Iraq: Are we there yet?

Impressive testimony from Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker explaining why five years of boot camp for the Iraqi army isn't nearly long enough.

Yet, many who wasted an entire day on Tuesday watching the testimony concluded that a tape of last September's testimony was simply rerun for the gullible masses.

Petraeus told the senators that security in Iraq was "fragile and reversible" -- or was he describing the Republican administration?

Petraeus is daddy driving the car and the senators are the kids in the back seat asking, "Are we there yet? When are we going to get there?" And the answer, "When we get there, that's when."

Iraq Looms as Major Issue in US Presidential Race

There is little doubt that the war in Iraq will be a major issue in this year's U.S. presidential campaign. But it remains to be seen whether voters will be in a mood to punish Republicans for getting the U.S. into the war in the first place, or fearful of supporting Democrats pushing for a speedy withdrawal. VOA National correspondent Jim Malone has more on Iraq as an evolving issue in the 2008 election.

Iraq and the domestic economy loom as the two major issues in the campaign at this point. On Iraq, the major battle lines already appear clearly drawn.

"There does not seem to have been very much change in public opinion with the surge, and a lot of people seem to think things are going better," said John Mueller, an expert on war and public opinion at Ohio State University. "But they still think the war was pretty much a mistake and that it has not been worth it. In general, the Democrats, judging from the polls, are probably in a comparatively good position, and so they will probably bring the issue up more than the Republicans. Though with John McCain being the nominee, it is going to be hard for the Republicans to avoid."

McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, supports the Bush administration approach on keeping U.S. troops in Iraq to give the Iraqis time to make political progress.

The two Democratic contenders, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have promised to begin a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq shortly after taking office.

The recent congressional testimony of the U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and of Ambassador Ryan Crocker, focused on what they described as real but fragile progress in Iraq.

But even some Republicans raised concerns during the hearings that there seems to be no clear long-term strategy for drawing U.S. involvement in Iraq to a close.

"McCain is emphasizing that the war in Iraq is central to America's stance in the world, that he sees victory as the only option and that a long-term American commitment is necessary," said Bruce Miroff, a political scientist at the State University of New York at Albany. "And what was striking in the hearings was that McCain was much more positive about what is happening right now in Iraq, progress in Iraq, than most other Republicans."

Public opinion polls have suggested that most Americans decided long ago that the war was a mistake. But the polls also show continuing divisions over what should happen next.

"Around 60 percent continue to tell the pollsters that the war was a mistake," said Karlyn Bowman, who monitors public opinion at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. "Around 18 to 20 percent say that we should pull all of our troops out now. That number has been rock solid for several years. At the other end of the spectrum, you still have about eight to 10 percent of the public wanting to beef up our presence in Iraq. Everyone else is somewhere in between, favoring some different kinds of gradual withdrawals."

Bowman acknowledges the Democrats have an overall advantage on Iraq as an issue in the campaign. But she also says there is data to suggest that Iraq will not necessarily be, as she puts it, an albatross around John McCain's neck.

"The Democratic Party has a big advantage over the Republicans as the party best able to handle the situation in Iraq," she added. "But in four of five recent polls when people were asked about the presidential candidates, McCain led Clinton and Obama by a solid margin as the candidate who could best handle the situation there."

The Democratic presidential contenders as well as Democrats in Congress are being more aggressive in trying to link concerns over Iraq with worries about the U.S. economy.

"The economy has turned much more sour and therefore, the continuing costs of the war are much more glaring," explained Bruce Miroff. "I think that was a major issue this time, how much we are spending in Iraq and how much of a surplus that the Iraqi government has in the bank, essentially, while we are continuing to fund things. So I think there is a lot of grumbling among Americans who are not enthused about the war, but now are particularly kind of galled by the financial costs of the war."

It is still possible that economic concerns will trump Iraq as an issue at election time in November.

A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found 81 percent of those surveyed said they believe the United States is on the wrong track as a country, largely because of worries about the weakening domestic economy.

Iraq Assassination Reignites Tensions

Riyadh al-Nouri was several key things. He was the brother-in-law of Moqtada al-Sadr and a prominent official in the anti-American Shi'ite cleric's political organization. He was also, at one point in 2005, accused of spying for the Americans by members of his own party. And so, when he was shot and killed in the city of Kufa, reportedly by a gunman on a motorcycle, as he returned from Friday prayers, there were multiple suspects.

