Five Years Later, How They Got Saddam Hussein

Morning Edition, December 12, 2008 · Former Army Staff Sgt. Eric Maddox talks about his role in the capture of Saddam Hussein five years ago. Maddox used non-violent interrogation methods to discover Saddam's whereabouts by closing in on Saddam's inner circle of bodyguards. Maddox talks with Steve Inskeep about he got the information to get Saddam.

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=98174979&m=98174953

This was really pretty interesting. I was pleasantly surprised to hear Maddaox argue emphatically that you cannot get good information from people with threats of violence and coercion.

Secret killing program is key in Iraq, Woodward says

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The dramatic drop in violence in Iraq is due in large part to a secret program the U.S. military has used to kill terrorists, according to a new book by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Bob Woodward.

Bob Woodward's book, "The War Within: Secret White House History 2006-2008," came out Monday.

The program -- which Woodward compares to the World War II era Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb -- must remain secret for now or it would "get people killed," Woodward said Monday on CNN's Larry King Live.

"It is a wonderful example of American ingenuity solving a problem in war, as we often have," Woodward said.

In "The War Within: Secret White House History 2006-2008," Woodward disclosed the existence of secret operational capabilities developed by the military to locate, target and kill leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgent leaders.

National security adviser Stephen Hadley, in a written statement reacting to Woodward's book, acknowledged the new strategy. Yet he disputed Woodward's conclusion that the "surge" of 30,000 U.S. troops into Iraq was not the primary reason for the decline in violent attacks.

"It was the surge that provided more resources and a security context to support newly developed techniques and operations," Hadley wrote.

Woodward, associate editor of the Washington Post, wrote that along with the surge and the new covert tactics, two other factors helped reduce the violence. Watch Bob Woodward explain the strategy »

One was the decision of militant cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to order a cease-fire by his Mehdi Army. The other was the "Anbar Awakening" movement that saw Sunni tribes aligning with U.S. troops to battle al Qaeda in Iraq.

Woodward told Larry King that while there is a debate over how much credit the new secret operations should get for the drop in violence, he concluded it "accounts for a good portion."

"I would somewhat compare it to the Manhattan Project in World War II," he said "It's a ski slope right down in a matter of months, cutting the violence in half. This isn't going to happen with the bunch of joint security stations or the surge."

A few months back there was a online exclusive story in Newsweek that discussed a proposed US strategy called the "Salvador option" or something to that effect. This clear reference to the US-backed strategy adopted by the Rightist regime in El Salvador in the early 1980s would support the construction and training of local militias to find and destroy insurgents, assassinate extremists, abduct terrorist suspects, etc. I am not sure Woodward is talking about the same thing, but I find it interesting if not a little troubling. I mean, on the one hand it could be very effective, save the committement of US troops, and bring down overall levels of violence. However, in El Salvador it resulted in the regime killing upwards of 1000 suspected insurgents per month--most of whom were labor leaders, teachers, student activists, etc participating in non-violent organizing, not participating in violence. I hope this not the case here and that the if the use of local militias is indeed the strategy that the US is using that this time it uses much more discretion and better intelligence.

BBC: "Iraq floats US pullout timetable"

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has raised the prospect of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

Talks are continuing on a new security deal, but the US has said it opposes setting any timetable for withdrawal.

The UN mandate under which US troops stay in Iraq expires at the end 2008.

Correspondents say Mr Maliki may have an easier time getting the support of Iraqi MPs by proposing a deal which includes a withdrawal timetable.

US and Iraqi governments have been negotiating a detailed bilateral Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) since March and it was supposed to be concluded this month.

Many Iraqis want to see an end to the American military presence in their country, but are fearful of the consequences for security.

In violence on Monday, a female suicide bomber killed nine people and wounded 12 others in an attack on an Iraqi market, police said.

Respect for sovereignty

A statement from Mr Maliki's office quoted him as telling Arab ambassadors in the UAE: "The direction we are taking is to have a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to have a timetable for their withdrawal."

"The negotiations are still continuing with the American side, but in any case the basis for the agreement will be respect for the sovereignty of Iraq."

It was the first time that the prime minister had specifically suggested the setting of a timetable for a US withdrawal.

US officials in Baghdad did not issue an immediate reaction to the comments.

The American position has always been that setting a timetable for withdrawal gives an advantage to insurgents who have been battling US forces since the 2003 invasion which overthrow Saddam Hussein.

A possible withdraw from Iraq has become a major issue in the US presidential election campaign and could also figure prominently in local elections in Iraq in October.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/in_depth/7493782.stm

Iraqi cleric calls off militias

(BBC)

Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr has ordered his fighters off the streets of Basra and other cities in an effort to end clashes with security forces.

He said in a statement that his movement wanted the Iraqi people to stop the bloodshed and maintain the nation's independence and stability.

The government, which had set a deadline to hand over weapons in return for cash, called the move "positive".

The fighting has claimed more than 240 lives across the country since Tuesday.
In Baghdad, the city's military command has extended a round-the-clock curfew for an indefinite period. The curfew had been due to end on Sunday morning.

'Not one of us'

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has given militias until 8 April to surrender their weapons in return for cash.

Moqtada Sadr's statement said: "Because of the religious responsibility, and to stop Iraqi blood being shed, and to maintain the unity of Iraq and to put an end to this sedition that the occupiers and their followers want to spread among the Iraqi people, we call for an end to armed appearances in Basra and all other provinces.

"Anyone carrying a weapon and targeting government institutions will not be one of us."
The cleric also demanded that the government apply the general amnesty law, release detainees and stop what he called illegal raids.

Moqtada Sadr also told his followers to "work with Iraqi government offices to achieve security and to file charges against those who have committed crimes".

A spokesman for Mr Maliki, Ali al-Dabbagh, told Iraq television the statement was positive.
"As the government of Iraq we welcome this statement. We believe this will support the government of Iraq's efforts to impose security."

Casualties

Officials had extended the Baghdad curfew after a day of skirmishes between security forces and Shia militiamen in the capital and Basra.

Coalition forces had become more involved with US air raids in the two cities in recent days.
Estimates vary of the number of deaths since the fighting broke out.

Fighting in Baghdad has left 117 people dead over the past three days, Iraqi police told the BBC.
In Basra, the British military has given a death toll of 50 but local medical sources report as many as 290 dead and the Iraqi army has reported killing 120 "enemy" fighters there.

Scores of people are believed to have been killed in other southern cities, according to Iraqi police or medical reports.

At least 44 people were killed in and around Kut, 15 in Nasiriya, 12 in Karbala and six in Hilla.

Sooooooo... tell me if I being crazy here: Does seem a little odd (dare I say, staged?) that Sadr would espouse resistance one day, and then only a week later, call for cooperation?

A couple days ago, the part of my brain that runs it's mouth at parties after an 8 oz. glass of nasty-ass raspberry vodka, (but wouldn't likely say such things sober) was thinking "You know, what if Al-Sadr was engaged in some kinda cahoots with the Iraqi government to stage something of an uprising in Basra... and then, at the crucial hour, the Medhi militia backed down, allowing the Iraqi government to take credit for re-establishing the peace, look all kinds of awesome, therefore contributing to a faster U.S. withdrawal."

Now, I didn't post something about this earlier in Reed's previous entry because I didn't want to look like I was wearing a tinfoil hat... but now, lo and behold, Sadr has today called for his follows to leave the streets, and cooperate with Iraqi security forces.

So... am I way out in left field here?

Do We Have a Moral Obligation to Iraq?

