US forces storm Iranian consulate in Arbil, arrest five

By DPA
Jan 11, 2007, 13:13 GMT

Baghdad/Tehran - US forces accompanied by military helicopters on Thursday stormed the Iranian consulate in the Kurdish city of Arbil, arresting five Iranian employees, a Kurdish security source said.

In addition to the arrests, US troops confiscated documents and computers, while Kurdish security authorities cordoned off all roads leading to the building.

In Tehran, the Iranian leadership responded by summoning diplomats representing US interests in order to protest. Local Kurdish officials in northern Iraq refused to comment on the incident.

Arbil is located 350 kilometres north of Baghdad in Iraqi Kurdistan province, the only region gaining an official recognition as a federal entity.

The raid came a day after US President George W Bush said the United States would confront Iran and Syria, accusing them of fomenting violence in Iraq by allowing insurgents into the country and supporting attacks on American troops.

The political and religious representatives of Iraq's Sunni Muslim population accuse the Iranian leadership of supporting Shiite militias and even sending its own fighters to take part in dead squads.

In Tehran, Iran summoned the ambassadors of Iraq and Switzerland (which represents US interests in Iran) over the consulate raid, Iran's state television network IRIB reported.

The Iranian foreign ministry demanded explanations from the two ambassadors on the raid and stressed that the consulate was established in the capital of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region at the explicit wishes of the Iraqi government and Iraqi Kurdish officials.

Meanwhile, Iran's Foreign Minister Spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini condemned the raid and termed it as contrary to diplomatic norms.

He also confirmed the arrest of the five consulate staff members, but could give no information on their whereabouts or whether they have been transferred outside Arbil.

The IRIB Arabic network Al-Alam reported that the Iranian consulate employees had already been transferred to Baghdad although Massoud Barezani, the chief of the Kurdistan deferral entity, had tried to prevent the transfer.

Hosseini told ISNA news agency that all accusations by the US alleging Iranian interference in Iraq's internal affairs were just excuses for covering up the US failure in the US.

'Even the Iraqi officials have several times confirmed that Iran had no interference in Iraq,' the spokesman said.

© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

Troop Surge Already Under Way

90 Advance Troops from 82nd Airborne Arrive in Baghdad

By JONATHAN KARL

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 10, 2007 — - President Bush's speech may be scheduled for tonight, but the troop surge in Iraq is already under way.

ABC News has learned that the "surge" Bush is expected to announce in a prime time speech tonight has already begun. Ninety advance troops from the 82nd Airborne Division arrived in Baghdad Wednesday.

An additional battalion of roughly 800 troops from the same division are expected to arrive in Baghdad Thursday. Eighty percent of the sectarian violence occurs within a 30-mile radius of Baghdad, so that is where most of the additional troops will be concentrated.

It is the first small wave of troops in a new White House strategy that is expected to put more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq and likely require new call-ups of the National Guard.

The president is expected to deliver his announcement about the troop increase, a plan that has already met with stiff criticism from many members of Congress, in a speech tonight from the White House.

The arrival of additional forces in Iraq comes a day after leading Democrats said they would back legislation that would block funding to pay for additional military forces.

A spokeswoman for Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who, Tuesday, urgently called for Congress to vote on -- and reject -- the proposed surge, told ABC News that the arrival of additional soldiers "underscores Sen. Kennedy's point that Congress must act immediately."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-N.M., also responded to the report, calling the troops' arrival "deeply disappointing."

Reid has said that Americans don't want to see additional forces in Iraq, and that he has been considering plans offered by his congressional colleagues.

Split Troops to Secure City

Military commanders say there is more to this plan than boots on the ground -- it's also how the troops will be used.

The idea is for U.S. and Iraqi forces to become a more integral part of Baghdad neighborhoods such as Dora, which was secured in August 2006 only to see violence spike when U.S. forces left.

Under the new plan, the city of Baghdad will be divided into nine separate sections at the request of Iraqis, who want one army and police battalion devoted to each section.

The additional U.S. troops being sent to Baghdad will be divided among the nine sections of the city, nearly doubling U.S. combat power in the region.

