fluff piece by Andrew Sullivan which has got so many holes below the water line tough to know where to begin (did I mention he is supposedly one of the "critical" voices in the blogosphere on the topic?).

On the one hand, Cockburn notes that Maliki's government is stronger than it has been probably ever.  This is leading to claims of "the surge is working" "victory is at hand if only the Democrats don't cut and run" for the umpteenth trillion time from the right.  Strong enough however (contra McCain-Bush) that they have rejected a Security of Forces Agreement for the time being (due to in part Iranian pressure).

However:

The government's position looks stronger than it is because its opponents are waiting for the Americans to leave or draw  down their forces.

The Provincial Elections are a major sticking point and likely won't take place in October.  Kirkuk is outstanding.  One of the Sunni Iraqi parties has rejoined the government so that Maliki and crew can help break the (Sunni competitors) Sons of Iraq who likely would knock the older Sunni parties out of power if the elections were actually free.  Same with Maliki and the ISCI in relation to Sadr (hence the crackdown on his militia).

And even if it succeeds, what would be "victory":

Their aim seems to be to be eliminate their domestic Iraqi  opponents while they still have the backing of American firepower. It is a  brutal plan but it might come off. Maliki could become the Iraqi version of  Vladimir Putin in Russia. Like Putin, Maliki controls the state machine, a  large if unreliable army and benefits from the high price of oil so he has  control of over $40 billion in unspent reserves. Iraqis do not trust their  own government but, like Russians when Putin first came to power in  1999, they are desperately war weary. Many people will support anybody  who provides peace and security. But the analogy should not be carried  too far. Putin’s enemies were fictional or in distant Chechnya, while Maliki’s  opponents are real, dangerous and close by.

And even were that to happen, there is the issue of Iran:

An increase in Iranian influence in Iraq has been  inevitable since 2003. Once the US had decided to overthrow Saddam  Hussein the beneficiaries were always going to be the Shia religious  parties, because they represented the majority of Iraqis, and they would  be supported by Iran. Many of America’s problems in Iraq over the last five  years have happened because Washington believed it could prevent or  dilute the triumph of Iran and the Shia in Iraq.

As Joe Biden had said repeatedly there are three ways this ends:

1)Total Slaughter/Exodus of the Sunnis (reduction of their population to complete servitude, minority status)

2)A return of a Dictator.  That is the Maliki cum Putin scenario.

3)Break/Federalization of the Country.

The scenario Cockburn outlines where the US follows to the T the history of the British in Iraq and attempts to create permanent bases with a puppet government would certainly end the same way the British occupation of Iraq did--in ignominious defeat, as well as the overthrow of the puppet government and the installation of a new anti-British (i.e. anti-American in this case) regime.  In the short term that seems off the table as Maliki seems to have effectively pushed back on the deal.  McCain and Bush still want it, Obama doesn't.  And more importantly the vast majority of the Iraqi population doesn't either.

As Cockburn points out the only reason the American occupation continues is because the Shia and Sunni are fighting a low-grade civil war as well as intra-Shia and intra-Sunni wars.  The US policy of arming and training the Iraqi forces, the Sons of Iraq, and the new attempt to create Sons of Iraq Shia-style in former Mahdi Army strongholds, is what allows the occupation to continue but only further weakens the hold of the central government, tenuous at best, and prevents a large scale political endgame.  The Surge and attendant tactics works at cross purposes to the stated goal and strategy of Iraq.  Even in this best case scenario, the return is to a strongman dictator.  In which case why have spent so much time, blood, and money to get another dictator in power? Unless it is so that dictator (like Saddam a la 1985 becomes back to being "our son of a bitch."  And so foreign oil companies can reap the benefits, Disaster Capitalism style, of pillaging the oil in Iraq leaving the country (minus some power elites) destitute and war torn.

]]> http://infolution.wordpress.com/?p=2026 Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:49:04 +0000 infolution http://infolution.wordpress.com/?p=2026 Witnesses link chemical to ill US soldiers

Farah Stockman
Boston Globe
June 23, 2008

US soldiers assigned to guard a crucial part of Iraq’s oil infrastructure became ill after exposure to a highly toxic chemical at the plant, witnesses testified at a Democratic Policy Committee hearing yesterday on Capitol Hill.


“These soldiers were bleeding from the nose, spitting blood,” said Danny Langford, an equipment technician from Texas brought to work at the Qarmat Ali Water treatment plant in 2003. “They were sick.”


“Hundreds of American soldiers at this site were contaminated” while guarding the plant, Langford said, including members of the Indiana National Guard.


Langford is one of nine Americans who accuse KBR, the lead contractor on the Qarmat Ali project and one of the largest defense contractors in Iraq, of knowingly exposing them to sodium dichromate, an orange, sandlike chemical that is a potentially lethal carcinogen. Specialists say even short-term exposure to the chemical can cause cancer, depress an individual’s immune system, attack the liver, and cause other ailments.


Yesterday’s hearing - one among several organized to hold contractors accountable for alleged malfeasance in Iraq - was chaired by Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat. “Hundreds of US troops, who may not even know of their exposure to sodium dichromate that could one day result in a horrible disease, cancers, and death,” he said.


Roughly 250 American soldiers were believed to have come in contact with the chemical, according to Defense Department documents. Sodium dichromate is the same substance that poisoned residents in Hinkley, Calif., an incident made famous by the movie “Erin Brockovich” in 2000.


In Iraq, the chemical was used as an antirust coating for pipes that supply water to the oil fields. After the 2003 US-led invasion, looters raided the Qarmat Ali facility; afterward, the chemical was found strewn around the facility and its grounds.


Langford and his former colleagues have said KBR supervisors initially told them the chemical was a “mild irritant.” The company, however, eventually acknowledged that sodium dichromate was a potentially deadly substance and moved to clean up the site.


KBR has denied any wrongdoing in the matter. The company has insisted the safety of its workers and the troops they work with are its “highest priority.”

Anti-US protest surges in Iraq

Press TV
June 20, 2008

Hundreds of Iraqis loyal to senior cleric Moqtada al-Sadr stage a rally to protest plans for a long-term security pact with the US.


Following the weekly Friday prayers, hundreds of Iraqis took to streets in protest to the proposed security pact which has strongly been opposed by Iraqi officials and lawmakers.


