by Professor Barry Rubin
Friedrich Nietzsche famously said, "That which does not kill me makes me
stronger." A good Middle East equivalent, at least among the anti-democratic
forces, would be: That which does not scare me makes me bolder.
Can things get worse with the Obama Administration's foreign-and especially
Middle East--policy? Yes, it's not inevitable but I have just seen
personally a dangerous example of what could be happening next. In fact, I
never expected that the administration would try to recruit me in this
campaign, as you'll see starting with paragraph seven.
First, a little background. One of the main concerns with the Obama
Administration is that it would go beyond just engaging Syria and Iran,
turning a blind eye to radical anti-American activities throughout the
region.
To cite some examples, it has not supported Iraq in its protests about
Syrian-backed terror, even though the group involved is al-Qaida, with which
the United States is supposedly at war. Nor has it launched serious efforts
to counter Iran's help to terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan or even
Tehran's direct cooperation with al-Qaida. We know about many of these
points because of General David Petraeus's remarks, buried in his
congressional testimony but not trumpeted by the mass media.
Beyond this, though, there has been the possibility of the U.S. government
engaging Hizballah. It is inadequate to describe Hizballah as only a
terrorist movement. But it is accurate to describe it as: a Lebanese Shia
revolutionary Islamist movement that seeks to gain control over Lebanon, is
deeply anti-American, is a loyal client of Iran and Syria, uses large
amounts of terrorism, and is committed to Israel's destruction. Hizballah
engages in Lebanese politics, including elections, as one tactic in trying
to fulfill these goals.
We have seen steps by the current British government toward engaging
Hizballah. And the rationale for doing so is based partly on the fact that
Hizballah is now part of the Lebanese governing coalition. Of course, in
playing a role in that coalition, Hizballah tries to ensure Syria-Iranian
hegemony, threatens the lives of American personnel, and other activities
designed to destroy any U.S. influence in the region.
And let's remember that Hizballah may well have been involved in the murder
of courageous politicians and journalists in Lebanon who opposed
Syria-Iran-Hizballah control over their country. True, direct involvement
hasn't been proven but they are accessories since they have done everything
possible to kill the international investigation into the matter. And the
trail certainly leads back to their Syrian patrons.
Here's where I come in. I have received a letter asking me personally to
help with a research project. I have spoken to well-informed people who tell
me that the statements I am about to quote are accurate. It is highly
possible that the link with the Obama Administration is exaggerated, but
this indeed does come from the White House's favorite think tank.
While not mentioning the names of those involved they are known for
supporting the idea that Hizballah is really quite moderate. The letter says
that this is a project for the Center for American Progress and that the
results "will be presented to senior U.S. policymakers in the
administration."
I am asked to participate by giving my opinions on how the United States can
deal with Hizballah "short of engagement" and "would Israeli leaders see
benefit in the U.S. talking with Hizballah about issues which are of crucial
importance to Israel?"
Answer to first question: Oppose it in every way possible.
Answer to second question: What the [insert obscene words I don't use] do
you think they would say!
The letter continues:
"As you've noted, some like John Brennan [advisor to the president on
terrorism] is already thinking about a more flexible policy towards
Hizballah and it would be extremely useful to get your views on this to
ensure anything decided is done properly."
I read this letter-and that impression is confirmed by those knowledgeable
about this project and those involved-as saying that the Center for American
Progress is going to issue a report calling for U.S. engagement with
Hizballah, and that it has been encouraged to do so by important officials
in the Obama Administration.
The phrase "to ensure anything decided is done properly," I take as a
give-away to the fact that they are going to push for direct dealing with
Hizballah but want to be able to say that they had listened to alternative
views.
They merely, I am told by those who know about this project, intend to talk
to some who disagree for appearances' sake and throw in a sentence or two to
give the report the slightest tinge of balance.
The person heading this project has already endangered the lives of brave
Lebanese. For example, he claimed without foundation that Christians were
planning to launch a war on Hizballah, providing a splendid rationale for
Hizballah to murder opponents on the excuse of doing so in self-defense.