26, March 2008 , 13:15

by Mark Rowlands

With the possible exception of John McCain, pretty much everyone, whether on the right or left, agrees that getting out of Iraq is a good idea. Of course it is, at least in one sense of ‘good’. I don’t think anyone needs reminding that Iraq is the most serious foreign policy debacle in living memory. The war was based on a premise that was unfounded and its consequences – human, economic, and political – have been disastrous for us, and truly calamitous for the Iraqis. Of course it is a good idea to get out of Iraq. If you think this, then what must you think the word ‘good’ means? I suspect that you’re thinking about the word ‘good’ in the way that got us into this mess in the first place.

Iraq, of course, wasn’t a very nice place to live before the invasion: no country run by a psychopathic dictator whose hobby is starting wars with his neighbors ever is. But, by the standards of the region it was by no means exceptional. Indeed, many women had a freedom and access to higher education that they could only dream about in some of the neighboring countries. However, this didn’t stop us from going in and utterly destroying the country, transforming it from the merely unpleasant to the positively nightmarish – with every indication that it is going to get even worse if we should leave.

The decision turns out to be somewhat unfortunate for us too: costing over four thousand American lives, exacerbating an already weakened economy, and diverting our attention from areas – such as Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan where people who actually might want to kill us, or have tried to kill us, or have succeeded in killing us, are currently residing. We all know this.

So, naturally, we want to get out. But the terms in which our withdrawal is debated always turn on what is best for us: the good thing to do is the good thing for us. And this overlooks, of course, that we destroyed their country and made their lives s**t.

Suppose you suspect – groundlessly as it turns out – that your neighbor is throwing garbage into your yard. So, you do what seems to you to be the best thing: you invade his house and largely destroy it, rendering it uninhabitable. Realizing your mistake, you volunteer to stay on and help him or her rebuild it. But, you soon weary of this for a variety of reasons. Maybe it’s hitting you financially because you can’t go to work. So, the best thing to do – you decided – is withdraw. If you decide this, then ‘best’ clearly means ‘best for you’.

We seem to have such a hard time thinking about the foreign policy in anything other than self-interested terms. I suspect that’s because today we have a hard time thinking about morality in anything other than self-interested terms. We have, more or less, forgotten what being moral means. This is a tendency that afflicts liberals as much as conservatives. If we at least suspect that there might be a problem with our self-interested behavior, we devote our energies to inventing laughably weak reasons to excuse it. ‘The Iraqis want us to leave’, they say. Yes, some do – perhaps the majority. But this is the same majority that is likely to come out on top after the ensuing bloodshed. Alternatively, as Bill Maher argued last week, whether we leave now or in ten years, they’re still going to kill each other anyway. So, we might as well leave now. I’m not sure what evidence this assertion is based on, but it is clearly the moral equivalent of ‘you’re f****d, so f**k you!’

The point is that when self-interest is at stake, you don’t need a good reason for pursuing it – a bad one will do.

Here’s one way to think morally, a way that has a lineage that runs from John Rawls, through Immanuel Kant, to, dare I say it, a certain Nazarene carpenter. Imagine you don’t know who you are. You don’t know whether you are American, or an Iraqi Sunni, an Iraqi Shia, or an Iraqi Kurd. Then ask yourself: what would I like to happen? I don’t know what answer you would come up with. And, to be quite honest, I’m not sure what answer I would arrive at either. My point here is not about what is the morally right thing to do but how to think about what’s the morally right thing to do. If you do this, then you are at least trying to think morally as opposed to self-interestedly. Of course, you can’t really imagine this. Neither can I. Morality is not an exact science. But we can do the best we can. And, (morally) the best we can is not always (self-interestedly) the best for us.

Original Article at Secular Philosophy (click here to be redirected)

US army deaths in Iraq hit 4,000

The number of United States military personnel killed in Iraq since the US-led invasion five years ago has passed the 4,000 mark.

The latest to die were four soldiers whose patrol vehicle was blown up by a bomb in southern Baghdad on Sunday.

The deaths bring the total to 4,000, according to the US military and independent monitoring groups.

In other violence, Baghdad's Green Zone came under fire, and a suicide bomber killed 13 Iraqi soldiers in Mosul.

In Baghdad, the heavily-fortified Green Zone suffered sustained mortar and rocket fire, which killed at least 15 civilians.

The US military said it killed 12 militants preparing suicide attacks in a house east of Baquba.

The bloodshed comes despite an overall reduction in violence since last June.

That was when the US deployed an extra 30,000 troops in violence-hit areas - the so-called "troop surge".

But Sunday's violence underlines the fragile, reversible nature of the apparent improvements in security, say correspondents.

Huge blast

At least 40 people were injured in Sunday's early-morning suicide strike in Mosul.

The suicide attacker ploughed an explosives-laden tanker into the army base, causing a massive blast.

Iraqi and US soldiers have been engaged in a major offensive in Mosul, which US commanders say is al-Qaeda's last urban stronghold in Iraq.

In another deadly attack, at least seven shoppers in a Baghdad market were killed when gunmen travelling in three cars opened fire.

Our correspondent says previous rocket attacks on the Green Zone have been blamed on rogue elements of Moqtada Sadr's Mehdi Army militia, which is supposed to be observing a ceasefire.

Also on Sunday, the US military said it had killed 12 men in a raid east of Baquba city, in Diyala province.

Spokesman Major Winfield Danielson claimed six of the men killed were found to have shaved their bodies, which he said was "consistent with final preparation for suicide operations".

He added that a cache of weapons and ammunition had also been found in the raid and destroyed.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7310924.stm

Just thought we should think about this. 5 years on...800 deaths per year. Let's not forget the estimated 1 million Iraqi deaths (from the invasion) as well as the additional 1 to 1.5 million Iraqis that died of sanctions-related causes. We could add on the additional British troop loss as well as all of the crippled, maimed, disfigured, and emotionally/psychologically scarred US and allied troops...tragic.

Warnings about Blackwater unheeded

Despite Shootings, Security Companies Expanded Presence
By Steve FainaruWashington Post Foreign ServiceMonday, December 24, 2007;
The U.S. government disregarded numerous warnings over the past two years about the risks of using Blackwater Worldwide and other private security firms in Iraq, expanding their presence even after a series of shooting incidents showed that the firms were operating with little regulation or oversight, according to government officials, private security firms and documents.

The warnings were conveyed in letters and memorandums from defense and legal experts and in high-level discussions between U.S. and Iraqi officials. They reflected growing concern about the lack of control over the tens of thousands of private guards in Iraq, the largest private security force ever employed by the United States in wartime.

Neither the Pentagon nor the State Department took substantive action to regulate private security companies until Blackwater guards opened fire Sept. 16 at a Baghdad traffic circle, killing 17 Iraqi civilians and provoking protests over the role of security contractors in Iraq.
"Why is it they couldn't see this coming?" said Christopher Beese, chief administrative officer for ArmorGroup International, a British security firm with extensive operations in Iraq. "That amazes me. Somebody -- it could have been military officers, it could have been State -- anybody could have waved a flag and said, 'Stop, this is not good news for us.' "

Private security firms rushed into Iraq after the March 2003 invasion. The U.S. military, which entered the country with 130,000 troops, needed additional manpower to protect supply convoys, military installations and diplomats. Private security companies appeared "like mushrooms after a rainstorm," recalled Michael J. Arrighi, who has worked in private security in Iraq since 2004.

Last year, the Pentagon estimated that 20,000 hired guns worked in Iraq; the Government Accountability Office estimated 48,000.

