Iraq Restricts U.S. Forces

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Iraq Restricts U.S. Forces

BAGHDAD, July 17 -- The Iraqi government has moved to sharply restrict the movement and activities of U.S. forces in a new reading of a six-month-old U.S.-Iraqi security agreement that has startled American commanders and raised concerns about the safety of their troops.

In a curt missive issued by the Baghdad Operations Command on July 2 -- the day after Iraqis celebrated the withdrawal of U.S. troops to bases outside city centers -- Iraq's top commanders told their U.S. counterparts to "stop all joint patrols" in Baghdad. It said U.S. resupply convoys could travel only at night and ordered the Americans to "notify us immediately of any violations of the agreement."

The strict application of the agreement coincides with what U.S. military officials in Washington say has been an escalation of attacks against their forces by Iranian-backed Shiite extremist groups, to which they have been unable to fully respond.

If extremists realize "some of the limitations that we have, that's a vulnerability they could use against us," a senior U.S. military intelligence official said. "The fact is that some of these are very politically sensitive targets" thought to be close to the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The new guidelines are a reflection of rising tensions between the two governments. Iraqi leaders increasingly see the agreement as an opportunity to show their citizens that they are now unequivocally in charge and that their dependence on the U.S. military is minimal and waning.

The June 30 deadline for moving U.S. troops out of Iraqi towns and cities was the first of three milestones under the agreement. The U.S. military is to decrease its troop levels from 130,000 to 50,000 by August of next year.

U.S. commanders have described the pullout from cities as a transition from combat to stability operations. But they have kept several combat battalions assigned to urban areas and hoped those troops would remain deeply engaged in training Iraqi security forces, meeting with paid informants, attending local council meetings and supervising U.S.-funded civic and reconstruction projects.

The Americans have been taken aback by the new restrictions on their activities. The Iraqi order runs "contrary to the spirit and practice of our last several months of operations," Maj. Gen. Daniel P. Bolger, commander of the Baghdad division, wrote in an e-mail obtained by The Washington Post.

"Maybe something was 'lost in translation,' " Bolger wrote. "We are not going to hide our support role in the city. I'm sorry the Iraqi politicians lied/dissembled/spun, but we are not invisible nor should we be." He said U.S. troops intend to engage in combat operations in urban areas to avert or respond to threats, with or without help from the Iraqis.

"This is a broad right and it demands that we patrol, raid and secure routes as necessary to keep our forces safe," he wrote. "We'll do that, preferably partnered."

U.S. commanders have not publicly described in detail how they interpret the agreement's vaguely worded provision that gives them the right to self-defense. The issue has bedeviled them because commanders are concerned that responding quickly and forcefully to threats could embarrass the Iraqi government and prompt allegations of agreement violations.

A spate of high-casualty suicide bombings in Shiite neighborhoods, attributed to al-Qaeda in Iraq and related Sunni insurgent groups, has overshadowed the increase of attacks by Iran-backed Shiite extremists, U.S. official say.

Officials agreed to discuss relations with the Iraqi government and military, and Iranian support for the extremists, only on the condition of anonymity because those issues involve security, diplomacy and intelligence.

The three primary groups -- Asaib al-Haq, Khataib Hezbollah and the Promised Day Brigades -- emerged from the "special groups" of the Jaish al-Mahdi (JAM) militia of radical Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, which terrorized Baghdad and southern Iraq beginning in 2006. All receive training, funding and direction from Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force.

"One of the things we still have to find out, as we pull out from the cities, is how much effectiveness we're going to have against some of these particular target sets," the military intelligence official said. "That's one of the very sensitive parts of this whole story."

As U.S. forces tried to pursue the alleged leaders of the groups and planned missions against them, their efforts were hindered by the complicated warrant process and other Iraqi delays, officials said.

Last month, U.S. commanders acquiesced to an Iraqi government request to release one of their most high-profile detainees, Laith Khazali. He was arrested in March 2007 with his brother, Qais, who is thought to be the senior operational leader of Asaib al-Haq. The United States thinks they were responsible for the deaths of five American soldiers in Karbala that year.