Accepting Hizballah rule is defined as the Christians recognizing they are a
minority and trying to get along with their Muslim neighbors.
In other words, those opposing Hizballah are presented as aggressors while
Hizballah is just the reasonable party that wants to get along. Moreover all
this leaves out the community, about the same size as the Christians and
Shia Muslims, that has been leading the resistance to Syria, Iran, and
Hizballah: the Sunni Muslims.
In short, the person directing the project talks like a virtual agent of
Hizballah and its allies, basically repeating what they tell him.
Aside from the fact that Hizballah is not and will not be moderate there are
two other problems that these silly people don't comprehend.
The first is the signal that such statements send to Arabs and especially
Lebanese. Concluding that the United States is selling them out and jumping
onto the side of the Islamist revolutionaries (an idea that sounds
implausible in Washington but very easily accepted as true in Riyadh,
Beirut, Amman, and Cairo), Arab moderates will be demoralized, rush to
become appeasers, and seek to cut their own deals with what they perceive as
the winning side.
The second is the signal that such statements send to the radicals
themselves. Concluding that the United States fears them and acknowledges
their moral superiority and strategic success, they will be more arrogant
and aggressive.
Friedrich Nietzsche famously said, "That which does not kill me makes me
stronger." A good Middle East equivalent would be: That which does not scare
me makes me bolder.
The last time I was in this situation, it involved a government-funded
report about Islamist movements. What I didn't know is that the word had
been passed to the project director from the government agency that he was
supposed to urge engagement with Islamists. The intention was to keep out
anything critical of the idea. At first, then, I was told to my surprise
that my paper would be responded to by another paper written by a supporter
of engaging Islamists.
When my paper was submitted, however, it was apparently too strong, it was
quickly rejected in an insulting way, and I wasn't paid for my work. The fix
was in and those involved were richly rewarded for saying what was wanted,
though the actual implementation of such a policy would be disastrous for
U.S. interests, as well as for millions of Arabs as well as Israelis.
Friends of mine have had similar experiences recently regarding papers
arguing, for example, that engaging Syria is a great idea and that Damascus
can be made moderate and split away from Iran. This is all nonsense, but
honors and money are to be gained by saying such things.
So I'm not going to help provide a fig leaf for something masquerading as a
serious study but set up to advocate a dreadful policy. It would be the
equivalent of participating in a mid-1930s' project designed to show that
Germany had no more ambitions in Europe, a mid-1940s' project that the USSR
wanted to be friends, or a late 1970s' project that Ayatollah Khomeini was a
moderate and that an Islamist Iran would pose no threats.
It's bad enough to live through an era of dangerous and terrible policy
decisions, it's much worse to be complicit in them.
Optional note: I didn't put in links but you can find extensive materials on
British moves toward engaging Hizballah; Brennan's views; Hizballah threats
against U.S. officials; close connections with Iran and Syria, Iranian and
Syrian involvement in anti-American terrorism; and other such matters in my
previous articles.
Professor Barry Rubin is the Director of Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.
To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to
http://www.gloria-center.org.
To see this and other related stroies, go to Israel Behind the News
Showing posts with label iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iraq. Show all posts
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Baghdad Cannot Destroy Al-Aqeda
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - A report submitted the week for the U.S. Defense Department has determined that Al Qaida in Iraq would resist any offensive by Baghdad over the next few years.
The report by the Rand Corp. asserted that Iraq, even with U.S. help, would fail to eliminate the Al Qaida (AQI) terror network.
"Eradicating AQI may exceed ISF capabilities, even with U.S. help, but the AQI threat is more likely to grow weaker rather than stronger," the report said.
Titled, "Withdrawing from Iraq: Alternative Schedules, Associated Risks, and Mitigating Strategies," the report provided a bleak picture of Iraq's capability to destroy the Al Qaida terror network. Rand said Al Qaida would remain viable in Iraq despite a decline in financing and recruitment.
"AQI is hampered by a lack of popular support, by restricted movement, and by a dearth of financing," the report said. "It is now largely confined to Mosul, the Tigris River Valley, and Diyala province. One of its principal causes, and a source of recruiting and fund-raising -- the U.S. occupation -- is ending."
