Stunning "progress" in Iraq

Just a quick take on the Iraqi situation before I have to return my neighbour's laptop.

Al-Maliki is becoming the Iraqi version of Bush. He threw his Army into Basra with almost no planning and no intelligence. Who could have predicted that armoured vehicles couldn't penetrate the narrow streets of Basra? Who knew that the Basra police would desert and mutiny when it's been clear for years that they are infiltrated by the militias? Who could have possibly anticipated that the conflict would spread to other cities, or that the Army's supply lines would be harried?

Months after announcing a "decisive" battle against a nebulously-defined enemy in the northern part of the country, nothing has taken place that is any different than the routine 'indecisive' efforts of the past. Days after personally overseeing the Basra operation and making a three-day ultimatum (without mentioning the ensuing consequences), Al-Maliki then withdrew far away from the fighting and announced an additional week before the ultimatum would expire and he would then...do what, exactly?

Far from proving the Iraqi Army's "readiness", the week's unfolding scenario only illustrates Al-Maliki's readiness to follow the Administration's orders. American troops have already begun participating, and we have been providing air support for the Basra operation nearly from the start. With discontent growing among the Sunni Sahwa ("Awakening") forces, some of the Sahwa forces are going on strike to protest not being paid. If the continuation of this conflict weakens the Iraqi government's hold on other areas, we could very see our "Awakening" buddies take advantage of the situation and reject the Shia government's control of predominantly Sunni districts. The Sahwa are in this to wipe out the rival gangs, not to bolster the Iraqi government, and the government has not only failed to pay them, but it has actively moved against Sunni interests. And the longer this expensive operation continues, the longer the government loses crucial oil revenue from Basra. This could turn out to be major financial setback on top of a potentially demoralising defeat for the Iraqi government.

How can this be considered any less than a civil war? The Shia government of Al-Maliki has as its strongest ally the (Iranian-inspired) Badr Corps, and the Iraqi Army (along with the Badr Corps) are taking out their primary domestic opposition. The potential ascendance of ISCI can only increase the profile of Iran within Iraq. Just as the removal of Saddam from power took away the strongest check on Iran's regional power, this action by the Iraqi government will, if successful, only reinforce Iran's influence in the region.

Baghdad is also coming apart, and the mortar attacks on the Green Zone are not only much more intense, but have also resulted in casualties. 31 districts within Baghdad are now seeing clashes with Sadrist forces.

The Iraqi minister of defense, Abdul Qadir Jasim, admitted in a news conference in Basra that the militiamen had taken the Iraqi security forces off guard. He added that the Iraqi government had expected this operation to be routine, but was surprised at the level of resistance, and was forced to change its plans and tactics.

Does the above sound familiar? All that we need now is for Al-Maliki to start using terms like "turning the corner" and we'll know for sure that Cheney left his script there. We now have Turkish troops in Kurdistan, the Diyala "pacification is stalled, as is the Anbar reconstruction, progress in Baghdad has been set back, and the Basra conflict has spread to four new cities; this is "good news" to the Decider.

McCain really intends to campaign on the "progress" in Iraq?

Violence up in Iraq

As Senate Republicans prepare to shill for the surge again, this doesn't come as good news: more Iraqis are getting killed.

Combined with the "setback" over provincial elections, it could get tougher for those eager to crow about "progress" in Iraq. The Iraqi occupation has actually made the terrorism threat worse.

On top of that, the surge cannot really be credited with any "improvement", as John Cole points out:

McCain argues that violence is down in 17 of 18 provinces. That argument itself suggests the irrelevancy of the US to Iraq. There are no US troops to speak of in the 3 northern Kurdish provinces, or in the southern 4 provinces from which the British have largely withdrawn. There are few US troops in most of the 8 provinces where Shiites predominate. There was no troop escalation or "surge" in the Sunni al-Anbar province. So if violence has declined in 17 of 18 provinces, US policy cannot possibly have anything to do with most of that. General Petraeus has had significant successes in Baghdad, though at the unfortunate (an unintentional) cost of further turning it into a Shiite city from which most Sunnis have been ethnically cleansed.

So the areas that are the most stable are the areas where we have no or very few troops, but an increase in troops is supposed to have produced a decline in violence. Baghdad is a walled city that has been ethnically cleansed, so secatrian conflict naturally has gone down. Fallujah has banned all motor vehicles in the city for over a year, so no car bombings. This is "progress"? It's like banning cars and then taking credit for safer driving habits by pointing to a decline in car accidents.

Of course, Turkey is currently in the process of invading Kurdistan, which is hardly a sign of a stable Iraq. Basra, too, is controlled by the militias, not the Iraqi government. But it's stable, so that supposedly is a mark in favour of the surge. How is that?

The American public thought that by now the surge would be over and we would be talking about withdrawal. Instead, the surge will likely continue for the remainder of Bush's term. The Republicans are setting themselves up by presenting a rosy picture in Iraq, especially since the tensions between the "Awakening" forces and the Iraqi government are building. It's a dangerous bid, and senators up for re-election will be forced into making supportive statements that could turn against them in the months approaching the election.

story from AFP

Iraq violence surges in February

by Salam Faraj Sat Mar 1, 4:55 AM ET

BAGHDAD (AFP) - The number of Iraqis killed in February rose by 33 percent over January, reversing a six-month trend of reduced violence, in a setback to the US military plan to curb the bloodshed ravaging the country.

The combined figures obtained by AFP from the interior, defence and health ministries showed that the total number of Iraqis killed in February was 721, including 636 civilians, compared with 541 dead in January.

It reverses the six-month trend of a steady fall in casualties across the country on the back of a massive US and Iraqi military assault, mainly targeting Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The February death toll is up after a steady fall in the preceding six months. The monthly tolls were 541 in January, 568 in December, 606 in November, 887 in October, 917 in September and 1,856 in August.

The number of people wounded in February was 847.

January's death toll reached a 23-month low, with US commanders saying that all types of attacks were down to levels not seen before the February 2006 bombing of a Shiite shrine in the town of Samarra that triggered a wave of violence.

The bloodshed that erupted after the shrine attack peaked in January 2007 with 1,992 deaths reported by the three ministries.

