US Planes Attack Militia Strongholds in Basra Fighting – IRAQ

U.S. Teams Up With Iran in Basra? (Updated)

By Noah Shachtman March 27, 2008 | 11:40:00

Maliki_ahmadinejad_handshake

For more than a year, America's political and military leaders have been angrily accusing Iran of fueling the violence in Iraq. But, in the battle for Basra, the U.S. suddenly finds itself in the odd position of being, in effect, Tehran's ally against a common foe.

Basra has become the epicenter of a fight between Shi'ite factions. On one side, there's Moktada al-Sadr, the homegrown firebrand and long-time thorn in the side of American forces. On the other, there's the team of Da'wa (the party of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki) and the former Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (which runs most of the country's security services). Both SCIRI and Da'wa have decades-deep connections to Iran. "Shiite rivals, particularly the party loyal to the cleric Moktada al-Sadr, regularly accuse the Supreme Council of being a tool of the Iranian intelligence service. The party's top officials, including its leader, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, lived in Iran for decades and still frequently return," the Times observes.

"SCIRI was essentially created by Iran, and its militia, the Badr Brigade, was trained and equipped by the Revolutionary Guards," Council on Foreign Relations Iran scholar Ray Takeyh notes in the current Middle East Journal.

For its part, Da'wa is Iraq's longest surviving Shi'ite political party, with a courageous record of resisting Saddam's repression. Under tremendous pressure, Da'wa did take refuge in Iran, but it also established a presence in Syria, Lebanon, and eventually Britain... Da'wa and SCIRI do retain close bonds with Iran, and have defended the Islamic Republic against American charges of interference and infiltration.

Sadr's family, on the other hand, stayed in Iraq during Saddam's rule -- and suffered for it. "Moqtada's adherents have relentlessly hammered at the fact that the Sadrs stayed and struggled in Iraq, while the Hakims fled," notes Matthew Duss. The experience has helped make Sadr somewhat more of a nationalist than a pure promoter of Shi'ite causes.

That's not to say Sadr has no ties to Tehran. As with all politics in the Middle East, the relationships are complex. In 2006, Sadr pledged to defend Iran, if it was attacked by the Americans. Many believe Iranian weapons have been funneled to elements of Sadr's Mahdi Army. "But unlike their relations with SCIRI and Da'wa, Iran's ties to Sadr are more opportunistic, as they find his sporadic Arab nationalist rhetoric and erratic behavior problematic," Takeyh observes. "At a time when Sadr is being granted an audience by the Arab leaders and dignitaries across the region, it would be astonishing if Iran did not seek some kind of a relationship with the Shi'ite firebrand."

But, ultimately, "the Sadrist movement has always been about Iraq for the Iraqis," Batle Bull writes. "They might accept help from Iran - and I saw Iranian supplies in their compounds in Najaf in 2004 - but the movement is not for sale. Mr. Sadr gets his strength from the street. And the Arabs of the Iraqi street have no time for Persian bosses."

And now, after a long period of cease-fire and halting negotiations, Tehran's old, old friends, in the prime minister's office and in the security forces of Iraq, have decided to move against Sadr. These old friends are America's allies, as well. The U.S. military have spent billions of dollars, and thousands of lives, to strengthen the government in Baghdad. But that government has other backers.

"Why, some wonder, is the U.S. closer to the Iran-backed... Badr Brigades than it is with the Sadrites?" Abu Muqawama asks.

Two Baghdad political veterans have ruefully pointed out to Abu Muqawama that while Sadr has more popular support, the ISCI crowd have something more valuable: they speak English. One former State Department veteran with whom Abu Muqawama spoke a few months ago pointed out that former Iraq honcho Meghan O'Sullivan was particularly vulnerable to falling under the sway of those politicians who didn't just speak in that confusing gutteral language where they write from right to left in co-joined letters. Ergo: they speak English, so they must be our friends! Hoo-ray, democracy!

UPDATE: James Joyner isn't buying it. "An interesting argument but one that masks a complicated reality," he says.

The Iranian government naturally wants a Shiite state next door. At the same time, however, it clearly wants the al-Maliki government — and the U.S. mission in Iraq, more generally — to fail. And, goodness, they’ve sheltered al-Sadr for long periods during the current crisis.