The report was released in late July 2009 amid a resurgence of Al Qaida in Iraq's largest province, Anbar. Al Qaida, after a lull of nearly two years, was said to have renewed operations in such Sunni cities as Faluja and Samara.
Rand said AQI has been hampered by the sharp drop in the flow of foreign volunteers to Iraq. As a result, the report said Al Qaida has been increasingly relying on Iraqi women for suicide and other operations.
Syria has been deemed as the way station for at least 90 percent of Al Qaida volunteers to Iraq. The report said Syria has hosted a range of Sunni insurgency groups exiled from Iraq and seeking to destabilize the Baghdad government.
A U.S. combat troop withdrawal was expected to renew the ethnic war in Iraq, another report said.
The Institute of National Security Studies asserted that the 130,000 American troops have largely succeeded in preventing civil war in Iraq. In a report by U.S. Air Force Maj. Clint ZumBrunnen, the institute warned that any reconciliation effort by Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds must be backed by American force.
"The correlation between fragile stability in Iraq and the presence of U.S. combat forces is difficult to ignore, even if it is true that US forces do not control the country," said the report by Zum Brunnen, a U.S. Air Force scholar.
The report dismissed U.S. claims of a military victory in the insurgency war in Iraq. Instead, ZumBrunnen asserted that the Sunni insurgency in Iraq abated when the United States provided massive financing to Sunni tribes in central and western Iraq.
"Any precipitous withdrawal of US combat power will greatly reduce U.S. leverage in Iraq and risk a return to the sectarian strife of 2006 simply because few of Iraq's serious internal conflicts have been resolved," the report said.
President Obama has pledged to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by August 2010, leaving an estimated 50,000 advisers and support personnel.
But the report warned that Sunnis and Kurds, the biggest supporters of a U.S. military presence, would harden their positions toward the dominate Shi'ite community once the Americans begin to withdraw. For its part, the Shi'ite community has been split by a power struggle led by the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army, commanded by Moqtada Sadr.
Meanwhile, ZumBrunnen said, the United States has been led into a potential war in northern Iraq regarding the authority and size of the autonomous Kurdish region. The focus of the confrontation has been the oil-rich area of Kirkuk.
"Both sides are now edgier because there is less certainty that the U.S. will intervene to prevent one side or the other from exploiting an advantage," the report said. "And since any grand bargain between Arabs and Kurds mediated by the United Nations will likely require a powerful military force for enforcement, knowledge that U.S. forces will withdraw completely by 2011 lessens the chance for a nonviolent solution to the dispute.
Accordingly, both the [Kurdish] peshmerga and the ISF [Iraqi security forces] continue to prepare for eventual conflict."
The report said the United States must now focus on helping determine control over Iraq's crude oil reserves, deemed the most explosive of ethnic disputes. Since October 2008, no progress has been reported in talks between the government and major ethnic groups.
"This is where the additional role U.S. combat forces fill in Iraq comes into play," the report said. "Not only are these forces the guardians of a tense peace; they are also the instrument of power that lends credibility to other U.S. levers at the negotiating table.
Degrading their capability before any long term agreement exists on an issue so vital to Iraq's future weakens U.S. ability to shepherd all sides into a compromise, and more ominously, invites a return to the sectarianism of 2006 and 2007."
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Jerusalem - A report submitted the week for the U.S. Defense Department has determined that Al Qaida in Iraq would resist any offensive by Baghdad over the next few years.
The report by the Rand Corp. asserted that Iraq, even with U.S. help, would fail to eliminate the Al Qaida (AQI) terror network.
"Eradicating AQI may exceed ISF capabilities, even with U.S. help, but the AQI threat is more likely to grow weaker rather than stronger," the report said.
Titled, "Withdrawing from Iraq: Alternative Schedules, Associated Risks, and Mitigating Strategies," the report provided a bleak picture of Iraq's capability to destroy the Al Qaida terror network. Rand said Al Qaida would remain viable in Iraq despite a decline in financing and recruitment.