The jump in February's toll seems to have been caused by two major attacks during the month.

On February 1, at least 98 people were slaughtered when a female suicide bomber blew herself up amid a crowd of pet lovers in Baghdad's popular al-Ghazl animal market.

And in another brazen attack last Sunday, at least 48 people were killed when a suicide bomber blew himself up in a crowd of pilgrims at a rest stop in the town of Iskandiriyah, south of Baghdad.

Iraq 'progress' now includes starvation

That beacon of prosperity, freedom, and democracy known as Iraq will soon get another valuable neocon lesson: starvation.

With a lack of safe drinking water, child malnutrition a serious problem, more than 40% of the population in absolute poverty and about half unemployed, and a cholera epidemic burdening the tattered shreds of what passes for a health care system, the obvious thing to do is to teach Iraqis a little self-reliance by starving them to death.

Half of those who receive food rations will no longer be eligible, and the quantities of food for those that still receive rations will be cut by half. And this comes after more than 30% cuts in those eligible for rations over the past three years.

Generally, Republicans can be counted upon to wring their hands in concern and wipe away tears as they contemplate what would happen to the poor, innocent Iraqi people should we withdraw. Yet, something like this gets a smiling thumbs-up. This is because Republicans abandoned the idea of Iraq being anything more than a failed state with Third-World metrics years ago. It's really all about Al-Qaeda now, and those crazy brown people who don't even worship the right God can die off for all they care. A few may come in handy for the requisite photos of smiling Iraqis embracing the beloved American troops, but the main thing is to boot out Al-Qaeda and keep a government in power that knows who the "boss" is. Besides, once Al-Qaeda is gone, everyone knows things will be great. After all, the Iraqis voted, didn't they?

It's pretty unfathomable to me how having another five million people in an unstable country with an unpopular government going without regular meals will help much. I guess this another one of those things that is the U.N's problem. We just deal in bombs and bullets these days.

"No security, no food, no electricity, no trade, no services. So life is good," said one resident, who would not give his name.

There you go. The perfect neocon dream government. How could this plan possibly fail?


story from IPS

IRAQ: Saddam Provided More Food Than the U.S.
By Ahmed Ali and Dahr Jamail*

BAQUBA, Dec 27 (IPS) - The Iraqi government announcement that monthly food rations will be cut by half has left many Iraqis asking how they can survive.

The government also wants to reduce the number of people depending on the rationing system by five million by June 2008.

Iraq's food rations system was introduced by the Saddam Hussein government in 1991 in response to the UN economic sanctions. Families were allotted basic foodstuffs monthly because the Iraqi Dinar and the economy collapsed.

The sanctions, imposed after Saddam Hussein ordered the invasion of Kuwait, were described as "genocidal" by Denis Halliday, then UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq. Halliday quit his post in protest against the U.S.-backed sanctions.

The sanctions killed half a million Iraqi children, and as many adults, according to the UN. They brought malnutrition, disease, and lack of medicines. Iraqis became nearly completely reliant on food rations for survival. The programme has continued into the U.S.-led occupation.

But now the U.S.-backed Iraqi government has announced it will halve the essential items in the ration because of "insufficient funds and spiralling inflation."

The cuts, which are to be introduced in the beginning of 2008, have drawn widespread criticism. The Iraqi government is unable to supply the rations with several billion dollars at its disposal, whereas Saddam Hussein was able to maintain the programme with less than a billion dollars.

"In 2007, we asked for 3.2 billion dollars for rationing basic foodstuffs," Mohammed Hanoun, Iraq's chief of staff for the ministry of trade told al-Jazeera. "But since the prices of imported foodstuff doubled in the past year, we requested 7.2 billion dollars for this year. That request was denied."

The trade ministry is now preparing to slash the list of subsidised items by half to five basic food items, "namely flour, sugar, rice, oil, and infant milk," Hanoun said.

The imminent move will affect nearly 10 million people who depend on the rationing system. But it has already caused outrage in Baquba, 40 km northeast of Baghdad.

"The monthly food ration was the only help from the government," local grocer Ibrahim al-Ageely told IPS. "It was of great benefit for the families. The food ration consisted of two kilos of rice, sugar, soap, tea, detergent, wheat flour, lentils, chick-peas, and other items for every individual."

Another grocer said the food ration was the "life of all Iraqis; every month, Iraqis wait in queues to receive their food rations."

According to an Oxfam International report released in July this year, "60 percent (of Iraqis) currently have access to rations through the government-run Public Distribution System (PDS), down from 96 percent in 2004."

The report said that "43 percent of Iraqis suffer from absolute poverty," and that according to some estimates over half the population are now without work. "Children are hit the hardest by the decline in living standards. Child malnutrition rates have risen from 19 percent before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 to 28 percent now."

While salaries have increased since the invasion of March 2003, they have not kept pace with the dramatic increase in the prices of food and fuel.

"My salary is 280 dollars, and I have six children," 49-year-old secondary school teacher Ali Kadhim told IPS. "The increase in my salary was neutralised by an increase in the price of food. I cannot afford to buy the foodstuffs in addition to the other necessary expenses of life."

"The high increase in food prices led people to condemn the delays in the ration every month," Salah Kadhim, an employee in the directorate-general of health for Diyala province told IPS. "The jobless just cannot afford to buy food."

"The food ration still represents a big part of the domestic budget," Muneer Lafta, a 51-year-old employee at the health directorate told IPS. Without the ration, she said, families have to go to the market. Because Iraqi families are large, usually six to 12 people, shopping for food is simply unaffordable.

"I and my wife have five boys and six girls, so the ration costs a lot when it has to be bought," 55-year-old resident Khalaf Atiya told IPS. "I cannot afford food and also other expenses like study, clothes, doctors."

People in Baquba, living with violence and joblessness for long, are now preparing for this new twist.

"No security, no food, no electricity, no trade, no services. So life is good," said one resident, who would not give his name.

Many fear the food ration cuts can spark unrest. "The government will commit a big mistake, because providing enough food ration could compensate the government's mistakes in other fields like security," a local physician told IPS. "The Iraq will now feel that he, or she, is of no value to the government."