Noah’s, right, though, that Sadr is widely perceived to be a more staunch Iraqi nationalist than Maliki, who is considered more friendly to a wider Shiite alliance...

Regardless, this isn’t an old Western movie; there’s nobody in this mess that are obviously “good guys” or purely “bad guys.” We’re supporting Maliki’s government because it was the one that got elected. Sadr and his forces decided to sit the process out.

UPDATE 2: Fred Kaplan has more background on the intrigue surround the Basra offensive...

Late last month, Iraq's three-man presidential council vetoed a bill calling for provincial elections, in large part because ISCI's [new the name for SCIRI] leaders feared that Sadr's party would win in Basra. The Bush administration, which has (correctly) regarded provincial elections as key to Iraqi reconciliation, pressured Maliki to reverse his stance and let the bill go through. He did—at which point (was this just a coincidence?) planning began for the offensive that's raging now.




The New York Times



March 29, 2008
U.S. Planes Attack Militia Strongholds in Basra Fighting

By ERICA GOODE

BAGHDAD —American military forces conducted air strikes on targets in Basra late Thursday, joining for the first time an onslaught by Iraqi security forces intended to oust Shiite militias in the southern port city.

Two American war planes shelled two targets in Basra, entering the battle at the request of the Iraqi Army, which asked the American and British forces to make the strikes, according to Maj. Tom Holloway, a spokesman for the British Army in Basra.

The air strikes are the clearest sign yet that the coalition forces have been drawn into the fighting in Basra. Up until Thursday night, the American and British air forces insisted that the Iraqis had taken the lead, though they acknowledged surveillance support for the Iraqi Army.

The assault on militia forces in Basra has been presented by President Bush and others as an important test for the American-trained Iraqi forces, to show that they can carry out a major ground operation against insurgents largely on their own.

But the air strikes suggest that the Iraqi military has been unable to successfully rout the militias, despite repeated assurances by American and Iraqi officials that their fighting capabilities have vastly improved.

A failure by the Iraqi forces to secure the port city of Basra would be a serious embarrassment for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and for the Iraqi Army, as well as for American forces who are eager to demonstrate that the Iraqi units they have trained can fight effectively.

However, Major Holloway said that coalition forces only took part because Iraqi security forces did not have aircraft that could conduct such strikes. “I think the point here is actually that Iraq’s army is capable, they are strong and they have been engaging successfully,” Major Holloway said.

He said the first target of the American strikes was a militia stronghold in the city and the second target was a mortar team that was targeting Iraqi Army forces.

The fighting this week in Basra against the Mahdi Army, the armed wing of the political movement led by the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, has set off clashes in cities throughout Iraq, and raised tensions. Major demonstrations have been staged this week in a number of Shiite areas of Baghdad, including Sadr City, the huge neighborhood that is Mr. Sadr’s base of power.

Although President Bush praised the Iraqi government on Thursday for leading the fighting, the Iraqi government has also appeared to pursue its own agenda, calling the battles a fight against “criminal” elements but seeking to marginalize the Mahdi Army.

On Wednesday, Mr. Maliki set a 72-hour deadline for Shiite militia fighters in Basra to lay down their arms or else face harsh repercussions. While that deadline still holds, on Thursday he offered an additional cash reward to any residents of Basra who turn in heavy weapons or artillery.

After fierce clashes on Thursday in Basra, the streets of the city were quiet Friday morning before Friday prayers, according to Iraqi police officials on the scene.

However, fighting continued in the Qurna district, 40 miles northwest of Basra, with three civilians reported injured.

In Baghdad, the Green Zone office of one of Iraq’s two vice presidents, Tariq al-Hashimi, was hit by two rockets or mortar shells on Friday afternoon, killing one person, according to Mr. Hashimi’s daughter and chief secretary, Lubna al-Hashimi. Mr. Hashimi’s office later said a security guard was the person killed.

Ms. Hashimi, weeping, said in a telephone interview that at least three Iraqis were also wounded. There was no immediate information available about whether Mr. Hashimi was in his office at the time, or whether he was hurt in the attack.

An American official in the Green Zone confirmed the attack on the vice president’s office and said that the wounded had been taken to the combat support hospital there.