The pact would provide a legal footing for the presence of US forces in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires later this year, raising fears that it would impair Iraq’s independence and sovereignty


Sheik Assad al-Nassiri warned the agreement, awaiting completion by July 31, will ’humiliate Iraqis, rob the Iraqi government of its sovereignty and give the occupier the upper hand’.


During a sermon in Kufa, Nassiri described the US presence as the main reason behind all of Iraq’s crises, expressing dismay at some government officials to call on ’the occupation forces’ to stay.


Demonstrators in Kufa as well as Baghdad’s Sadr City chanted “No, no to America, No, no to the agreement,” carrying banners reading “we will not accept Iraq to be an American colony.’’


Tensions rose high on Thursday when Iraqi troops arrested Amarah mayor, Rafia Abdul-Jabbar, and 16 others for alleged involvement with militias.


The ’random detentions’ by US-backed Iraqi security forces in the southern city drew strong criticism from Sadrists, who believe the arrests are being carried out ’without warrants and in contrary to what Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says’.


Critics say Washington has failed to offer a firm commitment to defend the country from any invasion, denouncing a demand for immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts for all American personnel in Iraq.


There is also controversy over the number of bases the US would maintain in the country and whether its military will retain the power to arrest Iraqi civilians and keep them in its detention facilities.

  Al Hayat reports on Moqtada al-Sadr supporters protesting the ongoing discussions of the American-Iraqi long-term security agreement.  Not surprisingly, Sadr's spokesman denounced the agreement, claiming that it would it grant immunity to American "soldiers, mercenaries and contractors", allow America to establish "an unspecified number of bases" and place the Ministries of Defense, Interior and Intelligence under American control for 10 years.

Also, Ayat-ullah Ali Sistani released a statement in which he discussed the security agreement and the upcoming elections.  Sistani called for an agreement that upheld the basic tenets of Iraqi sovereignty, and he called for transparency, requesting that the text be shown to the Iraqi people before the Iraqi government signs the agreement.  As for the elections, Sistani said that election success is linked to the freedom of all parties and full participation of all constituencies.

Meanwhile, ash-Sharq al-Awsat covers Operation Peace Promise and reports some positive gains made by the government and coalition forces.  The article mentions that Maysan has become a favorite place to smuggle weapons in from Iran, and the ISF confiscated large quantities of bombs, mortars and machine guns, which Sadr spokesmen said were leftover from Saddam's army!

While the operation led the arrest of 5 local politicians belonging to the Sadr movement, Iraqi forces admitted that they believed others had escaped to Iran or other parts of Iraq.

A car bomb ripped through a busy commercial street in a Shiite area of Baghdad on Tuesday, killing at least 51 people and wounding scores more in the deadliest blast in the capital in more than three months.

Many victims were trapped in their apartments by a raging fire that engulfed at least one building, according to police and Interior Ministry officials, who also said about 75 people were wounded. Stunned survivors stumbled through the rubble-strewn street, which was filled with the smoke from burning vehicles, witnesses said.

The attack shattered the relative calm in the capital since a May 11 cease-fire ended seven weeks of fighting between U.S. and Iraqi forces and Shiite militants in the Sadr City district. Ironically, it came the same day the Iraqi parliament announced plans to move outside the U.S.-protected Green Zone.

Ta-da.

Who holds the cards in Iraq right now? Oh, that's right, Moqtada al-Sadr.

Iraq's influential leader Moqtada al-Sadr has announced plans to set up a new resistance group to fight US occupation in the country.

"The resistance will be carried out exclusively by a special group which I will announce later," Sadr said in a statement read out at a mosque in the holy town of Kufa.

The cleric vowed to uphold resistance against the occupiers until the liberation of Iraq

Sadr said the group will direct its operations against occupying US forces and will be banned from fighting any Iraqis.

The 60,000-strong Mahdi Army led by Moqtada al-Sadr had regularly clashed with US forces since their invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The group, however, declared a ceasefire last year in August, and maintains that so far its fighters have lived up to it.

The announcement follows Sadr's call for continued protests against negotiations with Washington over the US presence in the country until a referendum is held on the issue.

Iraqis remain wary of an agreement in principle between Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and US president George Bush that would give a legal basis to US troops in Iraq -currently numbering to about 150,000- after the December 31 expiry of a UN mandate defining their current status.

MRS/MMN

www.insight-info.com

Let's try for a moment to put ourselves in the mind of Brig. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. For it is the soft-spoken Soleimani, not Iran's bombastic president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who plays a decisive role in his nation's confrontation with the United States.

Soleimani represents the sharp point of the Iranian spear. He is responsible for Iran's covert activities in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and other battlegrounds. He oversees the regime's relations with its militant proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. His elite, secretive wing of the Revolutionary Guard is identified as a terrorist organization by the Bush administration, but he is also Iran's leading strategist on foreign policy. He reports personally to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his budget (mostly in cash) comes directly from the supreme leader's office.

Soleimani is confident about Iran's rising power in the region, according to an Arab official who met recently with him. He sees an America that is weakened by the war in Iraq but still potent. He has told visitors that U.S. and Iranian goals in Iraq are similar, despite the rhetoric of confrontation. But he has expressed no interest in direct, high-level talks. The Quds Force commander prefers to run out the clock on the Bush administration, hoping that the next administration will be more favorable to Iran's interests.

"The level of confidence of these [Quds Force] guys is that they are it, and everything else is marginal," says the Arab who meets regularly with Soleimani.

Soleimani has been adept at turning up the heat in Iraq, then lowering the temperature when it suits Iran's interest. A good example was the Basra campaign in March, when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki attacked the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia headed by Moqtada al-Sadr. Though the Iranians had been backing Sadr, they made a quick switch to supporting Maliki. It was Soleimani himself who brokered the cease-fire that restored calm in Basra.

Read the rest:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp
-dyn/content/article/2008/06/06/
AR2008060603152.html

June 3, 2008

A proposed Iraqi-American security agreement will include permanent American bases in the country, and the right for the United States to strike, from within Iraqi territory, any country it considers a threat to its national security, Gulf News has learned.

Senior Iraqi military sources have told Gulf News that the long-term controversial agreement is likely to include three major items.

Under the agreement, Iraqi security institutions such as Defence, Interior and National Security ministries, as well as armament contracts, will be under American supervision for ten years.

The agreement is also likely to give American forces permanent military bases in the country, as well as the right to move against any country considered to be a threat against world stability or acting against Iraqi or American interests.