"AQI is hampered by a lack of popular support, by restricted movement, and by a dearth of financing," the report said. "It is now largely confined to Mosul, the Tigris River Valley, and Diyala province. One of its principal causes, and a source of recruiting and fund-raising -- the U.S. occupation -- is ending."
The report was released in late July 2009 amid a resurgence of Al Qaida in Iraq's largest province, Anbar. Al Qaida, after a lull of nearly two years, was said to have renewed operations in such Sunni cities as Faluja and Samara.
Rand said AQI has been hampered by the sharp drop in the flow of foreign volunteers to Iraq. As a result, the report said Al Qaida has been increasingly relying on Iraqi women for suicide and other operations.
Syria has been deemed as the way station for at least 90 percent of Al Qaida volunteers to Iraq. The report said Syria has hosted a range of Sunni insurgency groups exiled from Iraq and seeking to destabilize the Baghdad government.
A U.S. combat troop withdrawal was expected to renew the ethnic war in Iraq, another report said.
The Institute of National Security Studies asserted that the 130,000 American troops have largely succeeded in preventing civil war in Iraq. In a report by U.S. Air Force Maj. Clint ZumBrunnen, the institute warned that any reconciliation effort by Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds must be backed by American force.
"The correlation between fragile stability in Iraq and the presence of U.S. combat forces is difficult to ignore, even if it is true that US forces do not control the country," said the report by Zum Brunnen, a U.S. Air Force scholar.
The report dismissed U.S. claims of a military victory in the insurgency war in Iraq. Instead, ZumBrunnen asserted that the Sunni insurgency in Iraq abated when the United States provided massive financing to Sunni tribes in central and western Iraq.
"Any precipitous withdrawal of US combat power will greatly reduce U.S. leverage in Iraq and risk a return to the sectarian strife of 2006 simply because few of Iraq's serious internal conflicts have been resolved," the report said.
President Obama has pledged to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by August 2010, leaving an estimated 50,000 advisers and support personnel.
But the report warned that Sunnis and Kurds, the biggest supporters of a U.S. military presence, would harden their positions toward the dominate Shi'ite community once the Americans begin to withdraw. For its part, the Shi'ite community has been split by a power struggle led by the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army, commanded by Moqtada Sadr.
Meanwhile, ZumBrunnen said, the United States has been led into a potential war in northern Iraq regarding the authority and size of the autonomous Kurdish region. The focus of the confrontation has been the oil-rich area of Kirkuk.
"Both sides are now edgier because there is less certainty that the U.S. will intervene to prevent one side or the other from exploiting an advantage," the report said. "And since any grand bargain between Arabs and Kurds mediated by the United Nations will likely require a powerful military force for enforcement, knowledge that U.S. forces will withdraw completely by 2011 lessens the chance for a nonviolent solution to the dispute.
Accordingly, both the [Kurdish] peshmerga and the ISF [Iraqi security forces] continue to prepare for eventual conflict."
The report said the United States must now focus on helping determine control over Iraq's crude oil reserves, deemed the most explosive of ethnic disputes. Since October 2008, no progress has been reported in talks between the government and major ethnic groups.
"This is where the additional role U.S. combat forces fill in Iraq comes into play," the report said. "Not only are these forces the guardians of a tense peace; they are also the instrument of power that lends credibility to other U.S. levers at the negotiating table.
Degrading their capability before any long term agreement exists on an issue so vital to Iraq's future weakens U.S. ability to shepherd all sides into a compromise, and more ominously, invites a return to the sectarianism of 2006 and 2007."
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Sunday, August 23, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Iranian Rockets Attack US Base
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - In what may lead to a possible Iranian-American military confrontation, Pentagon sources have revealed that Shi'ite insurgents fired Iranian rockets in an attack on a U.S. military base in southern Iraq.
Iranian-backed Shi'ites fired Iranian-origin rockets on a U.S. base near the southern Iraqi city of Basra. That rocket strike on Aug. 17 was the latest in a spate of Iranian backed attacks on the U.S. military presence in the Basra region in mid-2009.