In a switch from the current course of action, these U.S. forces will be housed in the very neighborhoods they patrol. Military planners tell ABC News there will eventually be about 30 mini bases, called joint security stations, scattered around Baghdad, housing both U.S. and Iraqi troops.

The plan also includes an emphasis on performance from the Iraqis. White House officials said they have put tremendous pressure on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to crack down on Shiite militias, especially radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who is thought to be responsible for most of the sectarian violence.

A senior White House official said that Maliki told the president, "I swear to God, I'm not going to let Sadr run this country."

Maliki must also provide Iraqi troops on schedule and give Sunnis a larger role in the government.

Tonight, the president is expected to say that he's made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended, that now is the time to act.

The president is also expected to announce tonight the deployment of a second aircraft carrier -- perhaps the USS Stennis -- to the Persian Gulf, as part of a regularly scheduled deployment. Centcom Commander Gen. John Abizaid has requested a second carrier because of Iran and other threats in the region.

The ship will leave next weekend on its regularly scheduled departure date, but will proceed to the Gulf instead of its original deployment to the Pacific.

'Old Way Is Failing'

Commanders believe the new approach will make U.S. forces better positioned to combat sectarian violence, but they acknowledge this approach is riskier and will likely mean more U.S. casualties in the short-run.

In al-Anbar Province, an additional 4,000 Marines will focus on fighting al Qaeda to try to take advantage of what U.S. commanders say is a new willingness of some Sunni tribal leaders to cooperate in the fight against the international terrorist organization.

The increase in U.S. forces will be completed within 90 to 120 days.

ABC News has also learned that National Guard troops who have seen combat in Iraq and Afghanistan will likely be getting some unwelcome news: They may have to go back to Iraq later this year. National Guard combat teams would be sent to Iraq as the next wave of the surge, unless the first wave succeeds in reducing the violence.

Commanders here caution it will take several months to fully implement the plan and maybe even longer to see results. As one senior military official here said Wednesday, "We don't know if this will work, but we do know the old way was failing."

ABC News' Jake Tapper and Martha Raddatz contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

Jimmy Carter Speaks Truth to Propaganda

Jan 11, 2007

By Paul Craig Roberts
paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

Jimmy Carter, probably the most decent man to occupy the White House, received a lot of grief during his term in office, most of it undeserved. His latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid has brought him even more grief, none of it deserved.

My own appreciation of Jimmy Carter is new found. It began with his previous book, Our Endangered Values, in which Carter criticized the direction in which George W. Bush was taking America with his assaults on the Constitution and international law. His latest book, currently a best seller, shows that Carter has the courage to match his decency and commitment to peace in the Middle East.

A case can be made that while other US presidents focused on the Soviet or communist threat, Carter perceived that the greater threat to world peace and US interests was in the Middle East. With America’s backing Israel was a rising military power whose policies and existence were viewed as a threat by Arab countries. After Israel’s military successes and Carter’s success in arranging peace between Egypt and Israel, new Arab-Israeli tensions arose from Israel’s refusal to leave occupied Palestine and return to its own borders.

Over time the occupied lands have been appropriated by Israeli settlements and now by a massive wall and special roads on which no Palestinian can travel. Palestinian villages have been cut off from water, from their fields and groves, from schools and hospitals, and from one another. Essentially, what was once Palestine has become isolated ghettos in which the Palestinian inhabitants cannot enter or depart without Israeli permission.

Israel’s policy is to turn Palestinians into refugees and to incorporate the West Bank into Israel. Slowly over time the policy has been implemented in the name of fighting terrorism and protecting Israel. Had Israel tried to achieve this all at once, opposition would have been great and the crime too large for the world to accept. Today Israel’s gradual destruction of Palestine has become part of the fabric of everyday affairs.

Many people, including intelligent Israelis, believe that peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved through military coercion and that peace requires Israel to abandon its policy of stealing Palestine from Palestinians. Jimmy Carter, whose long involvement with the issue makes him very knowledgeable and credible, is one of these people.

The reason that Israel has been able to appropriate Palestine unto itself with American aid and support is that Israel controls the explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At least 90% of Americans, if they know anything at all of the issue, know only the Israeli propaganda line. Israel has been able to control the explanation, because the powerful Israel Lobby brands every critic of Israeli policy as an anti-Semite who favors a second holocaust of the Jews.

In Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Jimmy Carter takes the risk of speaking truth to propaganda. Predictably, the Israel Lobby and its shills ranging from the "conservative" National Review to "liberal" media and commentators have attempted to banish Carter by labeling him an "anti-Semite."

We must not let the Israel Lobby get away with demonizing an American president who dares to stand up to their lies.

Carter’s book is a readable and factual history of the Israeli-Palestinian issue and its various turnings. The most powerful chapter is the penultimate, "The Wall as a Prison."

Carter makes clear that the wall has little to do with Israeli security and a lot to do with dispossession of the Palestinians. Carter writes:

"It is obvious that the Palestinians will be left with no territory in which to establish a viable state, but completely enclosed within the barrier and the occupied Jordan River valley. The Palestinians will have a future impossible for them or any responsible portion of the international community to accept, and Israel’s permanent status will be increasingly troubled and uncertain as deprived people fight oppression and the relative number of Jewish citizens decreases demographically (compared to Arabs) both within Israel and in Palestine. This prospect is clear to most Israelis, who also view it as a distortion of their values. Recent events involving Gaza and Lebanon demonstrate the inevitable escalation in tension and violence within Palestine and stronger resentment and animosity from the world community against both Israel and America."

Zionists and American neoconservatives could care less about what the world community thinks. They are concerned only with Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. They realize that this goal can only be obtained with military coercion and have discarded any reliance on negotiation and compromise. Bush, for example, has refused the unanimous recommendation of the Iraq Study Group to talk with Iran and Syria. The US and Israeli electorates have proven to be powerless, while a handful of neoconservatives and Zionist settlers drive Middle East policy.

Carter is well aware that the "Roadmap for Peace" has been turned into a propaganda device. Carter writes that Israel uses the roadmap "as a delaying tactic with an endless series of preconditions that can never be met while proceeding with plans to implement its unilateral goals," and that the US uses it "to give the impression of positive engagement in a ‘peace process,’ which President Bush has announced will not be fulfilled during his time in office."

The Israel Lobby and its bought-and-paid-for minions tried to demonize Carter for using the word "apartheid" to describe the Palestinian ghettos that Israel has created. The word calls to mind the former South African government’s policy of racial separation, which was mild compared to the restrictions and dispossessions Israel has imposed on Palestinians. A number of commentators have come to Carter’s defense, including Jewish scholar Norman Finkelstein and former Israeli Minister of Education Shulamit Aloni (Yediot Acharonot, Israel’s largest circulating newspaper). They point out that within Israel itself Israel’s policy is commonly called apartheid.

If Americans could read the frank discussion in the Israeli press about Israel’s inhuman treatment of Palestinians they would wonder how they, as Americans with a “free press,” became so totally brainwashed.

In an act of honest statesmanship that is rarely witnessed, Carter concludes his book:

“The bottom line is this: Peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law, with the Roadmap for Peace, with official American policy, with the wishes of a majority of its own citizens – and honor its own previous commitments – by accepting its legal borders. All Arab neighbors must pledge to honor Israel’s right to live in peace under these conditions. The United States is squandering international prestige and goodwill and intensifying global anti-American terrorism by unofficially condoning or abetting the Israeli confiscation and colonization of Palestinian territories. It will be a tragedy – for the Israelis, the Palestinians, and the world – if peace is rejected and a system of oppression, apartheid and sustained violence is permitted to prevail.”

One can add to Carter’s bottom line that the Bush administration, American neoconservatives, and the Olmert Israeli government believe that the solution lies in the use of military force to smash Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah and to inflict cultural genocide on Muslims by deracinating Islam. This is the path on which Bush with deceit and treachery is leading America.

Paul Craig Roberts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The man who now holds Iraq's future in his hands

Patrick Cockburn

Published: 11 January 2007

He is a strange figure to be targeted as the number one enemy of the US in Iraq. Four years ago, few had heard of the Shia nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr inside or outside Iraq. Even somebody as suspicious as Saddam Hussein, who murdered his father and two brothers, did not think he would play any role in the coming crisis.