The attacks, which resounded with sharp cracks about an hour after the finish of Friday prayers, put a violent end to a morning of relative calm in the capital, which is under a strict curfew. Later, in the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad gunfire was heard Friday and American helicopters were flying low to the ground.

The Americans share the Iraqi government’s hostility toward what they call rogue elements of the Mahdi Army, but will also be faced with the consequences if the battles among Shiite factions erupt into more widespread unrest.

The violence underscored the fragile nature of the security improvements partly credited to the American troop increase that began last year. Officials have acknowledged that a cease-fire called by Mr. Sadr last August has contributed to the improvements. Should the cease-fire collapse entirely, those gains could be in serious jeopardy, making it far more difficult to begin bringing substantial numbers of American troops back to the United States.

Although Sadr officials insisted on Thursday that the cease-fire was still in effect, Mr. Sadr has authorized his forces to fight in self-defense, and the battles in Basra appear to be eroding the cease-fire.

During a lengthy speech on Thursday at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, near Dayton, Ohio, Mr. Bush praised Iraq’s government for ordering the assault in Basra and portrayed the battle as evidence that his strategy of increasing troop strength was bearing fruit.

“This offensive builds on the security gains of the surge and demonstrates to the Iraqi people that their government is committed to protecting them,” he said.

“There’s a strong commitment by the central government of Iraq to say that no one is above the law.”

Mr. Bush also accused Iran of arming, training and financing the militias fighting against the Iraqi forces.

Mr. Bush spoke after three days of briefings with senior advisers and military commanders on the situation in Iraq and the options for reducing the number of American troops there beyond the withdrawals already announced. It was one in a series of speeches he has been giving to build support for his policy before Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior commander in Iraq, testifies before Congress next month.

In a videoconference with the president on Monday, General Petraeus recommended taking up to two months to evaluate security in Iraq before considering additional withdrawals, officials said Monday.

On Thursday, medical officials in Basra said the toll in the fighting there had risen to about 100 dead and 500 wounded, including civilians, militiamen and members of the security forces. An Iraqi employee of The New York Times, driving on the main road between Basra and Nasiriya, observed numerous civilian cars with coffins strapped to the roofs, apparently heading to Shiite cemeteries to the north.

Violence also broke out in Kut, Hilla, Amara, Kirkuk, Baquba and other cities. In Baghdad, where explosions shook the city throughout the day on Thursday, American officials said 11 rockets struck the Green Zone, killing an unidentified American government worker, the second this week.

Another American, Paul Converse of Corvallis, Ore., an analyst with a federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, died of wounds suffered in a rocket attack on Sunday, a spokeswoman for the agency said Thursday.

The Iraqi government imposed a citywide curfew in Baghdad until Sunday.

Thousands of demonstrators in Sadr City on Thursday denounced Mr. Maliki, who has personally directed the Basra operation, and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the Shiite cleric who leads the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a political party that is a crucial member of the coalition keeping Mr. Maliki in power.

The Supreme Council’s armed wing, the Badr Organization, is one of the most powerful rivals of the Mahdi Army in Basra, where Shiite militias have been fighting among themselves for years to control neighborhoods, oil revenues, electricity access, the ports and even the local universities.

Contributing reporting were James Glanz from Baghdad; Steven Lee Myers from Ohio; Graham Bowley from New York; and Qais Mizher, Ahmad Fadam, Mudhafer al-Husaini, Hosham Hussein, Karim al-Hilmi, and other employees of The New York Times from Basra, Kut, Baghdad, Hilla, Kirkuk and Diyala Province.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company









latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq29mar29,0,6396388.story

From the Los Angeles Times
Maliki gives Iraq militiamen more time to disarm

As clashes continue, the prime minister postpones the Saturday deadline to April 8. U.S. forces intervene in Basra at Iraq's request, bombing Shiite militia positions overnight.

By Tina Susman
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

8:20 AM PDT, March 28, 2008



Caught

Email Picture

AFP/Getty Images

CAUGHT: Iraqi police commandos guard captured Shiite militiamen at a military base in the central city of Hilla.


BAGHDAD — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki today extended a deadline for militiamen battling government troops to disarm as fighters showed no signs of ending a standoff with Iraqi forces.