The military source added, "According to this agreement, the American forces will keep permanent military bases on Iraqi territory, and these will include Al Asad Military base in the Baghdadi area close to the Syrian border, Balad military base in northern Baghdad close to Iran, Habbaniyah base close to the town of Fallujah and the Ali Bin Abi Talib military base in the southern province of Nasiriyah close to the Iranian border."

The sources confirmed that the American army is in the process of completing the building of the military facilities and runways for the permanent bases.

He added that the American air bases in Kirkuk and Mosul will be kept for no longer than three years. However, he said there were efforts by the Americans to include the Kirkuk base in the list of permanent bases.

The sources also said that a British brigade was expected to remain at the international airport in Basra for ten years as long as the American troops stayed in the permanent bases in Iraq.

Iraqi analysts said that the second item of the controversial agreement which permits American forces on Iraqi territories to launch military attacks against any country it considers a threat is addressed primarily to Iran and Syria.

Iran has raised serious concerns in the past few days over the Iraqi-American security agreement and followed it with issuing religious fatwas and called for demonstrations, mainly by the powerful Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr movement, who is close to Iran, against the agreement.

Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

Randall Mikkelsen
London Independent
June 5, 2008

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

US issues threat to Iraq’s $50bn foreign reserves in military deal

Patrick Cockburn
London Independent
June 6, 2008

Read Full Article Here

Recent News:

Alors que Bush n'a pas expliqué en quoi consistait le « message », le contexte le rend parfaitement clair. En septembre dernier, des chasseurs israéliens avaient démoli ce bâtiment lors d'une agression délibérée, sans qu'il y ait eu provocation, qui aurait pu déclencher une guerre plus importante. L'administration des États-Unis, qui à n'en pas douter avait donné le feu vert à l'attaque, a fait état la semaine dernière d'informations non corroborées impliquant que ce bâtiment abritait un réacteur inachevé et que la Syrie essayait de construire une arme nucléaire. La menace implicite contre Téhéran est la suivante : les États-Unis et Israël sont également prêts à détruire des installations iraniennes.

Aucune des informations américaines et israéliennes rendues publiques la semaine dernière n'implique Téhéran dans le projet de réacteur nucléaire attribué à la Syrie. Alors, pourquoi réserver un commentaire spécifique à l'Iran ? En ce qui concerne la prolifération nucléaire, Israël est le seul pays de la région qui ait un stock d'armes nucléaires, et les alliés des États-Unis dans la région - l'Arabie Saoudite, l'Égypte et la Turquie - ont tous annoncé des projets de réacteur nucléaire. En nommant l'Iran, Bush a non seulement souligné l'hypocrisie de sa position, mais il a aussi confirmé que Téhéran figurait en tête de liste des cibles américaines.

Le « message » envoyé à l'Iran est arrivé le jour même où un second porte-avions américain, l'USS Abraham Lincoln, arrivait dans le golfe Persique, accompagné d'une flottille comprenant deux destroyers lance-missiles, l'USS Momsen et l'USS Shoup. L'USS Harry Truman a quitté le Golfe, mais il reste dans la zone couverte par l'US Central Command [Commandement interarmées de combat] qui englobe le Moyen-Orient et l'Asie centrale.

Le secrétaire à la défense, Robert Gates, a minimisé le déploiement en disant qu'il était prévu depuis longtemps. « Je ne pense pas que nous aurons deux porte-avions là-bas pendant une longue période. Donc, je ne le considère pas comme une escalade », a-t-il dit, mais il a ajouté d'un ton plein de sous-entendus que cela pouvait être vu comme un « rappel » adressé à l'Iran. Vendredi dernier encore, le président du Comité des chefs d'états-majors interarmées, l'amiral Michael Mullen, a qualifié Téhéran d'« influence de plus en plus mortelle et pernicieuse » en Irak et a insisté sur le fait que « ce serait une erreur [pour l'Iran] de penser que nous sommes à court de capacités de combat ».

Le potentiel des États-Unis à créer une provocation maritime dans le golfe Persique a été mis en lumière en janvier lorsque l'administration Bush a délibérément exagéré une rencontre entre des navires de guerre américains et des hors-bord iraniens. En s'appuyant sur un compte-rendu américain très douteux de l'incident, le président Bush a accusé l'Iran d'un « acte de provocation » et l'a averti des « conséquences dangereuses » si des navires de guerre américains étaient attaqués.

Vendredi dernier, une équipe de la sécurité maritime américaine à bord d'un navire de transport - le Westward Venture, engagé par les États-Unis - a effectué des tirs d'avertissement sur deux bateaux non identifiés qui approchaient du navire. Les bateaux ont quitté la zone après ce que la marine américaine a décrit comme « quelques rafales » de mitrailleuses. Plus tôt ce mois-ci, l'armée américaine avait affirmé que trois petits bateaux iraniens avaient approché l'USS Typhoon « d'une manière menaçante », l'un d'eux jusqu'à moins de 200 mètres, avant d'être rappelés. Les autorités iraniennes ont rejeté les allégations américaines.

Les remarques de Mullen sur « l'influence mortelle et pernicieuse » de Téhéran en Irak constituent une autre allégation américaine sans fondement, régulièrement recyclée comme prétexte possible pour une attaque contre l'Iran. Alors que Washington accuse l'Iran d'armer et d'entraîner de prétendus groupes spéciaux pour qu'ils attaquent les troupes américaines et irakiennes en Irak, les seules preuves rendues publiques à ce jour consistent en un étalage d'armes de facture iranienne, prétendument fournies par la force Al-Quds des Gardiens de la révolution iraniens (GRI).

Plusieurs journaux américains ont déjà rapporté que le commandant américain en chef en Irak, le général David Petraeus, a ordonné la constitution d'un nouveau « dossier » sur les interférences iraniennes en Irak. Cependant, d'après ce qui est décrit, les nouvelles preuves ne seront pas plus concluantes que les anciennes, un étalage d'armes de facture iranienne récente qui prouvent difficilement l'implication du régime iranien dans une région inondée par les marchés d'armes illégales.

Il a été annoncé la semaine dernière que le général Petraeus remplacera l'amiral William Fallon en tant que chef de l'US Central Command. Fallon avait démissionné le mois dernier après avoir fait montre de son opposition à peine voilée aux menaces d'action militaire répétées de l'administration Bush contre l'Iran. Petraeus, qui a joué un rôle essentiel dans la stratégie américaine des « renforts » (surge) en Irak, a mis en évidence son attitude belliciste lorsqu'il a admis pendant un témoignage devant le congrès au début du mois que l'Iran était « responsable de la mort de centaines de soldats américains ».