His powerful brother-in-law blamed the Americans. Some Sadrists believed rival Shi'ite militias may have been behind the killing; while others posit that it may have been an inside job from within the Sadr ranks. Only one thing is certain — the assassination has raised an outcry among Sadr's followers and threatened to push Iraq further into a relapse of sectarian violence, just as the Iraqi government prepared to lift its curfew on Sadr City, the battered Baghdad slum which is Sadr's stronghold.

Followers of the cleric and members of his thousands-strong militia, the Mahdi Army — which has been engaged in heavy fighting with Iraqi and U.S. forces in recent weeks — expressed outrage on Friday afternoon, as news spread of Nouri's death. The province of Najaf, where Nouri was killed, has seen a rise in intra-Shi'ite violence in the past year, mostly in the form of tit-for-tat killings between Sadr's Mahdi Army and other Shi'ite militias, including the rival Badr Brigade, which has links to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa party.

Some Sadrists suspect the Badr Brigade, which dominates Iraqi security forces throughout much of southern Iraq, is behind this latest assassination. Still, on Friday, rumors circulated among some Sadrists in Najaf that the assassination may have come from within their own faction. Moqtada al-Sadr, however, publicly blamed the United States for Nouri's death. "The occupier wants to cause sedition," said Sheikh Abdel Hadi al-Mohammedawi, an official at the Sadr office in the southern city of Karbala, speaking on behalf of Sadr. But Mohammedawi, also said that Sadr is urging his followers to stay calm for now and not to raise their weapons.

The Iraqi government moved to pre-empt a violent outcry after the killing by imposing an immediate curfew across the province of Najaf until further notice. Wire services reported Najaf police had also shut down shops and ushered people off the streets. Dawa party member, Haider Al-Ebadi, in Baghdad, told TIME that he knew nothing about the incident, and declined to comment on the possibility for further unrest. "I know nothing about this accident, but we are very sorry about it," he said.

Whether the killing will, in fact, lead to more Shi'ite v. Shi'ite fighting in Najaf remains to be seen. Major Alayne Conway, a spokeswoman for the central division of the Multinational Forces, which operates in the Najaf area, told TIME: "I can tell you that one of our Military Transition Teams operating in Najaf was sent out to get an update on the situation and I know the Government of Najaf called us confirming that Riyadh al-Nouri was killed." But Conway was not aware of any violent reaction so far.

Meanwhile in Baghdad, tension continues to boil in the vast Shi'ite slum of Sadr City. The neighborhood was to have remained locked down until Saturday, when the government was set to lift a curfew that has been in place since fighting broke out between government forces and the Mahdi Army at the end of last month. Residents of the beleaguered neighborhood — where American forces are assisting the Iraqi military in daily operations — say the situation remains bleak, and most are subsisting without water or electricity. "It was quieter today, but the streets are empty. We heard some bombing from American planes in another area," Sadr City resident, Eman Hamid, told TIME. "The Americans are moving from building to building. They are on the roofs of the buildings in Gayara neighborhood, in 83rd Square, and at Zahawi Hospital. There was no battle today involving the Mahdi Army, but the Americans are shooting at citizens randomly — at anyone who goes out in the street."

She said Friday was the twelfth day Sadr City, home to millions of Baghdad's poor, came under U.S. air strikes. Friday morning, the fortified Green Zone compound, which houses the U.S. Embassy and most Iraqi government offices, was still coming under mortar fire, believed to have been launched by Mahdi Army fighters in Sadr City.

Iraq oil circus came to town

This week the circus came to town. Not Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey, but Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and with it the three rings of a five-plus year war and occupation, politicians in their populist best pitches and the media echo of what's going on with Iraq's oil revenue.

Petraeus, the commander of coalition forces in Iraq, and Crocker, the top U.S. diplomat in the country, were obliged to lead what was for this week the greatest political show on Earth: explaining the meaning of the war a year after the "surge" in U.S. troops led to a decrease in violence (aside from the massive uptick over the past two weeks).

The two said Iraq is improving its ability to spend money on reconstruction and most new U.S. spending, outside of security, would be on capacity-building needed to spend the funds.

The five years have meant hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer spending -- mostly on military -- and Congress is asking now "for what?" And Congress -- armed with a failed "benchmark" of passing an oil law, the inclusion of which may have added a fracture in the polarized Baghdad political scene -- breathed fire on Iraq's leadership for how it uses its oil revenue and turned the snake charmer onto Americans and the media.