(*Ahmed, our correspondent in Iraq's Diyala province, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who has reported extensively from Iraq and the Middle East) (END/2007)

18 killed in Iraqi "progress"

18 killed in a "normal" day of Iraqi sectarian violence. It looks like Baghdad isn't the only place where bodies showing signs of torture are being dumped. Yet we continue to hear stories of "success" in Diyala due to employing "friendly" terrorists to wipe out (in a "friendly" way, I imagine) the "bad guys".

And remember, all this is happening as the Bush Administration tells us how peaceful Iraq is getting.

full report

Baghdad

A civilian was killed and 3 policemen were injured in a IED explosion that targeted their patrol near Al Elwiyah children hospital in Karrada neighborhood downtown Baghdad around 2,00 pm.

3 Iranian pilgrims were injured when gunmen opened fire targeting the pilgrims’ bus in Adan square in Hurriyah neighborhood northwest Baghdad around 3,00 pm. The pilgrims were coming from Karbala city to visit Kadhemiyah holy shrine.

A civilian was killed and 4 others wounded in a parked car bomb in Mansour neighborhood west Baghdad around 4,00 pm.

2 civilians were injured when a mortar shell hit Al Kindi Street in Harthiyah neighborhood west Baghdad around 4,30 pm.

Police found 4 anonymous bodies in Baghdad today in the following neighborhoods (1 body in Amil, 1 body in Doura, 1 body in Saidiyah and 1 body in Sleikh.

Diyala

Police found 6 anonymous bodies in Kahlis town north of Baquba city today afternoon. Signs of torture was obvious on the blind-folded bodies and they were shot in different parts, police said

Babil

A policeman was killed and another one was injured in an IED explosion that targeted their patrol in Al Mahaweel town north of Hilla city around 7,40 am.

'Progress' brings a lot more death somehow

I thought things were improving in Iraq -- at least, that's what the right-wing says.
So we surge 30,000 troops in a constantly shifting plan that is focused on Baghdad. The results for one day (today) are below. It's sad reading, and hardly seems like "normalcy", stability, or "progress". It instead seems a lot like a particularly nasty failed-state situation.

Five bombings, two mortar attacks, some shootings, and a new crop of corpses turned up on top of it all. And that's just in Baghdad. Thirteen others were killed in other parts of the occupied nation.

...and this is at least three months into the allegedly successful surge.

Baghdad

4 civilians were wounded in an IED explosion near Salahuddin square in Kadhemiyah neighborhood north Baghdad around 10,00 am.

A civilian was killed and 3 others wounded in an IED explosion near the Polish embassy in Al Arasat neighborhood downtown Baghdad around 2,00 pm.

4 civilians were killed and 10 others wounded in a parked car bomb explosion near the Technology University east Baghdad around 1,00 pm.

A civilian was killed and 5 others wounded near Al Khansaa police station in Kamaliyah neighborhood east Baghdad around 1,00 pm.

Three mortar shells targeted the buildings of the former general security agency in Baladiyat; number of casualties is unknown as Iraqi police said.

Four mortar shells slammed into the Green Zone today, Iraqi police said. No casualties were reported by the police.

A road side bomb targeted Iraqi army vehicle in Madaen today. No casualties were reported.

A road side bomb targeted an American military convoy causing no damage according to the Iraqi police.

Police found 7 dead bodies throughout Baghdad. 1 in Adhamiya, 1 in Ur, 1 in Amil, 1 in Ealam, 1 in Doura, 1 in Washash, 1 in Shuala.

Kirkuk

Gunmen killed a barber while he was in his car on the street between the villages of Ubaidyah and Hawdh 13 west of Kirkuk city today morning.

Salahuddin

A suicide car bomb exploded near a check point of the Iraqi police in Al Alam area east Tikrit city around 10,00 am. 2 civilians were killed and 4 policemen were wounded. A building for the ministry of agriculture was completely destroyed.

A suicide car bomb targeted the police station in Dijla town, 25 Kilometers south of Tikrit, today. Ten civilians were killed and 8 people were injured (including 3 policemen).

The hits just keep on coming...

Does this sound like "normalcy"?

full story from McClatchy

Baghdad

3 IEDs exploded targeting four wheel drive cars which were leaving the Polish embassy in Al Arasat neighborhood downtown Baghdad around 10,00 am. Three passengers were wounded. An Iraq civilian was killed and another 2 civilians were wounded.

2 civilians were killed and 5 others injured in a parked car bomb in Al Fadhil neighborhood downtown Baghdad around 6,00 pm.

Police found 6 unidentified bodies in Baghdad today. 4 bodies were found in Karkh, the western side of Baghdad in the following neighborhoods (2 bodies in Amil, 1 body in Jisr Diyala, 1 body in Bayaa and 1 body in Doura). 1 body was found in Ur neighborhood in the eastern side of Baghdad.

Qadisiyah

Gunmen killed the official of tribes in Diwaniyah city local council while he was going to a mourning ceremony in Efach town 30 Kms south of Diwaniyah city south Iraq.

Kirkuk

The local police of Perdy area on north of Kirkuk found two bodies yesterday night. Police said that the bodies were unidentified because they were burnt. The bodies were sent to the morgue.

Diyala

13 civilians were wounded when an IED exploded inside an internet café in Al Qaisariyah market in Jalawla north of Baquba city.

Police found a body of a civilian who was shot in different part of his body. The body was found in Al Sadiyah area, part of Khanaqeen town north of Baquba yesterday afternoon.

'Progress' kills 12 in Iraq

full story from Xinhua

Car bomb kills four policemen in northern Iraq

A car bomb went off near a police patrol in a town near Nineveh's provincial capital of Mosul on Saturday, killing four policemen and wounding 16 others, a provincial police source said.

"A car bomb parked near a bank in the town of Hamdaniyah, 35 km east of Mosul, detonated in the afternoon near a passing police patrol," the source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity.

The blast killed four policemen, including two officers, and wounded 16 people including policemen, the source said.

Two police vehicles were damaged by the blast along with several nearby civilian cars and buildings, he said.

Earlier, a suicide bomber blew up an explosive-laden car near Iraqi Army vehicles in the al-Mazra'a village near the town of Tal Afar, 70 km west of Mosul, killing six people, including three soldiers, and wounding 17 people, according to an Iraqi Army source.