On Feb. 7, 2006, Blackwater guards allegedly killed three Kurdish civilians outside the northern city of Kirkuk. That incident triggered demonstrations outside the U.S. Consulate and led Rizgar Ali, president of the Kirkuk provincial council, to complain to U.S. authorities in Kirkuk and Baghdad, Ali said in an interview. The incident was one of several shootings that caused friction between the U.S. and Iraqi governments..

On Christmas Eve 2006, a Blackwater employee killed the bodyguard of an Iraqi vice president in the Green Zone. Six weeks later, a Blackwater sniper killed three security guards for the state-run media network. On May 24, a Blackwater team shot and killed a civilian driver outside the Interior Ministry gates, sparking an armed standoff between the Blackwater guards and Iraqi security forces in downtown Baghdad.

By June 6, concerns about Blackwater had reached Iraq's National Intelligence Committee, which included senior Iraqi and U.S. intelligence officials, including Maj. Gen. David B. Lacquement, the Army's deputy chief of staff for intelligence. Maj. Gen. Hussein Kamal, who heads the Interior Ministry's intelligence directorate, called on U.S. authorities to crack down on private security companies.

U.S. military officials told Kamal that Blackwater was under State Department authority and outside their control, according to notes of the meeting. The matter was dropped.
"We set this thing up for failure from the beginning," said T.X. Hammes, a retired Marine colonel who advised the new Iraqi army from January to March 2004. He added that private security guards regularly infuriated his Iraqi staff with their aggressive tactics and that he reported the problems "up the chain of command."

"We're just sorting it out now," Hammes said. "I still think, from a pure counterinsurgency standpoint, armed contractors are an inherently bad idea, because you cannot control the quality, you cannot control the action on the ground, but you're held responsible for everything they do."

U.S. officials argue that security contractors save money and free up troops for more urgent tasks, such as fighting insurgents. "Certainly there have been moments of frustration where people here have said, 'Maybe we should just take over the whole operation, even if it stretches our forces more,' " Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. "But the reality is that we think our resources are better utilized taking it to the bad guys than guarding warehouses and escorting convoys."

The State Department investigated previous Blackwater shootings and found no indication of wrongdoing, according to a senior official involved in security matters. He said the U.S. Embassy discussed any concerns the Iraqi government had about the company's conduct. "I'm not aware of the significant warnings," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of ongoing investigations related to the Sept. 16 shooting.

The Defense Department has paid $2.7 billion for private security since 2003, according to USA Spending, a government-funded project that tracks contracting expenditures; the military said it currently employs 17 companies in Iraq under contracts worth $689.7 million. The State Department has paid $2.4 billion for private security in Iraq -- including $1 billion to Blackwater -- since 2003, USA Spending figures show.

On Dec. 5, the State and Defense departments signed a memorandum of agreement designed to increase cooperation between the two and better define their authority over private security contractors. The nine-page agreement, which was approved by Ryan C. Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces there, for the first time set common guidelines for reporting serious incidents, the use of deadly force, coordination on the battlefield and possession of firearms.

But the laws governing security contractors still have not been clarified. On Sept. 30, 2006, Congress passed a provision aimed at giving the military authority over all contractors in Iraq, including Blackwater. But the provision has not been implemented by the Pentagon. The 15-month delay "has led to much confusion over who will be covered . . . and has called into question whether the Department plans to utilize this provision," Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who sponsored the provision, wrote in a letter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates shortly after the Sept. 16 incident.
The Pentagon is studying whether the provision can withstand legal scrutiny, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.Contractors in Combat

In previous wars, the Pentagon had prohibited contractors from participating in combat. But in Iraq, military planners rewrote the policy to match the reality on the ground. On Sept. 20, 2005, the military issued an order authorizing contractors to use deadly force to protect people and assets. In June 2006, the order was codified as an "interim rule" in the Federal Register. It took effect immediately without public debate.

Critics, including the American Bar Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, warned that the Pentagon had used an obscure defense acquisition rule to push through a fundamental shift in American war-fighting without fully considering the potential legal and strategic ramifications.

The provision enabled the military to significantly raise troop levels with contractors whose "combat roles now closely parallel those of Constitutionally and Congressionally authorized forces," wrote Herbert L. Fenster, a partner with McKenna Long & Aldridge, a Washington-based international law firm that represents several major defense contractors. Fenster questioned the provision's legality in a lengthy comment he filed in opposition. The practice "smacks of a mercenary approach," he wrote in an e-mail.

But neither the military nor the State Department set guidelines for regulating tens of thousands of hired guns on the battlefield. Oversight was left to overburdened government contracting officers or the companies themselves, which conducted their own investigations when a shooting incident occurred. Dozens of security companies operated under layers of subcontracts that often made their activities all but impossible to track. They were accountable to no one for violent incidents, according to U.S. officials and security company representatives familiar with the contracting arrangements.

U.S. officials often turned to the Private Security Company Association of Iraq, a trade group funded by the security companies. Lawrence T. Peter, a retired Navy intelligence officer, served as the association's director while also working as a consultant to the Pentagon's Defense Reconstruction Support Office, which administers contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whitman, the Pentagon spokesman, said Peter earned "a few thousand dollars a year" as a consultant.
The association operated out of an office inside the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Logistics Directorate in the Green Zone. Jack Holly, a retired Marine colonel who heads corps logistics in Iraq, said that Peter and the association play "a critical role to help the private security community improve and regulate itself," adding, "They tried to fill a void that had been left by the U.S. government's failure to recognize the problem."

"The department didn't see him as an advocate" for the security industry, Whitman said, referring to Peter. "They saw him as a conduit for information to understand the role of private security contractors in the reconstruction process."

But others saw a conflict of interest. "It violates all the best lessons of what goes into good policy and smart business," said Peter W. Singer, a Brookings Institution senior fellow who has written a book on private security. "You do not hand over these questions to parties that are not merely mildly interested but they're the ones you are seeking to regulate."

The association sometimes resisted regulation. Earlier this year, Peter opposed the military's efforts to enforce orders requiring private security firms to obtain formal weapons permits from the Iraqi government, arguing that the authorization process was unworkable. Peter did not return messages seeking comment. His deputy, H.C. Lawrence Smith, said during an interview in Baghdad this year that the association sometimes helped the military in "writing the language in contracts relating to the role that private security companies play. We don't care what the contract is about, as long as the companies are treated fairly."

Maj. Gen. Darryl A. Scott, who oversees Pentagon contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, said the association had never "provided any input on contract language." He said he viewed it as a trade group that made unsolicited comments on policy on behalf of its membership. To employ Peter as a consultant, Scott said, "wouldn't be proper."Fury and Frustration

On June 27, 2004, one day before he left Baghdad, L. Paul Bremer, administrator of the now-defunct U.S. occupation government, signed CPA Order 17, a decree granting contractors immunity from Iraqi law.

Two years later, Matthew Degn, a then-36-year-old civilian contractor from Seattle, arrived in Baghdad as a senior policy adviser to the Interior Ministry. One of his assignments was to help the Iraqis regulate private security. He started by reading CPA Order 17.

Degn, a no-nonsense Army veteran who had taught national security and terrorism studies at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, offered a blunt assessment of the document. "You have no power," he told Iraqi officials.

Hostility toward Blackwater was already high in the Interior Ministry, which was dominated by Shiite militias. The February 2006 shooting incident in Kirkuk had damaged U.S.-Iraqi relations in the area, leaving the Americans "hated and ostracized," according to Ali, the provincial council president.

