|
|
|
| Iraq + war on terrorism + Middle East conflict + critical perspectives |
 In Haditha, memories of a massacreBy Ellen Knickmeyer, Washington Post, May 27, 2006 Witnesses to the slaying of 24 Iraqi civilians by U.S. Marines in the western town of Haditha say the Americans shot men, women and children at close range in retaliation for the death of a Marine lance corporal in a roadside bombing. Aws Fahmi, a Haditha resident who said he watched and listened from his home as Marines went from house to house killing members of three families, recalled hearing his neighbor across the street, Younis Salim Khafif, plead in English for his life and the lives of his family members. "I heard Younis speaking to the Americans, saying: 'I am a friend. I am good,' " Fahmi said. "But they killed him, and his wife and daughters." The 24 Iraqi civilians killed on Nov. 19 included children and the women who were trying to shield them, witnesses told a Washington Post special correspondent in Haditha this week and U.S. investigators said in Washington. The girls killed inside Khafif's house were ages 14, 10, 5, 3 and 1, according to death certificates. [complete article]  A Taliban comeback?By Ahmed Rashid, YaleGlobal, May 23, 2006 As unprecedented Taliban violence sweeps across southern Afghanistan, four players in the region -- Afghanistan, Pakistan, the US and NATO -- are locked in a tense standoff rather than cooperating to defeat the terrorists. At stake is the future survival of Afghanistan's moderate government and stability in Pakistan. To prop up Afghanistan and combat the Taliban, the US and NATO may have to make major concessions to Pakistan's military regime, but any concessions would anger the Afghans, encourage the extremists and allow the unpopular military to dominate Pakistan’s political scene for another five years. [complete article] The battle spreads in AfghanistanBy Syed Saleem Shahzad, Asia Times, May 26, 2006 The bulk of the fighting in Afghanistan in the past week, which has claimed more than 300 lives among the Taliban, US-led forces, the Afghan National Army (ANA) and civilians, has taken place in the southern Pashtun heartland of the country. However, the Taliban's spring offensive is fast turning into a massive resistance against the foreign presence all over Afghanistan, and already some influential characters are jockeying for a post-spring role. And the indications are that the resistance could transcend a simple Taliban-led insurgency to evolve into a powerful Islamic movement. [complete article] Civilians face dilemma as violence rises in AfghanistanBy Rachel Morarjee, Financial Times, May 26, 2006 Last week Mohammed Mir packed up his home, left his mulberry orchards and wheat fields in Panjwai district on the outskirts of the city, and moved his family back into Kandahar. He no longer knew who the enemy were: the police who ransacked the village houses for valuables, or the Taliban who asked for food and shelter at gunpoint. "One night the Taliban is coming, the next the police are coming. Both of them are asking for food and bribes and if there is a fight the government will blame me for sheltering the Taliban or vice-versa," he explained. He got out just in time. On Monday, days after the elderly man left, Panjwai was the scene of some of the fiercest fighting since 2001, as US gunships supporting Canadian ground troops pounded villages in the district where the Taliban were taking refuge. [complete article] Afghans flee fighting, airstrikes in SouthBy Pamela Constable, Washington Post, May 26, 2006 Several thousand people were reported Thursday to have fled into this southern city from fierce fighting between Taliban insurgents and U.S.-led forces in the Panjwai district of Kandahar province. In the capital, Kabul, officials of the Organization for International Migration said that between 2,000 and 3,000 people had escaped from the continuing combat, fearful both of attacks by Taliban forces and further assaults by U.S. warplanes, which killed at least 16 civilians Monday when they strafed village compounds where Taliban fighters had taken shelter. "Entire families, including women and children, fled after days of some of the heaviest fighting," said an official of the group, which helps refugees and migrants. The aid officials said some refugees were sleeping in tents and others had moved in with relatives in Kandahar, the capital of this conflicted southern province. Several hundred people have been reported killed in intense fighting in Panjwai and other districts in the past week. [complete article] Iran says rejects Iraq talks with U.S. for nowBy Mariam Karouny and Omar al-Ibadi, Reuters, May 26, 2006 Iran has decided not to take up an offer from Washington of direct talks over the future of Iraq for the time being, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on a visit to Baghdad on Friday. Iran's initial acceptance of talks had been exploited for propaganda by the United States, and Tehran had therefore decided to suspend its decision to take part, he told a news conference. "Unfortunately, the American side tried to use this decision as propaganda and they raised some other issues. They tried to create a negative atmosphere and that's why the decision which was taken for the time being is suspended," Mottaki said. He was speaking after meeting his Iraqi counterpart during a visit to Baghdad that turned attention on Tehran's role in its U.S.-occupied neighbour hours after President George W. Bush admitted mistakes in his Iraq policy. [complete article] Blair and Bush are duo even in descentBy Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, May 26, 2006 President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair once bestrode the globe as powerful leaders who spoke boldly of bringing democracy to the Middle East. Now, dragged down by popular discontent over their adventure in Iraq, both have reached the lowest point of their careers. On May 4, Blair's Labor Party suffered its worst defeats since 1997 in elections for seats on local governing boards, forcing the prime minister to shake up his cabinet amid calls that he step aside soon in favor of Gordon Brown, his expected successor. Bush, with his approval ratings hovering just above 30 percent, has also tried to reinvigorate his sagging popularity by reshuffling top aides. Blair, desperate to hang on for at least another year, is already viewed as a lame duck -- and Bush also is increasingly seen as one, even though he has nearly three years left in his term. As the Economist magazine put it earlier this month, the Bush-Blair partnership has become the "axis of feeble." [complete article] See also, Blair is accused of new cover-up over Attorney General's advice on Iraq war (The Telegraph). Top Marine visits Iraq as probe of deaths widensBy Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post, May 26, 2006 The commandant of the Marine Corps flew to Iraq to address his troops yesterday, and members of the Senate Armed Services Committee were briefed on allegations that Marines had purposely killed as many as two dozen Iraqi civilians in November. The two developments were indications of the growing seriousness of two investigations into the incident in Haditha that has led to charges from a congressman that Marines killed civilians "in cold blood." "When these investigations come out, there's going to be a firestorm," said retired Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms, formerly a top lawyer for the Marine Corps. "It will be worse than Abu Ghraib -- nobody was killed at Abu Ghraib." [complete article] See also, General will examine 'indifference' to death (AP).  Comment -- Perhaps Brig. Gen. Brahms is forgettting the case of Manadel al-Jamadi?
