Leon Panetta, Obama's pick to head Pentagon, says Baghdad likely to ask for continued US presence beyond 2011.
Last Modified: 10 Jun 2011 01:47
Iraq will ask the US to keep its troops in the country beyond the 2011 withdrawal deadline set by US President Barack Obama, Leon Panetta, the White House's pick to lead the Pentagon, said.
"It's clear to me that Iraq is considering the possibility of making a request for some kind of (troop) presence to remain there," Panetta said, adding that he had "every confidence" the request would be "forthcoming at some point."
The outgoing CIA chief told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday that the US should agree once the request is made.
"It really is dependent on the prime minister and on the government of Iraq to present to us what is it that they need, and over what period of time, in order to make sure that the gains that we've made in Iraq are sustained." Panetta told the committee.
Outgoing US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has publicly suggested that Iran is another reason to keep US forces in Iraq.
Washington accuses Iran of supporting Shia groups, a charge Tehran denies, and Iraqi Sunnis view Iran's intentions in Iraq with enormous suspicion.
Gates said last month that a continued US military presence in Iraq would be "reassuring" to Gulf states.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's coalition government is debating whether to ask Washington to keep some of the 47,000 US troops in Iraq, if only in a training and advisory role.
Maliki has called for a "mutual and unified national stand" on the issue by August 1 and has criticised other groups in the coalition for either not defining their position or using the issue to attack him and other groups.
US and Iraqi military commanders are concerned Iraq's armed forces may not be fully ready to defend the country alone, with Washington pointing to gaps in Iraqi air defence, intelligence fusion, logistics and more.
Source: Agencie
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
U.S. Braces for Withdrawal Along Iraqi Road
NYtimes
June 6, 2011
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT
BAGHDAD — Even as the American military winds down its eight-year war in Iraq, commanders are bracing for what they fear could be the most dangerous remaining mission: getting the last troops out safely.
The resurgent threat posed by militants was underscored Monday when rockets slammed into a military base in eastern Baghdad, killing six service members in the most deadly day for American forces here since 2009. In recent weeks, insurgent fighters have stepped up their efforts to kill American forces in what appears to be a strategy to press the United States to withdraw on schedule, undercut any resolve to leave troops in Iraq, and win a public relations victory at home by claiming credit for the American withdrawal.
American commanders say one of the gravest threats to the 46,000 troops here is that they could become easy targets for insurgents when they begin their final withdrawal this summer and head for the border along a 160-mile stretch of road cutting through the desert into Kuwait.
“Our forces were attacked today, and we were just sitting still,” said Col. Douglas Crissman, who is in charge of American forces in four provinces of southern Iraq, and is overseeing highway security in them. “What is going to happen to the threat when we line up our trucks to leave and start moving out of the country?”
Eight years in Iraq has taught the United States military a hard-learned lesson, that American forces cannot effectively secure large areas without the help of the local people. So commanders have fashioned an exit strategy which borrows a key element from the Awakening Movement, a successful tactical program carried out in 2006, just as the violence was peaking. The American exit strategy calls for the military to give cash payments of $10,000 a month to 10 tribal leaders.
Officially, the money is paid to have Iraqis clean the crucial roadway of debris, an apparent pretense because an Iraqi-American agreement bars outright payments for security. The sheiks keep some of the cash and use the rest to hire 35 workers each who clear the road of trash. The work does make it harder for militants to hide bombs.
But the military says it is aiming for more than a highway beautification project. It is hoping for local people to help police the road and the area, and to provide intelligence on militants.
“I can’t possibly be all places at one time,” said Colonel Crissman. “There are real incentives for them to keep the highway safe. Those sheiks we have the best relationships with and have kept their highways clear and safe will be the most likely ones to get renewed for the remainder of the year.”
So far, the contracts have proved to be a cost-effective method for improving troop safety, even at $100,000 a month. Roadside bomb attacks on American and Iraqi soldiers stationed in the area are down, officials said, as are rocket attacks on the military base from areas controlled by the sheiks.
The contracts, officials said, cost far less than nearly all the other measures the military has used in Iraq to ensure security, and sheiks provide the names of the workers so the military can conduct a security check.
“The cost of a damaged MRAP that gets hit by an explosive device is $400,000, and we are not even talking about the cost of a human life,” said Colonel Crissman, referring to an armored vehicle the American troops use. “Given the amount of money we have spent in this country, $100,000 to secure our highway a month is a small price to pay, especially given the importance of the highway to the withdrawal.”
On many days, workers can be seen raking up trash and throwing tires into pickup trucks. Several times a week, the military flies over the highway to ensure that the sections are clean. The value of the contracts — along with their limitations — is evident in roads neighboring the highway, where attacks are up.