Ali said he "sent official letters to the American and the British consulates and met them in my office to find out who the murderers were. They didn't do anything or give me clear answers. They only said, 'The ones who did it were from the Blackwater company.' "

A Blackwater spokeswoman did not respond to e-mails or phone messages seeking comment. U.S. officials said they could not recall the incident.

Blackwater, based in Moyock, N.C., was founded in 1996 by a former Navy SEAL, Erik Prince. In Iraq, the company protects the U.S. ambassador and other diplomats. Blackwater has lost 25 employees in Iraq, according to Labor Department figures based on insurance claims. The firm says no one under its protection has been killed.

The State Department's reliance on Blackwater expanded dramatically in 2006, when together with the U.S. firms DynCorp and Triple Canopy it won a new, multiyear contract worth $3.6 billion. Blackwater's share was $1.2 billion, up from $488 million, and the company more than doubled its staff, from 482 to 1,082. From January 2006 to April 2007, the State Department paid Blackwater at least $601 million in 38 transactions, according to government data.
The company developed a reputation for aggressive street tactics. Even inside the fortified Green Zone, Blackwater guards were known for running vehicles off the road and pointing their weapons at bystanders, according to several security company representatives and U.S. officials.

"They're universally despised in the" Green Zone, said Arrighi, who has managed security for several companies since 2004. "That's not an overstatement. 'Universally despised' is probably a kind way to put it."

The Iraqis' fury grew as they realized that Blackwater was untouchable, Degn said. After the May 24 shooting of a civilian Iraqi driver outside the Interior Ministry gates, Blackwater guards refused to divulge their names or details of the incident to the Iraqi authorities. Degn, who was working in the ministry at the time, recalled that the Iraqis were outraged and the American advisers felt threatened.

"After that day, people looked at us a little different," Degn said. "There was a palpable feeling. . . . We knew that something monumental had happened, that we were in deep water. And we felt like we weren't getting anything done. We were going up and coming down, but they weren't listening to a darn thing we were saying."

The State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity said Blackwater became synonymous with private security, "like Kleenex or Reynolds Wrap" being used to describe generic products, and was blamed for incidents even when it wasn't involved. He said the shootings should be viewed in the context of the several thousand missions that Blackwater conducted safely on Baghdad's dangerous streets.

On June 6, Kamal, the deputy minister, brought up the issue of Blackwater before the National Intelligence Committee. The committee's weekly meetings at the Iraqi parliament were headed by Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security adviser, and attended by several U.S. officials, including Lacquement, the Army's deputy chief of staff for intelligence.
A spokesman for Lacquement, who is now commander of the Army Intelligence and Security Command, said that for "reasons of classification and security," he could not address whether Blackwater was discussed.

"Clearly the overall philosophy and tactics of Blackwater were not in keeping with winning hearts and minds," said a senior defense official involved in private security policy. The company's aggressive tactics provoked widespread frustration among U.S. commanders in Iraq, but the complaints "never got out of the brigade level" until after the Sept. 16 incident, he said.
Kamal's pleas to do something about the private security firms went nowhere. "Kamal was ballistic," Degn said. The May 24 shooting "had happened right on Interior Ministry grounds. That's what made it so explosive. But once again, the Americans blew it off, so where are you going to take it after that?"

Degn said he was also frustrated. "We sent many memos up the chain of command," he said. "I thought it was a huge issue. The coalition knew about it, but it was just another part of the war, so nothing was ever done. I felt it was completely ignored."
"I mean, how many of these incidents does it take before you're finally aware?" Degn added.'An Interesting Question'

In the spring of 2005, while on a one-year tour in Baghdad, Army Maj. Robert Bateman watched a Blackwater convoy barrel through a congested traffic circle, indiscriminately firing warning shots. Bateman, who frequently writes and blogs on military issues, described what he saw to his fiancee, Kate Turner, a first-year graduate student at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.

On Dec. 5 that year, Turner decided to ask Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who was visiting Johns Hopkins, what laws governed security contractors in Iraq.
"Iraq's a sovereign country. They have their laws, and they're going to govern," Rumsfeld replied.

Four months later, Turner raised the issue with President Bush when he visited the school.
"I asked your secretary of defense a couple months ago what law governs their actions," Turner said, according to a transcript of the exchange.

"I was going to ask him," the president responded, drawing laughter as he issued a mock entreaty. "Go ahead. Help."

"Mr. Rumsfeld answered that Iraq has its own domestic laws which he assumed applied to those private military contractors," Turner said. "However, Iraq is clearly not capable of enforcing its laws. I would submit to you that this is one case that privatization is not a solution. And, Mr. President, how do you propose to bring private military contractors under a system of law?"
"I wasn't kidding. I was going to pick up the phone and say, 'Mr. Secretary, I've got an interesting question,' " Bush replied. "I don't mean to be dodging the questions, although it's kind of convenient in this case."

Turner received a letter two weeks later from the Pentagon's Office of General Counsel. It directly contradicted Rumsfeld: "Contractors are . . . subject to oversight and accountability for their actions on the basis of U.S. law and regulation."

To date, not a single case has been brought against a private security contractor in Iraq. "The reality is the military has not had any oversight on this issue until recently," Arrighi said. "We could hire the Rockettes and give them guns, and they wouldn't know. It was a total wasteland."
Special correspondent Naseer Nouri in Baghdad and staff researcher Julie Tate in Washington contributed to this report.

I know we have covered some aspects of the Blackwater-security firm scandal on the blog before, but this report just makes it al seem even worse. Again, I am appalled and yet not surprised. I guess the thing that bugs me the most (well, except the whole killing civilians thing) is that no one really knows how many private security contractors there are in Iraq and Afghanistan--the Pentagon says about 20,000 while the Government Accountability Office says 48,000. Ummm...does this seem like a problem? As a final note, I would like to suggest that while apparently neither US nor Iraqi law seems to apply to security contractors, they are still subject to the rules of war and to international humanitarian and human rights law. If the US won't punish contractors and Iraq can't (because of the deals brokered with Bremmer and the CPA) it seems like the Hague might be the best place to go next.

Blackwater killings 'broke rules'

By Jonathan Beale
BBC News, Washington

The killings of at least 14 Iraqi civilians by guards from the security firm Blackwater were unjustified, FBI officials have told the New York Times.

The officials are investigating the 16 September incident in which 17 Iraqis were shot by Blackwater staff guarding State Department employees.

The revelations come as the US State Department's inspector-general admits his brother is linked to Blackwater.

The official admitted the link while giving evidence to Congress.

Members of Congress are conducting an investigation into the activities of private security firms like Blackwater.

The State Department's inspector-general, Howard Krongard, was the latest senior official called to give evidence on Capitol Hill.

Mr Krongard is responsible for State Department contracts and ensuring that the department behaves ethically.

At the start of the hearing, he wanted to quash what he called ugly rumours that his own family was linked to Blackwater.

He said his brother had no financial relationship with the private security firm.

Astounding revelation

But after a break in proceedings, his testimony dramatically changed.

"During the break, I did contact my brother... I learned that he had been at the [Blackwater] advisory board meeting yesterday," he said.

"I had not been aware of that and I want to state it on the record right now that I hereby recuse myself from any matters having to do with Blackwater."

That astounding revelation prompted only more questions as to why Mr Krongard had not previously established his brother's links to Blackwater, especially in the wake of the September 16 shootings that first put Blackwater under the spotlight.

The New York Times, quoting unnamed US officials, says a preliminary FBI investigation has found that at least 14 of the 17 shootings that day were unjustified and violated Blackwater's rules of engagement.

Blackwater still insists its employees came under attack before opening fire.