U.S. forces intervened in the battle in the southern city of Basra by dropping two bombs on militia positions overnight. A British military spokesman in the city, Maj. Tom Holloway, said that Iraq had requested airstrikes on the targets and that American jets happened to be in the vicinity and responded.

Holloway said the planes were part of 24-hour air support provided by the United States and Britain over Basra since Tuesday, when Maliki deployed troops to quell violence by Shiite Muslim militiamen.

Despite a curfew imposed across Baghdad, mortar and rocket attacks today continued to plague the Green Zone, the heavily fortified enclave in the capital that is home to the U.S. Embassy and most Iraqi government offices. One hit the office of Vice President Tariq Hashimi. He was not there, but police said three guards were killed.

Maliki's decision to extend what had been a three-day disarmament deadline, set to expire Saturday, until April 8 was a sign of the resistance he faces from militiamen loyal to Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr.

A spokesman for Iraq's Interior Ministry, Maj. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf, said today that "no one handed over his weapons" after Maliki issued his first order Wednesday. But Khalaf said the ministry, which oversees police, had received calls from people asking how to turn in their arms without facing arrest or other repercussions.

As a result, Khalaf said, a formal disarmament system had been established that allows fighters to register at local mosques, instead of having to go to police stations.

"During this time the armed men should hand over the heavy and the medium weapons, and they will receive a financial award," Khalaf said in a telephone interview. He did not say what the financial award would be.

Iraq's government has portrayed the operation so far as a success, but violence has erupted in Shiite strongholds across the country.

Maliki says the offensive is aimed at crushing rogue elements of Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, which is locked in a power struggle in the south with the rival armed wing of the government-backed Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council.

But Sadr denies that his men are involved in violence. His followers reject assertions by Maliki and the U.S. military that the current operation is targeting only rogue militiamen and say it is aimed at Sadr in hopes of sidelining his movement.

There were scattered reports of clashes today across Iraq.

Police said fighting in the provincial capital of Nasiriya had left 15 people dead since Thursday, seven of them civilians and the rest militiamen and police.

In Basra, which remained under curfew, gunmen killed the manager of one of the city's hospitals Thursday.

Residents reported fighters massing today on the outskirts of Saidiya, in southwestern Baghdad, in a Shiite area considered a stronghold of the Mahdi Army. Some residents reported clashes between gunmen and U.S. and Iraqi forces there, but there was no independent confirmation.

The use of American bombs to target militiamen in Basra could complicate U.S. efforts to remain on relatively good terms with Sadr, whose self-imposed cease-fire in August is credited with helping bring down violence across Iraq. The U.S. has sought to distance itself from the offensive even as it proclaims its support for Maliki's actions.

But it confirmed that U.S. forces had been involved in some clashes in Baghdad, including three incidents this morning in Sadr City. It said U.S. soldiers killed four "criminals" in the Shiite neighborhood and a fourth in Khadimiya, another Shiite stronghold.

Salah Ubeidi, a Sadr spokesman, said U.S. helicopters had conducted airstrikes in Sadr City at 4:30 a.m. that had left four civilians dead. It was not clear if he was talking about the same incidents as the U.S. military.

The United States did not report any civilian casualties in its operations, but it is not unusual for locals to dispute military statements, and visa versa.

tina.susman@latimes.com

Times staff writers Raheem Salman and Ned Parker in Baghdad and special correspondents in Basra and Baghdad contributed to this report.



If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.
<> alt="TMS Reprints" v:shapes="_x0000_i1027">
Article licensing and reprint options



Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Home Delivery | Advertise | Archives | Contact | Site Map | Help

partners: KTLA Hoy







Monsters and Critics.com

Middle East Features
The fight for Basra - it's about oil and power
By DPA
Mar 28, 2008, 14:57 GMT

Cairo - US forces in Iraq are in danger of being drawn deeper into the power struggle between the country's Shiite factions.

During the most recent clashes between Iraqi troops and the militia of Shiite preacher Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, the US army may not have been in the teeth of the fighting. But does take action in case of emergencies, when Iraqi troops risk defeat.

Yet over the past months the US military command stressed it was 'respecting the ceasefire announced by Moqtada al-Sadr'. The fact that US troops are fighting the Mahdi Army despite those assurances pose great risks, independent analysts say.