Now he holds the future of Iraq in his hands. He has far more popularity and legitimacy than many of the pro-American Iraqi leaders cowering in the Green Zone. He is seen by millions of Shia in Baghdad and across southern Iraq as their spiritual and national leader. Rightly or wrongly, he is feared by Sunnis as their nemesis, a physical symbol that they are battling for their existence in Iraq.

He has now become part of the White House's demonology in Iraq. At one time the US believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for all its problems in Iraq - problems that would be resolved once he was overthrown. Today Sadr, a 32-year-old cleric in his black robe with fierce, staring, dark eyes, is denounced as the fomenter of sectarian warfare.

Many Iraqi leaders never leave the Green Zone. Sadr has never entered it. He has a cult-like following. He controls Sadr City, the ramshackle, sprawling slum in east Baghdad which is home to two-and-a-half million Shia, important cities such as Kufa and provinces such as Maysan. He can probably put 100,000 armed militiamen into the field. Much of the Baghdad police force follows him. Army barracks where Shia units are stationed have pictures of him pinned to the walls.

Once in 2004 he was wanted "dead or alive" by the US forces and dismissed as "a firebrand". They soon found that his movement had deep roots. He controls 32 out of 275 seats in the Iraqi parliament. He is the most important ally of the Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki. In 2004, the US and its former exile allies paid a heavy price for trying to exclude him from power. In 2005 and 2006, they recognised his strength. He became part of the political process in Iraq while opposing the US-led occupation.

Now, astonishingly the US may be about to confront Sadr and his powerful social and political movement. This could lead almost immediately to a crisis for the US and President Bush's new strategy for Iraq.

If the US Army, along with Kurdish brigades of the Iraqi army, do assault Sadr City, they are unlikely to win a clean victory. The rest of Shia Iraq is likely to explode. A confrontation will convince many Shia that the US never intends to let them rule Iraq despite their success in the elections. The US is already at war with the five million-strong Sunni community and is now fast alienating the Shia. For the first time this year, polls showed that a majority of Shia approve of armed attacks on US-led forces.

An offensive against Sadr's Mehdi Army will be portrayed as an attempt to eliminate militias. But it is, in reality, an attack on one particular militia, because it is anti-American. The Kurdish brigades in the Iraqi army take their orders from the Kurdish leaders and not from Maliki. The US also has good relations with the other Shia militia, the Badr Organisation, which is the military wing of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

There is no doubt that the Mehdi Army includes death squads targeting Sunni - but this is also true of Badr.

Sadr first confronted the US when he twice fought the US Army in 2004. Though militarily unsuccessful the fighting established his credibility in his community. He attracted supporters because of the prestige of his family, and his blend of Iraqi nationalism and Shia religion. He is also seen as the voice of the impoverished Shia while Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and the Hawza, the Shia religious establishment, are more representative of the better-off.

His emergence as one of the most important political figures in Iraq was one of the great surprises after 2003. He is neither eloquent nor particularly charismatic, but he has made very few political mistakes. His swift rise is explained first by his family. He was born in 1974, the third son of Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr. He is a distant cousin of Ayatollah Mohammed Baqr al-Sadr, the Shia revolutionary thinker, who was murdered by Saddam along with his sister in 1980. He had sought to develop a religious response to Marxism and Baathism by advocating a politically and socially activist Islam in contrast to the traditionally quietist Shia religious leaders.

Muqtada's father, Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, became influential in the 1990s. At first he was given leeway because he was an Iraqi nationalist and opposed to Iranian claims to lead the Shia of Iraq. His sermons began with the words: "No, no to America; no, no to Israel; no, no to the Devil." But it soon became clear he was also opposed to Saddam. He was assassinated by Saddam's gunmen with two of his sons in 1999.

Muqtada al-Sadr became so powerful so fast because he was in the same tradition as his relatives. His militiamen are generally not paid and supply their own weapons. They are beginning to have a core of trained, paid professionals but they were never as militarily effective as the Sunni insurgents, many of whom were experienced soldiers.

A US attack on Sadr will open another front in the war in Iraq. It would split the Shia coalition into pro- and anti-American factions. It would disrupt the Shia-Kurdish alliance. It probably would not conciliate the Sunni insurgents.

Sadr's movement thrives on martyrs. The only certain result of an all-out US assault on the Mehdi Army would be to deepen and widen the war in Iraq.