On Aug. 18, Iraqi security forces found a launcher with 13 Iranian rockets in the eastern portion of Basra. The rockets appeared to have been smuggled from Iran to Iraq over the last few weeks.
In 2009, the U.S. military replaced the British contingent in Basra. Since then, U.S. forces have come under rocket attacks against their base.
The U.S. military sources say that they have determined that Iran continued to smuggle weapons and insurgents into southern Iraq throughout 2009 and that the Iranian smuggling effort was meant to prepare for a Shi'ite takeover of Iraq's southern oil sector amid a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Jerusalem - In what may lead to a possible Iranian-American military confrontation, Pentagon sources have revealed that Shi'ite insurgents fired Iranian rockets in an attack on a U.S. military base in southern Iraq.
Iranian-backed Shi'ites fired Iranian-origin rockets on a U.S. base near the southern Iraqi city of Basra. That rocket strike on Aug. 17 was the latest in a spate of Iranian backed attacks on the U.S. military presence in the Basra region in mid-2009.
On Aug. 18, Iraqi security forces found a launcher with 13 Iranian rockets in the eastern portion of Basra. The rockets appeared to have been smuggled from Iran to Iraq over the last few weeks.
In 2009, the U.S. military replaced the British contingent in Basra. Since then, U.S. forces have come under rocket attacks against their base.
The U.S. military sources say that they have determined that Iran continued to smuggle weapons and insurgents into southern Iraq throughout 2009 and that the Iranian smuggling effort was meant to prepare for a Shi'ite takeover of Iraq's southern oil sector amid a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Friday, May 8, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israeli Armor Tested in Afghanistan
by David Bedein
Plasan Sasa, an Israeli military armaments manufacturer, plans to deploy armor it has developed with the U.S. Army in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Its subsidiary, Plasan North America, has developed an armor system for the MRAP all-terrain vehicles, produced by Oshkosh Defense.
Three M-ATV vehicles underwent testing at the army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland this month as part of a competition. The M-ATV was likely designed to meet the U.S. military’s requirement for a well-protected vehicle that could operate in Afghanistan’s rugged and mountainous off-road terrain.
“In addition to meeting these mobility demands, the Oshkosh M-ATV provides the superior crew protection that military forces need by incorporating an armor system from Plasan North America, which developed the armor system in use on more than 5,000 current MRAP vehicles and for the Armored Cab Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacements in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Oshkosh announced last week.
The U.S. military has been mulling the procurement of up to 10,000 such vehicles.
“The vehicles we delivered today meet the urgent need requirement for a well-armored vehicle that excels in moving our soldiers and Marines forward in Afghanistan’s harsh environments and dangerous operations,” Oshkosh Vice President Andy Hove said. “The Oshkosh M-ATV is ideal and unique in this competition because it boasts MRAP-level protection on a mobile and proven vehicle chassis.”
Plasan has delivered armor suites for a range of trucks and related vehicles produced by Oshkosh for the U.S. military. M-ATV was based on the Oshkosh MTVR chassis, deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Plasan Sasa, an Israeli military armaments manufacturer, plans to deploy armor it has developed with the U.S. Army in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Its subsidiary, Plasan North America, has developed an armor system for the MRAP all-terrain vehicles, produced by Oshkosh Defense.
Three M-ATV vehicles underwent testing at the army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland this month as part of a competition. The M-ATV was likely designed to meet the U.S. military’s requirement for a well-protected vehicle that could operate in Afghanistan’s rugged and mountainous off-road terrain.
“In addition to meeting these mobility demands, the Oshkosh M-ATV provides the superior crew protection that military forces need by incorporating an armor system from Plasan North America, which developed the armor system in use on more than 5,000 current MRAP vehicles and for the Armored Cab Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacements in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Oshkosh announced last week.
The U.S. military has been mulling the procurement of up to 10,000 such vehicles.
“The vehicles we delivered today meet the urgent need requirement for a well-armored vehicle that excels in moving our soldiers and Marines forward in Afghanistan’s harsh environments and dangerous operations,” Oshkosh Vice President Andy Hove said. “The Oshkosh M-ATV is ideal and unique in this competition because it boasts MRAP-level protection on a mobile and proven vehicle chassis.”