That has prompted commanders to begin to expand the program to include neighboring roads as well.
And local sheiks across southern Iraq are more than eager for the cash, jockeying for a chance to collect what may the last bit of military largess. The money also helps the sheiks solidify the loyalty of their own people by giving them the power to dole out jobs.
But the military says the Shiite militias are also aware of the influence cash payments can have with tribal leaders, and so they, too, try to buy allegiance, intelligence and access. “There are some sheiks who are working for the other team and are being paid well by the militants so they can operate in their land,” Colonel Crissman said, referring to Shiite militants who operate in southern Iraq.
Shiite militias and followers of the anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr have been some of the United States’ fiercest enemies in Iraq. The groups, which have close ties to Iran, have stepped up their anti-American activities recently as Iraqi lawmakers in Baghdad have debated whether to ask the Americans to stay past their scheduled departure date.
Last week, followers of Mr. Sadr, whose Shiite militia, the Mahdi Army, was largely defeated three years ago, held a mass demonstration in Baghdad in which they marched unarmed in formations, trampling over American flags and calling for the Americans to withdraw. The potential value of the highway cleaning contracts was illustrated last month when a reporter for The New York Times accompanied Lt. Col. Robert Wright to a lunch with tribal leaders.
The meeting, which took place in a tent in the middle of a barren stretch of dessert, lasted for three hours, as the tribe’s leaders and Americans ate from large platters of rice and lamb and talked about their families and Iraqi politics. Then on the ride back toward the American base, one of the tribal leaders offered a bit of intelligence regarding Shiite militants who he said met regularly in an open field.
The colonel said he was interested — and then the local leader raised the topic of a contract, to clean the highway.
June 6, 2011
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT
BAGHDAD — Even as the American military winds down its eight-year war in Iraq, commanders are bracing for what they fear could be the most dangerous remaining mission: getting the last troops out safely.
The resurgent threat posed by militants was underscored Monday when rockets slammed into a military base in eastern Baghdad, killing six service members in the most deadly day for American forces here since 2009. In recent weeks, insurgent fighters have stepped up their efforts to kill American forces in what appears to be a strategy to press the United States to withdraw on schedule, undercut any resolve to leave troops in Iraq, and win a public relations victory at home by claiming credit for the American withdrawal.
American commanders say one of the gravest threats to the 46,000 troops here is that they could become easy targets for insurgents when they begin their final withdrawal this summer and head for the border along a 160-mile stretch of road cutting through the desert into Kuwait.
“Our forces were attacked today, and we were just sitting still,” said Col. Douglas Crissman, who is in charge of American forces in four provinces of southern Iraq, and is overseeing highway security in them. “What is going to happen to the threat when we line up our trucks to leave and start moving out of the country?”
Eight years in Iraq has taught the United States military a hard-learned lesson, that American forces cannot effectively secure large areas without the help of the local people. So commanders have fashioned an exit strategy which borrows a key element from the Awakening Movement, a successful tactical program carried out in 2006, just as the violence was peaking. The American exit strategy calls for the military to give cash payments of $10,000 a month to 10 tribal leaders.
Officially, the money is paid to have Iraqis clean the crucial roadway of debris, an apparent pretense because an Iraqi-American agreement bars outright payments for security. The sheiks keep some of the cash and use the rest to hire 35 workers each who clear the road of trash. The work does make it harder for militants to hide bombs.
But the military says it is aiming for more than a highway beautification project. It is hoping for local people to help police the road and the area, and to provide intelligence on militants.
“I can’t possibly be all places at one time,” said Colonel Crissman. “There are real incentives for them to keep the highway safe. Those sheiks we have the best relationships with and have kept their highways clear and safe will be the most likely ones to get renewed for the remainder of the year.”
So far, the contracts have proved to be a cost-effective method for improving troop safety, even at $100,000 a month. Roadside bomb attacks on American and Iraqi soldiers stationed in the area are down, officials said, as are rocket attacks on the military base from areas controlled by the sheiks.
The contracts, officials said, cost far less than nearly all the other measures the military has used in Iraq to ensure security, and sheiks provide the names of the workers so the military can conduct a security check.
“The cost of a damaged MRAP that gets hit by an explosive device is $400,000, and we are not even talking about the cost of a human life,” said Colonel Crissman, referring to an armored vehicle the American troops use. “Given the amount of money we have spent in this country, $100,000 to secure our highway a month is a small price to pay, especially given the importance of the highway to the withdrawal.”
