bobdina
09-22-2009, 02:50 PM
Official: Al-Qaida ‘cannot sustain’ new Iraq attacks
By William H. McMichael
Some are already calling the 6½*year conflict in Iraq the Forgotten War — “largely pushed off the headlines and out of the evening news” in favor of the once-”forgotten” Afghanistan war, as Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, put it Sept. 10.
Iraq-based insurgents are doing their macabre best to keep Iraq in the news, however. A series of high-profile bombings that officials say bear all the hallmarks of al-Qaida in Iraq have torn a hole in the carefully nurtured sense of security constructed by U.S. and, more recently, Iraqi forces.
Sept. 10 was particularly bloody. In a single day, a truck bomb detonated in a Kurdish village killed 20 and wounded 27; a mine exploded in Mahmudiyah, killing four and wounding 30; and two bombs went off in a Hilla market. All the victims were civilians.
Two days earlier, four U.S. troops were killed in two bomb attacks — one in southern Baghdad, the other southwest of Kirkuk. Fourteen Iraqis were killed in separate bombings Sept. 7 in Ramadi, Baqubah and Karbala. Those attacks paled next to the Aug. 19 bombings in Baghdad
— which used powerful weapons termed “Oklahoma City-like” by U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill
— that killed 95 and wounded more than 500 others.
Army Lt. Gen. Charles Jacoby, commander of Multi-National Corps-Iraq, called the wave of attacks against unprotected civilians “sensationalism through suffering” — an attempt to discredit the Shiite-dominated government of Iraq and the efforts of its security forces, now in charge of urban security following the June 30 U.S. troop withdrawal from cities.
“Our operations here in Iraq are progressing,” Jacoby told Pentagon reporters in a satellite-linked interview Sept. 10 from Camp Victory in Baghdad. “But our enemies here continue to challenge and test the Iraqi security forces. Many areas in Iraq remain dangerous.” Jacoby said U.S. officials question how much longer al-Qaida in Iraq, which he called “greatly diminished,” can keep it up, adding that the attacks — which pale in number compared to the sustained violence that broke out in 2006-07 — “are not frequent.” He said al-Qaida in Iraq and other insurgent forces “cannot sustain this kind of an operational tempo. And we will see if they punch themselves out.” Jacoby said Iraqi security forces are “taking the initiative … they are going after the problem and they are not backing down. And so we’ll see how the environment improves as we head toward the [January] election.” But, he added, “It’s a volatile time period.” Yet not volatile enough, Hill told the House Foreign Affairs Com*mittee on Sept. 10, to warrant any change to the U.S. troop withdrawal mandated by the U.S.-Iraq security agreement, which calls for all U.S. combat troops to withdraw from Iraq by Aug. 30, 2010, and for all U.S. forces to leave by the end of 2011.
“We are holding to … this timetable,” Hill told the House committee.
Iraqi voters could have a say in that timetable. In addition to electing a national parliament Jan. 30, Iraqis will give the security agreement an up-or-down vote. If they reject the legally binding agreement, U.S. forces would have to pull out 11 months earlier.
“If the Iraqi public rejects the agreement, I believe we have no choice but to pull out all of our forces as soon as we can,” Kerry said during his committee’s Sept. 10 meeting with Hill. “This would complicate our redeployment and severely curtail our ability to assist the Iraqi security forces and government.
“But at this point, I’m not sure how we would justify asking our soldiers to stay one day longer than necessary when they are formally disinvited by the Iraqi people,” Kerry said.
Still, no modification of the agreement is envisioned, Hill told Kerry’s committee.
“Giving you my personal opinion … we would not engage in changing the security agreement without considerable consultation,” he said.
Any inclusion of the Senate in such consultation — no sure thing
— would presumably take place before a hearing better-attended than this one; only five of the committee’s 19 members showed up, unintentionally underlining Kerry’s early supposition about a forgotten war — a supposition he personally refuted.
“The families of the 130,000 troops and 1,000 diplomats in Iraq need no reminder that their loved ones remain in harm’s way,” Kerry said.