Iraq's government "has not secured the confidence of most Iraqis or demonstrated much competence in performing basic government functions, including managing Iraq's oil wealth," Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said in a hearing this week.

The reality is Iraq has actually increased oil production and exports despite an active and ongoing warzone. But the political leadership is stuck on a key and controversial issue of privatizing the oil sector, one that a nascent and tumultuous country might be expected to be stuck on, considering how important Iraq's oil is for its future.

Iraq has the third-largest oil reserves in the world and both increased exports at higher oil prices -- not the $100 plus per barrel level, though -- has gone beyond covering its budget but giving it extra funds.

All of the money Iraq makes goes to one bank account. It's in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. That's required as part of a 2003 U.N. Security Council resolution aimed at both ensuring transparency of Iraq's earnings and expenditures, and making sure various creditors from Saddam Hussein's time don't bleed the new Iraq dry.

But the new Iraq has had a hard time spending all its budgeted funds, especially on capital projects, aka reconstruction. Be it because of violence, being accused of corruption, or plain old lack of institutional capacity, only a small percentage is spent each year.

"The result is that far from financing its own reconstruction as the (Bush) administration promised five years ago, the Iraqi government has left the U.S. to make most of the capital expenditures needed to provide essential services and improve the quality of life of Iraqi citizens," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., in a separate hearing this week.

Levin is referring to then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz' claim that Iraq's oil sales would be able to fund reconstruction. Instead Congress has appropriated more than $20 billion for reconstruction.

While criticizing Iraq's government wouldn't necessarily be misguided -- especially if you ask the millions of Iraqis still in need of fuel, electricity, clean water and food -- a look in the mirror might be good about now.

"U.S. efforts to date have not resulted in key Iraqi ministries having the capacity to effectively govern and assume increasing responsibility for operating, maintaining, and further investing in reconstruction projects," former chief U.S. auditor David Walker testified before a Senate committee last month.

Indeed, investigations by U.S. departments and agencies have discovered billions of dollars in U.S. funds, including reconstruction funds, either missing, mismanaged or misspent in Iraq. And that's after more than 200 years of a (mostly) stable government here.

But Congress this week, having mostly kept from holding accountable those funds it appropriated over the past five years, lashed out at Iraq in what appears to be frustration of an unpopular war spiraling ever expensive and without end.

This, perhaps, is what led to such a series of factually incorrect statements by lawmakers, and then media. To recap, Iraq would not make $100 billion in oil sales this year -- as talk show host Ed Schultz told Larry King Live this week -- unless the price of oil went substantially higher, like nearing $200 per barrel. And the "surplus" would be anything beyond the $50 billion 2008 budget, which at current oil prices will give it just about a $10 billion surplus.

Iraq's funds are kept only in one bank in the United States, not banks "around the world," aside from the Central Bank of Iraq in Baghdad which allocates the funds to the Finance Ministry.

"U.S. lawmakers publicly are asking why the Iraqis themselves can't pick up the tab for their own reconstruction. Privately, several of them are going one step further — asking whether they Iraqis actually are playing the U.S. taxpayers for suckers," CNN's Wolf Blitzer wrote in a blog post following an episode of "The Situation Room."

"Why is the U.S. government, American taxpayers, still paying the lion's share of what's needed to rebuild Iraq?" he asked one guest, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

They're not, Graham basically explained to Blitzer. (The host and CNN reporter Michael Ware also botched the discussion on the "benchmark," confusing an oil law with a revenue-sharing law. Iraq is redistributing oil revenues, though the law itself hasn't been passed, despite what Ware told Wolf.)

Anthony Cordesman, Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, points to a Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction report published in January that between 2003 and 2008, $50.6 billion of Iraq's money was spent on reconstruction, $47.5 billion was spent in U.S. funds and nearly $16 billion in other donations.

"In short, we used more of their money for reconstruction than ours," he told United Press International.

Lou Dobbs on CNN, along with guests Mark Simone of WABC Radio in New York and Mildred Gaddis of WCHB in Detroit, moved forward the idea of forcing Iraq to pay back America for its reconstruction and military expenses (repeating the $100 billion profit inaccuracy).

This was a major development this week, where a number of U.S. Senators and Representatives from both parties talked about legislation or binding deals forcing Iraqis to spend a certain amount of money in the way Washington sees fit, repay the United States for its expenses thus far in the war, or force Iraqis to take as a loan all future U.S. spending there.