Plasan has delivered armor suites for a range of trucks and related vehicles produced by Oshkosh for the U.S. military. M-ATV was based on the Oshkosh MTVR chassis, deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Iraq Reaffirms June 30 Redeployment of American Troops
by David Bedein
PM Rejects US Proposals To Extend Deadline
The Middle East Newsline has confirmed the Iraqi government has reaffirmed the June 30 deadline that calls for American troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities - less than two months from now.
The government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has decided to reject U.S. proposals to extend the redeployment deadline until late 2009. The U.S. military had sought to remain in Baghdad and Mosul to battle the resurgence of al-Qaida.
“The Iraqi government is committed to the dates for the agreed-upon withdrawal of American forces from all the cities and towns by June 30 of this year,” Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.
Under the Status of Forces agreement, which went in effect this year, the U.S. military was required to withdraw from Iraqi cities by the end of June. The complete pullout is supposed take place by 2012.
U.S. commanders had argued that Iraqi security forces remain incapable of battling al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein loyalists in Baghdad and Mosul. They said the dismantling of the 100,000-member Sunni-dominated al-Sahwa auxiliary police force, formed by the United States to battle al-Qaida, has also harmed the counterinsurgency campaign.
The U.S. military announcement last month marked the highest rate of casualties in Iraq since September 2008. In late April, the military also reported negotiations with the Iraqi government to extend the withdrawal deadline.
“It’s a political decision, not a military one,” the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Raymond Odierno, said.
During a meeting with Iraqi commanders in Mosul, Gen. Odierno said a U.S. military departure from the city would require a closer partnership with the Iraq Army and security forces. The U.S. general said this would ensure the continuation of training and reconstruction projects.
Still, the al-Maliki government concluded that Iraqi security forces, with continued U.S. guidance, were capable of staging counterinsurgency operations. Officials said any extension of the redeployment deadline would spark unrest within the majority Shiite community.
“These dates cannot be extended, and they are in keeping with the process of transitioning and handing over responsibility to Iraqi security forces, according to what was agreed upon,” Mr. al-Dabbagh said.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
PM Rejects US Proposals To Extend Deadline
The Middle East Newsline has confirmed the Iraqi government has reaffirmed the June 30 deadline that calls for American troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities - less than two months from now.
The government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has decided to reject U.S. proposals to extend the redeployment deadline until late 2009. The U.S. military had sought to remain in Baghdad and Mosul to battle the resurgence of al-Qaida.
“The Iraqi government is committed to the dates for the agreed-upon withdrawal of American forces from all the cities and towns by June 30 of this year,” Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.
Under the Status of Forces agreement, which went in effect this year, the U.S. military was required to withdraw from Iraqi cities by the end of June. The complete pullout is supposed take place by 2012.
U.S. commanders had argued that Iraqi security forces remain incapable of battling al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein loyalists in Baghdad and Mosul. They said the dismantling of the 100,000-member Sunni-dominated al-Sahwa auxiliary police force, formed by the United States to battle al-Qaida, has also harmed the counterinsurgency campaign.
The U.S. military announcement last month marked the highest rate of casualties in Iraq since September 2008. In late April, the military also reported negotiations with the Iraqi government to extend the withdrawal deadline.
“It’s a political decision, not a military one,” the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Raymond Odierno, said.
During a meeting with Iraqi commanders in Mosul, Gen. Odierno said a U.S. military departure from the city would require a closer partnership with the Iraq Army and security forces. The U.S. general said this would ensure the continuation of training and reconstruction projects.
Still, the al-Maliki government concluded that Iraqi security forces, with continued U.S. guidance, were capable of staging counterinsurgency operations. Officials said any extension of the redeployment deadline would spark unrest within the majority Shiite community.
“These dates cannot be extended, and they are in keeping with the process of transitioning and handing over responsibility to Iraqi security forces, according to what was agreed upon,” Mr. al-Dabbagh said.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