The war, he said, “is not forgot*ten here.
By William H. McMichael
Some are already calling the 6½*year conflict in Iraq the Forgotten War — “largely pushed off the headlines and out of the evening news” in favor of the once-”forgotten” Afghanistan war, as Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, put it Sept. 10.
Iraq-based insurgents are doing their macabre best to keep Iraq in the news, however. A series of high-profile bombings that officials say bear all the hallmarks of al-Qaida in Iraq have torn a hole in the carefully nurtured sense of security constructed by U.S. and, more recently, Iraqi forces.
Sept. 10 was particularly bloody. In a single day, a truck bomb detonated in a Kurdish village killed 20 and wounded 27; a mine exploded in Mahmudiyah, killing four and wounding 30; and two bombs went off in a Hilla market. All the victims were civilians.
Two days earlier, four U.S. troops were killed in two bomb attacks — one in southern Baghdad, the other southwest of Kirkuk. Fourteen Iraqis were killed in separate bombings Sept. 7 in Ramadi, Baqubah and Karbala. Those attacks paled next to the Aug. 19 bombings in Baghdad
— which used powerful weapons termed “Oklahoma City-like” by U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill
— that killed 95 and wounded more than 500 others.
Army Lt. Gen. Charles Jacoby, commander of Multi-National Corps-Iraq, called the wave of attacks against unprotected civilians “sensationalism through suffering” — an attempt to discredit the Shiite-dominated government of Iraq and the efforts of its security forces, now in charge of urban security following the June 30 U.S. troop withdrawal from cities.
“Our operations here in Iraq are progressing,” Jacoby told Pentagon reporters in a satellite-linked interview Sept. 10 from Camp Victory in Baghdad. “But our enemies here continue to challenge and test the Iraqi security forces. Many areas in Iraq remain dangerous.” Jacoby said U.S. officials question how much longer al-Qaida in Iraq, which he called “greatly diminished,” can keep it up, adding that the attacks — which pale in number compared to the sustained violence that broke out in 2006-07 — “are not frequent.” He said al-Qaida in Iraq and other insurgent forces “cannot sustain this kind of an operational tempo. And we will see if they punch themselves out.” Jacoby said Iraqi security forces are “taking the initiative … they are going after the problem and they are not backing down. And so we’ll see how the environment improves as we head toward the [January] election.” But, he added, “It’s a volatile time period.” Yet not volatile enough, Hill told the House Foreign Affairs Com*mittee on Sept. 10, to warrant any change to the U.S. troop withdrawal mandated by the U.S.-Iraq security agreement, which calls for all U.S. combat troops to withdraw from Iraq by Aug. 30, 2010, and for all U.S. forces to leave by the end of 2011.
“We are holding to … this timetable,” Hill told the House committee.
Iraqi voters could have a say in that timetable. In addition to electing a national parliament Jan. 30, Iraqis will give the security agreement an up-or-down vote. If they reject the legally binding agreement, U.S. forces would have to pull out 11 months earlier.
“If the Iraqi public rejects the agreement, I believe we have no choice but to pull out all of our forces as soon as we can,” Kerry said during his committee’s Sept. 10 meeting with Hill. “This would complicate our redeployment and severely curtail our ability to assist the Iraqi security forces and government.
“But at this point, I’m not sure how we would justify asking our soldiers to stay one day longer than necessary when they are formally disinvited by the Iraqi people,” Kerry said.
Still, no modification of the agreement is envisioned, Hill told Kerry’s committee.
“Giving you my personal opinion … we would not engage in changing the security agreement without considerable consultation,” he said.
Any inclusion of the Senate in such consultation — no sure thing
— would presumably take place before a hearing better-attended than this one; only five of the committee’s 19 members showed up, unintentionally underlining Kerry’s early supposition about a forgotten war — a supposition he personally refuted.
“The families of the 130,000 troops and 1,000 diplomats in Iraq need no reminder that their loved ones remain in harm’s way,” Kerry said.
The war, he said, “is not forgot*ten here.