On many days, workers can be seen raking up trash and throwing tires into pickup trucks. Several times a week, the military flies over the highway to ensure that the sections are clean. The value of the contracts — along with their limitations — is evident in roads neighboring the highway, where attacks are up.
That has prompted commanders to begin to expand the program to include neighboring roads as well.
And local sheiks across southern Iraq are more than eager for the cash, jockeying for a chance to collect what may the last bit of military largess. The money also helps the sheiks solidify the loyalty of their own people by giving them the power to dole out jobs.
But the military says the Shiite militias are also aware of the influence cash payments can have with tribal leaders, and so they, too, try to buy allegiance, intelligence and access. “There are some sheiks who are working for the other team and are being paid well by the militants so they can operate in their land,” Colonel Crissman said, referring to Shiite militants who operate in southern Iraq.
Shiite militias and followers of the anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr have been some of the United States’ fiercest enemies in Iraq. The groups, which have close ties to Iran, have stepped up their anti-American activities recently as Iraqi lawmakers in Baghdad have debated whether to ask the Americans to stay past their scheduled departure date.
Last week, followers of Mr. Sadr, whose Shiite militia, the Mahdi Army, was largely defeated three years ago, held a mass demonstration in Baghdad in which they marched unarmed in formations, trampling over American flags and calling for the Americans to withdraw. The potential value of the highway cleaning contracts was illustrated last month when a reporter for The New York Times accompanied Lt. Col. Robert Wright to a lunch with tribal leaders.
The meeting, which took place in a tent in the middle of a barren stretch of dessert, lasted for three hours, as the tribe’s leaders and Americans ate from large platters of rice and lamb and talked about their families and Iraqi politics. Then on the ride back toward the American base, one of the tribal leaders offered a bit of intelligence regarding Shiite militants who he said met regularly in an open field.
The colonel said he was interested — and then the local leader raised the topic of a contract, to clean the highway.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Clashes Fuel Debate Over U.S. Plan to Leave Iraq
March 28, 2011
By TIM ARANGO
KIRKUK, Iraq — Many in this divided city want American troops to stay longer than the Obama administration has said they will, and a tense standoff on the southern and western edges of town last week showed why. Here, on a bridge, behind the mud brick walls of an abandoned mill and inside a hospice, Kurdish troops from the north were in positions on the outskirts of Arab neighborhoods.
To calm the latest flare-up of the longstanding ethnic rivalries here has required a rush of high-level diplomacy, including phone calls from Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to Kurdish leaders and, a rarity in Iraq today, the deployment of American troops.
The confrontation did not turn violent — precisely, many believe, because of the presence of American troops. But they will leave by the end of the year, if the current schedule stands, and many here fear that could lead to ethnic strife, even civil war.
The Kurdish soldiers, known as the pesh merga, were deployed last month by leaders in the semiautonomous northern region worried about Sunni Arab insurgents attacking peaceful demonstrators in the streets. But the action was viewed by local Arabs, American diplomats and military officials and the Iraqi government as provocative and illegal.
Kurdish officials said Monday that the troops had withdrawn as part of a deal with the Americans and the central government, although a witness in Kirkuk reported seeing the troops in their same positions, and an Arab lawmaker in the local council said that only some soldiers had left.
Sheik Burhan Mizher, an Arab member of the provincial government who like many interviewed here worries about the prospect of civil war after the Americans leave, said some pesh merga forces were still positioned around Kirkuk on Monday. He said of the American troops, “Of course, we want them to stay.”
In the debates under way in Washington and Baghdad about where the American and Iraqi relationship heads after eight years of war, those who argue for a continued American military presence beyond this year — and there are many among the diplomatic and military ranks of both countries — cite Kirkuk as the centerpiece of their case.
Perhaps the greatest unfinished chapter of America’s war in Iraq will be the status of Kirkuk, an ancient city that today is fought over by its three main ethnic groups, Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens, each making historical claims to the land and the oil that flows beneath.
“From my point of view, President Obama wants to win a second term and show that he keeps his promises to the American people,” said Hassan Toran, a Turkmen member of the council. “This will affect Kirkuk.”
If the Americans leave, Mr. Toran said, “Anything can happen.” In Iraq, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is hemmed in by a bloc of politicians loyal to the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr, who is opposed to any delay in the American withdrawal and whose support Mr. Maliki relied on to secure a second term as premier. Any extension of the American troop presence would require the politically risky decision by Mr. Maliki to ask for it.