Mosul, the capital city of Nineveh province, some 400 km north of Baghdad has long been the hot bed of insurgency against the U.S. and Iraqi security forces.

Source: Xinhua

But, surely, no. Our military commanders tell us that Nineveh is pacified. They wouldn't just say something because Bush wanted to hear only good news...would they?

And from Mc Clatchy:

- Police found (5) unidentified dead bodies in the following neighborhoods in Baghdad :
(4) were found in west Baghdad (Karkh bank); 2 in Amil , 1 in Risala and 1 in Mahmoudiyah.
While one body was found in Kamaliyah in east Baghdad (Risafa bank).

I guess those sectarian killings are continuing. Still, these five corpses can be wiped away by statistical sleight-of-hand.

Iraqi provincial control date moves back again

We now learn that 60% of the Iraqi police we have trained thus far are no longer on the job. Also, Bush promised when he proposed the surge, the Iraqis would have control of all 18 provinces by November. Now he is talking about July '08. Of course, if violence continues, it may be even later. Any wagers on the cessation of violence in Iraq over next 8 months?

In yet another example of Bush's brilliant skills in prediction and his unwarranted optimism, five months after he promised to hold the al-Maliki government to the November benchmark, he moved that date to March '08. Now he is moving that date to July '08, in spite of claims of remarkable 'progress' in the September report.

If things looked good enough in Iraq back in January to expect Iraq to take over security by November, and we've had so much "progress" from the surge since then, why does the date keep moving further away? Before all of the surge troops were even in place, he had already added four months to the handover date. And this was all while Bush was talking up the immense "success".
Bush's real plan and strategy in Iraq has been essentially to cross his fingers and hope for a miracle, while passing on the disaster to his successor. He keeps creating new scapegoats for his failure: Al-Qaeda, Iran, the "traitorous" American public, Syria, and now the corpse of Saddam Hussein.

Bush sold his surge to the American public with 18 benchmarks that he himself created. He succeeded in 3 of them. He promised to hold the Iraqi government to those benchmarks. Then he said that was unrealistic, and that nobody could possibly have seriously expected the benchmarks to be met. He said that the Iraqi military would lead the surge, with U.S. in merely a support role. Then he said it was silly to think that the Iraqi forces would ever have been able to do something like that, since there are now fewer Iraqi troops ready to operate independently than there were before the surge.

Bush keeps on making promises and then basically saying that we were stupid to actually believe that last promise, but his new promises are really, truly sincere. And every failure of his policies is really only further proof that we need to continue them.

full story

More Delays in Shift to Iraqi Control

By ROBERT BURNS – 2 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — In another sign of U.S. struggles in Iraq, the target date for putting Iraqi authorities in charge of security in all 18 provinces has slipped yet again, to at least July.

The delay, noted in a Pentagon report to Congress on progress and problems in Iraq, highlights the difficulties in developing Iraqi police forces and the slow pace of economic and political progress in some areas.

It is the second time this year the target date for completing what is known as "Provincial Iraqi Control" has been pushed back. The Pentagon report submitted to Congress on Monday hinted at the possibility of further delays.

....

The intent is to give the provincial governments control over security in their area as a step toward lessening — and eventually ending — the U.S. security role.

Thus far seven of the 18 provinces have reverted to Iraqi control.

The process has gained relatively little attention in the broader debate in Washington about when and how to get the Iraqis ready to provide their own security so that U.S. forces can begin to leave. That may be in part because some details of the provincial transition process are classified secret.

...

An independent commission that examined the issue of provincial Iraqi control this summer concluded in a report to Congress on Sept. 4 that the process is too convoluted and an impediment to the overall U.S. goals of speeding the transition to Iraqi control and supporting sovereignty.

"Our current policy of determining when a province may or may not be controlled by its own government reinforces the popular perception of the (U.S.-led) coalition as an occupation force," according to the commission, headed by retired Marine Gen. James Jones. "This may contribute to increased violence and instability."

The commission recommended that all 18 provinces return to Iraqi control immediately. U.S. forces would continue to operate in the areas they are now, in coordination with Iraqi authorities; Iraqi control would mean U.S. troops could transition to less combat-intense roles.

In an interview Wednesday, Jones said he and the other commissioners got the strong impression from Iraqi officials they met in Baghdad this summer that they want full provincial control without further delay.

"The whole process seems to be acting as more of a brake on progress than a help," Jones said. "If the Iraqi government is willing, I think we should be putting as much on them as possible. To have a sovereign government that doesn't control all of its provinces doesn't make a lot of sense to me."

In an Associated Press interview last week, Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, defended the transition process. It involves a series of detailed reviews and assessments by U.S. and Iraqi officials, culminating with input by Petraeus and the most senior Iraqi government leaders.

Though slow, it is helpful in sorting out problems that stand in the way of a smooth transition, he said.

"It forces people to come to grips with those issues," Petraeus said.

In January, Bush announced his new strategy for stabilizing Iraq and his decision to send an additional 21,500 U.S. combat troops to Baghdad and to Anbar province. He, said, at the time, that the Iraqi government "plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November."

In June the Pentagon informed Congress that the target had slipped to "no later than" next March.

In this month's report, the Pentagon said its "current projection" was that all 18 provinces would move to Iraqi control "as early as" July; that would be eight months later than Bush's original projection.

...

The Pentagon report cited a litany of problems with the police. For example, it said as few as 40 percent of those trained by coalition troops in recent years are still on the job. Also, due to combat loss, theft, attrition and poor maintenance, a "significant portion" of U.S.-issued equipment is now unusable.

Or, as Juan Cole summarised it:

Just to underline what is said here, 60 percent of the policemen who got even the very minimal training on offer to them have disappeared from the force; and not much is left of the weaponry ("equipment") that the US gave the Iraqi police.

The report is here (pdf).

Bush says his plans for Iraq were unrealistic

What we have now is the Decider saying that nobody could possibly have expected the restoration of democracy in Iraq or the hand off of security responsibility to Iraqis to succeed. It's just too difficult, there are too many challenges, and it's Saddam's fault, besides.