The FBI investigation is ongoing, but the State Department's links to Blackwater have already proved damaging.

BBC STORY HERE - CLICK ME!

This is just getting ridiculous. I don't know what to bitch about more... Blackwater mercenaries, the lack of ire this should be generating in the US, the corruption in the State Dept (nearly the entire Executive branch of our government is disgusting), or that I had to find this out from the BBC - our press is more interested in fucking OJ Simpson! Sigh. I feel icky.

Turkey PM in 'decisive' US talks

Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan is in Washington for what Ankara has called a decisive meeting with President George W Bush on Kurdish rebels in north Iraq.

Turkey has threatened to send troops across the border to hit bases used by the Kurdish PKK rebels unless the US and Iraq does more to stop attacks.

The Turkish government is under public pressure to use force against the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party).

But Washington has urged Ankara not to launch cross-border strikes.

Impatience

Before leaving for Washington, Mr Erdogan warned the meeting came at a critical time.

"Our visit comes at a time when [Turkish-US] relations are undergoing a serious test," Mr Erdogan told reporters on Saturday, before departing from Istanbul.

"We have run out of patience with the terrorist attacks being staged from northern Iraq," he said, expressing hope that his talks with Mr Bush would produce "concrete measures".

In spite of promises of action from the Iraqi government and the US, who regard the PKK as the "common enemy", Mr Erdogan did not seem reassured.

On a stop in Italy on his way to Washington he told the newspaper La Repubblica "there hasn't been any concrete step" from the US administration to stop Kurdish violence.

The Kurdish rebels have intensified their campaign during the past month, killing at least 40 people, military and civilians, in Turkey.

The PKK has waged a violent campaign in the south-eastern region of Turkey since 1984, resulting in more than 30,000 deaths.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7079391.stm
Crossing into another country to attack terrorists... hmmmm... that sounds familiar... I'm looking at you Israel!... oh yeah and the US... although we obviously don't need to know for sure that the country poses a threat anymore, we just invade (see Iraq). On the specific issue of the PKK, I am not fully aware of the entire situation. I know that it is causes a lot of tension between Turkey and the EU/Kurds/US/"Iraq", but the history I am very vague on. I am sure Mr. Reed could shed a little light here for most of us on the history of the PKK.

Iraq tells US to ditch Blackwater

Iraq has demanded that the US end its association with private security firm Blackwater within six months.

It accuses Blackwater guards of having deliberately fired on Iraqi civilians, killing 17 and injuring more than 20.

The government has demanded Blackwater pay $8m compensation to each family bereaved by last month's shootings.

Private security employees are immune from prosecution in Iraq, but an FBI investigation into the killings raises the prospect of trials in the US.

The BBC's Jon Brain in Baghdad says the now infamous Blackwater affair is continuing to cause huge strains between the Iraqi and US governments.

The new details of Iraq's demands were outlined in an official report issued on Monday in Arabic and subsequently translated by international news agencies.

Blackwater denies its men acted improperly, while Washington, which depends on the company to protect its embassy staff in Baghdad, has declined to comment on the Iraqi report.

Possible trial

The report says in the time since Blackwater took over security for US diplomats in 2003, its guards have killed 38 Iraqi civilians and wounded about 50 in shootings.

BLACKWATER USA FACTS Founded in 1997 by a former US Navy Seal Headquarters in North Carolina One of at least 28 private security companies in Iraq Employs 744 US citizens, 231 third-country nationals, and 12 Iraqis to protect US state department in Iraq Provided protection for former CPA head Paul Bremer Four employees killed by mob in Falluja in March 2004

It also says Blackwater's licence to operate in Iraq expired in 2006, meaning it had no immunity from prosecution under the laws introduced by the US authorities in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

The Iraqi panel led by the defence minister calls for the US to hand over Blackwater guards to face possible trial in Iraqi courts.

The report says that on 16 September four Blackwater vehicles and two helicopters opened fire without provocation in two locations after a car bombing near a meeting involving a USAID official under Blackwater protection.

At least 14 Iraqi civilians were killed in Nisoor square, and two or three more were killed at the next intersection, the report says.

The compensation requested is higher than usual "because Blackwater uses employees who disrespect the rights of Iraqi citizens even though they are guests in this country", the report said, as quoted by Associated Press.

Blackwater has not responded to the Iraqi government investigation but insists its employees came under fire first.

Blackwater is the main firm employed by the US state department to provide security for its staff in Baghdad and visiting officials and businessmen.

In the days following the incident, which caused widespread anger in Iraq, the interior ministry drafted legislation bring private security contractors under Iraqi law.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7035115.stm

About time. But considering they had totally immunity from prosecution until last week, and questions remain about how much power Iraq has to govern foreign troops, it is unlikely they will be packing up anytime soon.

Blackwater boss grilled over Iraq

The chairman of US private security contractor Blackwater has defended his firm and his staff during a grilling by a congressional committee.

Blackwater has come under scrutiny since a shoot-out last month in Baghdad in which 11 Iraqis were killed. The FBI has begun investigating that incident.

The firm's founder, Erik Prince, said his staff were brave and effective, and had acted "appropriately".

But one of the committee asked if the firm was "a shadow mercenary force".

"Blackwater appears to have fostered a culture of shoot first - and sometimes kill - and then ask the questions," said Democratic Congressman Elijah Cummings.

Blackwater is the main firm employed by the state department to provide security for its staff and visiting officials and businessmen.

It has earned more than $1bn (£490m) from US government contracts since 2001. The state department paid the company more than $832m (£408m) for security work between 2004 and 2006.

'Short' on standards

The 16 September shooting incident is not featuring in the hearing by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, because it is under investigation by the FBI.

CONGRESS BLACKWATER REPORT Earned more than $1bn (£490m) from US government contracts since 2001 Staff involved in 195 shootings in Iraq between 2005 and 12 September 2007 Allegedly drunk employee killed Iraqi vice-president's guard in 2006, but was flown out of Iraq and faced no criminal charges 28 staff in Iraq sacked for weapons-related incidents, 25 for alcohol and drug violations

But congressmen raised a number of other incidents they said showed that Blackwater fell short of the standards of the US military.

The committee's chairman, Henry Waxman, referred to an incident in Afghanistan in 2004 when a Blackwater plane flown by inexperienced pilots crashed, killing US service personnel on board.

An investigation showed the pilots did not follow procedure, did not know where they were going and were treating their mission as "fun".

"Is Blackwater, a private military contractor, helping or hurting our efforts?" Mr Waxman asked, referring to Iraq.

Good value?

Several representatives referred to an incident in which a Blackwater guard shot dead a bodyguard of one of Iraq's vice-presidents while drunk. He was hurried out of Iraq and faced no criminal charges.

Mr Prince said Blackwater had taken firm action against the guard. He was fined and fired.

He also said that 30 Blackwater staff had been killed while working to defend US diplomats, but that none of its clients had died while in its protection.

BLACKWATER USA FACTS Founded in 1997 by a former US Navy Seal Headquarters in North Carolina One of at least 28 private security companies in Iraq Employs 744 US citizens, 231 third-country nationals, and 12 Iraqis to protect US state department in Iraq Provided protection for former CPA head Paul Bremer Four employees killed by mob in Falluja in March 2004

"There is no better evidence of the skill and dedication of these men," said Mr Prince, who is a former member of the US Navy Seals special forces.

Mr Prince, 38, said his firm was happy to be subjected to greater oversight.

"Blackwater believes that more can and should be done to increase accountability, oversight and transparency," he told the hearing.