This begs the question as to whether a country can invade another country – which inherently destroys the capital, political and societal infrastructure – poorly spend both occupying and occupied funds, unilaterally create conditions of chaos requiring ongoing security and reconstruction funds, and then bind the occupied country to make reparations and take out loans from the occupying country?

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., asked Crocker if fund Congress appropriated earlier this year were structured as loans.

No, Crocker answered, and said to do so would mean a "halt" in reconstruction.

"Well, I think that's all well and good, but I wish we'd have thought more carefully earlier and got this set, such as back in 2003."

Perhaps, senator, et al. Perhaps, you should have.

Iraqi, U.S. troops accused of Sadr City attack

The office of Muqtada al-Sadr accused Iraqi and U.S. forces of attacking Sadr City on Friday, just hours after the Shiite cleric called for calm in the wake of the assassination of one of his top aides in the southern city of Najaf.

Witnesses and media in the heavily Shiite Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, home to the cleric's power base in the capital, reported heavy fighting between U.S.-backed Iraqi troops and al-Sadr's Mehdi Army militia.

The witnesses said U.S. aircraft had been bombarding the area for hours, and media reported rockets slamming into houses and many casualties.

Witnesses and al-Sadr's office said mosques were making loudspeaker announcements about Mehdi Army attacks on U.S. military armored vehicles.

U.S. troops working in support of Iraqi soldiers killed two snipers, two other men firing rocket-propelled grenades and "multiple others from a nearby building where soldiers were taking RPG and machine gun fire," the U.S. military said in a statement.

At the same time -- about 9 p.m. -- at least six roadside bombs damaged vehicles in a U.S. Army convoy that was transporting barriers for a group of Iraqi Army soldiers establishing a checkpoint, the military said.

Afterward, the military said, the Iraqi and U.S. soldiers were attacked by small-arms, machine-gun and RPG fire from buildings overlooking the road.

The soldiers fired back at their attackers, killing at least four of them.

More explosions from the buildings indicated possible arms and munitions stored there, the military said. But the small-arms attack continued until the U.S. forces fired two rounds from an M1A2 Abrams tank, killing two more attackers.

Not long afterward, the U.S. Air Force, operating an unmanned aerial vehicle, fired a Hellfire missile at three men spotted setting roadside bombs, killing all three.

Maj. John Gossart, executive officer of the American unit involved, said that no U.S. or Iraqi troops were seriously hurt.

Earlier, al-Sadr issued remarks about the killing of Sayyed Riyadh al-Nuri, who was shot outside his house in Najaf's Adala neighborhood after returning from Friday prayers.

"The hands of the occupiers and their collaborators have treacherously reached our beloved martyr Sayyed Riyadh al-Nuri," al-Sadr wrote in a statement on the Web.

Al-Nuri is one of 17 people killed over 24 hours in airstrikes, fighting and attacks in areas wracked in recent weeks by fighting among Shiites.

The assassination prompted an immediate vehicle ban in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, anger among mourners and an intensification of fighting in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki issued a statement deploring the killing and ordering an investigation.

Al-Sadr issued remarks about the killing in a statement on a Web site. Spokesman Sheikh Salah al-Obeidi emphasized that the cleric is not accusing anyone in particular of the killing but believes that the killers "are the ones who are following the occupiers' steps and don't want stability for the country."

But al-Obeidi called the killing an "act of provocation" after the "siege of Sadr City."

He was referring to the battles since Sunday involving members of al-Sadr's Mehdi Army militia and Iraqi security forces dominated by a rival Shiite political movement, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

That fighting started with an offensive in Basra and spread to other Shiite regions, including Sadr City and the Babil provincial capital of Hilla.

The al-Nuri assassination prompted officials to expand the daily curfew in Hilla. Police said a ban on all outside movement that usually begins at 11 p.m. and ends at 8 a.m. will instead start at 8:30 p.m.

Violence continued Friday in several places in Iraq.

Suicide bombings killed at least four people -- three of them police -- and wounded 15, officials said.

The first bombing was in Ramadi, the provincial capital of the predominantly Sunni Anbar province west of Baghdad, an Interior Ministry official said. At least three national police officers were killed and five wounded, the official said.