Then why did has he spent the past four years or so telling us that these things were proceeding smoothly?

full story from VOA

Bush: Saddam's Legacy Slowing Progress in Iraq

President Bush says one of the reasons for the slow pace of political progress in Baghdad is the continuing legacy of former dictator Saddam Hussein.

When President Bush announced he was sending reinforcements to Iraq earlier this year, one of his goals was to have Iraqis in charge of security in all 18 provinces by November.

That is not going to happen. And U.S. military officials say it will not until next July, at the earliest.

Yes, this was one of the promises of the surge: that Iraqis would take control of the security situation so that we could leave. It failed. Bush bought himself nine more months on Iraq by making big promises, and now he is using his failure to deliver on those promises as a bizarre justification to ask for more time. No new plan this time around, just a stall.

Acknowledging the slower than expected progress at a White House news conference Thursday, the president said while the timing has changed, his determination has not.

"The goals are the same," said President Bush. "And have we achieved them as fast? No we haven't. But, however, having not achieved them doesn't mean we ought to quit."

Perhaps it does mean that we could reasonably expect doubts on Bush's ability to predict success, however. Bush has been consistently wrong on virtually every prediction for years. Perhaps we could take this opportunity to re-assess our strategy? Bush's answer is that apparently it's Saddam's fault.

Mr. Bush said one of the reasons there is not what he called "instant democracy" in Iraq is that people there are still recovering from the former regime's violence against political opponents. President Bush said the former Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein prevented the possible emergence of a unifying figure akin to South Africa's Nelson Mandela.

"Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas," said Mr. Bush. "He was a brutal tyrant who divided people up and split families and people are recovering from this. So there is a psychological recovery that is taking place, and it is hard work for them."

Did we not know this before the invasion? It took over four years to figure out that Iraq is not suitable for democracy? This is hardly "instant democracy", either. And if we did know this, then why did Bush continually predict "instant democracy" and prosperity for years?

It is obvious that Bush's plan was to install Ahmed Challabi as a puppet leader who would virtually give away Iraq's oil to the 'liberators'. The Iraqis, however, would have none of it. So we had elections, which the Sunnis boycotted. Yes, despite all the "Mandelas" being wiped out by Saddam, we proceeded with elections. Now wise old Mr. Bush tells us that we shouldn't have expected this to succeed. Then why did we do it, and why was has it been presented as the major glowing achievement of the invasion?

Similarly, the Iraqi military was supposed to take the lead in the surge and restore security. That was the plan as proposed by Bush in his January 10 speech. Now we are told that this is completely unrealistic, that the Iraqi military cannot possibly be trained fast enough to have enough numbers to take over.
Then why was that the plan?
Bush is, in effect, saying that his own plans for democracy and security were ridiculous, and that nobody should ever have expected them to succeed.
He certainly didn't share that bit of wisdom with the nation, did he?

The president is trying to rebuild public support for the war, in part by announcing that progress there now allows him to bring nearly 6,000 U.S. troops home from Iraq by the end of the year.

In other words, troops that were told they would be coming home by the end of the year are now actually being allowed to come home. And this is because of the surge's "success", somehow. And there's so much 'progress' that we can now admit that this plan was fatally flawed from the outset. Sounds like a great way to "rebuild public support".

Iraq is a central issue in the race to succeed President Bush, with most opposition Democrats calling for more troop withdrawals and most Republicans backing the president.

Asked if he is an asset or a liability for his Republican Party, Mr. Bush said he is a strong asset.

"Candidates who go out and say that helping these Iraqis realize the benefits of democracy are going to do well," he said. "Candidates who go out and say that it is very important for the U.S. to have clear principles when it comes to foreign policy, they will do well."

VOA News

Those candidates had better be able to show any "benefits" from that democracy. The government the Iraqis elected is impotent and incompetent. 50,000 Iraqis each month flee the "benefits of democracy", and most of them in favour of an authoritarian police state in Syria. The health care, water delivery, and electrical delivery infrastructures have collapsed. New victims of sectarian violence show up in Baghdad nearly every day. Torture in Iraqi prisons is commonplace. People wait all day in lines for the mere chance of buying gasoline at ridiculous prices. Contractors kill innocent civilians on the street and the government's demands that they be expelled are ignored by the U.S.

As for "clear principles when it comes to foreign policy", all Bush has to offer are constantly shifting goals. The current one is that we are dividing the terrorists into 'good' and 'bad' categories. The 'good terrorists' will be used to wipe out the 'bad terrorists', since the Iraqi military is a no-show. But we're against terrorism, unless the terrorists make a temporary alliance with us to wipe out the competition. And somehow the 'good terrorists' will just fade quietly away after the 'bad terrorists' are defeated. How could this possibly fail?
In 2003 our goals were:

"We will disarm Saddam Hussein and thwart the danger posed by his weapons of mass destruction, bring stability and unity to a free Iraq, "deliver medicine to the sick," and move emergency rations to feed the hungry. "After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home."

And now we are reduced to merely hoping that we can keep the violence to pre-surge levels while the country whimpers in economic, social, and ethnic chaos.

Iraq progress: "only" 25 died today

Yes, the 'progress' is in full swing in Baghdad.
25 dead, 42 injured... almost "normal".

This doesn't count the four U.S. troops who also died. Diyala was supposed to be such a success story, but it still kills 3 more.

story from McClatchy

Baghdad

- Around 7 a.m. a road side bomb targeted a police patrol in Zafaraniyah. One civilian was killed and 2 policemen were injured.

- Around 8 a.m. a bomb inside a bus exploded in Zayuna. Two civilians were killed and 5 were injured.

- Around 9 a.m. Two parked car bomb exploded in parking yard not far away from Baghdad morgue. 5 people were killed and 20 were injured.

- Around 1 p.m. a parked car bomb targeted civilians in Ur neighborhood near Al Firdous mosque. 8 civilians were killed and 15 others were injured.

- Police found 9 dead bodies throughout Baghdad. 1 in Rashad, 2 in Zafaraniyah, 1 in Sleikh, 1 in Mahmoudiyah, 1 in Hurriyah, 1 in Jamiaa, 2 in Amil.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

story from Xinhua

Four U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq on Tuesday: military

Four U.S. soldiers were killed and at least three others injured in an explosion and a vehicle accident in Iraq on Tuesday, the U.S. military said.