Maliki has occasionally criticized interference by Shiite Iran's Islamic government in Iraqi affairs. But he has also maintained close ties to Iran and has played down U.S. insistence that Iran is deeply involved, through the Quds Force, in training and controlling the Iraqi Shiite extremists.

U.S. intelligence has seen "no discernible increase in Tehran's support to Shia extremists in recent months," and the attack level is still low compared with previous years, U.S. counterterrorism official said. But senior military commanders maintained that Iran still supports the Shiite militias, and that their attacks now focus almost exclusively on U.S. forces.

After a brief lull, the attacks have continued this month, including a rocket strike on a U.S. base in Basra on Thursday night that killed three soldiers.

The acrimony that has marked the transition period has sowed resentment, according to several U.S. soldiers, who said the confidence expressed by Iraqi leaders does not match their competence.

"Our [iraqi] partners burn our fuel, drive roads cleared by our Engineers, live in bases built with our money, operate vehicles fixed with our parts, eat food paid for by our contracts, watch our [surveillance] video feeds, serve citizens with our [funds], and benefit from our air cover," Bolger noted in the e-mail.

A spokesman for Bolger would not say whether the U.S. military considers the Iraqi order on July 2 valid. Since it was issued, it has been amended to make a few exemptions. But the guidelines remain far more restrictive than the Americans had hoped, U.S. military officials said.

Brig. Gen. Heidi Brown, the commander overseeing the logistical aspects of the withdrawal, said Iraqi and U.S. commanders have had fruitful discussions in recent days about the issue.

"It's been an interesting time, and I think we've sorted out any misunderstandings that were there initially," she said in an interview Friday.

One U.S. military official here said both Iraqi and American leaders on the ground remain confused about the guidelines. The official said he worries that the lack of clarity could trigger stalemates and confrontations between Iraqis and Americans.

"We still lack a common understanding and way forward at all levels regarding those types of situations," he said, referring to self-defense protocols and the type of missions that Americans cannot conduct unilaterally.

In recent days, he said, senior U.S. commanders have lowered their expectations.

"I think our commanders are starting to back off the notion that we will continue to execute combined operations whether the Iraqi army welcomes us with open arms or not," the U.S. commander said. "However, we are still very interested in and concerned about our ability to quickly and effectively act in response to terrorist threats" against U.S. forces.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1703634_pf.html

[Niels Bohr 72]

That's good news. Get the kids out of there.

[alienlovechild 75]

The new guidelines are a reflection of rising tensions between the two governments. Iraqi leaders increasingly see the agreement as an opportunity to show their citizens that they are now unequivocally in charge and that their dependence on the U.S. military is minimal and waning.

It's more a political decision than a smart military move.

"Maybe something was 'lost in translation,' " Bolger wrote. "We are not going to hide our support role in the city. I'm sorry the Iraqi politicians lied/dissembled/spun, but we are not invisible nor should we be." He said U.S. troops intend to engage in combat operations in urban areas to avert or respond to threats, with or without help from the Iraqis.

The Iraqis should try to stand on their own now and if they take a beating, hopefully they won't be begging for American help.

"Our [iraqi] partners burn our fuel, drive roads cleared by our Engineers, live in bases built with our money, operate vehicles fixed with our parts, eat food paid for by our contracts, watch our [surveillance] video feeds, serve citizens with our [funds], and benefit from our air cover," Bolger noted in the e-mail.

It's their country and they can have it all. The U.S. military did the job despite all the hardships and doubts.

[Peikko 1,575]

The new guidelines are a reflection of rising tensions between the two governments. Iraqi leaders increasingly see the agreement as an opportunity to show their citizens that they are now unequivocally in charge and that their dependence on the U.S. military is minimal and waning.

It's more a political decision than a smart military move.

"Maybe something was 'lost in translation,' " Bolger wrote. "We are not going to hide our support role in the city. I'm sorry the Iraqi politicians lied/dissembled/spun, but we are not invisible nor should we be." He said U.S. troops intend to engage in combat operations in urban areas to avert or respond to threats, with or without help from the Iraqis.