Vendredi dernier, Asia Times a rapporté que Petraeus tenait en fait le rôle de chef du Central Command depuis des mois. Il s'est rendu dans cinq pays du Moyen-Orient depuis septembre dernier, - la Jordanie, le Koweït, Bahreïn, la Turquie et les Émirats arabes unis - une tâche qui aurait normalement dû être accomplie par Fallon.

Un concert de menaces

Les Etats-Unis émettent un concert croissant d'accusations et de menaces contre l'Iran à tout propos, depuis ses « ingérences » en Irak et son hypothétique programme d'armes nucléaires jusqu'aux liens de Téhéran avec des groupes comme l'organisation chiite libanaise du Hezbollah et le groupe palestinien Hamas, qui sont considérés par Washington comme des « terroristes. » Tout le monde dans l'administration Bush et au Pentagone semble chanter le même refrain.

Dimanche, en Irak, le porte-parole de l'armée américaine, le contre-amiral Patrick Driscoll a accusé à nouveau l'Iran d'armer et d'entraîner des groupes qui tiraient des roquettes depuis les lotissements de Sadr City à Bagdad. Sans avancer l'ombre d'une preuve, il a déclaré : « Les Iraniens continuent à entraîner les Irakiens et à financer leurs réseaux et cela va continuer à se développer avec le temps... Donc, avec le temps, s'ils poursuivent cette activité cela va créer une plus grande influence et cela va mener à plus d'interférences dans les affaires internes de l'Irak. »

Lundi, le directeur de la CIA, Michael Hayden, a évoqué le spectre d'une Syrie disposant de l'arme nucléaire pour justifier le raid israélien de septembre dernier. Aucune preuve concluante n'a été rendue publique qui démontrerait que le bâtiment détruit était un réacteur, ou qu'il était près d'être achevé. La CIA n'a pas expliqué où Damas irait se fournir en combustible nucléaire, ni n'a fourni de preuves de ce que la Syrie voulait construire une bombe. Pourtant, selon Hayden, « au terme d'une année de fonctionnement [après qu'ils aient alimenté le réacteur en combustible] ils auraient produit assez de plutonium pour une ou deux armes ». La remarque ne visait pas tant la Syrie que l'Iran, qui a refusé de se plier aux exigences américaines de fermer ses installations d'enrichissements d'uranium et de mettre fin à la construction d'un réacteur de recherche.

Le même jour, dans un rapport au Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU, l'ambassadeur américain Zalmay Khalilzad a demandé à nouveau que « l'Iran et la Syrie... arrêtent l'afflux d'armes et de combattants étrangers en Irak, et leur influence pernicieuse en Irak ». Il a répété les allégations selon lesquelles la force Al-Quds persistait « à armer, entraîner et financer des groupes armés illégaux en Irak », déclarant : « cette aide mortelle fait peser une menace sérieuse sur les forces irakiennes et multinationales et sur la stabilité et la souveraineté de l'Irak ».

Mardi, dans des remarques adressées au Comité juif américain, la secrétaire d'État américaine Condoleezza Rice a apporté un soutien complet au refus israélien de négocier avec le Hamas, déclarant « A notre plus grande inquiétude, les dirigeants du Hamas servent de plus en plus de combattants de l'ombre à un régime iranien qui déstabilise la région, cherchant à obtenir une capacité nucléaire et proclamant le désir de détruire Israël. » Elle s'en est prise à une « ceinture de l'extrémisme » qui s'étendrait du Hamas et du Hezbollah à l'Irak et l'Afghanistan, qui serait « soutenue principalement par l'Iran et dans une certaine mesure par la Syrie, mais particulièrement l'Iran ». Elle a prévenu que « [Cela] donne à ce conflit une dimension régionale qu'il n'avait pas auparavant ».

Mercredi, le département d'État américain a publié un rapport classant l'Iran comme le « plus actif » et le « plus important » des États qui soutiennent le terrorisme. Tout en mentionnant aussi la Syrie, la Corée du Nord, Cuba et le Soudan, le rapport souligne le soutien allégué de l'Iran au « terrorisme », affirmant qu'il visait à « dissuader les attaques américaines ou israéliennes, faire diversion et affaiblir les États-Unis, augmenter l'influence régionale de l'Iran par l'intimidation, et aider à expulser les États-Unis hors du Moyen-Orient ».

Le déluge croissant de la propagande américaine ressemble à s'y méprendre aux mensonges utilisés pour justifier l'invasion de l'Irak en 2003. La technique du mensonge le plus gros, la répétition sans fin d'accusations non fondées comme s'il s'agissait de faits, est à nouveau employée. Un dossier de la CIA sur le réacteur nucléaire de la Syrie doit être suivi par un autre sur les interférences iraniennes en Irak. Les alliés de droite de l'administration Bush et qui se font entendre, proclament déjà que la Maison-Blanche doit répliquer à cette « guerre par personnes interposées » de l'Iran contre les États-Unis en Irak.

Des plans de guerre sont en train d'être dépoussiérés et refaits. Lors de ses commentaires de vendredi dernier, le président du Comité des chefs d'états-majors interarmées, l'amiral Michael Mullen, a révélé que le Pentagone dressait des plans pour « de potentiels programmes d'actions militaires » contre l'Iran. Un article dans le New York Times de samedi relatait que « l'administration Bush a, en fait, envisagé d'attaquer les camps d'entraînement, les abris et les dépôts d'armes en Iran » utilisés pour entraîner les insurgés irakiens. Le journal affirmait que les raids américains contre l'Iran étaient hors de question « pour l'instant ».

CBS News a cependant publié mardi un rapport qui fait froid dans le dos, indiquant que le délai pour des raids sur l'Iran pouvait être assez court. Citant un officier américain resté anonyme, l'article affirmait que le Pentagone avait donné des ordres pour développer de nouvelles options pour attaquer l'Iran. Il a ajouté : « Les cibles comprendraient tout ce qui va des usines où sont fabriquées les armes aux quartiers généraux de l'organisation qui se fait appeler la Force Al-Quds qui dirige les opérations en Irak. »

Selon CBS : « plus tard dans la semaine, le premier ministre irakien Nouri al-Maliki doit présenter aux Iraniens des preuves de leurs ingérences et en demander la fin. Si cela ne produisait aucun résultat, le département d'État a commencé à élaborer un ultimatum ordonnant aux Iraniens d'y mettre fin - sinon... »

Un porte-parole du Pentagone a officiellement rejeté ce rapport. Pourtant, il ne fait aucun doute que la campagne de propagande actuelle contre l'Iran indique la suite des événements : le risque que l'administration Bush lance une nouvelle guerre d'agression criminelle au Moyen-Orient dans une folle tentative d'asseoir les intérêts économiques et stratégiques américains dans cette région riche en ressources énergétiques.

