iraq update

agreement keeps u.s. out of sadr city

May 10, 2008 · 1 Comment

In big concession, militia agrees to let Iraqi troops into Sadr City
By Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Friday, May 9, 2008

BAGHDAD — Followers of rebel cleric Muqtada al Sadr agreed late Friday to allow Iraqi security forces to enter all of Baghdad’s Sadr City and to arrest anyone found with heavy weapons in a surprising capitulation that seemed likely to be hailed as a major victory for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.

In return, Sadr’s Mahdi Army supporters won the Iraqi government’s agreement not to arrest Mahdi Army members without warrants, unless they were in possession of “medium and heavy weaponry.”

The agreement would end six weeks of fighting in the vast Shiite Muslim area that’s home to more than 2 million residents and would mark the first time that the area would be under government control since Saddam Hussein was toppled in 2003. On Friday, 15 people were killed and 112 were injured in fighting, officials at the neighborhoods two major hospitals said.

It also would be a startling turnaround in fortunes for Maliki, who’d been widely criticized for picking a fight with Sadr’s forces, first in the southern port city of Basra and then in Sadr City.

Members of Maliki’s Dawa Party and the powerful Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq met with Sadr officials on Thursday and Friday to come up with a 14-point agreement to end the weeks of fighting, which has hindered the flow of food and water into Sadr City. The agreement was then passed to Sadr and Maliki for final approval, said Baha al Araji, a Sadrist legislator.

Hundreds of people have been killed and hundreds have been wounded in the fighting, which included frequent U.S. airstrikes. At least 8,500 people have been driven from their homes, and thousands of others have been forced to stay inside, too frightened to flee.

A government supporter said the Sadrists were brought to the table by the anger of Sadr City residents. On Thursday, the Iraqi military ordered Sadr City residents to evacuate in apparent preparation for a major offensive push.

“It is not the government who pressured the Sadrists into entering this agreement,” said Ali al Adeeb, a leading member of the Dawa party. “It is the pressure from the people inside Sadr City and from their own people that will make them act more responsibly.”

Like many things in Iraq, the precise effect of the agreement won’t be known immediately. Sadr officials long have claimed that their militia has no heavy weaponry, and Sadr has condemned those with such munitions.

Sadr supporter Araji, however, said the agreement specifically barred American forces from entering Sadr City.

“The Iraqi forces, not the American forces, can come into Sadr City and search for weapons,” Araji said. “We don’t have big weapons, and we want this to stop.”

The Mahdi Army, and the Sadr movement in general, has been losing support in the past two months in the face of a government offensive intended to force the militia from its controlling positions in Basra and Sadr City.

In Basra, a city known for culture and music, Shiite extremists had taken control in late 2005 and began shutting down music stories and forcing women to cover themselves.

But after initially resisting Maliki’s offensive, the Sadrists ceded their areas, and the change in atmosphere has been palpable. An annual poetry festival, al Mirbed, resumed for the first time in three years, with male and female folk dancers performing in public and poets spouting their verses.

The city isn’t free of Sadr influences, however, though the Iraqi army seems ready to quell any resurgence. Sadrists resumed prayer services on Friday for the first time since late March, but as the imam spouted anti-government rhetoric, Iraqi soldiers converged on the mosque and the Sadrists ran, witnesses said.

Iraqi officials, including Adeeb, said that Iran, which U.S. officials have accused of supporting the Shiite militias, was “aware” and “supportive” of the agreement. Adeeb made two trips to Iran to meet with Iranian officials to stem the militia violence in Iraq.

Categories: war

paying the piper in iraq

May 10, 2008 · Leave a Comment

Senators Want Iraq to Pay for US Occupation
by truong son traveler
Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:28:56 AM PDT
….
Several senators took advantage of their allotted time to make the point that Iraq is, in their words, getting “a free ride” and that they should be more appreciative of what we are doing for them.

The issue of Baghdad’s contribution to the costs of the war jumped to the forefront early in April during testimony to Congress of the Iraq war commander, Gen. David Petraeus, and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. Noting that the soaring price of oil is likely to give Iraq a revenue bonanza this year of up to $70 billion, senators quizzed the two on why Iraq isn’t using its rising oil income to pay more of the costs of reconstruction.

Chicago Tribune

Senator Ben Nelson D-Nebraska is drafting legislation with Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Evan Bayh, R-Ind. that would, among other things, require that Baghdad pay for the fuel used by American troops and take over U.S. payments to predominantly Sunni fighters in the Awakening movement.

If Michigan Democrat Carl Levin has his way the Iraqi Government will be required to spend its own oil revenues to rebuild the country before US Dollars are spent. Joe Lieberman wants Iraq to start paying some of US combat costs. Senator Lindsey Graham suggested the possibility that an anticipated Iraqi surplus could be used to support US efforts in Afghanistan.

Senator Barbara Boxer laments:

“After all we have done, the Iraqi government kisses the Iranian leader.”

NYT

The Iraqi response:

“America has hardly even begun to repay its debt to Iraq,” said Abdul Basit, the head of Iraq’s Supreme Board of Audit, an independent body that oversees Iraqi government spending. “This is an immoral request because we didn’t ask them to come to Iraq, and before they came in 2003 we didn’t have all these needs.”

Chicago Tribune

What a deal. The victim pays, not only for the unwanted occupation of it’s own country but to help defray US expenses in its occupation of Afghanistan.

We shall no doubt be hearing much more of this in the future as it now looks like Iraq’s oil revenue in 2008 should exceed $70 billion, twice as much as had been forecast just a few months ago.

This is a bi-partisan effort, as Jim Lobe writes for AlterNet:

…The Senate Armed Services Committee voted unanimously last week to approve a bill that would ban the Pentagon from funding any reconstruction or infrastructure project in Iraq that costs more than two million dollars. Similar legislation is expected to be taken up by the House.

“This is the first significant bipartisan change in our policy toward Iraq,” declared Republican Sen. Susan Collins, one of the sponsors of the legislation after last week’s vote, while the committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin said Iraq’s failure to pay reconstruction costs was “unconscionable (and) inexcusable” given the windfall it has received from the stunning rise in world oil prices.

In the same article Lobe points out that:

one of the surge’s architects, Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), said that legislation would “do catastrophic damage to our image in the world, particularly the Muslim world … The argument that Iraq should use its oil revenues to pay the United States sounds like the ultimate proof that we invaded Iraq for mercenary reasons.”

Indeed Mr. Kagan, the fact that we invaded Iraq for mercenary reasons has been obvious to much of the world since the days before shock and awe. The damage to our image has been done.

Categories: war