Mr Waxman's staff produced a scathing report on Monday that released details of several incidents involving Iraqi casualties, in which Blackwater employees had fired first on 163 out of 195 occasions.

In the majority of cases, the guards fired their weapons from moving vehicles without stopping to count the dead or assist the wounded, the report said.

He questioned whether private contractors should be used instead of US soldiers.

"The question for this hearing is whether outsourcing to Blackwater is a good deal to the American taxpayer," he said.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7024370.stm

"Blackwater employees had fired first on 163 out of 195 occasions." Jesus H, that's ridiculous! We need to get these hired thugs out of Iraq. Mercenaries have no place where someone wants to establish peace. I'm certain that most Iraqis associate Blackwater with the US invasion troops, and sadly it is actually rightfully so (they have been paid over a billion in the last few years by our government). These kinds of lawless paid-guns are only going to keep this situation escalating. What about hiring Iraqis to do these security jobs and thereby not only build trust but fuel the economy some too? Iraqis acting under the jurisdiction of Iraqi law and dealing with their fellow countrymen would be a huge improvement over Blackwater agents who often act with recklessness and impunity.

Iraq to end contractor 'immunity'

The Iraqi interior ministry has said it has drafted legislation regulating private security companies following a shooting allegedly involving a US firm.

The new code would require contractors to be subject to Iraqi law and to be monitored by the Iraqi government.

The draft is being considered by the consultative State Shura Council before being passed to parliament for debate.

The circumstances of the shooting two weeks ago, in which 11 Iraqis died, are being investigated by a US-Iraqi panel.

The contractor under suspicion, Blackwater USA, has said its guards reacted lawfully to an attack on a US diplomatic convoy.

'Impunity'

A spokesman for the Iraqi interior ministry, Maj-Gen Abdul Kareem Khalaf, said the new guidelines would cover everything to do with the operations of private security contractors.

"The companies will come under the grip of Iraqi law, will be monitored by the interior ministry and will work under its guidelines," he said.

"They will be strictly punished for any [violations] on the street."

Blackwater is the biggest private security firm operating in Iraq, with contracts including protecting the US embassy in Iraq and its diplomatic staff.

Tens of thousands of often heavily-armed security contractors work in the country.

Correspondents say their behaviour has incensed Iraqis who view them as private armies acting with impunity on their soil.

The contractors are currently granted immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law by Order 17 of the Coalition Provisional Authority - the now-defunct interim body set up by the US-led coalition in the wake of the fall of Saddam Hussein.

The agreement was extended shortly before the CPA was disbanded in June 2004.

Last week, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki called for the US government to end its contract with Blackwater immediately, although on Monday he agreed they should await the findings of the probe.

From BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7012853.stm

Well, it's a start. I would still like to see the contractors (if we must allow civilian contractors to work in Iraq, and I can't see why we do since they are mercenaries in no uncertain terms) fall under very specific US laws, both military and civilian. It is a little appalling that currently no court has the clear authority to try contractors if they intentionally or recklessly injure or kill civilians.

Iraq Reconsidering US Security Firms

The Iraqi government declared today it would examine the status of all foreign security firms amid growing anger over the death of eight Iraqis after US private contractors opened fire.

The decision came despite the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, apologising for the deaths in an attempt to prevent the expulsion of the American firm involved, Blackwater USA.

Staff of other foreign companies - believed to number up to 180,000 personnel - may now face restrictions or even expulsion.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said today: "It is necessary to review the status of local and foreign private security companies working in Iraq according to what is suitable with Iraqi laws."

Mr al-Dabbagh said the cabinet had confirmed the interior ministry's decision to withdraw Blackwater's licence, launch an investigation and ensure all those who attacked civilians were held accountable.

"The company should respect Iraqi laws and the dignity of the citizens," he said.

Eight Iraqi civilians were killed and 13 wounded in Mansour, Baghdad, when shots were fired from a US state department convoy on Sunday.

Brigadier-general Adam-Karim Khalaf, an interior ministry spokesman, said that foreign security contractors opened fire after mortar rounds landed near the convoy. "They opened fire randomly at citizens," he said.

........

Under a law issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority before Iraq regained sovereignty in June 2004, the companies have immunity from Iraqi prosecution.

The private security firms have proven controversial and many Iraqis view them as trigger-happy. US soldiers can face court martial if accused of unprovoked assaults or over-reaction, although the ratio of those convicted is low. But the law in relation to private security firms remains vague.

Source: The Guardian. Full story available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2171904,00.html

About bloody time. I still don't see how 'civilian' security firms can operate as if they were military personnel but without any of the legal constraints or oversight to which the military is usually subject. The whole security contractor issue has always seemed dubious to me at best, unethical and dangerous at least, and criminal at worst. Perhaps now there will be a little more open discussion of the matter.

On a traitorous matter...

I was looking for a good way to go into this topic, but while looking, I found an amazing letter on Congress.org that some one had written to the president that expresses pretty much my exact thoughts on this, as I see it, traitorous, immoral and criminal matter.

(Here's the link to the original)

Subject: Let the Iraqi Oil Hunt Begin! To: President George Bush September 14, 2007 In one of the strangest moves to date, an American oil company signed a deal with Iraq's Kurdish regional government. This occurred as the Bush administration continues to press for a national Iraq oil law, one that shares the proceeds, however meager, with "all the citizens" of Iraq. What makes it even more odd is the U.S. company is Hunt Oil, whose CEO Ray Hunt is a personal friend of President George W. Bush. Ray recently dined on Dover Sole with Queen Elizabeth in the Bush version of the Clinton Lincoln Bedroom. Who says Bush doesn't wine and dine his major donors? Ray even made Pioneer status. While the Kurdish region passed an oil law last August, there is risk in Hunt Oil's inking a deal prior to the signing of a national law. President Bush holds the trump card with his Executive Order 13303, intended to maintain the integrity of Iraq's oil resources. Might he or the Treasury Chief declare the Hunt deal illegal? Doubtful, as Ray served as Chair of the Dallas Federal Reserve System Bank. As for President Bush, the two men are thick as thieves. Ray Hunt served as Chairman of the Board of Southern Methodist University, future home of the Bush Library. He still sits on the board of that august institute of higher learning. Unfortunately the Bush Library will paint the Bush Presidency as something other than an eight year exercise in partisan division. Hopefully Freedom's Watch will get a corner with windows as it rode in to save the long suffering Bush legacy. Ray Hunt's connections wind throughout the Iraq oil deal. Ray serves on President Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and a member of the National Petroleum Council which advises the Secretary of Energy. Mr. Hunt shares the boardroom table at EDS, founded by Ross Perot. The only other oil firm to ink a deal in Kurdistan is associated with Ross Perot Jr. It looks like politically connected Ray is ready to do more Texas style wildcatting. I think the Iraqi people have enough problems without unleashing a rabid Republican into their midst. For links go to: http://peureport.blogspot.com/2007/09/let-iraqi-oil-hunt-begin.html San Angelo , TX

US surge plan in Iraq 'working'

The military objectives of the US troop surge in Iraq "are largely being met", the top US military commander in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said.

Gen Petraeus' comments came as he and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker began testifying before Congress.

The testimony has been billed as "make or break" for President George W Bush's resolve to stay the course in Iraq.

A record 168,000 US troops are now in Iraq after 30,000 arrived in the surge between February and June.