 Drifting down the path to perditionAndrew Bacevich interviewed by Tom Engelhardt (part 2), TomDispatch, May 25, 2006 Andrew Bacevich:...I became convinced that what we saw in the 90s from both Democrats and Republicans was an effort to expand an informal American empire. Fast forward to 9/11 and its aftermath, and the Bush doctrine of preventive war as implemented in Iraq, and the full dimensions of our imperial ambitions become evident for all to see. I have to say, I certainly supported the Afghanistan War. I emphatically believed that we had no choice but to take down the Taliban regime in order to demonstrate clearly the consequences of any nation tolerating, housing, supporting terrorists who attack us. But the Iraq War just struck me as so unnecessary, unjustifiable, and reckless that... I don't know how to articulate its impact except that it put me unalterably in the camp of those who had come to see American power as the problem, not the solution. And it brought me close to despair that the response of the internal opposition and of the American people generally proved to be so tepid, so ineffective. It led me to conclude that we are in deep, deep trouble. [complete article] Hizbullah factor in Iran frayBy Nicholas Blanford, Christian Science Monitor, May 26, 2006 In the spring sunshine, the 70-mile Lebanon-Israel frontier of olive groves and fields of bright green tobacco appears a picture of rural calm. But the looming confrontation between the West and Tehran ensures that tensions linger here, with Iran-backed Hizbullah fortifying its frontline observation posts and Israel recently increasing its aerial reconnaissance patrols over Lebanon. One alarming scenario gaining attention is if Iran's nuclear facilities come under attack by the US or Israel, it could inadvertently trigger a violent confrontation between Lebanon's Hizbullah and the Israeli military. Hizbullah this week aired fresh warnings on the extent of its massive rocket arsenal, reinforcing concerns in Israel that it will be targeted as part of Tehran's retaliation to a strike against its nuclear sites. [complete article] U.S. debates carrots, sticks for Iran's nuclear programBy Scott Peterson, Christian Science Monitor, May 26, 2006 Amid a din of uncompromising rhetoric from and about Iran, the UN's permanent five powers and Germany this week worked to hammer out a package of incentives and threats they hope will ensure the Islamic Republic's nuclear program is limited to peaceful purposes. On the table: giving Iran nuclear reactors and providing fuel for energy production, as well as economic and security incentives. In exchange, Iran would have to give up uranium enrichment - a step that can lead to weapons production - or face UN sanctions or even an arms embargo. Cutting through layers of mistrust to determine any US role - as well as Iran's ultimate goals - will not be easy, given a relationship calcified by more than 25 years of hostile rhetoric and official silence. But increasingly, analysts say that any deal ultimately depends on direct talks between the US and Iran - and possibly a US "security guarantee" that it will not attack Iran. [complete article] Hands-off or not? Saudis wring theirs over IraqBy Megan K. Stack, Los Angeles Times, May 24, 2006 A stark dilemma lies before the rulers of this desert kingdom: how to insulate their land from the sectarian fighting in neighboring Iraq yet find a way to counter Iran's swelling influence there. Though Saudi rulers might prefer to avoid involvement in Iraq, there is a growing sense here that of all the Arab countries, Saudi Arabia is the most likely to be sucked in if the violence doesn't slow. A host of ideas, virtually all of them controversial, are swirling around Riyadh, including funneling arms to Iraq's Sunni Arabs and improving ties with Iran. As growing numbers of Iraq's minority Sunni Muslims are killed in their conflict with Shiite Muslims, Sunnis in Saudi Arabia — the cradle of Islam — are watching with alarm. Many are keen to protect their fellow Sunnis across the border, a desire intensified by the tribal and family links that bind the countries. At the same time, Saudi rulers are deeply nervous about the growing power of Iran, a long-distrusted neighbor. To them, the U.S.-led war in Iraq has been a strategic disaster. The resulting power shift to Shiite politicians in Iraq, many of whom lived for years in Iran and received money and other support from that government, has placed Baghdad under the sway of Iranian clerics, they say, and that threatens to destabilize Saudi Arabia. Violence and Iranian influence in Iraq "will shake the base of society and drive Saudi Arabia to enter the war, with the United States or without," said Abdullah Askar, a columnist and political science professor at King Saud University. "There is a misconception that we have a solid social base. We don't. There are deep roots and viruses just waiting for the time to erupt and rise up." [complete article] What would Cheney say?By Dan Froomkin, Washington Post, May 25, 2006 Vice President Cheney's testimony in the criminal trial of his chief of staff -- suddenly a distinct possibility -- would appear to be crucial to the case. The more we learn, the clearer it becomes that Cheney was at the epicenter of a White House campaign to discredit administration critic Joseph Wilson -- a campaign that ultimately included the outing of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame , as a CIA operative. Cheney is obviously the person in the best position to either confirm or contradict one of the hardest-to-swallow elements of Scooter Libby's defense: That Libby and Cheney specifically discussed Valerie Plame's status as a CIA operative in early June 2003, and then again after columnist Robert Novak publicly outed her on July 14 -- but not in between. This is a key element of Libby's defense, because in between, Libby has argued, he "forgot" that he knew. [complete article] See also, Experts say Cheney can't avoid testifying (AP). PA Prime Minister defiant on Abbas referendumBy Arnon Regular, Haaretz, May 26, 2006 Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh on Friday vowed the Hamas-led government would make no concessions despite a threat by Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to call a referendum on a plan that would implicitly recognise Israel . "We will not make political concessions," Haniyeh told worshippers at a Gaza mosque in response to Abbas's surprise ultimatum for the militant group to back the proposal for Palestinian statehood or face a referendum on the issue. "Even if they besiege us from all directions, they should not dream that we will make any political concessions," added Haniyeh. [complete article] Olmert's profound ethics and deep liesBy Rami G. Khouri, Jordan Times, May 26, 2006 I must, reluctantly, tip my cap to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his propaganda machine for their sheer audacity. The more the Israeli troops, settlers and Israel&rsquos official occupation policies injure and kill Palestinians and make life miserable for the whole population the more eloquently Israeli officials praise their own humanitarianism in front of the world. This is a high watermark of Israeli mendacity, in view of the statement issued by the Israeli government and Olmert after their Cabinet meeting on May 21, when they decided to release some of the Palestinian tax money they have withheld, to finance purchases of medicines by Palestinian hospitals that are running out of essential needs. The Israeli government statement said: "The state of Israel feels bound -- above and beyond its formal obligations -- to see to humanitarian concerns, and to the health of those who are ill anywhere. We cannot, under any circumstances, bear the thought of a sick child without medical assistance, solely because of a shortage of drugs, and this has nothing to do with any kind of formal obligation. This is a moral and fundamentally Jewish concern that we want to uphold. We have no intention of helping the Palestinian government, we will not transfer so much as a penny to any Palestinian official, but I say, we will render such assistance as may be necessary for humanitarian needs. This is, has been, and will be, the way of the state of Israel." [complete article] Interview with Prof. Norman FinkelsteinElectronic Intifada, May 25, 2006 Christopher Brown: Prof. Finkelstein, in your estimation why does it seem that when someone challenges Israel on its policies towards the Palestinians they are accused of anti-Semitism? Norman Finkelstein: I think the answer is that in the past, if you take the 1960s. 1970s and early 80s, the scholarly record and the documentary record, it seemed to be supporting Israel's position. And so Israelis and