The Iraqis should try to stand on their own now and if they take a beating, hopefully they won't be begging for American help.

"Our [iraqi] partners burn our fuel, drive roads cleared by our Engineers, live in bases built with our money, operate vehicles fixed with our parts, eat food paid for by our contracts, watch our [surveillance] video feeds, serve citizens with our [funds], and benefit from our air cover," Bolger noted in the e-mail.

It's their country and they can have it all. The U.S. military did the job despite all the hardships and doubts.

Like they did when the US and UK military engaged in this illegal war, in the first place right? The US and UK screwed Iraq over, it is now extremely unstable. Where before it was a secular dictatorship, now it's a hot bed of religious extremism. However, I very, very much doubt that even if things do get a lot worse for the Iraqis before they get better that they will call on the US to solve their internal struggles. It's not been working too well so far has it?

Edited July 19, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[alienlovechild 75]

Like they did when the US and UK military engaged in this illegal war, in the first place right?

What's the difference between a "legal" and "illegal" war and give examples, please.

However, I very, very much doubt that even if things do get a lot worse for the Iraqis before they get better that they will call on the US to solve their internal struggles.

You slept through 6 years of Iraq War? The Iraqi government took forever to get their forces combat ready and they still rely on the U.S., UK and others. The allies took the brunt of the fight for years and spent billions so it will be no different if the Shites and Sunnis fall apart.

[Peikko 1,575]

You think it's ok for a large country like the US to go to war against a mini coutnry like Iraq for political reasons without provocation then? Good to know.

Asleep? The US and UK military created the chaos - I an certainly not surprised that the removal of a powerful secular dictator created a power vacuume that the religious fundamentalists from the three apposing factions are trying to fill. The US and UK politicos apparently where though.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Peikko 1,575]

For some bizarre reason, Bush and his cronies believed that the Iraqis were simply waiting to be 'saved' by the US and what they had always wanted was a christian democracy.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[nowhereman 1]

Both AlienLoveChild & Madame Cleo have valid points. First of all the Iraq War IS a legal war. Was the reason to go to war (WMDs) found to be untrue? Yes. Did President Bush knowingly send us to war based on trumped up intelligence? Many people (including myself) think so, but this was never proven. As for the execution of the war there is bi-partisan consensus that the Bush administration made huge mistakes in the first 2-3 years regarding how difficult the mission would be, how many troops were really needed & what the desired end state should be.

OK if Iraq wants to go it alone I say let them... we babied them far too long IMO. If they seem like they are in danger of losing control we can offer assistance, but it's their country.

[Peikko 1,575]

Does it become 'legal' because the perpetrators say so? I am not really sure what one should call it, but a very spurious one, that has created far more problems than it solved and one that was not sanctioned by the UN nor was their consensus for it among NATO allies. Pretty much a go it alone gung ho effort to produce regime change for probably religious reasons.

There was no provocation by Iraq beyond Sadaam being bloody minded. There is more provocation from Korea but that little chestnut is not touched.

[nowhereman 1]

Does it become 'legal' because the perpetrators say so? I am not really sure what one should call it, but a very spurious one, that has created far more problems than it solved and one that was not sanctioned by the UN nor was their consensus for it among NATO allies. Pretty much a go it alone gung ho effort to produce regime change for probably religious reasons.

There was no provocation by Iraq beyond Sadaam being bloody minded. There is more provocation from Korea but that little chestnut is not touched.

Was the verdict in the original OJ trial legitimate? Yes. Is OJ guilty of murder? I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that he is, but in the eyes of the law he was found not guilty.

[Peikko 1,575]

What trial is this? Most international bodies would say that this was an unsanctioned war, that it was wrong for the UK and US to engage in unprovoked attack based on dodgy (at best - at worst 'doctored') intelligence.

[nowhereman 1]

What trial is this? Most international bodies would say that this was an unsanctioned war, that it was wrong for the UK and US to engage in unprovoked attack based on dodgy (at best - at worst 'doctored') intelligence.

On a personal level I agree with you, but you can't confuse right & wrong with legal & illegal. In a perfect world they would be the same, but in many cases they aren't.