In his testimony before the joint House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees, Gen Petraeus said that:

• "security incidents", including sectarian violence, had declined significantly since the surge began;
• he envisioned the withdrawal of some 30,000 US troops by summer, beginning with 2,000 marines in September;
• he expected a decision on further troop cuts next March;
• improvements had been "uneven", and the situation in Iraq remained "difficult"

Speaking after Gen Petraeus, Mr Crocker said he believed it was possible for the US to see its goals achieved in Iraq.

He said security was attainable, but it would not be achieved quickly, warning that the path would be punctuated by setbacks.

General's warning

Gen Petraeus told the joint committees that troop numbers could be reduced to pre-surge level by next summer without jeopardising the security situation in Iraq.

SURGE HEARINGS - KEY DATES 10 Sept - Gen Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker begin two days of testimony in Congress 12 Sept - White House report to be released 13 Sept - President Bush TV address is expected

But he warned that "a premature draw-down of our forces would likely have devastating consequences".

"While noting that the situation in Iraq remains complex, difficult and sometimes downright frustrating, I also believe that it is possible to achieve our objectives in Iraq over time, although doing so will be neither quick, nor easy," he said.

Before Gen Petraeus began his testimony, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, Democrat, said President Bush's policies in Iraq had "created a fiasco".

Mr Lantos also called for a dramatic change of course, and said the US needed to get out of Iraq immediately.

Gen Petraeus said his testimony had not been cleared by the Pentagon or the White House before he gave it, and that he had written it himself.

His testimony was slightly delayed after a microphone did not work. Several hecklers were also removed from the hearing.

Shortly before his testimony, the US military said nine of its troops died in Iraq on Monday, including seven in what it described as a vehicle accident in Baghdad.

Iraq survey

The Congressional hearings come as a new opinion poll suggested about 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the surge.

The survey by the BBC, ABC News and NHK of more than 2,000 people across Iraq also suggests that nearly 60% see attacks on US-led troops as justified.

However, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki said violence since the surge began had fallen 75% in the provinces of Baghdad and Anbar, and that 14,000 militants linked to al-Qaeda had renounced violence.

"We have succeeded in preventing Iraq from sliding into the abyss of a sectarian war which was threatening our beloved country," Mr Maliki told the Iraqi parliament on Monday.

BBC defence correspondent Rob Watson says rarely has the testimony of a US general to Congress received so much advanced billing.

He says Gen Petraeus has become something of a talisman for President Bush - the commander he has entrusted to rescue his policy in Iraq.

President Bush is hoping the general's more upbeat message on security will be enough to stave off calls for a timeline for a US withdrawal, our correspondent says.

Last Thursday Democrats seized on a report from a key US security commission recommending a cut in troop numbers by early 2008.

Mr Bush, who decides on force levels in Iraq, has said he will follow advice from commanders on the ground, rather than bowing to political pressure.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6986461.stm

The Failing Surge

The outcome of the war in Iraq may now rest in large part on the success or failure of the so-called surge. Beginning in February, the White House sent an additional 28,000 U.S. troops to Baghdad in an effort to quell the violence there. Securing the capital with overwhelming force is a key component of the anti-insurgency plan developed by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq and the military’s foremost expert on counterinsurgency tactics. It took until June for all the U.S. forces to be put in place, and the number of American troops in Iraq is now at its highest level since 2005. But is Petraeus’s plan working?

The index’s (Center for American Progress Terrorism Index) experts don’t think so. More than half say the surge is having a negative impact on U.S. national security, up 22 percentage points from just six months ago. This sentiment was shared across party lines, with 64 percent of conservative experts saying the surge is having either a negative impact or no impact at all. When the experts were asked to grade the government’s handling of the Iraq war, the news was even worse. They gave the overall effort in Iraq an average point score of just 2.9 on a 10-point scale. The government’s public diplomacy record was the only policy that scored lower.

These negative opinions may result in part from the experts’ apparent belief that, a decade from now, the world will still be reeling from the consequences of the war. Fifty-eight percent of the index’s experts say that in 10 years’ time, Sunni-Shiite tensions in the Middle East will have dramatically increased. Thirty-five percent believe that Arab dictators will have been discouraged from reforming. Just 5 percent, on the other hand, believe that al Qaeda will be weaker, whereas only 3 percent believe Iraq will be a beacon of democracy in the Middle East.

Source: Foreign Policy Journal

See the entire report at: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3924
(you might need to register)

I have a subscription to this journal and frequently use it in the class I teach in international politics. I like FP because it is more accessible than normal academic journals, but also because it usually presents an even, well-balanced, and well-researched analysis of issues by leading figures from academia, politics, and policy, often with rebuttals from an opposing side. I find it interesting, disheartening, but rather not surprising that one of their lead stories for this month would be on the general and growing consensus among policy experts that the surge is failing. It's sad. Most everyone now agrees that the US-led invasion has f***ed the entire region for years to come. Super. Remember this when you go vote. Find a candidate that doesn't think war is a good idea, maybe one that wants to establish a Department of Peace. Yeah, sounds a little cooky, right? How does it sound compared to a multi-trillion dollar war that has cost upwards of half a million lives and destabilized a whole region. A little less nutty? Yeah, I thought so.

Contractors accused of firing on civilians, GIs

Huge private force operates in Iraq with little supervision or accountability

There are now nearly as many private contractors in Iraq as there are U.S. soldiers — and a large percentage of them are private security guards equipped with automatic weapons, body armor, helicopters and bullet-proof trucks.

They operate with little or no supervision, accountable only to the firms employing them. And as the country has plummeted toward anarchy and civil war, this private army has been accused of indiscriminately firing at American and Iraqi troops, and of shooting to death an unknown number of Iraqi citizens who got too close to their heavily armed convoys.

Not one has faced charges or prosecution.

There is great confusion among legal experts and military officials about what laws — if any — apply to Americans in this force of at least 48,000.

Largely exempt from prosecution
They operate in a decidedly gray legal area. Unlike soldiers, they are not bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Under a special provision secured by American-occupying forces, they are exempt from prosecution by Iraqis for crimes committed there.

The security firms insist their employees are governed by internal conduct rules and by use-of-force protocols established by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. occupation government that ruled Iraq for 14 months following the invasion.

But many soldiers on the ground — who earn in a year what private guards can earn in just one month — say their private counterparts should answer to a higher authority, just as they do. More than 60 U.S. soldiers in Iraq have been court-martialed on murder-related charges involving Iraqi citizens.

No one has been prosecuted
Some military analysts and government officials say the contractors could be tried under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which covers crimes committed abroad. But so far, that law has not been applied to them.

Security firms earn more than $4 billion in government contracts, but the government doesn’t know how many private soldiers it has hired, or where all of them are, according to the Government Accountability Office. And the companies are not required to report violent incidents involving their employees.

Security guards now constitute nearly 50 percent of all private contractors in Iraq — a number that has skyrocketed since the 2003 invasion, when then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said rebuilding Iraq was the top priority. But an unforeseen insurgency, and hundreds of terrorist attacks have pushed the country into chaos. Security is now Iraq’s greatest need.

Efforts to boost accountability
The wartime numbers of private guards are unprecedented — as are their duties, many of which have traditionally been done by soldiers. They protect U.S. military operations and have guarded high-ranking officials including Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Baghdad. They also protect visiting foreign officials and thousands of construction projects.

At times, they are better equipped than military units.

Their presence has also pushed the war’s direction. The 2004 battle of Fallujah — an unsuccessful military assault in which an estimated 27 U.S. Marines were killed, along with an unknown number of civilians — was retaliation for the killing, maiming and burning of four Blackwater guards in that city by a mob of insurgents.