their supporters didn't typically charge anti-Semitism. What they did was tell you to look at the record, look at the history and see that it supports their claims. Beginning in the late 1980s and 1990s the work of important Israeli historians as well as the documentary record of human rights organizations, Israel's record not as good as it once did. And it turned out that many of the things that people thought were the case when they came to Israel actually turned out not to be the case. Thus Israel's position both historically and in terms of its current human rights record as that position became more indefensible; it was then that the charges of anti-Semitism began to be hurled with reckless abandon. Because there was no other way to respond to the charges that Israel has done and is doing. It's wrong. [complete article] Iran offered 'to make peace with Israel'By Gareth Porter, Asia Times, May 26, 2006 Iran offered in 2003 to accept peace with Israel and cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups and to pressure them to halt terrorist attacks within Israel's 1967 borders, according to a secret Iranian proposal to the United States. The two-page proposal for a broad Iran-US agreement covering all the issues separating the two countries, a copy of which was obtained by Inter Press Service (IPS), was conveyed to the US in late April or early May 2003. Trita Parsi, a specialist on Iranian foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies who provided the document to IPS, says he got it from an Iranian official this year but is not at liberty to reveal the source. [...] An Iranian threat to destroy Israel has been a major propaganda theme of the Bush administration for months. On March 10, President George W Bush said, "The Iranian president has stated his desire to destroy our ally, Israel. So when you start listening to what he has said to their desire to develop a nuclear weapon, then you begin to see an issue of grave national-security concern." But in 2003, Bush refused to allow any response to the Iranian offer to negotiate an agreement that would have accepted the existence of Israel. Flynt Leverett, then the senior specialist on the Middle East on the National Security Council staff, recalled in an interview that it was "literally a few days" between the receipt of the Iranian proposal and the dispatch of a message to the Swiss ambassador expressing displeasure that he had forwarded it to Washington. [complete article] U-turn by White House as it blocks direct talks with IranBy Julian Borger and Ewen MacAskill, The Guardian, May 25, 2006 The White House yesterday ruled out previously authorised direct talks between Tehran and the US ambassador in Baghdad, which were to have focused on the situation in Iraq. The move marks a hardening of the Bush administration's position, despite pressure from the international community to enter into direct dialogue with Iran. A White House official said that although the US envoy had originally been granted a mandate for talks with Iran, "we have decided not to pursue it." Western diplomats hoped that talks on Iraq could have widened into a discussion of Iran's alleged nuclear arms programme. Iran has been asking in recent weeks for direct talks with Washington on the nuclear issue and the Bush administration had come under pressure from Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, and countries such as Germany to hold direct talks. Washington's decision not to pursue the talks with Iran on Iraq, which would have been conducted by the American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, came as the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China concluded a meeting in London last night to discuss a new offer to Iran. The Foreign Office reported progress on agreeing on a combination of sticks and carrots to try to entice Iran into suspending its uranium-enrichment programme, which is seen by the west as a step towards achieving a nuclear weapons capability. [complete article] False report triggers rush of Iranian-Nazi comparisonsBy Marc Perelman, The Forward, May 26, 2006 It was not exactly up there with the failure to uncover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but the effort to discredit the Iranian regime took an embarrassing turn this week with a false media report claiming that Tehran had passed a law requiring Jews and other religious minorities to wear special badges. The report and a related column by Iranian opposition pundit Amir Taheri ran in the May 19 edition of the National Post, a Canadian daily, promptly setting off a media feeding frenzy. The Simon Wiesenthal Center immediately called on the United Nations to open an investigation; other Jewish groups issued their own condemnations; Israeli papers picked up the story and the Big Apple tabloids feasted on it the next day, with the New York Post splashing a "Fourth Reich" headline on its front page and the Daily News penning a damning editorial. For good measure, Canada's and Australia's prime ministers expressed outrage; Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, fired off a news release calling the Iranian regime "lunatic" and "pernicious," and State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said such a measure would be "despicable" and "carry clear echoes of Germany under Hitler." There was just one problem: The report was, for the most part, false. No bill containing such measures was introduced or discussed in parliament, several experts said, prompting the National Post to retract the story. [complete article] See also, Harper comments spark rebuke from Tehran (Toronto Star). The Persian complexBy Abbas Amanat, New York Times, May 25, 2006 It is easy to label Iran's quest for nuclear energy a dangerous adventure with grave regional and international repercussions. It is also comforting to heap scorn on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his earlier denial of the Holocaust and his odious call for the obliteration of the state of Israel. The rambling intransigence expressed in his recent letter to President Bush offers ample insight into this twisted mindset. Yet there is something deeper in Iran's story than the extremist utterances of a messianic president and the calculated maneuvering of the hard-line clerical leadership that stands behind him. We tend to forget that Iran's insistence on its sovereign right to develop nuclear power is in effect a national pursuit for empowerment, a pursuit informed by at least two centuries of military aggression, domestic meddling, skullduggery and, not least, technological denial by the West. Every schoolchild in Iran knows about the C.I.A.-sponsored 1953 coup that toppled Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. Even an Iranian with little interest in his or her past is conscious of how Iran throughout the 19th and 20th centuries served as a playground for the Great Game. [complete article] Olmert to U.S.: Nuclear Iran cannot be permitted to materializeBy Aluf Benn, Haaretz, May 25, 2006 Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told a joint meeting of the United States Houses of Congress on Wednesday that a "nuclear armed Iran is an intolerable threat to the peace and security of the world," which "cannot be permitted to materialize." Olmert drew long applause from the members of the House of Representatives and Senate gathered in the House chamber for tough words condemning what he said is Iran's drive to build nuclear weapons and the escalating anti-Semitic rhetoric from its leader. He said that Iran poses a threat to Israel's existence and urged immediate international action to curb its nuclear program. [complete article] 'Garbage time' for the U.S.By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz, May 25, 2006 Half an hour after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ended his speech, Congressman Eliot Engel of New York was still excited. "It may be the best speech I've ever heard," he told Haaretz, in what one hopes is a slight exaggeration. Speeches, like the visits of Israeli prime ministers in the United States, have an immediate impression and a long term impression. Olmert, it appeared yesterday, passed the first test with flying colors. The administration embraced