Iraq's Electoral Commission Urges Postponing Provincial Polls

Iraq's electoral commission says provincial elections due in October should be postponed because of parliament's delay in passing preparatory legislation.

The commission wrote to Iraqi lawmakers Sunday warning there is not enough time to hold provincial elections in October under international standards.

It urged parliament to quickly approve legislation on procedures for the elections to allow for a vote by the end of the year.

Washington hopes the provincial polls will give Iraq's Sunni Arab minority a greater say in local government. Iraqi Sunnis largely boycotted the last provincial elections in January 2005.

Meanwhile, Iraq's parliament speaker has welcomed the return of the main Iraqi Sunni political bloc to the country's Shi'ite-led government.

The Iraqi Accordance Front rejoined the Cabinet of Shi'ite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Saturday after a year-long boycott.

Iraqi speaker Mahmoud al-Mashadani said Sunday the move gives the government a boost as it focuses on investment and reconstruction projects.

In violence on Sunday, Iraqi officials say U.S. forces shot and killed two relatives of the governor of northern Iraq's Salahuddin province. The U.S. military says its troops fired in self-defense at two armed men who were later determined to be related to the governor.

The military also says Iraqi forces killed six suspected militants during an operation in Baghdad.

Meanwhile, militants in Iraq who claim to have kidnapped five Britons released a video saying one of the hostages has committed suicide. British newspaper "The Sunday Times" says its office in Baghdad received the video.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the video message is a very distressing development.

The hostages, a British computer expert and his four bodyguards, were abducted in May 2007 during a visit to an Iraqi finance ministry office.

Iraqi government offers Obama hints of backing on combat troop withdrawals by 2010

Iraq's top leaders hosted U.S. presidential contender Barack Obama on Monday and offered an apparent sign of shared purpose on hopes of withdrawing American combat troops from the country by 2010.

The comments by Iraq's government spokesman — as the Illinois senator toured Iraq for the first time in more than two years — stopped short of setting any fixed timetable or any open endorsement of Obama's pledge to pull out combat forces in 16 months.

But it roughly mirrors Obama's schedule and offered another glimpse of Iraq's growing confidence to push for a broad framework on cutting U.S. troop levels as violence in Iraq drops and Iraqi security forces expand their roles.

"We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq," spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said after Obama met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — who has struggled for days to clarify Iraq's position on a possible timetable for a U.S. troop pullout.

Iraq's Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, said after meeting Obama that Iraqi leaders share "a common interest ... to schedule the withdrawal of American troops."

"I'd be happy if we reach an agreement to say, for instance, the 31st of December 2010" would mark the departure of the last U.S. combat unit, he said — then noting that any such goal could be revised depending on threats and the pace of training for Iraqi security forces.

In Washington, White House press secretary Dana Perino said Iraqis are driving harder in negotiations on troop levels, but the United States will resist any "arbitrary" timing.

"It will not be a date that you just pluck out of thin air. It will not be something that Americans say, 'We're going to do — we're going to leave at this date,' which is what some have suggested," she said.

The Bush administration has refused to set specific troop level targets, but last week offered to discuss a "general time horizon" for a U.S. combat troop exit.

Perino acknowledged the Iraqis might be trying to use the U.S. presidential election for leverage in negotiations over the future of the American military mission in Iraq.

"I think that a lot of other people look through the lens of a 2008 presidential election," Perino said. "Might they be? Sure. I mean, it's possible."

Obama made no detailed statements on his meetings, which included Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

"Excellent conversation," he said as he left talks with al-Hashemi in his gold-hued reception room and promised to give his full impressions after his stop in Iraq wraps up Tuesday and he heads to Jordan and then Israel.

"Very constructive," Obama added after leaving a meeting with al-Maliki — who was quoted last week by a German magazine apparently supporting Obama's 16-month withdrawal proposal. The government claimed his remarks were misunderstood.

It was the third leg of Obama's tour of the region, which has included stops in Kuwait and Afghanistan.

The counterpoint was clear: Obama opposed the Iraq war from the start and views the battle against the resurgent Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan as America's most critical fight.

But Iraq is not the same place as when Obama last visited in January 2006.

Both Sunni insurgents, including al-Qaida in Iraq, and Shiite militias have suffered significant blows. And security forces in Baghdad — once the scene of near daily car bombs and sectarian killings — has made clear gains since last year's troop build up of nearly 30,000 soldiers.

Obama's challenger, Senator John McCain, has tried to hammer Obama on his critical remarks before the so-called "surge."

In an interview Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America," McCain said he hoped Obama would now "have the opportunity to see the success of the surge."

"This is the same strategy that he voted against, railed against," McCain said. "He was wrong about the surge. It is succeeding and we are winning."

All five surge brigades have left Iraq, but there are still about 147,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq, more than in early 2007.

Obama was scheduled to hold briefings with senior American diplomats and military commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, who directs U.S. forces in Iraq.

Obama — traveling in a congressional delegation with senators Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island, and Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska — first arrived in the city of Basra in Iraq's mostly Shiite south.

Basra is the center for about 4,000 British troops involved mostly in training Iraqi forces. An Iraqi-led offensive begun in March reclaimed control of most of the city from Shiite militia believed linked to Iran.

In Baghdad, the delegation traveled in convoys of black SUVs with tinted windows. Obama attended some meeting wearing a dark suit and tie despite temperatures well above 43 degrees Celsius (109 Fahrenheit).