Not only do American diplomats and military leaders argue for troops to stay, but outside experts do as well. A recent book written by six Iraq experts, led by Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution, called peacekeeping in Kirkuk “by far the most important U.S. military mission now” and suggested that troops stay to “be a crucial substitute for the trust that undergirds stable societies.” A report published Monday by the International Crisis Group called the pesh merga deployment a “deeply troubling development.”
At their most pessimistic, those involved in trying to solve the Kirkuk problem compare it to Bosnia or Rwanda — two socially mixed but politically divided lands that erupted in tragic and historic violence. When more optimistic, they cite the difficult but peaceful coexistence today of the French and Flemish in Brussels.
At the Kirkuk Provincial Council building, where recently a column of American armored vehicles were parked outside, the ethnic groups try to settle their differences through politics. But if democracy has emerged slowly in Iraq, it has come even more slowly here. When the rest of the country held provincial elections in 2009, Kirkuk did not. A constitutional provision that mandated a referendum on Kirkuk’s status in 2007 has not been held.
“There is no dialogue at all,” Mr. Toran said. “We all just give speeches through the media and accuse each other.” On Monday, a rock-throwing brawl broke out between Kurds and Turkmens at a technical university in Kirkuk.
Recently, the provincial governor, a Kurd, resigned. He is to be replaced by another Kurd, an American-Iraqi who once lived in Silver Spring, Md. The provincial council head, a Kurd, also recently resigned, and is expected to be replaced by Mr. Toran.
But a council session last week illustrated the layers of ethnic and religious divide here in Kirkuk. As the council considered Mr. Toran’s appointment, a Shiite Turkmen rival to Mr. Toran, who is Sunni, spoke against it, and the Kurds walked out to protest the theatrical display of identity politics. From a back row of the gallery, an American diplomat and two soldiers watched the proceedings.
On Kirkuk’s streets, insurgent attacks are still frequent. Recently, an Opel packed with explosives detonated outside a hospital, leaving two dead: a young mother and a baby girl, just 5 hours old. The father lost his right arm.
“Here I am without a wife and daughter and arm,” Samir Mahmoud, 27, said in an interview. “What can I do and where can I go? It’s our calamity.”
Across Iraq, the American invasion upended traditional notions of victimhood — the long oppressed Shiites became ascendant, while the Sunni ruling elite under Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party found itself on the margins of power. In Kirkuk, the Kurds, who had been brutalized by the former government’s policies and weapons, have the strongest grip on power. The Arabs, many of whom were moved to the area by Mr. Hussein in his campaign to alter the demographics of the area and dilute Kurdish influence, are fighting for their own stake in the new Iraq.
“Shame on the other side,” said Mr. Mizher, the Arab lawmaker. “They say we are Saddam. We are not slaves for anyone, for Saddam or for Baathists. We are Iraqis.”
Ahmed al-Askari, a Kurd and head of the provincial council’s security committee, speaks of reconciliation, but his choice of words betrays another agenda, as does a map on his wall that traces the Kurds’ broader land claims, a line stretching in to Turkey, Syria and Iran. “Leave it to the original Kirkuki people and we will reach an agreement,” he said.
Many in Iraq make a point of comparing America’s historical shortcomings in race relations to their tortured present of ethnic and sectarian divide.
“Now, the president of America is black,” Mr. Askari said. “We are working to learn democracy. Step by step, we will understand.”
Duraid Adnan and an employee of The New York Times contributed reporting from Kirkuk.
By TIM ARANGO
KIRKUK, Iraq — Many in this divided city want American troops to stay longer than the Obama administration has said they will, and a tense standoff on the southern and western edges of town last week showed why. Here, on a bridge, behind the mud brick walls of an abandoned mill and inside a hospice, Kurdish troops from the north were in positions on the outskirts of Arab neighborhoods.
To calm the latest flare-up of the longstanding ethnic rivalries here has required a rush of high-level diplomacy, including phone calls from Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to Kurdish leaders and, a rarity in Iraq today, the deployment of American troops.
The confrontation did not turn violent — precisely, many believe, because of the presence of American troops. But they will leave by the end of the year, if the current schedule stands, and many here fear that could lead to ethnic strife, even civil war.
The Kurdish soldiers, known as the pesh merga, were deployed last month by leaders in the semiautonomous northern region worried about Sunni Arab insurgents attacking peaceful demonstrators in the streets. But the action was viewed by local Arabs, American diplomats and military officials and the Iraqi government as provocative and illegal.
Kurdish officials said Monday that the troops had withdrawn as part of a deal with the Americans and the central government, although a witness in Kirkuk reported seeing the troops in their same positions, and an Arab lawmaker in the local council said that only some soldiers had left.