The rivalries between the Shiite government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the Mahdi Army are not just about differing ideologies or handing out lucrative posts in state and administration.

First and foremost, they are about dividing the legal and illegal profits stemming from the oil business in the southern city of Basra.

If reports from Basra are to be believed, more or less all Shiite parties are involved in illicit oil dealing. Information is passed on only in secret, because of fears of the militias' vengeance.

'When an oil delivery leaves Basra, the (Iraq's governing) Dawa and SICI parties divert about a third of the oil, secretly sell it and pocket the profit,' a Basra man close to the Sadrists said.

'All of that has nothing to do with politics. The structures are more like the Italian Mafia,' he said.

The Sadrists and the members of the Shiite Fadhila party, whose members are very well connected around Basra, are now accused of oil smuggling by al-Maliki's Dawa party and his main coalition partner, the Supreme Islamic Council in Iraq (SICI).

'After Prime Minister al-Maliki accused the Sadr movement of being involved in oil smuggling, members of Iraq's anti-corruption authority contacted us,' said MP Asmaa al-Mussawi.

'They informed us that the names on their list did not include a single representative of the Sadrists, but instead the names of several high-ranking government members who are involved in oil rackets.'

The Shiite politician is a member of the Sadr movement. She was elected into parliament in 2005 as a candidate of the Shiite alliance.

Back then, all Shiite parties cooperated. Now the Sadrists, whose six ministers walked out of the government almost one year ago, are demanding al-Maliki's resignation.



© Copyright 2007 by monstersandcritics.com.
This notice cannot be removed without permission.









click here to go to the IC Publications home page

28/03/2008 13:54 BAGHDAD, March 28 (AFP)

Iraq parliament holds emergency session on Basra crisis

Iraq's embattled parliament held an emergency session on Friday to discuss the crisis in the southern city of Basra where Shiite fighters are locked in battle with Iraqi forces, an AFP correspondent said.

Only 54 of the 275 lawmakers attended the session.

The two main parliamentary blocs -- Shiite United Iraqi Alliance and the Kurdish Alliance --- were not present for the session which was attended by lawmakers from radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc, the small Shiite Fadhila Party, the secular Iraqi National List and the Sunni National Dialogue Council.

©2008 AFP









Slate Magazine
today's papers
Swimming With the Sharks

By Daniel Politi
Posted Friday, March 28, 2008, at 6:00 AM ET

The Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal's world-wide newsbox lead with the latest from Iraq, where tens of thousands took to the streets in Baghdad to protest against the crackdown on Shiite militias that is being overseen by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. At least 125 people have been killed, but the Iraqi security forces seem no closer to getting rid of the militias in Basra than when the offensive began on Tuesday. The Green Zone was once again pounded by rocket and mortar attacks, which yesterday killed another American contract worker. The government imposed a curfew in Baghdad after explosions rocked the capital throughout the day and violence continued to rage in several cities. The WSJ highlights that a bomb was placed under an oil pipeline near Basra, which officials said could affect shipments and increase prices. In a Page One story, the WSJ highlights that the increasing violence once again threatens efforts to lure big oil companies to Iraq.

The Washington Post devotes most of its above-the-fold space to the role of U.S. forces in the Iraqi crackdown but leads with a look at how the actions taken by the Federal Reserve in the last couple of weeks could mark a vast expansion in the role of the central bank in the future. The Fed was just trying to deal with the current crisis, but many are now starting to recognize the actions will have long-lasting consequences. "Whether we like it or not, they've recreated the financial universe," a finance professor declared. USA Today leads with the hundreds of flight cancellations that passengers have had to deal with this week and warns there could be more to come as the Federal Aviation Administration continues cracking down on airplane safety. After problems were discovered in Southwest planes, the agency ordered all airlines to check for problems. American Airlines and Delta Air Lines canceled flights this week, and some suspect others will follow suit as the FAA continues its inquiry.

President Bush declared yesterday that Iraq is returning to "normalcy" and praised the latest operation in Basra as a sign that the Iraqi government is taking security matters seriously. "This offensive builds on the security gains of the surge and demonstrates to the Iraqi people that their government is committed to protecting them," Bush said.