From CNN:

BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- Hezbollah militants will leave Beirut's streets in response to the Lebanese army's assuming security in the city, an opposition spokesman said Saturday, but "civil disobedience" will continue.

Not exactly clear what civil disobedience means (could be bad). Hezbollah clearly showed it could take over the capital but not hold it--it's base is in the South and the Army moved towards cutting off their supply lines. But hopefully all out war will be averted.

--

Sadr City

CNN again:

The Iraqi government and Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's movement have agreed to a cease-fire to end weeks of fighting in Baghdad's Sadr City district, spokesmen for both sides said Saturday.

Not entirely clear it will hold. Some elements of the Mahdi Army may not stand down, other militias in the neighborhood are non-Sadrist. The ISF (i.e. Badr Corps) gets to search the city of heavy weapons and make arrests. Not sure if this is another move on Sadr's part to point out/hand over unruly elements in his group. Aid and evacuations of the wounded and the re-opening of East Baghdad will then occur according to the agreement.

No doubt right-wing American blogs will call this another victory for the Maliki government and they will proclaim the death of Moqtada al Sadr (for only about the twentieth time at this point). All I know is that each of those previous obituaries were, Mark Twain-esque, in their prematureness. He is by far the shrewdest politician in Iraq and has the strongest cred on the street (just like Nasrallah in Lebanon).

It could be just like the Hezbollah situation. They showed they can take down the army in a fight, but they don't want to bring an all out Shia (Iraq) or country wide (Lebanon) civil war.

Update I: Your WTH moment on this one courtesy Senator Clinton:

I am very concerned about the current situation in Lebanon. Hezbollah-allied militias, using weapons supplied by Iran and Syria, have seized control of West Beirut and are demanding that Prime Minister Fouad Siniora resign and hand over power to a military government. This is both an illegal challenge to a democratically-elected government and an issue of regional stability with international consequences.

The United States must actively support the sovereignty of the Lebanese government and the independence of Lebanon.

The United States needs to engage in vigorous diplomacy with its regional allies to support the Lebanese government. Outside parties, such as Iran and Syria, must immediately stop their interference in Lebanon and allow the election of the President to proceed.

Notice how this whole description (Bush-like) acts as if Hezbollah is some foreign transplant force. Memo to the Senator, they're Lebanese. The reason Siniora is President has to do with the complications of the Peace Deal signed in the wake of the ending of the Civil War appropriating roles based on ethnic makeup, which in the years since has shifted towards the Shia, who are underrepresented (now) in the scheme. So one could argue I suppose that the system is undemocratic (small d). The President of Lebanon has no power or influence in the South of Lebanon and its not because of Syria or Iran. Those weapons for all we know could have been bought on the black market. And if they are supplied, we were supplying and training the Sunni militias that lost. We just keep backing Sunni militias that are not strong in a fight (e.g. Fatah and now these Lebanese dudes).

The code words are sovereignty, independence, and regional allies--all of which clearly translate into Sunnis.

These groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Mahdi Army are not simply going to go away by the US saying they are pawns of Iran-Syria and by working with Sunni Arab dictators. I guess we've learned that Clinton's plans to both obliterate Iran and extend nuclear deterrence shields to Arab autocrats includes the Sunni Lebanese. If McCain is Bush's Third Term, foreign policy wise so is Clinton.

If you read and think deeply about this long post, it would be like scales falling from your eyes. Kudos to Steve Clemons who has Rosen on board to post regularly at The Washington Note.

There is a rant/digression towards the end on Palestine-Israel that is not his best stuff.  But the majority focuses on Iran and Iraq.

There is so much in this post, so I can only highlight a few central elements.

On the Iraq gov't and the recent fighting in Basra (and a nice shot on ideologue Fred Kagan):

Why anybody even hires or publishes Kagan on the Middle East is a mystery, but there is nothing legitimate in the government of Iraq, it provides none of the services we would associate with a government, not even the pretense of a monopoly on violence, it was established under an illegitimate foreign military occupation and it is entirely unrepresentative of the majority of Sunnis and Shiites who are opposed to the American occupation and despise the Iraqi government.     (my emphasis)

Moreover the dominant parties in the government and in those units of the security forces that battled their political rivals in Basra and elsewhere are the ones closest to Iran. The leadership of the Iraqi government regularly consults Iranian officials and is closer to Iran than any other element in Iraq today. Moreover, the Americans have always blamed their failures in Iraq on outsiders, Baathists, al Qaeda, Iranians, because they refuse to admit that the Iraqi people don't want them. So Iran is a convenient scapegoat to explain the strength of the Sadrists, a strength actually resulting from the fact that they are a genuinely popular mass movement. Blaming Iran also lets the Americans maintain the illusion that the Mahdi Army's ceasefire is still in effect.

Then this--bullseye:

There is no proxy war in Iraq, because the US and Iran share the same proxy and the US installed that proxy and empowered it. Today, to the extent that we can talk about an Iraqi "state," it is dominated by the Supreme Council and its Badr militia.

Yet again the two dominant partners in the Iraqi government are the Kurdish parties and the Dawa/Supreme Council.  All of those groups want autonomous zones, the Kurds in the north, the Shia in the South and are both pro-American and pro-Iranian.  And yet the US is trying to portray Iran as the new al-Qaeda in Iraq.  Never mind the old al-Qaeda in Iraq was never as big of a threat.  The issue has always been American occupation of the country and the fight between the Shia and Sunni.

The Badr Corps, as Rosen mentions, was a wing of The Iranians that fought on the side of Iran in the Iran-Iraq War.  When even the Shia in the South were fighting and dying in huge numbers for Iraq against Iran.  You think a group that fought against your country in the bloody decades long war many lived through are going to be considered legitimate--either by the mass of Shia Iraqi Arabs who are not particularly keen on Iranian imperialism nor the Sunni.