Sheik Burhan Mizher, an Arab member of the provincial government who like many interviewed here worries about the prospect of civil war after the Americans leave, said some pesh merga forces were still positioned around Kirkuk on Monday. He said of the American troops, “Of course, we want them to stay.”
In the debates under way in Washington and Baghdad about where the American and Iraqi relationship heads after eight years of war, those who argue for a continued American military presence beyond this year — and there are many among the diplomatic and military ranks of both countries — cite Kirkuk as the centerpiece of their case.
Perhaps the greatest unfinished chapter of America’s war in Iraq will be the status of Kirkuk, an ancient city that today is fought over by its three main ethnic groups, Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens, each making historical claims to the land and the oil that flows beneath.
“From my point of view, President Obama wants to win a second term and show that he keeps his promises to the American people,” said Hassan Toran, a Turkmen member of the council. “This will affect Kirkuk.”
If the Americans leave, Mr. Toran said, “Anything can happen.” In Iraq, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is hemmed in by a bloc of politicians loyal to the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr, who is opposed to any delay in the American withdrawal and whose support Mr. Maliki relied on to secure a second term as premier. Any extension of the American troop presence would require the politically risky decision by Mr. Maliki to ask for it.
Not only do American diplomats and military leaders argue for troops to stay, but outside experts do as well. A recent book written by six Iraq experts, led by Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution, called peacekeeping in Kirkuk “by far the most important U.S. military mission now” and suggested that troops stay to “be a crucial substitute for the trust that undergirds stable societies.” A report published Monday by the International Crisis Group called the pesh merga deployment a “deeply troubling development.”
At their most pessimistic, those involved in trying to solve the Kirkuk problem compare it to Bosnia or Rwanda — two socially mixed but politically divided lands that erupted in tragic and historic violence. When more optimistic, they cite the difficult but peaceful coexistence today of the French and Flemish in Brussels.
At the Kirkuk Provincial Council building, where recently a column of American armored vehicles were parked outside, the ethnic groups try to settle their differences through politics. But if democracy has emerged slowly in Iraq, it has come even more slowly here. When the rest of the country held provincial elections in 2009, Kirkuk did not. A constitutional provision that mandated a referendum on Kirkuk’s status in 2007 has not been held.
“There is no dialogue at all,” Mr. Toran said. “We all just give speeches through the media and accuse each other.” On Monday, a rock-throwing brawl broke out between Kurds and Turkmens at a technical university in Kirkuk.
Recently, the provincial governor, a Kurd, resigned. He is to be replaced by another Kurd, an American-Iraqi who once lived in Silver Spring, Md. The provincial council head, a Kurd, also recently resigned, and is expected to be replaced by Mr. Toran.
But a council session last week illustrated the layers of ethnic and religious divide here in Kirkuk. As the council considered Mr. Toran’s appointment, a Shiite Turkmen rival to Mr. Toran, who is Sunni, spoke against it, and the Kurds walked out to protest the theatrical display of identity politics. From a back row of the gallery, an American diplomat and two soldiers watched the proceedings.
On Kirkuk’s streets, insurgent attacks are still frequent. Recently, an Opel packed with explosives detonated outside a hospital, leaving two dead: a young mother and a baby girl, just 5 hours old. The father lost his right arm.
“Here I am without a wife and daughter and arm,” Samir Mahmoud, 27, said in an interview. “What can I do and where can I go? It’s our calamity.”
Across Iraq, the American invasion upended traditional notions of victimhood — the long oppressed Shiites became ascendant, while the Sunni ruling elite under Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party found itself on the margins of power. In Kirkuk, the Kurds, who had been brutalized by the former government’s policies and weapons, have the strongest grip on power. The Arabs, many of whom were moved to the area by Mr. Hussein in his campaign to alter the demographics of the area and dilute Kurdish influence, are fighting for their own stake in the new Iraq.
“Shame on the other side,” said Mr. Mizher, the Arab lawmaker. “They say we are Saddam. We are not slaves for anyone, for Saddam or for Baathists. We are Iraqis.”
Ahmed al-Askari, a Kurd and head of the provincial council’s security committee, speaks of reconciliation, but his choice of words betrays another agenda, as does a map on his wall that traces the Kurds’ broader land claims, a line stretching in to Turkey, Syria and Iran. “Leave it to the original Kirkuki people and we will reach an agreement,” he said.
Many in Iraq make a point of comparing America’s historical shortcomings in race relations to their tortured present of ethnic and sectarian divide.
“Now, the president of America is black,” Mr. Askari said. “We are working to learn democracy. Step by step, we will understand.”
Duraid Adnan and an employee of The New York Times contributed reporting from Kirkuk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)