him, Congress applauded him. In principle everyone supported him. One could not expect more. The long-term test will come down to the particulars. Lowering expectations is the shortest way to success. When one waits for crumbs, even a humble meal is seen as a feast. Olmert cleverly lowered expectations and the American administration cooperated by displaying lack of enthusiasm. This helped Olmert both persuade the Israeli public not to expect too much and signal to the American president that he needs more to succeed politically. Careful planning and suitable circumstances played into Olmert's hands. American officials who only wanted to "examine" Olmert's ideas moved to calling them "interesting" and then "bold." In any case, all that was left for everyone to do was to pretend that "first we'll try every way to negotiate with the Palestinians" as long as they fulfill all their commitments from Olso to the road map and beyond. [complete article] Right-wing Israel Lobby seizes on Olmert visitBy Jim Lobe, IPS (via Antiwar.com), May 25, 2006 On his maiden visit to the United States as Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert received a firsthand look at the political muscle of the right-wing "Israel Lobby," part of which used the occasion to launch a campaign to deter him from following through on plans to unilaterally evacuate tens of thousands of settlers living in the occupied West Bank. Even as Olmert met with President George W. Bush at the White House Tuesday, the House of Representatives voted by an overwhelming 361-37 margin to impose strict conditions on aid to Palestinians, as demanded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Washington's most powerful pro-Israel lobby. Bush had opposed the measure on the grounds that it reduced his administration's flexibility in dealing with the Palestinian Authority (PA) and prodding its Hamas-led government to meet conditions for the resumption of direct aid and diplomatic exchanges. Administration officials said they will support a less draconian Senate version of the bill. Other, more evenhanded Zionist groups, including Americans for Peace Now (APN) and the Israel Policy Forum (IPF), also opposed the measure, arguing that its conditions for restoring aid to the PA were likely to increase the chances of a humanitarian disaster in both Gaza and the West Bank and strengthen hardliners in the PA's Hamas-led government. [complete article] Abbas: All factions agree on a Palestinian state on 1967 bordersBy Arnon Regular, Haaretz, May 25, 2006 Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas told a national conference of Palestinian leaders on Thursday that a national consensus exists on the borders of a future Palestinian state. "All the Palestinians, from Hamas to the Communists, all of us agree we want a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders," he said. "This is what we have, we cannot talk about dreams." Commenting on the backing the Palestinians would need for establishing their independent state, Abbas said The Arab countries are waiting for this realistic position, to work in harmony, to push the Palestinian cause ahead. They cannot do anything for the Palestinian cause if the [Palestinians] are rejecting everything." [complete article] Ramallah erupts after a long lullBy Laura King and Maher Abukhater, Los Angeles Times, May 25, 2006 Violence spread Wednesday from the volatile Gaza Strip to the West Bank, where Israeli troops shot and killed four Palestinians in this usually placid city after a riot broke out during an Israeli arrest raid. The fighting in Ramallah, the Palestinians' administrative and commercial capital, was the most intense in the city since the Israelis launched a massive military incursion into the West Bank four years ago, when they laid siege to the late Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat's compound. Forays by Israeli troops into the city center now are rare, particularly in daylight. As bullets whizzed over the main Manara Square and an adjacent shopping mall, Palestinians dropped their bags and scrambled for cover. The acrid scent of tear gas hung in the air. For Palestinians already anxious about lawlessness and infighting in Gaza, the spread of violence into Ramallah represents a further erosion of security in daily life. Unlike Gaza, which is a deeply impoverished and devoutly religious stronghold of militants, Ramallah is a secular and cosmopolitan city. It is home to a large middle class, including many intellectuals and Palestinians who hold U.S. citizenship. [complete article] Sadr's militia tightens grip on healthcareBy Dan Murphy, Christian Science Monitor, May 25, 2006 After being sworn in last week, Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki outlined two big priorities: reasserting a government monopoly on lethal force by disbanding militias and ending rampant political corruption. But a day spent at Iraq's Health Ministry shows how big a task Mr. Maliki has set for himself. On one recent morning, six men were loading a simple wooden coffin bearing their relative onto a beat-up Toyota pickup as a female relative in a billowing black abaya choked back tears. Nearby guards barely cast a second glance at the all too common scene. The ministry is run by the militant Shiite movement led by cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, one of Maliki's key backers. Under the political spoils system that has emerged since the US invaded Iraq, the ministry has provided a jobs program for his militiamen and revenue generating opportunities for loyalists. [complete article] Zarqawi backers lay down Shariah rulesBy Sharon Behn, Washington Times, May 25, 2006 Imams loyal to terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi have issued threats in mosques in a western Baghdad neighborhood against anyone who does not follow Islamic law, terrified residents are saying. "They announced their loyalty to Zarqawi and put their rules on the street," said Sabah, 31, adding that supporters of the Jordanian-born leader of al Qaeda in Iraq had killed six men for wearing knee-length shorts in another Baghdad neighborhood on Tuesday. "Everyone is talking about it," he said, adding that a friend of his had forbidden his brothers to go outside in shorts, despite the 106-degree weather. [complete article] Violence aside, Baghdad is brokenBy Anna Badkhen, San Francisco Chronicle, May 24, 2006 "Leaving aside security," Kassim the carpet salesman asked rhetorically, "when you come home, what do you need?" He ticked off the answers on the fingers on his right hand: "Electricity. Water. Food." "Getting any of this in Baghdad is a problem," he said. The Iraqi Shiite's elegant, two-story house in the busy central Baghdad district of Karrada gets power four hours a day -- "one hour on, six hours off," said Kassim, a divorced father of three. Running water is available for one hour, between 1 and 2 in the morning. Kassim pours the water into giant plastic jugs he stores in his bathroom, kitchen and on the rooftop. "It's a good thing that I go to bed late," he said. Three years after the U.S. invasion, during which most of the Iraqi capital's infrastructure collapsed, rudimentary services here remain sporadic at best. [complete article] Editor at conservative magazine to be top policy adviser to BushBy Michael A. Fletcher, Washington Post, May 25, 2006 President Bush appointed a longtime scholar at the American Enterprise Institute yesterday to be his top domestic policy adviser, a post that has been vacant since February, when Claude A. Allen stepped down after being charged with stealing more than $5,000 in a phony refund scheme. Karl Zinsmeister, who has worked the past 12 years as editor in chief of the American Enterprise magazine, is slated to assume his White House post June 12. At the institute, he focused on examining cultural issues, as well as social and economic trends. His columns for the magazine included pieces praising Wal-Mart's efficiency and extolling the role of religion in forming the glue that bonds communities. Zinsmeister, 47, also has written three books defending the war in Iraq, a nation he has visited four times as an embedded journalist. His books focus on the everyday work of U.S. troops, whose progress in