According to the latest statement of the military, three American soldiers were killed and three more injured in an explosion in Iraq's Diyala province northeast of Baghdad on Tuesday.

The incident occurred when the Task Force Lightning soldiers triggered an explosion near their patrol, the military said in the statement, without giving details on the type of explosion.

Diyala province, which stretches from the eastern edges of Baghdad to the Iranian border, has long been the hotbed of insurgency and sectarian violence since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Meanwhile, another Task Force Lightning soldier also died Tuesday in a vehicle accident in the northern Ninevah province, according to the military.

The latest death brings the number of U.S. soldiers who have been killed in Iraq to at least 3,785 since the outbreak of the Iraqi war in 2003, according to media count based on Pentagon figures.

Source: Xinhua

Violence continues in Anbar, Baghdad

Another peaceful day in Iraq, what with all the 'progress' there. Sure, a car bomb killed ten people in Baghdad, where the surge is focused and the biggest "return" was expected. And eleven more bodies were found, up from six the day before. However, these were "just" Iraqis, and the neocons don't care about Iraqis unless someone talks about withdrawing troops. These deaths are easily wiped away by re-defining violence, supressing or dismissing the reports out of hand, or as a last resort, pointing to the dead as the reason why we have to stay in Iraq.

In Anbar province, model of the "Awakening", three bodies were found and one civilian was killed in a grenade attack on a police checkpoint.

In other words, just a typical day in progress-filled Iraq. And the morticians are doing brisk business, so look on the bright side.

report from McClatchy

Baghdad

- Around 7 p.m. a car bomb exploded at Amil neighborhood near a bakery shop, which is near the petrol station in the area, killing ten people and injuring 15 others.

- Police found 11 unidentified dead bodies in the following neighborhoods in Baghdad; (6) were found in west Baghdad( Karkh bank); 2 in Amil , 1 in Mahmoudiyah , 1 in Bayaa , 1 in Jihad and 1 in Doura. While (5) dead bodies were found in east Baghdad ( Risafa bank) ; 2 in Karrada , 2 in Sadr city and 1 in Suleikh.

Anbar

-Police found three dead bodies of people from the Jumaili tribe at Karma town (north Falluja), which is controlled by Qaeda organization, eyewitnesses said, accusing Al-Qaeda of the killing as this tribe stood against them.

-Around 9.30 p.m. of Friday, an unknown gunman attacked one of the police check points at Hadhra Muhamadiyah intersection in Falluja with a grenade killing a civilian and injuring 5 policemen.

Iraq 'progress' kills 18 more

The 'progress' never stops in Iraq. I know, Petraeus said all of this was going away, but the bodies still pile up. But if we leave Iraq, the bodies will pile up. At least we can finally call it a civil war.
It's kind of hard to relegate beheaded corpses to "ordinary crime", but we can be sure that each and every one of these deaths will be statistically played with by "patriots" who deeply care about the Iraqi people.

Of course, these are just the reported deaths, and of those, the ones that the military couldn't cover up beforehand.

Baghdad

- Police found six dead bodies throughout Baghdad. 3 (beheaded) in Abo Desheer, 1 in Amil, 1 in Bayaa , 1 in New Baghdad.

Salaheddin

- A suicide car bomb targeted Mashallah restaurant as policemen car parked in front of it in Beiji city today. 10 people were killed (including 4 policemen) and 15 were injured.

Kirkuk

- Gunmen killed a mother, Hadla Ali Hassan, and injured her daughter on the main road west of Kirkuk near Al Zihaidiay village yesterday.

- Gunmen killed Colonel Hussein Alwan, officer of the protection force in Salaheddin province health dept, in Al Wasity neighborhood in Kirkuk today.

Iraq 'progress' kills 10 more police

Well, Bush said "the way forward" would be difficult, but he pretty much meant it would be difficult for everyone else. While the surge was supposed to quell violence in Baghdad, it has not only failed miserably in that regard, but has also 'succeeded' in exporting violence to the areas around Baghdad. Truck bombers blowing up a cop hangout is not a sign of "normalcy", though Bush claims normalcy is returning to Iraq.

Truck bomb kills seven police north of Baghdad

14/09/2007

BAGHDAD, (Reuters) - A suicide bomber rammed a truck laden with explosives into two police cars near the northern Iraqi town of Baiji on Friday, killing at least seven policemen, a police source said.

An official at a joint police and army coordination centre put the death toll at 10, and said he believed it could rise further because identification cards had been found at the scene which did not belong to bodies so far recovered.

The police cars were parked outside a restauraunt, 3 km (two miles) south of Baiji, the official said. He said eight civilians were wounded in the attack.

The bombing took place a day after U.S. President George W. Bush approved a limited U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, but said the U.S. military role will stretch beyond his presidency.

Who funds the insurgents? You do.

Where do the insurgents get the money to keep so many militiamen on the payroll, much less arm, house, feed, clothe, transport, and train them? From U.S. taxpayers, of course, in the form of extortion of contractors.

As we rebuild Iraq, we are heavily financing the very "insurgents" (an ill-defined term) that are making "victory" impossible. Half or more of the costs of a project actually goes to a militia for "protection money", which in turn pays suicide bombers, buys explosives for roadside bombs, and allows support payments for sympathisers. It also funds the bribes paid to the Iraqi Police for information on troop movements and vulnerabilities, as well as to look the other way when the militias strike.

Republicans who screech about "waste and fraud" are silent about this immense siphoning of our tax dollars to people destabilising Iraq and killing our troops. This is what we get for $12 billion a week: a full employment programme for foreign insurgents.

The money is also going to Al-Qaeda as well, financing the increasing attacks on that putative "success". We are essentially paying people cash to ensure that more money is spent on Bush's ego war and to kill our own soldiers. How can this plan possibly fail?

story from McClatchy

Iraqi insurgents taking cut of U.S. rebuilding money
By Hannah Allam | McClatchy Newspapers

* Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007

Hannah Allam/MCT

Sheikh Ali Hatem Ali Suleiman, the deputy leader of the Dulaim, the largest and most powerful tribe in Anbar province in Iraq, says U.S. federal rebuilding funds indirectly fund Iraqi insurgent groups such as al Qaida in Iraq.