The WP off-leads its Iraq story and says there are hints that U.S. troops are more involved in the fighting than military officials let on. One of the paper's correspondents saw U.S. troops in armored vehicles directly fighting Mahdi Army forces in Sadr City while Iraqi units largely stuck "to the outskirts of the area." Throughout the day, "the din of American weapons" could be heard, and the WP pointedly declares that U.S. troops "took the lead in the fighting." So U.S. forces are getting more involved in the conflict even as one American official admitted that "we can't quite decipher" the situation and figure out why the government decided to act now. But there's a growing consensus that Maliki is firing "the first salvo in the upcoming elections," says the official, who then gives us the understatement of the day: "It's not a pretty picture." U.S. military officials insist American troops are merely playing backup to Iraqi security forces, but commanders with the Mahdi Army say they've been fighting U.S. troops for the past three days.

The LAT points out that U.S. officials are now in a strange situation where they have to consistently talk about how the crackdown is aimed at Shiite militias in general and insist that it's rogue elements of Muqtada Sadr's army that are to blame and not the cleric. Of course, they're worried that Sadr will officially call off his cease-fire. But as the WP makes clear, that cease-fire seems to exist in name only, since Sadr's "fighters and Iraqi and U.S. forces are waging full-scale war in places." The NYT once again notes that there's "little evidence" that Iraqi security forces in Basra are targeting anyone besides Mahdi Army fighters. Slate's Fred Kaplan plainly declares that the fighting in Basra "is not a clash between good and evil or between a legitimate government and an outlaw insurgency. … It's just another crevice in the widening earthquake called Iraq."

The WP talks to administration officials who say Maliki launched the offensive without consulting the United States. But the move couldn't have been that much of a surprise seeing as the NYT reported on March 13 that the Iraqi army was planning an offensive to take control of Basra's port.

The Post says that when the leaders of the Fed decided to open up what is "essentially a bottomless pit of cash," which was previously available only to traditional banks, to large investment houses, they knew it was a big deal. The plan calls for that money to be available for at least the next six months, but even if it expires, the perception of how the Fed will act in a crisis has been forever changed. Experts now say that investment banks and their clients may be less worried about risky investments in the future since they will assume that the Fed will come to the rescue if there's a crisis. The question now is whether the Fed will formally take on a more heavy-handed approach to regulating Wall Street.

The LAT and NYT front, while everyone else goes inside with, the proposals put forward by the presidential contenders to deal with problems in the economy. Sen. Barack Obama emphasized there should be more federal regulation of the financial markets, while Sen. Hillary Clinton proposed a plan to retrain laid-off workers. Obama put forward a $30 billion economic-stimulus package, and Clinton's aides took the opportunity to highlight that she had proposed to spend $30 billion to help prevent foreclosures (the country needs "leadership, not followership," they said). Both the Democratic contenders sharply criticized Sen. John McCain, who said the federal role should be limited because "it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers."

The NYT highlights that, despite the rhetoric, both parties have agreed that the government should be involved, but "the ideological clashes are … more about whom it should try to rescue." In the end though, their results could be similar, since it's probably impossible to separate the individuals from the markets, because each would suffer if the other is doing badly.

The NYT's Paul Krugman analyzes their proposals and says that, just as with health care, each candidate's policy tells "a tale that is seriously at odds with the way they're often portrayed." McCain, who is often referred to as an independent maverick, "offers neither straight talk nor originality" as he offers traditional right-wing views. Obama is seen as "a transformational figure," but his proposals "tend to be cautious and relatively orthodox." For her part, Clinton, who "we're assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies," offers proposals that "continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive."

The Post takes a look at Obama's huge success in raising funds through the Internet and says that in the past two months the senator has "rewritten the rules of raising campaign cash." The key to his "elaborate marketing effort," which involves spending heavily on Internet ads, seems to be that his campaign doesn't ask for money at every possible turn and instead has pursued a "strategy of slow-walking its way into supporters' wallets."

The WSJ reports that as foreclosures continue to increase, banks and mortgage companies are increasingly finding that homeowners are taking revenge by trashing their homes before handing over the keys. As a result, many are offering homeowners hundreds, or thousands, of dollars "to put their anger in escrow and leave quietly."