fulfilling a noble mission, he argues, is often overlooked by much of the media. "What the establishment media covering Iraq have utterly failed to make clear today is this central reality: With the exception of periodic flare-ups in isolated corners, our struggle in Iraq as warfare is over," Zinsmeister wrote in his column last June. "Egregious acts of terror will continue -- in Iraq as in many other parts of the world. But there is now no chance whatever of the U.S. losing this critical guerrilla war." [complete article] Murder charges likely in Iraq raidBy Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, May 25, 2006 Defense attorneys expect the Marine Corps to file murder charges against one or more Marines who conducted raids in Haditha in November that resulted in the deaths of more than 20 Iraqi civilians, according to sources close to the investigation. The sources said agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Services (NCIS) have been interviewing members of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, at Camp Pendleton, Calif. Attorneys there are mobilizing for the possible defense of a dozen Marines. [complete article] Gonzales's rationale on phone data disputedBy Walter Pincus, Washington Post, May 25, 2006 Civil liberties lawyers yesterday questioned the legal basis that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales used Tuesday to justify the constitutionality of collecting domestic telephone records as part of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism program. While not confirming a USA Today report May 11 saying the National Security Agency has been collecting phone-call records of millions of Americans, Gonzales said such an activity would not require a court warrant under a 1979 Supreme Court ruling because it involved obtaining "business records." Under the 27-year-old court ruling in Smith v. Maryland, "those kinds of records do not enjoy Fourth Amendment protection," Gonzales said. "There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in those kinds of records," he added. [complete article] See also, Gonzales defends phone-data collection (WP). Libby told grand jury Cheney spoke of PlameBy R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, May 25, 2006 Vice President Cheney was personally angered by a former U.S. ambassador's newspaper column attacking a key rationale for the war in Iraq and repeatedly directed I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then his chief of staff, to "get all the facts out" related to the critique, according to excerpts from Libby's 2004 grand jury testimony released late yesterday by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Libby also told the grand jury that Cheney raised as an issue that the former ambassador's wife worked at the CIA and that she allegedly played a role in sending him to investigate the Iraqi government's interest in acquiring nuclear weapons materials. That issue formed the basis of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's published critique. In the court filing that included the formerly secret testimony, Fitzgerald did not assert that Cheney instructed Libby to tell reporters the name and role of Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife. But he said Cheney's interactions with Libby on that topic were a key part of the reason Libby allegedly made false statements to the FBI about his conversations with reporters around the time her name was disclosed in news accounts. [complete article] A new rival to 'regime change'By Howard LaFranchi, Christian Science Monitor, May 23, 2006 Ever since President Bush's "axis of evil" speech in 2002, US policy for dealing with the nuclear programs of what it considers to be "rogue states" has rested on one cornerstone: regime change. Iraq cemented the widely held estimation that for the Bush administration, the only way to satisfactorily deal with a hostile regime's weapons-of-mass-destruction aspirations was to change the regime. But now, recent developments involving Libya and North Korea suggest that a new tack is at least under consideration - one that could have profound impact on the crisis with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. In the White House, on Capitol Hill, and among influential deans of US foreign policy, this new rival to the doctrine of regime change appears to be: The international security priority is such that we are prepared to hold our noses and accept your existence, if you forgo nuclear armament. [complete article] Comment -- "Regime change" is a phrase that's as strong as Dick Cheney's heart, but before it gets pulled off the shelves where the Bush administration stores its foreign-policy stock phrases, it needs a replacement.John Bolton was quoted Monday using the clumsy "the 'regime stay' strategy", but that clearly has no sound-bite viability. At least one commentator believes that "containment" is making a comeback, but while that would accurately reflect the revival of foreign policy realism, the current administration would obviously be much more comfortable with a phrase that carries a note of optimism. Containment is too close to resignation. The war in Iraq was after all conceived as a refusal to accept a policy of containment. Since the pitfall of being committed to regime change is that it provides little if any room for flexibility, it needs to be replaced by a concept and a phrase that connotes flexibility. The problem with any kind of policy that amounts to U.S.-dictated behavior modification is that we now live in a world that is allergic to America's diktats. The way forward will have to be cooperative. Realignment is a useful idea and perhaps a viable phrase. America and Iran have a relationship that requires realignment. So do the Israelis and Palestinians. To speak of realignment is to imply that both sides need to adapt because both are out of alignment. OK. Since this is a blog, everyone should understand I'm making this up as I go along, and I have to admit I'm feeling rather satisfied with myself having just resolved a major foreign policy conundrum, but just to be sure that my thinking isn't way out of alignment, I first check with Google. Ha! I must unconsciously be in telepathic communication with the Israelis now in Washington. Hitkansut, which until this week was being translated as "convergence" has just been re-launched as "realignment." A unilaterally imposed land grab - a realignment. Not quite what I had in mind. Let's hope that yet another good word doesn't lose its life because it got put to bad use. Iran requests direct talks on nuclear programBy Karl Vick and Dafna Linzer, Washington Post, May 24, 2006 Iran has followed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent letter to President Bush with explicit requests for direct talks on its nuclear program, according to U.S. officials, Iranian analysts and foreign diplomats. The eagerness for talks demonstrates a profound change in Iran's political orthodoxy, emphatically erasing a taboo against contact with Washington that has both defined and confined Tehran's public foreign policy for more than a quarter-century, they said. Though the Tehran government in the past has routinely jailed its citizens on charges of contact with the country it calls the "Great Satan," Ahmadinejad's May 8 letter was implicitly endorsed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and lavished with praise by perhaps the most conservative ayatollah in the theocratic government. "You know, two months ago nobody would believe that Mr. Khamenei and Mr. Ahmadinejad together would be trying to get George W. Bush to begin negotiations," said Saeed Laylaz, a former government official and prominent analyst in Tehran. "This is a sign of changing strategy. They realize the situation is dangerous and they should not waste time, that they should reach out." [complete article] Iran nuclear offer bid 'progress'BBC News, May 24, 2006 Talks on a package of incentives for Iran to give up its controversial nuclear programme are reported to have made "good progress" in London. The package was "coming into form both on the incentive side and the disincentive side," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. [complete article] Washington 'hawks' oppose