BAGHDAD — Iraq's deadly insurgent groups have financed their war against U.S. troops in part with hundreds of thousands of dollars in U.S. rebuilding funds that they've extorted from Iraqi contractors in Anbar province.

The payments, in return for the insurgents' allowing supplies to move and construction work to begin, have taken place since the earliest projects in 2003, Iraqi contractors, politicians and interpreters involved with reconstruction efforts said.

A fresh round of rebuilding spurred by the U.S. military's recent alliance with some Anbar tribes — 200 new projects are scheduled — provides another opportunity for militant groups such as al Qaeda in Iraq to siphon off more U.S. money, contractors and politicians warn.

"Now we're back to the same old story in Anbar. The Americans are handing out contracts and jobs to terrorists, bandits and gangsters," said Sheik Ali Hatem Ali Suleiman, the deputy leader of the Dulaim, the largest and most powerful tribe in Anbar. He was involved in several U.S. rebuilding contracts in the early days of the war, but is now a harsh critic of the U.S. presence.

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad declined to provide anyone to discuss the allegations. An embassy spokesman, Noah Miller, said in an e-mailed statement that, "in terms of contracting practices, we have checks and balances in our contract awarding system to prevent any irregularities from occurring. Each contracted company is responsible for providing security for the project."

Providing that security is the source of the extortion, Iraqi contractors say. A U.S. company with a reconstruction contract hires an Iraqi sub-contractor to haul supplies along insurgent-ridden roads. The Iraqi contractor sets his price at up to four times the going rate because he'll be forced to give 50 percent or more to gun-toting insurgents who demand cash payments in exchange for the supply convoys' safe passage.

One Iraqi official said the arrangement makes sense for insurgents. By granting safe passage to a truck loaded with $10,000 in goods, they receive a "protection fee" that can buy more weapons and vehicles. Sometimes the insurgents take the goods, too.

"The violence in Iraq has developed a political economy of its own that sustains it and keeps some of these terrorist groups afloat," said Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh, who recently asked the U.S.-led coalition to match the Iraqi government's pledge of $230 million for Anbar projects.

Despite several devastating U.S. military offensives to rout insurgents, the militants - or, in some cases, tribes with insurgent connections - still control the supply routes of the province, making reconstruction all but impossible without their protection.

One senior Iraqi politician with personal knowledge of the contracting system said the insurgents also use their cuts to pay border police in Syria "to look the other way" as they smuggle weapons and foot soldiers into Iraq.

"Every contractor in Anbar who works for the U.S. military and survives for more than a month is paying the insurgency," the politician said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. "The contracts are inflated, all of them. The insurgents get half."

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said he was aware of the "insurgent tax" that U.S.-allied contractors are forced to pay in Anbar, though he said it wasn't clear how much money was going to militant groups and how much to opportunistic tribesmen operating on their own.

"It's part of a taxation they put on trucks through all these territories, but it's very difficult to establish if it's going directly to insurgents," Zebari said.

As of July, the U.S. government had completed 3,300 projects in Anbar with a total value of $363 million, the U.S. embassy said. Another 250 projects with a total price tag of $353 million are under way.

Saleh, the deputy prime minister, said dealing with such huge amounts of money in such a volatile place means corruption is inevitable and that some projects cost far more than they should. But despite qualms, he believes the effort is worth it.

"I'm a realist," he said. "When I look at my options, will I have a 100 percent clean process? No. But will this force me to hold back? Absolutely not."

Suleiman, the Dulaimi sheikh and onetime U.S. ally, speaks more bitterly. Sitting in his Baghdad office, he displayed a stack of photos and status updates for projects that included two schools, a clinic and a water purification center. The photos showed crumbling, half-finished structures surrounded by overgrown weeds and patchworks of electrical wires. He blamed such failures on "the terrorists" who work under the noses of U.S. and Iraqi officials.

"Those responsible for these projects had to give money to al Qaida. Frankly, gunmen control contracting in Anbar," he said. "Even now, the thefts are unbelievable, and I have no idea where those millions are going."

None of the Iraqi contractors agreed to speak on the record - they risk losing future U.S. contracts and face retaliation from insurgent groups. Some of the Iraqis interviewed remain in Fallujah or Ramadi on the U.S. payroll; others had fled to Arab countries and Europe after they deemed the business too risky.

"I put it right in my contracts as a line item for 'logistics and security,'" said one Iraqi contractor who is still working for a major American company with several long-term projects in Anbar. "The Americans think you're hiring a security company, but how you execute it is something else entirely. This is how it's been working since Day 1."

One Iraqi contractor who is working on an American-funded rebuilding project in the provincial capital of Ramadi said he faced two choices when he wanted to bring in a crane, heavy machinery and workers from Baghdad: either hire a private security company to escort the supplies for up to $6,000 a truck, or pay off locals with insurgent connections.

He chose the latter, and got $120,000 for a U.S. contract he estimates to be worth no more than $20,000. The contractor asked that specific details of the project not be disclosed for fear he'll be identified and lose the job.

"The insurgents always remind us they're there," the contractor said. "Sometimes they hijack a truck or kidnap a driver and then we pay and, if we're lucky, we get our goods returned. It's just to make sure we know how it works.

"Insurgents control the roads," he added. "Americans don't control the roads - and everything from Syria and Jordan goes through there."

Another Iraqi contractor with several U.S. rebuilding contracts said he's been trying to avoid paying off insurgents by strengthening his relationship with reputable tribal leaders in Anbar.

In one contract for a major U.S. company, the contractor said, he gave cash payments to tribal leaders and trusted them to buy the goods in Anbar instead of having to pay insurgents to bring the goods in from Baghdad. He said the tribesmen took photos as proof that they used the money properly and had to hide the supplies in their homes for fear insurgents would find out they'd been left out of the deal.

The contractor said such scenarios are extremely rare and very dangerous. More typical, he said, was a recent order he took to haul gravel to U.S. bases in Anbar.