America's most wanted

Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri

Once one of Saddam's senior commanders, Douri was swiftly named leader of the Iraqi Baath party after the ex-dictator's execution. US accuses him of leading Baathist insurgents and has placed a $10m bounty on his head.

Hadi al-Amiri

Elected member of parliament and leader of the Shia Badr Brigades, the military wing of the Iran-backed Sup-reme Council for Revolution in Iraq. Brigades accused of running death squads and have clashed with Muqtada al-Sadr's militia.

Abu Ayyub al-Masri

Also known Abu Hamza al Muhajir, Masri was identified by the Pentagon as the most likely leader of al-Qa'ida in Iraq after Abu Musab al Zarqawi's death last June. Little is known about him and some have questioned whether he even exists.

The man charged with defeating the militias

Widely regarded as the last best hope for President George Bush's quest to end sectarian violence in Iraq, Lt-Gen David Petraeus will nonetheless face the challenge of his life in confronting the Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Lt-Gen Petraeus, 54, has been appointed by President Bush to take overall military charge of the US campaign in Iraq as soon as he receives his fourth star to become a full general and wins confirmation by the Senate. Already a veteran of two command tours in Iraq, he is also recognised as the US military's leading expert on fighting insurgencies. In 2004, he was in charge of training Iraqi soldiers.

But he was also one of the authors of an armed forces manual which appeared to cast doubt on the strategy that Mr Bush is now pursuing. "The more force used, the less effective it is... The best weapon for counter-insurgency is not to shoot," read the document, which was christened FM3-24.

Some remain sceptical that Lt-Gen Petraeus will fare any better than his predecessors. "Petraeus is being given a losing hand. I say that reluctantly. The war is unmistakably going in the wrong direction," said Barry McCaffrey, a retired army general. "The only good news in all this is that Petraeus is so incredibly intelligent and creative... I'm sure he'll say to himself, 'I'm not going to be the last soldier off the roof of the embassy in the Green Zone'."

During the initial invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Lt-Gen Petraeus was commander of the 101st Airborne Division which was critical to the taking of Baghdad. He was promoted to commander of the northern Iraq region around Mosul, where a degree of peace was restored.

Bush's new strategy - the march of folly

Related
Rupert Cornwell: This is a gamble of massive effrontery to the voters, the politicians and even the generals
---
Robert Fisk

So into the graveyard of Iraq, George Bush, commander-in-chief, is to send another 21,000 of his soldiers. The march of folly is to continue...

Published: 11 January 2007

There will be timetables, deadlines, benchmarks, goals for both America and its Iraqi satraps. But the war against terror can still be won. We shall prevail. Victory or death. And it shall be death.

President Bush's announcement early this morning tolled every bell. A billion dollars of extra aid for Iraq, a diary of future success as the Shia powers of Iraq ­ still to be referred to as the "democratically elected government" ­ march in lockstep with America's best men and women to restore order and strike fear into the hearts of al-Qa'ida. It will take time ­ oh, yes, it will take years, at least three in the words of Washington's top commander in the field, General Raymond Odierno this week ­ but the mission will be accomplished.

Mission accomplished. Wasn't that the refrain almost four years ago, on that lonely aircraft carrier off California, Bush striding the deck in his flying suit? And only a few months later, the President had a message for Osama bin Laden and the insurgents of Iraq. "Bring 'em on!" he shouted. And on they came. Few paid attention late last year when the Islamist leadership of this most ferocious of Arab rebellions proclaimed Bush a war criminal but asked him not to withdraw his troops. "We haven't yet killed enough of them," their videotaped statement announced.

Well, they will have their chance now. How ironic that it was the ghastly Saddam, dignified amid his lynch mob, who dared on the scaffold to tell the truth which Bush and Blair would not utter: that Iraq has become "hell" .

It is de rigueur, these days, to recall Vietnam, the false victories, the body counts, the torture and the murders ­ but history is littered with powerful men who thought they could batter their way to victory against the odds. Napoleon comes to mind; not the emperor who retreated from Moscow, but the man who believed the wild guerrilleros of French-occupied Spain could be liquidated. He tortured them, he executed them, he propped up a local Spanish administration of what we would now call Quislings, al-Malikis to a man. He rightly accused his enemies ­ Moore and Wellington ­ of supporting the insurgents. And when faced with defeat, Napoleon took the personal decision "to relaunch the machine" and advanced to recapture Madrid, just as Bush intends to recapture Baghdad. Of course, it ended in disaster. And George Bush is no Napoleon Bonaparte.