EU3 plan for IranBy Guy Dinmore and Daniel Dombey, Financial Times, May 23, 2006 Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, was said by one diplomat to have "gone out on a limb" in an attempt to back the EU3's package of incentives but was facing resistance from Mr Cheney who is playing a more visible role in US foreign policy. Another diplomat said US internal divisions were holding up an agreement with the Europeans. Some European diplomats believe that Washington will back the package -- which includes guarantees for the construction of light-water reactors in Iran, promises of nuclear fuel and a new regional security forum -- if Moscow endorses a tough chapter seven United Nations Security Council resolution that would require Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. [complete article] Iran deploys its war machineBy Iason Athanasiadis, Asia Times, May 24, 2006 ...Iran's strategic planners are acutely aware that a military confrontation with the technologically more advanced US Army would be as rapid and multi-fronted as the Iran-Iraq War was static and slow-paced. Quite simply, there would not be a single front. Neither the US nor Israel has ruled out taking military action against nuclear-related targets in Iran if ongoing diplomatic efforts to freeze Tehran's nuclear program do not prove successful. Accordingly, Iran has been quietly restructuring its military, while carrying out a series of military exercises testing its new military dogma. In December, more than 15,000 members of the regular armed forces participated in war games in northwestern Iran's strategically sensitive East Azerbaijan and West Azerbaijan border provinces that focused on irregular warfare carried out by highly mobile and speedy army units. [complete article] Springtime for AhmadinejadBy Claude Salhani, UPI (via Washington Times), May 23, 2006 Mr. Ahmadinejad has soared to great popularity, both in Iran and in the Arab world, an anomaly for a Persian Shi'ite leader to find such support among Arabs and Sunnis. The Iranian president found support at home when he abolished the change every spring to daylight savings time that Iran had adopted since 1990. His antics of "wiping Israel off the map" and denying the existence of the Holocaust won him points among certain Muslim circles. But it is his defiant stance over Iran's nuclear ambitions, his facing up to the U.S. and major European powers, which gained him much popular support in the Arab and Islamic world. "Ahmadinejad is popular in the whole Muslim world, from Indonesia to Nigeria, as the man who says 'No' to the West," a senior diplomat told UPI. Mr. Ahmadinejad's meteoric rise to political stardom "is something that went beyond his wildest dreams," said a diplomat. Khomeini was popular only among Shi'ites, whereas Mr. Ahmadinejad's popularity has spread beyond Shi'ites, into the majority mainstream Sunni branch of Islam. "No one in Iran dares to challenge him," a senior diplomat told UPI. His popularity does not mean the regime is popular. That in turn should not be misinterpreted to think Iranians would applaud military action against their country. To believe aggressive U.S. and/or Israeli action against Iran will solve the problem is not only erroneous, but naive. [complete article] Olmert: Bush and I are in full agreement on how to confront IranBy Aluf Benn and Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz, May 24, 2006 There is full agreement between Israel and the U.S. on how to confront the Iranian nuclear issue, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Israeli journalists early Wednesday, hours after his White House meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush. "We extensively discussed the Iranian issue," Olmert said. "There is a full understanding between the president and myself on how to deal with this matter." Olmert said he was "very satisfied" with the discussion he held with Bush on Iran. Olmert said he believes Iran will cross "the technological threshold" on its path to nuclear capability in about a year. [complete article] George Bush wants the convergence plan tooBy Aluf Benn, Haaretz, May 24, 2006 In anticipation of the visit, Olmert, his cabinet and the White House had all lowered their respective expectations - effectively convincing the media that Bush's support for the convergence plan would be lukewarm, and that Iran would be the central topic of the meeting. These lowered expectations served as an agreeable backdrop for Bush's supportive statements, fortified by Olmert's allusion to the fact that Bush had been the first world leader to support former prime minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan. [complete article] Olmert comes callingBy Tony Karon, Time, May 23, 2006 By urging Olmert to try and negotiate a deal with Abbas before moving ahead on a unilateral basis, President Bush postpones a tricky political choice. Even if Abbas were able to negotiate a deal with Israel, it would only be a meaningful exercise if he had the consent of the Hamas-led government. And Bush himself has maintained that Hamas does not constitute a viable negotiating partner. Currently, the U.S. and Israel are maintaining an economic blockade of Palestinian territories in the hope of forcing Hamas to renounce violence and recognize Israel. But the resulting deterioration of the humanitarian situation is fueling mounting chaos in Gaza as rival security forces battle for control over the streets -- raising the specter of the complete collapse of the Palestinian Authority and even outright civil war. [complete article] Comment -- Bush's urging negotiations with Abbas notwithstanding, the Israelis got what they wanted: An endorsement for their convergence/realignment-land-grab plan.
Israeli general: Sanctions won't topple HamasBy Scott Wilson, Washington Post, May 24, 2006 The head of the Israeli military told a legislative committee Tuesday that economic sanctions imposed on the Palestinian Authority following Hamas's parliamentary election victory this year would not topple its government nor diminish support for the radical Islamic movement in the occupied territories. Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, the military chief of staff, also said he did not believe recent skirmishing in the Gaza Strip between Hamas gunmen and security forces controlled by the rival Fatah movement would lead to a broader civil conflict. Halutz made his comments in a closed session of the foreign affairs and defense committee of Israel's parliament on the same day Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was scheduled to meet President Bush and other senior U.S. officials in Washington. According to parliamentary spokesman Giora Pordes, who attended the committee meeting, Halutz said that "the international community united against the transferring of monies to the Hamas government, and there are signs of this on the ground." "The fact is that the monies are not being funneled in, but the economic pressure in my view will not accelerate the collapse of the Hamas government," Halutz said, according to Pordes's notes of the meeting. "The economic pressure will not necessarily reduce the public support for the Hamas government. The Palestinian public opinion polls do not indicate a weakening in support for Hamas." Halutz's assessment is perhaps the most critical yet delivered by a senior security official regarding Israel's policy toward the Palestinian Authority since Hamas's election victory four months ago. But it reflects growing concern inside Israel's security establishment that the nearly 4 million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, facing hardships many of them attribute to outside pressure, may be strengthening the Hamas government. [complete article] Whose missile shield is it, anyway?By Fred Kaplan, Slate, May 23, 2006 The Bush administration's ballistic-missile-defense program -- wildly expensive and no less ineffective -- has a new mission, it seems. Monday's New York Times reports that the Pentagon plans to build a new site of interceptors in Europe, probably in Poland or the Czech Republic, for the purpose of shooting down nuclear missiles launched by Iran. At the moment Iran has neither nuclear weapons nor long-range