Why is it these American conservatives who are always preaching against the inefficiency of the top-down command and control state have backed the attempted creation of one in Iraq?  Why assume great state power omniscience on the part of Iran--say with the selling of weapons--and not recall their conservative wisdom of those who are closer to the scene of the action know better their own lives and that the gun market is in fact the only free market in the region one could argue--and is doing business to be sure.

The conclusion:

Most of those who fight the Americans in Iraq do so not at the bidding of a foreign power but out of genuine and sincere opposition to the American occupation. The Americans never grasped this and always assumed it was about the money, or al Qaeda, and now part of a silly Iranian conspiracy. After at first siding with Iraq's Shiites much to the consternation of America's so called "moderate" Sunni allies, the Americans are now targeting Shiites and perhaps even Shiite Iran as Bush prepares for once last war on his path to the "New Middle East." But without the help of an acquiescent media supplicating to Bush administration and US military officials they might not be able to go to war once again.

Secretary of State Rice's claim that the US seeks to protect Iraq, a country it has destroyed and whose civilians it continues to kill in Sadr City and elsewhere is laughable, but more dangerously, Rice added fuel to the already combustible sectarian divide in the region, informing Iraq's neighbors that "what they need to do is confirm and work for Iraq's Arab identity."

As Rosen goes onto show "Arab" has come to mean Sunni--since the Sunni have throughout the Arab countries have never accepted Shia Arabs are real Arabs:  with the Shia in Lebanon, the Iraqi Shia Arabs particularly the Marsh Arabs of the South, nor in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia.  You name it.  So for the Sec of State to say we need Arab-identity is to say we need Sunni identity.  At this point it matters not whether she knows this and is simply a pure propagandist or she is just that ignorant.

The American policy has never been to accept that the insurgencies would be home grown and people don't want to be occupied.  So they turned the Sunni insurgency, most of it, to their side against a common foe:  the Shia.  Now they want to take on the Mahdi Army because it is opposed to the US presence and won't get the same deal as the Awakening Crowd--because they are, in the eyes of the US military, the Shia version of al-Qaeda.  The US has already made its "awakening-like" deal with the Badr Corps against the al-Qaeda like Mahdi Army.

But of course this analogy is the complete reversal of the actual situation.  Al-Qaeda in Iraq (or rather Salafi jihadists in Iraq whether homegrown of foreign) were never popular because their ideology is so intense and so premodern/regression/mythic in its outlook.  The Mahdi Army is in fact the power on the ground, the most popularly legitimate government in the country.  It is rather the Badr Corps as Iranian-puppets who are the al-Qaeda like parallel in this example (in terms of lack of legitimacy on the ground).  And yes somehow then Iran is the evil in the country when we are in fact supporting their main agent in the country.  Explain the logic of that to me again?

And if only the US media would make those simple points instead of having to have this manufactured--here is what the right says, here is the what the left says, let's have one commentator from each side come on and act as if there is an actual debate here rather than simply a propaganda-military/administration mouthpiece under the guise of an "expert" at a think tank (so-called).  Fred Kagan, mastermind of the surge, did his studies on Russia.  Russia.

--

Update I:  And as a last note, a point Rosen doesn't mention is that the reason the groups he cites that have legitimacy on the ground (Hezbollah, Sadrism) is grounded in the Islamic tradition of the ummah (the community) and zakat (one of the Five Pillars of Islam, the giving of money & time to the poor).  This point used to be one we said was a conservative insight--that culture trumps outside managerial experts--but US conservatives and their imperial misadventures are not limited government conservative types.  They are Wilsonian idealists turned Republicans.  Or I suppose, to quote Jonah Goldberg, liberal fascists.

Malgré la posture belliqueuse du vice-président Dick Cheney, l'administration a remisé les plans d'attaque contre les installations nucléaires iraniennes depuis que Robert Gates a remplacé Donald Rumsfeld au poste de secrétaire à la Défense en 2006, indiquent ces sources.

Toutefois, les responsables militaires des États-Unis sont de plus en plus préoccupés par les ingérences iraniennes en Irak et sont déterminés à ce que les récents succès emportés ensemble par les forces irakiennes et américaines dans la ville portuaire de Bassora ne soient pas remis en cause par la Brigade Al-Qods.

« Si la situation à Bassora redevient ce qu'elle était auparavant, l'Amérique devrait en blâmer l'Iran et procéder à une « frappe chirurgicale » au-delà de la frontière sur un camp d'entraînement de militants situé au Khouzestan », déclare une source, faisant référence à une province iranienne frontalière.

Les responsables américains ont conscience que l'Iran ne mettra sans doute pas un terme à son implication en Irak et qu'une attaque américaine, même limitée, pourrait déclencher une escalade des combats.

Bien que les responsables américains de la défense soient fermement opposés à toute attaque sur les installations nucléaires iraniennes, à leur avis un raid sur un des camps de formation de miliciens chiites serait un message fort délivré à Téhéran.

Les Britanniques estiment l'armée américaine a tendance à surestimer les effets de l'implication iranienne en Irak.

Mais disent-ils, il ne fait guère de doute que les Gardiens de la Révolution exercent une influence sur les groupes dissidents de l'Armée du Mehdi du chef religieux radical Moqtada al-Sadr, qui ont été les cibles principales des dernières opérations menées à Bassora.

La chaîne de télévision CBS a indiqué la semaine dernière que des plans sont en cours d'élaboration pour une attaque contre l'Iran, citant un officier qui dénonce le « rôle de plus en plus hostile » de l'Iran en Irak.

Les informations relayées par les médias américains ne précisaient pas quelle pourrait être sur la cible d'une telle action et indiquaient que les installations nucléaires iraniennes étaient probablement l'objectif visé.

Selon les sources du Times, il ne s'agirait pas d'une attaque contre les installations nucléaires. « Le Pentagone n'est pas du tout enthousiaste pour ça. Si une attaque se produit, ce sera sur un camp d'entraînement pour délivrer clairement à l'Iran le message de ne pas interférer. »

Le président George W. Bush est réputé être déterminé à ne pas transmettre ce qu'il considère comme « le problème iranien » à son successeur. Une attaque limitée sur un camp d'entraînement pourrait donner le sentiment d'une action résolue, tout en étant acceptable à la fois par Robert Gates et le commandant US en Irak, le général David Petraeus.