No, I would turn to another, less flamboyant, far more modern politician for prophecy, an American who understood, just before the 2003 launch of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, what would happen to the arrogance of power. For their relevance this morning, the words of the conservative politician Pat Buchanan deserve to be written in marble:

"We will soon launch an imperial war on Iraq with all the 'On to Berlin' bravado with which French poilus and British tommies marched in August 1914. But this invasion will not be the cakewalk neoconservatives predict ... For a militant Islam that holds in thrall scores of millions of true believers will never accept George Bush dictating the destiny of the Islamic world ...

"The one endeavour at which Islamic peoples excel is expelling imperial powers by terror and guerrilla war. They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon... We have started up the road to empire and over the next hill we will meet those who went before."

But George Bush dare not see these armies of the past, their ghosts as palpable as the phantoms of the 3,000 Americans ­ let us forget the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis ­ already done to death in this obscene war, and those future spirits of the dead still living amid the 20,000 men and women whom Bush is now sending to Iraq. In Baghdad, they will move into both Sunni and Shia "insurgent strongholds" ­ as opposed to just the Sunni variety which they vainly invested in the autumn ­ because this time, and again I quote General Odierno, it is crucial the security plan be " evenhanded". This time, he said, "we have to have a believable approach, of going after Sunni and Shia extremists".

But a "believable approach" is what Bush does not have. The days of even-handed oppression disappeared in the aftermath of invasion.

"Democracy" should have been introduced at the start ­ not delayed until the Shias threatened to join the insurgency if Paul Bremer, America's second proconsul, did not hold elections ­ just as the American military should have prevented the anarchy of April 2003. The killing of 14 Sunni civilians by US paratroopers at Fallujah that spring set the seal on the insurgency. Yes, Syria and Iran could help George Bush. But Tehran was part of his toytown "Axis of Evil", Damascus a mere satellite. They were to be future prey, once Project Iraq proved successful. Then there came the shame of our torture, our murders, the mass ethnic cleansing in the land we said we had liberated.

And so more US troops must die, sacrificed for those who have already died. We cannot betray those who have been killed. It is a lie, of course. Every desperate man keeps gambling, preferably with other men's lives.

But the Bushes and Blairs have experienced war through television and Hollywood; this is both their illusion and their shield.

Historians will one day ask if the West did not plunge into its Middle East catastrophe so blithely because not one member of any Western government ­ except Colin Powell, and he has shuffled off stage ­ ever fought in a war. The Churchills have gone, used as a wardrobe for a prime minister who lied to his people and a president who, given the chance to fight for his country, felt his Vietnam mission was to defend the skies over Texas.

But still he talks of victory, as ignorant of the past as he is of the future.

Pat Buchanan ended his prophecy with imperishable words: "The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history."

The Bush plan, and the question of withdrawal

What Bush says

20,000 troops increase

Mistake of not sending sufficient troops must be rectified. Troops stabilise Baghdad and reinforce Anbar province, on condition that Iraqis take on Shia militias

$1bn reconstruction aid

Fresh funds will help create jobs and stimulate economy to show Iraqis there can be a peace dividend, and friendly Middle East states should help out too

Pullout

US commitment to Iraq is not open-ended but no timetable for troop withdrawal, even though US troops are expected to hand control to Iraqis by November

What Congress says

20,000 troops increase

Troop build-up is a mistake. House expected to vote on increase, Senate legislation forces Bush to seek congressional approval but neither move could block troop deployment

$1bn reconstruction aid

Don't throw good money after bad. US has squandered billions since the invasion and Democrats plan investigation. Millions of dollars 'overpaid' by Pentagon to Iraq contractors

Pullout

Bush has not learnt the lesson of November's mid-term elections which gave Democrats control of the House and Senate on the platform of a phased withdrawal from Iraq

What Baker says

20,000 troops increase

Up to 20,000 military trainers and troops embedded into and supporting Iraqi army, while combat troops drawn down to avoid increase in total numbers