Daniel Politi writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@slate.com.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2187644/

Copyright 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC





UK
Britain sits on sidelines as Iraq's Basra burns

Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:00pm GMT

By Luke Baker

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain ruled out deploying any troops to the Iraqi city of Basra on Friday, despite days of intense battles on the streets and signs Iraq's forces cannot cope with a growing militant uprising.

U.S. war planes dropped bombs on rebel areas in an effort to help the Iraqi army regain control of the city, but Britain said its 4,100 heavily armed troops, based at an airport a few kilometres (miles) from the centre, would not join in.

"This is an Iraqi-led operation and it's one that we have wanted to see since they took responsibility for security in Basra," said a spokesman for the Ministry of Defence.

"It's going to take time, but it shows the Iraqi government's political will in taking on the militants."

At least 120 people described by the Iraqi government as enemy fighters have been killed and 450 wounded in four days of intense fighting, which began after Iraq's prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, decided to take on militant groups in the city.

Britain is providing logistical support and treating some of the Iraqi army wounded on its base, Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman said, reiterating the Iraqis were in charge.

Yet despite Britain's expression of confidence in Iraqi forces its troops have helped train, there are signs Iraq's army is struggling to contain what is a widening conflict.

Militants loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shi'ite cleric opposed to the U.S. and British presence in Iraq, have risen up in cities across the south in the wake of the crackdown in Basra.

Maliki had initially set a 72-hour deadline for militants to give up their weapons, but has now extended that deadline until April 8, indicating that he expects the offensive to take much longer than originally planned to quell the threat.

"PANDORA'S BOX"

The Pentagon described Basra as chaotic this week, but stopped short of any suggestion that Britain, which has overseen the city since 2003, was responsible for the state of affairs.

Since Brown took over as prime minister in June last year, Britain has been steadily drawing forces out of Iraq, looking to draw a line under a war that is unpopular in Britain.

The intention had been to reduce troop numbers to 2,500 in the coming weeks, but that looks less likely given the fighting.

"Citizens down there have been living in a city of chaos and corruption for some time and they and the prime minister clearly have had enough of it," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. "The city has always been dealing with a level of criminality and corruption that no one has been comfortable with."

Part of Britain's reluctance to get involved is that it could exacerbate an already bad situation, turning what is currently a two-way fight into a three-way fight or worse.

Ghassan al-Attiyah, an Iraq analyst in London, said Britain was right not to get involved, but said its presence was now so close to meaningless that all troops should be pulled out.

He said Maliki had opened a Pandora's Box by taking on Sadr's militants in a battle there was no guarantee he could win and that ultimately could play into the hands of Iran, which is building influence in southern Iraq.

"It's a bad development, a misjudgement, and I doubt Maliki will come out of it well," he said. "Do the Iranians want to see the Sadr group vanquished by the Iraqi government? I don't know, but if they are unhappy with it, they are going to react."

(Additional reporting by Andrew Gray in Washington; Editing by Ibon Villelabeitia)

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.









DALLAS MORNING NEWS
Editorial: Surge's progress can't halt Iraq turmoil

U.S. must fight smart in Iraq - with fewer troops
05:11 AM CDT on Friday, March 28, 2008

Iraq is once again in turmoil. Shiite militiamen are fighting Iraqi troops to control parts of Baghdad and Basra. The Green Zone is being bombarded. A spike in attacks recently pushed the U.S. death toll past the psychological marker of 4,000. Political bickering still impedes efforts to unite Iraq's sectarian factions.

The turmoil underscores the limits of the U.S. troop surge. It can help stabilize violent areas, but it can't make Iraqis get along with one another. This is not to deny the merits of the surge itself, because military conditions are distinctly better than they were a year ago. Casualties are markedly down. U.S. troops are using smarter tactics to enlist Iraqi support rather than provoke their enmity. This is progress.

Is it enough? Not by a long shot. Today's situation is so brittle that President Bush has had to halt a scheduled drawdown of troops to pre-surge levels. For the sake of short-term stability, that's the correct choice. But the Pentagon's top leadership has consistently warned that we can't sustain this commitment much longer because our armed forces are stretched too thin and the stress caused by lengthy deployments is too great.

The fact that Iraq's leaders are willing to commit their own troops to fight Iraqi militiamen is a good sign. But it's in the political arena where Iraq's problems will be solved over the long term, and that progress has been unacceptably slow. Iraqi leaders have mistaken Mr. Bush's stay-the-course resolve as a sign that the Americans are staying put, so what's the hurry? They're getting the wrong message.