Source : The Times

The news reported today is that an Iraqi delegation consisting of members of al-Maliki's Dawa and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), an ally of Maliki and the chief Shia rival of the Sadrist movement, went to Iran. The American military line is that this delegation was sent to tell Iran to stop funding and arming through the Quds force the Mahdi Army.

Michael O'Hanlon, everyone's favorite security expert, was on Hardball last night and repeated this ludicrous line (first uttered I think by Lieberman) that 1/2 of all American deaths in Iraq recently--which are seriously back up btw--are due to these special groups with direct support of the Iranian regime.

Cernig:

equal opportunity arms sales over porous borders and into a regional black market at an all-time high has always seemed like the Occam's Razor explanation of Iranian weaponry in Iraq - especially given the way U.S. weapons "mislaid" in Iraq so quickly turned up in the hands of pro-Kurdish terrorists in Turkey. No-one's alleging that American policy at the highest levels is to kill Turks in the same way CIA director Hayden is claiming Iran's policy in Iraq is simply to kill Americans. That seems to me to be a dangerously simplistic and beligerently hyped analysis of Iran's complex motives. Some Qods guys are likely getting rich at the expense of their nation's arsenal.

Not to mention (as Cernig does) that if the Iranians are funding/arming anybody the biggest recipient would be in fact the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council--which was started in Iran and whose leadership still receive pensions from Iran as de facto members of the Revolutionary Guards.

From an AP article cited by Cernig:

"Moqtada al-Sadr did not permit his leaders to meet the Iraqi delegation," said Sheikh Salah al-Obeidi, his spokesman in the central holy city of Najaf.

"Sadr insists that the crisis can be solved only through a parliamentary initiative backed by President Jalal Talabani and speaker Mahmud Mashhadani."

Obeidi did not elaborate, but Talabani has been holding talks with Sadrists to resolve the crisis.

So it doesn't appear they were there to discuss de-arming miltias--which are likely being armed by black market anyway, but rather to put an end to the intra-Shia fighting. Not entirely clear but Iran seems now to be leaning more towards the al-Maliki/Hakim group with Sadr using this as a moment to play his Iraqi nationalist and anti-US cred. [Calling for the Kurdish and Sunni parliamentary leaders to deal with the issue not the Iranians]. Perhaps Sadr suspects a ceasefire is really a prelude to an another assault by the combined forces of the US army and Badr Brigade (i.e. "Iraqi" security forces).

But if the government of Iran were honestly the prime cause of 1/2 of US deaths--and not say through certain Iranians moonlighting on the black market--I mean that would be a cause of war. So what is more disturbing I think is the increased saber rattling and laying the groundwork for some strikes.

Hell even the HuffingtonPost is reiterating the argument that Iran is increasing supply trains to al Sadr.
The American military said that they were holding the evidence they have to give the Iraqi government a chance to show it to the Iranians. If they are going to keep making these claims, they need to show some proof and establish that they are not black market sales.

It's clear that he has either not been studying his logic, or he's been putting extra effort into his studies of rhetoric.

The following declaration is based around proposition that is tautological. So, although he refers to the Iraqi government, the statement is universally valid:

"I am giving my last warning and my word to the Iraqi Government to take the path of peace and stop violence against its own people, otherwise it will be a government of destruction," Sadr said in a statement his office issued in the holy city of Najaf.

Source

We know from the definitions of "peace" and "stop violence" that the negation of these terms implies a set of contrary terms, one of which is "destruction."

Moqtada also spewed some other nonsense that you can read if you follow the link above.

Hit the books, Moqtada.

L'attentat est survenu vers 21h00 lors de l'allocution hebdomadaire d'un religieux, l'hodjatoleslam Anjavinejad, critiquant les wahhabites, musulmans sunnites extrémistes majoritaires en Arabie Saoudite, et les bahaïs, une minorité religieuse considérée comme des infidèles par le pouvoir islamique iranien.

Il est sans doute nécessaire de rappeler que, depuis deux ans, l'administration de George W. Bush a mis en oeuvre un plan de déstabilisation du gouvernement iranien en recourant secrètement aux services de plusieurs commandos armés opérant depuis le territoire pakistanais.

C'est ce que démontrait un documentaire de la chaîne de télévision américaine ABC (1) il y a un an, en se référant à des sources au sein des services de renseignement des Etats-Unis et du Pakistan.

La chaîne avait diffusé un reportage sur l'organisation Jundullah (brigade divine) composée de membres d'une tribu de la province pakistanaise du Belujistan. A noter qu'au mois de février dernier, la Jundullah a déjà revendiqué un attentat à la bombe commis en Iran, et qui avait coûté la vie à onze militaires de la Garde révolutionnaire.

Dans son reportage la chaîne ABC se référant à des sources au sein du gouvernement pakistanais indiquait également que cette campagne secrète contre l'Iran avec recours à la Jundullah avait été décidée au cours de négociations menées au Pakistan entre le vice-président des Etats-Unis, Richard Cheney, et le président pakistanais, Pervez Musharraf.

ABC rappellait également qu'au mois de mars la télévision nationale iranienne avait accusé la CIA de former des membres de l'organisation Jundullah.

Soulignant que le gouvernement des Etats-Unis n'accordait aucun soutien financier direct à l'organisation Jundullah pour perpétrer des attentats en Iran, des représentants de la CIA ayant requis l'anonymat avaient pourtant seulement confirmé à ABC que Washington recourait aux services de la Jundullah.

Cela est d'autant plus surprenant que, selon l'ambassade de France au Pakistan, la Jundullah est liée à Al-Qaeda (1).

Cet attentat en Iran survient quelques heures après l'assassinat de Riyadh al-Nouri, le directeur du bureau de l'imam chiite Moqtada al-Sadr dans la ville sainte de Najaf en Irak.

Mecanopolis

(1) A propos du documentaire de la chaîne ABC sur la Jundullah

(2) Le site de l'Ambassade de France au Pakistan

The good news: After five years of occupation, minor progress has been made as violence is abating somewhat and political compromise is on the rise.

The bad news: General Petraeus called the progress on the security front "uneven" and noted that "the situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory and innumerable challenges remain ... Moreover, as events in the past two weeks have reminded us, and as I have repeatedly cautioned, the progress made since last spring is fragile and reversible." Speaking metaphorically, Petraeus added, "We haven't turned any corners, we haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel. The champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator."