The second attack took place at a checkpoint about 20 km (12 miles) north of Baiji, according to police, who said the bomber and one other person were killed and 10 were wounded.

The casualties were members of a local Awakening Council who were manning the checkpoint, police said. The suicide bomber was driving a pickup carrying sheep.

Awakening Councils, or Sons of Iraq, are made up of Sunnis who have turned on al Qaeda in Iraq.

Also, at least three people were killed and five wounded in a mortar attack on Baghdad's Palestine Hotel, an Interior Ministry official said.

The Palestine Hotel -- across the Tigris River from the International Zone, the heavily guarded seat of U.S. power in Baghdad -- is in the path of many of the rockets and mortars aimed at the zone.

The U.S. military has blamed Iranian-backed Shiite militants for recent mortar and rocket attacks in Baghdad and International Zone, also known as the Green Zone.

Unmanned aerial vehicles targeted and killed six suspected insurgents in Basra on Friday and six "heavily armed criminals" in northeastern Baghdad on Thursday night, the U.S. military said. VideoWatch the Baghdad drone attack »

The U.S. and Iraqi militaries have consistently said they have not been targeting specific groups in their recent battles in Shiite areas.

Iraqi and U.S. government officials say they differentiate between Mehdi Army members obeying al-Sadr's seven-month cease-fire pledge and "gangs," "criminals" or "outlaws" who aren't obeying al-Sadr's orders.

The intra-Shiite fighting in Iraq that has killed hundreds of people in the past two weeks has involved two main movements: members of the Mehdi Army militia loyal to al-Sadr, and Iraqi security forces dominated by the chief political rival of the Sadrists, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

Many of those security forces had been integrated into police and army units from the council's Badr Brigade militia.

Conflicting advice on Iraq investment

This is the investment Wisconsin has made so far in the war in Iraq:

Eighty-four Wisconsin military people, men and women, serving in the various branches of the armed forces have died since the war began in 2003.

Another 550 Wisconsin military people have been wounded, some grievously.

Approximately 23,000 Wisconsin servicemen and servicewomen have been assigned to serve in Iraq. Some have served repeatedly. Some will suffer from Traumatic Stress Disorder for the remainder of their lives.

Is this investment worth the price we have paid and will pay?

I can't answer that for you. Some of you will look at the dangers posed by leaving Iraq and conclude that, painful as it is, the price is worth paying. Others will look at the same costs and say, "not a life more."

I trust that none of us, no matter what our individual feelings about this war, will conclude that those 84 Wisconsin residents died "in vain." They died or were wounded serving their nation. For that, they deserve their nation's honor and gratitude.

But soldiers don't send themselves to war. They are sent by their government, and we civilians select the government that sends them. We are the ones, then, who are obligated to look at the costs and determine the nature of our future investment.There's a rule of investment: Treat every dollar like a new dollar. Don't maintain your stake in a stock that has lost value just so you can recoup your loss.

We invested those Wisconsin lives, just as we invested the estimated 4,025 American lives that have been shed altogether since the beginning of the war.

I can't imagine there is even a single parent of a downed military hero who would suggest we send more men and women to their deaths just to justify the loss of that parent's child. The only possible reason to send more soldiers to Iraq is to help achieve a national goal.

Gen. David Petraeus was back in Washington this week, testifying before Senate and House committees about the return, so far, on this nation's investment of lives and of treasure. This is what Petraeus concluded:

There has been some progress in the war, he said, but that progress is "fragile and reversible." Things are better than they were at the beginning of the "surge" but they are not so good that Petraeus feels comfortable. In fact, he told Congress he wants to keep about 140,000 American troops in Iraq at least well into the fall.

This is what Petraeus said: "We haven't turned any corners. We haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel . . .the Champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator."

What the general will suggest is that if we decide to stop investing in the war, those "fragile and reversible" gains achieved at the cost of 4,025 American lives, 84 of them from Wisconsin, may, indeed, be reversed.

In other words, the general can't promise us success, but he can warn us of failure.

That leaves the ball back in our court. Petraeus has given us his best advice, which pretty much amounts to "hang on and hope something gets better."

President Bush, in his speech Thursday assured us that the surge has been "brilliant." Sen. John McCain looks at the record and concludes something will, indeed, get better, perhaps far sooner than we think. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton look at the same advice and conclude it is a prescription for losing more lives and more treasure.

We're getting conflicting investment advice, but, come November, we'll have to make a decision.