missiles, but the U.S. anti-missile missiles -- a battery of 10 -- won't be in place until 2011, so that's not an issue. Two critical points are worth making, though: First, contrary to impressions, the main mission of these interceptors is to block an Iranian attack not against Europe but rather against the United States. [complete article] See also, Moscow angered by U.S. plan for 'star wars' bases in Europe to counter threat of Iran (The Independent). Pentagon finds China fortifying its long-range military arsenalBy Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, May 24, 2006 China's military buildup is increasingly aimed at projecting power far beyond its shores into the western Pacific to be able to interdict U.S. aircraft carriers and other nations' military forces, according to a Pentagon report released yesterday that outlines continued concerns over China's rising strategic influence in Asia. Chinese military planners are focusing to a greater degree than in the past on targeting ships and submarines at long ranges using anti-ship cruise missiles, partly in reaction to Taiwan Strait crises in 1995 and 1996 that saw the U.S. military intervene with carrier battle groups, the report said. The People's Liberation Army "is engaged in a sustained effort to interdict, at long ranges, aircraft carrier and expeditionary strike groups that might deploy to the western Pacific," the report said. Long-term trends in China's development of nuclear and conventional weapons "have the potential to pose credible threats to modern militaries operating in the region," it said. The annual report to Congress on China's military power also highlighted Beijing's purchases of Russian weapons, its positioning of as many as 790 Chinese short-range ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan and its nuclear weapons modernization. It warned that advances in nuclear missiles are spurring a debate among some high-ranking Chinese strategists over whether Beijing should change its "no first use" doctrine that bars using nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack. [complete article]  A new Trident II is an illusion of defenseBy William M. Arkin, Washington Post, May 22, 2006 Two former Secretaries of Defense argue in today's Washington Post that the United States should procure conventional warheads for Trident II submarine-launched missiles, a capability, they argue, that someday could be the only defense standing between us and terrorists with nuclear weapons. These two big brains would have us accept a scenario in which a terrorist organization acquires "several" nuclear weapons, that somehow in this scenario we have been so blind, so negligent or so stupid to have allowed this to happen, that we will wake up one morning facing this mortal threat hanging over our heads, and that when all of this happens, we should just be thankful that the super heroes perfect-intelligence and instant weapon will appear to zap the bad guys and make us safe. I don't know which is more disheartening: that two grand pooh bahs of national security could weave such a vague, hopeless and contradictory scenario; or that so many Americans could accept that our national security establishment could be so incompetent in execution, thus necessitating our only defense being a magical missile. [complete article] Armed groups propel Iraq toward chaosBy Dexter Filkins, New York Times, May 24, 2006 The armed groups operating across Iraq include not just the 145,000 officially sanctioned police officers and commandos who have come under scrutiny for widespread human rights violations. They also include thousands of armed guards and militia gunmen: some Shiite, some Sunni; some, like the 145,000-member Facilities Protection Service, operating with official backing; and some, like the Shiite-led Badr Brigade militia, conducting operations with the government's tacit approval, sometimes even wearing government uniforms. Some of these armed groups, like the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi police, often carry out legitimate missions to combat crime and the insurgency. Others, like members of another Shiite militia, the Mahdi Army, specialize in torture, murder, kidnapping and the settling of scores for political parties. Reining in Iraq's official and unofficial armies is the most urgent task confronting Iraq's new leaders. In speeches and private conversations, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki says he intends to clamp down on the death squads operating within the Iraqi government, and to disarm the militias that provide the street muscle for Iraq's political parties. That presages an enormous political battle, one that extends beyond the Interior Ministry's police officers and paramilitary soldiers. A larger and possibly more decisive struggle looms to disarm myriad other armed groups, including the Shiite militias, most of them answerable to the Shiite political parties that dominate the new government. The outcome of the struggle has far-reaching implications for Iraq's future, as Iraqi and American officials try to curb the abuses that threaten to push the country closer to a sectarian war without impeding the government's ability to fight the Sunni-led guerrilla insurgency. "I think they have the evidence now as to who is doing most of the killing," said an American official in Baghdad who is not authorized to speak publicly. "It's a question of political will, the political will to do what needs to be done." "I have just not seen it yet," the official said. [complete article] See also, Critique of U.S. policy in Iraq (Juan Cole). Comment -- Sometimes, when you read "official not authorized to speak publicly," it'd be worth keeping in mind that that lack of authorization might not be for the sake of guarding inside information -- it might be because many an official has no great insight on matters about which they will gladly speak."Lack of will" is one of those ubiquitous explanations for a political impasse that should be taken no more seriously than the platitude that where there's a will there's a way. The problem facing the new Iraqi government isn't simply that some of its members might lack the will to do what needs to be done; it is that a weak government cannot assert governmental power once that power has already become dispersed. Iraq faces clash with Kurds over oil dealsBy Steve Negus, Financial Times, May 23, 2006 Iraq's newly appointed oil minister said on Tuesday that the central government should handle all contracts related to petroleum exploration and production, putting him on a potential collision course with the autonomous Kurdish region which has recently begun to develop its own oil resources. Hussein al-Shahristani also said at a Baghdad news conference that the country hoped to pass an investment law soon to bring in foreign investment to upgrade the country's battered oil infrastructure. [...] Under their own interpretation of the constitutional articles governing oil resources, the northern Kurdistan regional government signed an agreement in November with a Norwegian company to begin the first new drilling in post-invasion Iraq. Since then, a Canadian and a Turkish company have also began drilling in the north. [complete article] Stalled at the Iraqi-Turkish border, a truck becomes homeBy Ariel Sabar, Christian Science Monitor, May 24, 2006 The Habur Border Gate, at the northern fringe of this fast-growing Kurdish city, is a magnet for truckers for a simple reason: it is the safest way in and out of Iraq. But The Line, or, in Turkish, Kuyruk, [-- a line in which drivers wait for three weeks to cross the border --] also reflects a bitter irony of postwar Iraq: One of the world's most oil-rich nations has so few working refineries and pipelines that it has to truck crude oil out, only to truck it back in as gasoline, propane, and other fuel. Iraq imports at least a third of the 5.5 million gallons of gasoline it consumes daily, and has set aside $2.4 billion for the import of petroleum products this year, says Ehsan Ulhaq, head of research at PVM Oil Associates, an energy consulting firm in Vienna. [complete article] U.S. urged to stop paying Iraqi reportersBy David S. Cloud, New York Times, May 24, 2006 A Defense Department investigation