As the surge began, this newspaper offered an alternative approach called Plan B. The philosophy behind it is effectively being put to the test in Iraq right now: Don't withdraw altogether, but take action to reduce U.S. casualties by limiting troops' movements on the ground. Let Iraqis fight Iraqi battles. Let U.S. troops secure the borders and continue going after al-Qaeda and foreign fighters. Whenever possible, deploy by helicopter – as troops do in Afghanistan – so patrols are less vulnerable to the IED attacks that now account for the bulk of American deaths.

We've given the surge a chance to work, and we think its results have been impressive. The key now is to fight smart – with fewer American troops. Our military leadership is pleading for it. U.S. commitments elsewhere, particularly in Afghanistan, demand it. And our Plan B offers what we think is the best way to make it happen.

Basics of Plan B

•Gradually reduce troop levels to 60,000-80,000.

•Move bases to rural areas within 100 miles of Iraq's borders; create a border cordon to halt foreign infiltration.

•End ground-based U.S. military patrols and convoys; minimize IED casualties with helicopter deployments.

•Continue training Iraqi forces so they can fight their own battles.







IRAN










UK delays Iraq withdrawal due to Basra violence - report

London, March 28, IRNA
UK-Iraq
The British government was reported Friday to be delaying its plans to further cut its troops in Iraq by 1,600 due to the upsurge in violence in Basra.

Ministry of Defence officials have admitted that they were no longer thinking about cutting troop numbers to 2,500 from the spring, as had been outlined by Prime Minister Gordon Brown last October, according to the Times newspaper.

"Any plans for a reduction of British troops is off the table for the time being," a senior source was quoted saying by the daily.

Under present strategy, the 4,100 British troops still in Iraq are based at the airport northwest of Basra.

British officials have insisted that so far UK forces were providing support only in the form of air cover and logistics, including 19 liaison officers in Basra city.

But the Times said it did not rule out sending a small force to help the Iraqis against the insurgency if requested by the authorities in Baghdad.

Earlier this month, Defence Secretary Des Browne flew to Basra to meet commanders on the ground as uncertainty hung over the withdrawal plans.

In a statement to parliament last October, the British premier said the intention was to reduce the number of UK troops there to 2,500, starting in the spring, but speculation is that the UK may have altered its plans.

2220**345**1420














IRAN










UK soldier killed in Iraq reported to be SAS officer

London, March 27, IRNA
UK-Iraq
The British soldier killed in Iraq on Wednesday was a member of the UK's special forces, it was reported Thursday.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD), which does not comment officially on the activities of the SAS, said only that a British soldier was shot and killed in Iraq.

Uncommonly it did not state where in the country he was killed.

But according to the Guardian newspaper, quoting sources, he was an SAS soldier and was killed in a gunfight during a covert operation in the Baghdad area.

The MoD said the soldier died as a result of gunshot wounds "sustained during a firefight in the early hours of Wednesday," but indicated that he was not killed in Basra, where 4,100 of the 4,300 British troops still in Iraq are based.

None of soldiers based at Basra airport have combat roles.

Apart from the unknown number of SAS officers operating in the country, there are also some 200 British soldiers in Baghdad, mainly on guard duty.

The latest death brings the total number of British military fatalities in Iraq to 176 since the 2003 invasion.

Up until the end of 2007, another 212 British troops have been very seriously or seriously injured.

The only other SAS deaths reported in Iraq were two killed in a Puma helicopter crash last November during an anti-insurgency mission on the outskirts of Baghdad.

The daily reported that SAS patrols have been operating in Iraq since before the invasion.

It said there was a squadron of about 60 from 22 SAS Regiment, based about 50 miles from Baghdad, often working with US special forces.

Last month, a member of the SAS who recently resigned after being assigned to Iraq, accused the UK government of being "deeply involved" with the US in the extraordinary rendition of terrorist suspects to torture camps.

"Throughout my time in Iraq I was in no doubt that individuals detained by UKSF (special forces) and handed over to our American colleagues would be tortured," Ben Griffin told a news conference in London on February 25.

2220**345**1420