[Peikko 1,575]

Link

Revealed: How the Road to War was Paved with Lies

...UN inspectors who left Iraq just before the war started were searching for four categories of weapons: nuclear, chemical, biological and missiles capable of flying beyond a range of 93 miles. They found ample evidence that Iraq was not co-operating, but none to support British and American assertions that Saddam Hussein's regime posed an imminent threat to the world. On nuclear weapons, the British Government claimed that the former regime sought uranium feed material from the government of Niger in west Africa. This was based on letters later described by the International Atomic Energy Agency as crude forgeries.

On chemical weapons, a CIA report on the likelihood that Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction was partially declassified. The parts released were those which made it appear that the danger was high; only after pressure from Senator Bob Graham, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was the whole report declassified, including the conclusion that the chances of Iraq using chemical weapons were "very low" for the "foreseeable future". On biological weapons, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, told the UN Security Council in February that the former regime had up to 18 mobile laboratories. He attributed the information to "defectors" from Iraq, without saying that their claims - including one of a "secret biological laboratory beneath the Saddam Hussein hospital in central Baghdad" - had repeatedly been disproved by UN weapons inspectors.

On missiles, Iraq accepted UN demands to destroy its al-Samoud weapons, despite disputing claims that they exceeded the permitted range. No banned Scud missiles were found before or since, but last week the Secretary of State for Defense, Geoff Hoon, suggested Scuds had been fired during the war. There is no proof any were in fact Scuds. Some American officials have all but conceded that the weapons of mass destruction campaign was simply a means to an end - a "global show of American power and democracy", as ABC News in the US put it. "We were not lying," it was told by one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis." American and British teams claim they are scouring Iraq in search of definitive evidence but none has so far been found, even though the sites considered most promising have been searched, and senior figures such as Tariq Aziz, the former Deputy Prime Minister, intelligence chiefs and the man believed to be in charge of Iraq's chemical weapons program are in custody.

Robin Cook, who as Foreign Secretary would have received high-level security briefings, said last week that "it was difficult to believe that Saddam had the capacity to hit us".Mr Cook resigned from the Government on the eve of war, but was still in the Cabinet as Leader of the House when it released highly contentious dossiers to bolster its case. One report released last autumn by Tony Blair said that Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes, but last week Mr Hoon said that such weapons might have escaped detection because they had been dismantled and buried. A later Downing Street "intelligence" dossier was shown to have been largely plagiarized from three articles in academic publications. "You cannot just cherry-pick evidence that suits your case and ignore the rest. It is a cardinal rule of intelligence," said one aggrieved officer. "Yet that is what the PM is doing." Another said: "What we have is a few strands of highly circumstantial evidence, and to justify an attack on Iraq it is being presented as a cast-iron case. That really is not good enough." ...

I guess such thought provoking articles never appeared in the US press...

Edited July 19, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What trial is this? Most international bodies would say that this was an unsanctioned war, that it was wrong for the UK and US to engage in unprovoked attack based on dodgy (at best - at worst 'doctored') intelligence.

On a personal level I agree with you, but you can't confuse right & wrong with legal & illegal. In a perfect world they would be the same, but in many cases they aren't.

Since you seem to believe that the unprovoked attack on Iraq was legal, what do you suggest is the actual legal basis for this invasion? Isn't the agreed upon and accepted international standard that absent an imminent threat against a member country (or countries) - in which case such country (or countries) may act immediately to defend themselves - the Security Council authorizes military action against rogue nations?

Specifically, did the Security Council not explicitly authorize the action taken against Iraq when it invaded Kuwait and did it not explicitly authorize the military action against Afghanistan following the 9/11 attack on the US? And is a similar authorization not entirely missing for the US/UK attack on Iraq making the legality of this attack rather questionable?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Umm, I don't owe any allegiance to the UN. Since when did the US require the consent of the Security Council to make an engagement legal? As far as Congress is concerned, as long as they appropriate the money for the action, then the action is legal. As far as I know, we are not a signatory to the World Court either, so the US does not fall under their jurisdiction either.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Mister_Bill