of Pentagon-financed propaganda efforts in Iraq warns that paying Iraqi journalists to produce positive stories could damage American credibility and calls for an end to military payments to a group of Iraqi journalists in Baghdad, according to a summary of the investigation. The review, by Rear Adm. Scott Van Buskirk, was ordered after the disclosure last November that the military had paid the Lincoln Group, a Washington-based Pentagon contractor, to plant articles written by American soldiers in Iraqi publications, without disclosing the source of the articles. The contractor's work also included paying Iraqi journalists for favorable treatment. Though the document does not mention the Lincoln Group, Admiral Van Buskirk concluded that the military should scrutinize contractors involved in the propaganda effort more closely "to ensure proper oversight is in place." He also faulted the military for failing to examine whether paying for placement for articles would "undermine the concept of a free press," in Iraq, according to the summary. [complete article] Rights under assault in Iraq, U.N. unit saysBy Ellen Knickmeyer, Washington Post, May 24, 2006 Human rights in Iraq are being "severely undermined" by growing insecurity, violence and a "breakdown of law and order" caused by militias and criminal gangs, the U.N. mission here said Tuesday. The human rights update, issued every two months by the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq, cited soaring numbers of execution-style killings in Baghdad. Such slayings have increased during a surge of sectarian violence that followed the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra on Feb. 22. Baghdad's main morgue -- which handles only the remains of victims of violent or suspicious deaths, not including bombing victims -- issued 1,155 death certificates in April, the U.N. agency reported. The count corroborated a statement by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who this month cited morgue figures in saying 1,091 people had been killed in April in Baghdad alone. Iraq's Shiite Muslim-controlled Health Ministry had denied the figure almost as soon as Talabani made it public, saying morgue officials had accidentally given him the wrong tally. The morgue issued even more death certificates for killings in Baghdad in March -- 1,294, the U.N. report said. Most of the victims were shot to death. [complete article] Rights group faults U.S. for 'war outsourcing'By Alan Cowell, New York Times, May 23, 2006 Amnesty International today assailed the United States' use of military contractors in Iraq as "war outsourcing" and said the behavior of some contractors had diminished America's moral standing. "War outsourcing is creating the corporate equivalent of Guantanamo Bay -- a virtual rules-free zone in which perpetrators are not likely to be held accountable for breaking the law," Larry Cox, the executive director of Amnesty International USA, said in Washington as the human rights body presented its annual report in London. [complete article] Iraqi insurgent gives chilling confessionBy Nelson Hernandez and Naseer Nouri, Washington Post, May 24, 2006 An alleged agent of the group al-Qaeda in Iraq told a chilling story of hijacking, kidnapping and murder in the name of holy war Tuesday, a day after the Jordanian government announced his arrest in an operation carried out in Iraq. In a videotaped confession broadcast on Jordanian state television, Ziad Khalaf al-Kerbouly related his deeds without a trace of emotion. Though Jordan's government billed him as a high-ranking al-Qaeda operative arrested in the murder of a Jordanian citizen, Kerbouly's account made him sound more like a simple foot soldier for Iraq's most prominent insurgent organization. [complete article] In corruption, new government of Iraq faces a tough old foeBy Solomon Moore, Los Angeles Times, May 23, 2006 Each day hundreds of visitors fly into this war-ravaged capital aboard state-owned Iraqi Airways planes that Transportation Ministry officials say were purchased for $3 million apiece. Anti-corruption officials contend that they should not have cost more than $600,000 each and wonder where the rest of the money went. Inside the airport terminal, customs officials routinely hassle disembarking passengers for a "customs fee." The price is often negotiable. Outside, a passenger can find a ride with one of the waiting taxis, many of them fueled with smuggled gasoline. Beyond the airport, city streets teem with cars. A good portion of them -- 17,000, according to anti-corruption officials -- were stolen from the government after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Corruption is among the most critical problems facing Iraq's newly formed government, U.S. and Iraqi officials say. Moments after announcing most of his new Cabinet on Saturday, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki declared that fighting corruption would be one of his main priorities. U.S. and Iraqi officials say endemic graft and conflicts of interest await Maliki everywhere he turns. [complete article] Iraqi charities plant seed of civil societyBy Sabrina Tavernise, New York Times, May 23, 2006 Since 2003 the government has registered 5,000 private organizations, including charities, human rights groups, medical assistance agencies and literacy projects. Officials estimate that an additional 7,000 groups are working unofficially. The efforts show that even as violence and sectarian hatred tear Iraq's mixed cities apart, a growing number of Iraqis are trying to bring them together. "Iraqis were thirsty for such experiences," said Khadija Tuma, director of the office in the Ministry of Civil Society Affairs that now works with the private aid groups. "It was as if they already had it inside themselves." The new charity groups offer bits of relief in the sea of poverty that swept Iraq during the economic embargo of the 1990's and has worsened with the pervasive lawlessness that followed the American invasion. [complete article] VOA's Baghdad bureau still closed after six monthsBy Howard Kurtz, Washington Post, May 23, 2006 The Voice of America's bureau in Baghdad has been closed for the past six months, ever since the government-funded agency withdrew its only reporter in Iraq after she was fired upon in an ambush and her security guard was later killed. All Western news organizations have struggled with the dangerous conditions in Iraq, which have led to such high-profile incidents as the kidnapping of Christian Science Monitor reporter Jill Carroll and the wounding of ABC News anchor Bob Woodruff. But for a federally funded information service to pull out of Baghdad for such a prolonged period raises questions about the Bush administration's insistence that conditions there are gradually improving. [complete article] Dozens are killed in Afghan fightingBy Pamela Constable, Washington Post, May 23, 2006 As many as 80 Taliban fighters and 16 civilians were reported killed early Monday by U.S.-led forces attacking from the ground and air in Kandahar province, the epicenter of a broadening swath of fighting in southern Afghanistan. The clash -- part of the bloodiest surge of combat since the U.S.-led military ouster of Taliban rule in late 2001 -- raised the death toll from attacks across the country since Wednesday to almost 250. The fighting has included the torching of a district headquarters in Helmand province and a suicide bombing outside Kabul, the capital. U.S. military commanders and the Afghan government are expressing new concerns about the strength and determination of the revived Taliban movement, whose purported spokesman, Mohammed Hanif, vowed two weeks ago that "our sacred land is going to turn into an inferno" unless international military forces withdraw from Afghanistan. [complete article] Security slipping around KandaharBy Rachel Morarjee, Christian Science Monitor, May 23, 2006 Last summer, Shahida Hussain was pounding the dusty streets of Kandahar campaigning for Parliament in defiance of Taliban threats. Now this outspoken woman rarely leaves her house for fear of getting caught up in the violence engulfing Afghanistan's southern city. "Six months ago things were better, but security gets worse day after day. Our childre |