“I understand this is war,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., whose efforts for greater contractor accountability led to an amendment in next year’s Pentagon spending bill. “But that’s absolutely no excuse for letting this very large force of armed private employees, dare I say mercenaries, run around without any accountability to anyone.”

(Story originally on MSNBC, click here for page)

I totally agree with Rep. Schakowsky. I am sure the fact that we have these "private military companies" running around doing as they please in Iraq geometrically multiplies the bad blood the Iraqi people feel towards us. I highly recommend anyone and everyone to watch the 2005 Frontline program entitled Private Warriors (you can actually watch the whole thing online by clicking here).

Iraq power system 'near collapse'

Iraq's national power grid is on the brink of collapse, the country's electricity ministry has warned.

Water supplies to Baghdad have also been cut off for days at a time, with summertime pressures on key systems said to be more intense than ever.

The ministry blamed poor maintenance, fuel shortages, sabotage by insurgents and rising demand for the problems, and said some provinces hold onto supplies.

The US Army told the BBC that Iraq must now take charge of fixing the problems.

The general in charge of helping Iraq rebuild its infrastructure, Michael Walsh, said that although Iraqi authorities only have one-quarter of the money needed for reconstruction, solving the problem was now up to them.

Gen Walsh told the BBC that the US had jump-started reconstruction but that, working with donor nations, the Iraqi government needed to do the rest.

Blackouts

The Iraqi warning came a week after the charity, Oxfam, and a coalition of Iraqi NGOs reported that nearly one-third of Iraq's population was in need of immediate emergency aid.

Their report suggested 70% of Iraqis did not have adequate water supplies and that only 20% had access to effective sanitation.

A spokesman for the electricity ministry said Iraq's electricity system was only meeting half of the demand and that there had been four nationwide blackouts last week.

Aziz al-Shimari said the shortages were the worst since the summer of 2003, shortly after the US-led invasion overthrew Saddam Hussein.

Baghdad residents are complaining that the situation this summer is even worse than four years ago, correspondents say.

Poor maintenance and a lack of diesel fuel have left even newly-refurbished power stations working below capacity.

The continuing threat of damage by insurgents has also been a challenge, with 15 of the 17 high voltage lines running into Baghdad have been sabotaged.

"When we fix a line, the insurgents attack it the next day," Mr Shimari told the Associated Press.

'No control'

The problems have been compounded by provinces holding onto supplies for themselves rather than powering Baghdad.

"Many southern provinces such as Basra, Diwaniya, Nasiriya and Babil have disconnected their power plants from the national grid. Northern provinces, including Kurdistan, are doing the same," Mr Shimari said.

"We have absolutely no control over some areas in the south."

Mr Shimari warned that the national grid would collapse if the provinces did not "abide by the rules".

"Everybody will lose and there will be no electricity winner," he said.

Baghdad's water supply has also been severely affected by failing power supplies.

New water treatment plants are working, but a lack of power and broken pipes mean that the water is easily contaminated and hardly flows at all in many places.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6934973.stm

UN resolution on bigger Iraq role

By Matthew Wells
BBC News, New York
The US and the UK have circulated a new draft resolution to United Nations Security Council members giving the UN a more heavyweight role in Iraq.

If adopted, the UN would take a larger role in its political process.

The existing UN mission in Iraq has had a low-key presence ever since a truck bomb devastated its headquarters in Baghdad in August 2003.

Diplomats say a vote on any resolution by 10 August, when the existing mandate for the UN's mission in Iraq expires.

American and British diplomats are keen to find a way to involve the UN more in Iraq's political future.

This draft resolution would extend and widen the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, giving it a much more powerful advisory role.

It calls for a beefed-up mission that would work directly with the Iraqi government to promote reconciliation and help improve sectarian relations within the Iraqi parliament.

The draft resolution calls for more UN involvement in helping refugees to return and managing humanitarian aid and helping the entire national reconstruction effort.

It also points out the importance of armed protection by mainly US forces for any enhanced UN team on the ground.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6927106.stm


Before I say, "Thank God!", I would like to see exactly what this resolution says.

Kurdish Leader Warns of Iraqi Civil War

Click here for original article

By HAMZA HENDAWI
Associated Press writer

BAGHDAD (AP) -- The leader of Iraq's Kurdish region warned Tuesday of a "real civil war" if the central government does not implement a constitutional clause on the future of Kirkuk, the oil-rich city claimed by the Kurds.

Control over Kirkuk and the surrounding oil wealth is in dispute among the city's Kurdish, Arab and ethnic Turkish populations. Nationally, the dispute pits the Kurds, who want to annex it to their autonomous region in northern Iraq, against the country's Arab majority and its small minority of Turks, known locally as Turkomen.

Massoud Barzani, speaking in an interview with U.S.-funded Alhurra television, complained that the Baghdad government was dragging its feet on holding a referendum that could put Kirkuk under control of the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq.

"There is procrastination (by the government) and if this issue is not resolved, as I said before, all options are open. ... Frankly I am not comfortable with the behavior and the policy of the federal government on Kirkuk and clause 140," he said.

The constitutional clause calls for a referendum in Kirkuk to decide its future status by the end of the year. Before the vote, the clause says Kurds expelled from the city during Saddam Hussein's rule must be allowed to return. A census would then be held to determine which ethnic group was a majority of the population.

Tens of thousands of Kurds have returned to the city since Saddam's ouster in 2003, but a census has not been conducted.

"The Kurds will never relinquish or bargain over Kirkuk, but we accepted to regain Kirkuk through constitutional and legal methods. But if we despair of those constitutional and legal methods, then we will have the right to resort to other means," Barzani warned.

"If clause 140 is not implemented, then there will be a real civil war," Barzani said, promising to visit Baghdad shortly to discuss the matter with the central government.

Barzani's warning was certain to deepen the political instability and further weaken Nouri al-Maliki, the embattled Shiite prime minister who already is fighting for his government's survival.

He is under severe pressure from Washington to take concrete steps to help reconcile Iraq's Shiites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds.

A blueprint for Kirkuk's future was laid out in Iraq's 2005 constitution, but the city is widely viewed as a time bomb that could plunge Iraq deeper into crisis and violence.

Barzani accused unidentified countries of trying to delay a resolution of the Kirkuk issue and urged the Baghdad government not to succumb to regional pressures. It was clear he was referring to Turkey, where separatist Kurdish guerrillas are fighting government forces in the southeast of the country. Al-Maliki is due to visit Turkey in early August.

Adnan al-Mufti, the speaker of the Kurdish parliament, also criticized the central government's handling of the Kirkuk issue, saying it was partly to blame for missing a July 31 deadline to produce lists of eligible voters in the city and its surrounding districts.

The lists were to be compiled by a Baghdad-based government commission that includes Arabs, Kurds and Turkomen officials.

"It is not completely the fault of the federal government because we do understand that the deteriorating security situation in Kirkuk has played a role in this delay," al-Mufti said.

"The census issue is only part of the article and failing to carry it on time does not mean a total failure. We should work hard and fast with the federal government because we have limited time," he told The Associated Press from Irbil, in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Barzani told the television interviewer that Kurdish nationhood was a "reality" rather than a dream. A Kurdish homeland, he said, was a "natural right for a nation of more than 50 million people in the Middle East. Why should we be denied this right?"

He ruled out, however, the use of violence to establish a Kurdish homeland, a prospect that worries Iran, Turkey and Syria because it would set a dangerous precedent for their own restive Kurdish minorities.

"It's a legitimate right but it must be realized at the suitable time," Barzani said of establishing a Kurdish nation.

---

AP reporter Yahya Barzanji in Kirkuk contributed to this report.