Petraeus also asked that troop drawdowns be suspended as the security situation could easily deteriorate at any time. An increase in bombings in Iraq seems to shadow the limited troop withdrawals already underway.

 Violence in Baghdad is on the upswing despite the limited success of the "surge" strategy implemented early last year. Attacks on the fortified Green Zone have increased, killing and wounding dozens of American soldiers. A curfew is in effect in the Iraqi capitol.

Shiite on Shiite violence has risen markedly as militias vie for supremacy throughout Iraq. Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric who controls Iraq's largest militia, is threatening to suspend a crucial cease-fire as American and Iraqi forces clash with Shiite insurgents in Sadr City, the section of Baghdad where his power is centered.

Ambassador Crocker offered few examples but said the political situation is "moving in the right direction" but is not "linear." He called political progress "uneven" and "frustratingly slow."

Iran's influence in the region continues to increase, further destabilizing the political situation in Iraq, where the Iranians hope to establish a friendly Shiite-dominated government rather than the coalition government envisioned by the US. Iran also continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Recent violence in the critical port city of Basra demonstrates the ability of Iran to exacerbate the conflict between Shiites and the coalition government.

In short, the steep price paid in American lives and treasure has purchased less than nothing as the US invasion appears to have benefitted our staunchest enemy, Iran, while severely damaging our reputation in the world, eroding our alliances, weakening our military, and further empowering global jihad.

President Bush remains optimistic, citing a few oases of positive developments amid a desert of death and destruction.

The president has accomplished one mission: proving beyond doubt that fools rush in where wise men (like his father and Colin Powell) fear to tread.

Newsprism

Meanwhile, questions are being raised about why Maliki undertook this offensive in the first place.  This might sound like a rather odd line of questioning, but it is surprisingly apropos since the Prime Minister didn't bother to consult with the U.S. at all before launching the attack, so we don't really know the answer.  A growing number of observers have concluded that Maliki has "fired the first shot in the Iraqi elections" and is seeking to liquidate a major rival in Iraq's Shi'te community, namely Sadr.  This view has been lent some credence by the PM's threat to freeze Sadr out of the elections if he does not disarm.

In summation, the situation appears to be that the elected head of government in Iraq has used state security forces to further his personal political goals by eliminating a major rival; either through combat, or by forcing him to give up his militia (and thus the source of his power).  So much for political reconciliation.  Not that Sadr is the kind of leader you'd want in charge of Iraq, but it would have been nice if Maliki had tried approaching the problem with a little more tact, a lot more cooperation, and significantly fewer 5.45x39mm rounds.

Another American soldier was killed and 14 more injured in a separate attack in Baghdad as violence erupted between Iraq's army and Shiite militiamen loyal to cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

Iraq's government is pressuring al-Sadr to disband his Mehdi Army, the largest, most sophisticated and well-armed of Iraq's many militias. Prime Minister al-Maliki has said that unless the Mehdi Army disbands, al-Sadr's powerful following won't be allowed to participate in upcoming elections.

The violence represents a new phase in the American occupation of Iraq in which instead of Shiite and Sunni factions attacking each other, rival Shiite factions vie for supremacy against each other and the Shiite-dominated parliament. This new phase has American forces scrambling to meet yet another strategic challenge in a war that defies traditional military planning.

The apparent decline in security in Baghdad, which had been somewhat pacified in the wake of President Bush's surge strategy, will be part of contentious hearings on Capitol Hill this week. Both Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are scheduled to speak before House and Senate committees.

Observers of the American presidential race can expect the flareup in Baghdad to be used as a political football by both sides. Most Americans, however, will remain purposefully ignorant and apathetic about this most complex and relevant war.

Meanwhile, as of this writing, both CNN and MSNBC prominently feature the deteriorating situation in Baghdad in their online reporting, while The Drudge Report and FoxNews make no mention of it.

Newsprism

This doesn't sound like the open, honest Muqtada al-Sadr (leader of militant Shi'as that fight to disrupt the stability in Iraq because they believe in an apocalypitc Islamic doctrine of the return of the "Mahdi" ... or so I hear). Nor does this bear any resemblence to the Islamic Republic of Iran's outstanding record of administrative transparency. Oh, wait. No. I take that back, denying reality is exactly what I would expect from both al-Sadr and Iran.

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran on Saturday declined to confirm reports that Iraqi Shiite radical leader Moqtada al-Sadr had taken refuge in the Islamic republic.

"No, I do not confirm these reports. These things are said to divert attention from the occupying forces who are the source of insecurity in Iraq," government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters.

The US military in Iraq has frequently said that Sadr pays regular visits to Iran, although Iranian officials have always denied his presence on their soil.

[emph. mine - konservo]

Hmm... that's funny. Muqtada himself spoke of conversing with Khamenei while on a pilgrimage.

Indeed, his words were:

I don’t do anything in secret. It is all out in the open. I try to maintain good relations with everybody. With regard to the Iranians and the Iranian Republic... In a previous meeting with Khamenei, during a pilgrimage

Oh. I see how it works. al-Sadr shows up and incites "The Mahdi Army" to rise up against al-Maliki, the Iraqi government, the Iraqi police, and any Coalition Forces that are keeping Iraq as stable as possible. Then, since he doesn't "do anything in secret," he has his good buddies in Iran lie for him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080403/ts_nm/iraq_dc

McCain ‘Surprised’ by Iraq Developments

[...]

As he launched a tour here designed to highlight his family’s long tradition of military service, Senator John McCain said Monday that he was surprised by the latest turn of events in America’s current war in Iraq.

“Maliki decided to take on this operation without consulting the Americans,’’ Mr. McCain said on his campaign bus as it rolled through downtown Meridian, saying that the move showed independence but that he had expected the military to focus on Mosul.

“I just am surprised that he would take it on himself to go down and take charge of a military offensive,’’ he said. “I had not anticipated that he would do that.’’

You have got to be kidding me.

71 years old. 25 years of Washington experience. 5 trips to Iraq. And John McCain couldn't have predicted that the government's crackdown on Mahdi Army members would lead to the collapse of their tenouous, self-imposed ceasefire? Especially since the Mahdi Army is known for starting violent insurrections against the government?

McCain didn't even entertain it as a possibility? Even I--a 21-year-old college student--considered what would happen if Al-Sadr's ceasefire ended, all the way back in December.

So John McBush has no judgment and his much-touted experience doesn't seem to be worth anything. What, then, makes this guy fit to be our next President?