"If I do it in the Green Zone, it's just putting gravel in Hesco bags and it would be about $16,000," the contractor said. "But they needed it for Ramadi and Fallujah. I submitted an invoice for $120,000 and I'd say about $100,000 of that went to the mujahideen," as Iraqis sometimes call Sunni insurgents.

An Iraqi who used to work as an interpreter for Titan Corp., the U.S. company that supplies local interpreters to U.S. forces in Iraq, said he witnessed countless incidents of insurgents shaking down contractors during the two years he spent as a translator in the "Engineering Operations Room" on a U.S. military base in Anbar. The man, a Fallujah native who has since fled to the United Arab Emirates, spoke on condition of anonymity because he hasn't ruled out returning to Iraq now that Anbar construction is on the upswing.

He said he was stunned when, from early 2004 to his departure in summer 2006, a parade of sheikhs with known insurgent connections were awarded contracts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The interpreter said that on several occasions contractors pleaded with American officials for protection and told them that gunmen were shaking them down for large sums of cash.

In a project to rebuild Dam Street in Fallujah, the interpreter said, insurgents forced the local contractor to pay for protection on three or four separate occasions. Work would stop for a few days until the contractor paid up. In the end, the interpreter said, the contractor grew so terrified that he walked off the unfinished project and fled Iraq.

On another project for a water treatment plant in the insurgent stronghold of Zoba, the interpreter said, the local contractor was summoned to meet with militant leaders who threatened his life if he didn't give them at least half the contract's value.

Fawzi Hariri, a member of the Iraqi cabinet and head of the government's Anbar Reconstruction Committee, said some U.S. rebuilding funds "absolutely" have gone into insurgents' pockets. The exception is where construction sites were guarded around-the-clock by U.S. or Iraqi troops.

"If you're on your own, you certainly would have to pay somebody," Hariri said.

Hariri said the Iraqi government's Anbar committee checks contractors' permits and references, withholds payment until the work is reviewed and only hires workers who are familiar enough with Anbar's deep-rooted tribes to arrange for security. On the parallel U.S. reconstruction effort, however, American contracting officials rarely consult their Iraqi counterparts about how much they spent or who was paid on specific projects.

"The Americans are accountable only to themselves," Hariri said. "It's their money."

(Leila Fadel and McClatchy Newspapers special correspondent Mohammed al Dulaimy contributed.)
2007 McClatchy Newspapers

The 'progress machine'

Baghdad is where the surge is concentrated and where the biggest (positive) results were expected from the surge. Just yesterday in Baghdad, reports show a car bombing, an attack on Iraqi troops, and another crop of bodies turning up to demonstrate that sectarian killings continue right under the noses of the surging troops.

However, the surge has also served to re-locate violence to previously stable areas, such as Kurdistan. Mosul and Kirkuk are two of those Kurdish cities that have seen previously unheard-of kidnappings, roadside bombs, car bombs, drive-by shootings, and brazen attacks on troops.

The events show below are just a typical day. Usually none of these tragedies merits a mention on the American media, yet for the people who live in these areas it represents anything but "normalcy" or "stability". It instead creates a fearful environment that induces people to turn to their sectarian militia for protection - at a price, of course. The more that communities are defined as one militia's "turf", the harder it is "reconcile" those communities with the rest of the area. But until the "gang war" breaks out, the surface appears stable and relatively calm.

That is what the "bottom-up reconciliation" really is; the staking of turf so that inter-militia conflict can be obviated. As long as the militias co-operate with U.S. troops against Al-Qaeda, or just simply label their competitors as "Al-Qaeda" in order to have the U.S. troops wipe them out, then the commanders can call this "progress". This "progress" can then be packaged and sold wholesale to the American media as 'proof' that the surge is "working".

This is the 'progress machine' that allows Republicans to live their delusional vision that we are always "winning". Senior officers are happy to avoid a "Shinseki Treatment" by passing along this illusion of "progress", because it makes the Bush Administration happy, and that means promotion, or at least the continuation of one's career. They can always create another "Operation Whatever" to push the violence someplace else. This proves our military superiority over the "insurgents". But the "insurgents" do not have be militarily superior; they just have to be tenacious. They certainly are tenacious, having survived for 4 1/2 years so far.

Have you ever really heard a definition of the term "insurgent" before, as it applies to Iraq?
Are they Al-Qaeda? Does the term include sectarian militias, or only those militias that continue their terrorist activites while allied with us? Is an Iraqi "insurgent" anyone who opposes the Al-Maliki government, or just someone who opposes the U.S. occupation? Does the term "insurgent" include those who engage in kidnapping, extortion, protection rackets, black market arms dealing, and ethnic cleansing or does it merely refer to those who carry out bombings and attacks on military and police?

Yes, let's keep it vague so that we can refer to anyone killed or arrested as an "insurgent". That way we can show inflated progress with a straight face. Just as in Vietnam, anyone who was killed in bombardments, artillery fire or just "got in the way" was labeled "VietCong", so too is the label "insurgent" being sloppiliy applied in the case of Iraq. We don't ask questions, because we want to "win", and anything that makes it look like we are winning is fair game. This is what we get for $12 billion a week: shifty "accounting" that keeps the "shareholders" from asking questions.


reports from Reuters

* BAGHDAD - A parked car bomb killed seven people and wounded 30 others in the Kadhimiya district in northwestern Baghdad, police said.

* MOSUL - The body of a university lecturer was found in the southeast of the northern city of Mosul, five days after he was abducted, police said.

* MOSUL - Five people were wounded including three policemen by three separate roadside bombs in Mosul, police said.

* ARAB JABOUR - U.S. forces said they discovered an execution site containing human skulls and decomposing bodies in Arab Jabour, an agricultural area on the southern outskirts of Baghdad.

* BAGHDAD - Police said they found nine bodies in different districts in Baghdad on Friday.

* BAGHDAD - Gunmen attacked an Iraqi army patrol, killing one soldier and wounding two others in Mansour district in western Baghdad on Friday, police said.

*NAJAF - Gunmen killed a man in a drive-by shooting in Najaf, 160 km (100 miles) south of Baghdad, on Friday, police said.

* KIRKUK - Gunmen killed a man in a drive-by shooting in southern Kirkuk, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, on Friday, police said.