$1bn reconstruction aid

US economic assistance should be boosted to $5bn per year. US should take anti-corruption measures by posting oil contracts on the internet for outside scrutiny

Pullout

All US combat troops not needed for force protection should be out of Iraq by the first quarter of 2008

Likely outcome

20,000 troops increase

Escalation of conflict

Money will be wasted, with official corruption in Iraq said to drain $7bn a year

Pullout

Troop surge could disguise 'cut and run' depending on the circumstances in both Iraq and America

Civilian workers could face court martial

Martial law is almost here.
---

By Stephen Fidler in London and Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington

Published: January 10 2007 05:21 | Last updated: January 10 2007 05:21

Private military contractors in Iraq face the possibility of court martial following a move by the US Congress to strip them of immunity from military prosecution.

Congress recently passed legislation bringing defence contractors under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in a move that could have significant ramifications for the ­estimated 100,000 private defence contractors in Iraq.

In recent years, the Pentagon has increasingly relied on contractors in an effort to cut costs and increase flexibility. But the role of private defence contractors in Iraq came under scrutiny in the wake of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal after it emerged that the Central Intelligence Agency used them for interrogations.

Peter Singer, an expert on military contracting at the Brookings Institution in Washington who first reported the move, said military officers, who had previously been hamstrung in dealing with possible abuses committed by contractors, welcomed the change.

He said Pentagon lawyers were scrambling to assess the impact of the legislation, not least in respect of soldiers who might ­witness abuses by military contractors.

But other experts questioned the wisdom of the law. Eugene Fidell, a military law specialist at Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell, said the change raised constitutional questions and said it was unnecessary because the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 already allows the prosecution of contractors.

Mr Fidell also questioned whether the original interpretation of the applicability of the UCMJ to non-military personnel, which was decided in a Vietnam-era legal case, would even be interpreted in the same manner today.

The UCMJ previously could only be applied “in times of war [to] persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field”. But there has not been a formal declaration of war by Congress for 65 years, which Mr Singer of the Brookings Institution says means contractors in Iraq or Afghanistan were not covered by the code. The new legislation now says the code also applies during a “contingency operation,” which would include operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Christopher Beese, chief administration officer for ArmorGroup, a private security firm that has 1,600 employees operating in Iraq, said the law was unlikely to have any effect until the US, UK and Iraqi authorities “demonstrate there is resolve to take action where action is necessary” on potential cases of abuse.

Mr Beese said that even in situations where ArmorGroup had itself raised concerns about the actions of some of its own employees, it had found great difficulty getting the UK, US and Iraqi authorities to take appropriate action.

Stan Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council, which represents companies with US government contracts, agreed that the MEJA already gave the administration the powers it needed. He said his organisation intended to discuss the issue with Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican senator who sponsored the legislation.

Jennifer Daskal of Human Rights Watch said the new law would allow “a good defence lawyer [to] tie up prosecutions with objections to the constitutionality of using the UCMJ to try civilians”. She said the real problem was one of political will. “The Department of Justice already has the tools to prosecute private contractors – it just hasn’t used them.”

“This is a good thing,” said Dov Zakheim, a former Bush administration senior Pentagon official. “It protects contractors by keeping them under an American legal umbrella, and also helps preserve the good reputation of those contractors who play by the rules, by enforcing discipline among those who have been less responsible.”

But the scope of the change – for example, whether it applies to contractors working in war zones for agencies other than the Department of Defense or to foreigners – is unclear. Other questions relate to how wide ranging the application of the code – which bars, for example, homosexual conduct – would be to non-military personnel and whether it would apply to journalists embedded with the US military.

Tim Spicer, chief executive of Aegis, a UK company that since 2004 has operated a $300m (£155m) Pentagon contract aimed at supporting reconstruction operations in Iraq, said his company was examining the implications of the legislation. “We need to look more closely at the implications but, in general, we welcome certainty in our legal position,” he said.

Lachlan Monro, chief operating officer of Blue Hackle, another UK based security contractor operating in Iraq, welcomed the move, saying it would “go some way to removing irresponsible security companies”.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

Text of Bush Iraq Speech

BUSHIT
---
Text of Bush Iraq Speech