Security around the city was not noticeably tightened, but it's difficult to gauge in a place with permanent checkpoints, concrete blast walls and military helicopter surveillance. No major attacks were reported around the capital.

Obama's foreign stops, which will conclude with a swing through Europe, were seen as an attempt to burnish his foreign policy credentials and address challenges by McCain that he is too inexperienced to lead in a time of war and global risks.

It also gave Obama a taste of some of the difficulties in Iraq that the next president will inherit. Important negotiations on a pact defining the future U.S. military commitment in Iraq has been stalled.

American diplomats hoped to reach a final accord by the end of the month, but it now seems the goal is a stopgap "bridge" document that would maintain the status for U.S. forces once a U.N. mandate on their presence expires at the end of the year.

There also are pockets of concern around the country.

Bombings and slayings have been creeping higher in the northern city of Mosul, the last main urban stronghold for al-Qaida in Iraq. Insurgents also remain entrenched in the Diyala Province northeast of Baghdad and a main gateway to the city. Iraqi authorities have announced plans to send more forces into the area.

Suicide death' of UK Iraq hostage

Prime Minister Gordon Brown is demanding the "immediate and unconditional" release of British hostages being held in Iraq, following a militant group's claim that one of five men they kidnapped last year had committed suicide.

A video passed to the Sunday Times newspaper claimed that the man - known only as Jason - killed himself on May 25, four days short of the first anniversary of the five men's abduction.

A second hostage was shown on the video pleading for Government action to speed their release and warning that he was suffering physically and psychologically after 14 months in captivity.

The Foreign Office said it had no independent verification of the claims in the video and could not comment on their veracity.

But the Prime Minister confirmed that intensive efforts were under way behind the scenes to find a solution to the situation. Mr Brown raised the plight of the hostages with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki during a visit to Baghdad on Saturday.

The five men - an IT consultant named Peter Moore and four bodyguards whose identities have not been confirmed - were kidnapped in May last year from the Iraqi finance ministry by a Shia group which is demanding the release of prisoners from US detention.

A statement signed by the Shia Islamic Resistance in Iraq, which was passed with the video to the Sunday Times, accuses the British Government of failing to respond to messages from the kidnappers and their captives.

"This procrastination and foot-dragging and lack of seriousness on the part of the British Government has prolonged their psychological deterioration, pushing one of them, Jason, to commit suicide," the statement said. "He surprised our brethren, who were taking care of him, with his suicide."

The video featured a still photograph of a man in a football shirt who was identified by the militant as Jason.

The second hostage - understood to be a father-of-two from Scotland called Alan - was shown saying: "Physically, I'm not doing well. Psychologically, I'm doing a lot worse. I want to see my family again," he said. "I would like for the British Government to please hurry and get this resolved as soon as possible."

British hostage in Iraq is dead

A Shiite militia that claimed responsibility for the kidnapping of five Britons in Iraq more than a year ago said one of its hostages committed suicide, a British newspaper reported.

The Sunday Times of London published what it said was a statement in a video it obtained from the group through an intermediary in Iraq.

The video, available on the Times Web site late Saturday night, shows an Arabic-language statement claiming that one of the hostages — identified only as Jason — killed himself on May 25. A photograph, apparently of Jason, is affixed to the top left corner of the statement.

The newspaper said the statement blamed the British government for ignoring previous statements that the kidnappers and the captives have made. In the past, the militia has demanded that that all British forces be withdrawn from Iraq and that Iraqis held by U.S.-led forces be freed.

"This procrastination and foot-dragging and lack of seriousness on the part of the British government has prolonged their psychological deterioration, pushing one of them, Jason, to commit suicide on 25/5/2008," the Times quoted the statement as saying.

It was not immediately clear which hostage the group was referring to.

Five men — information technology consultant Peter Moore and four guards — were kidnapped from the Iraqi Finance Ministry compound in Baghdad in a brazen raid in May 29, 2007. Two of the guards are named Jason and the others are Alan and Alec. Their surnames have been withheld at their families' request.

In December, a man identified as Jason was featured in a hostage video aired on Al-Arabiya television. Looking haggard and occasionally glancing down as if to read a piece of paper, Jason said he and his fellow captives felt they had been forgotten.

Like the video carried by The Sunday Times, the Al-Arabiya broadcast showed a statement and identified the men's captors as the Shiite Islamic Resistance in Iraq.

The British government said Saturday night that it could not confirm the veracity of the latest video or verify its claims.

But British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who had just left Iraq after meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Saturday, called The Sunday Times report a "very distressing development" said that he was taking it seriously.

"I raised the case of these men with PM Maliki," Brown said in a statement. "We both share a desire to see them returned safely to their families. I call on those holding the hostages to release them immediately and unconditionally."

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband called hostage-taking "disgusting" and deplored the "deep distress and concern" he said the report would cause the families of the five men.

The video carried by the Times shows another hostage, speaking against a blank wall and apparently reading something. The hostage, identified by the Times as Alan, appeals for the British government to release Iraqi prisoners, "especially female and religious prisoners."

"I'd like that to be done within one month," he says.

He adds that despite what he calls "good treatment" from the Iraqi resistance, he was not doing well.

"Psychologically, I'm doing a lot worse. I want to see my family again. I'd like for the British government to please hurry," he says. It was unclear from the video exactly when he made the statement, although in it he says he has been in captivity more than a year.

There did not appear to be any footage of Jason, who purportedly committed suicide. The Times reported that its unidentified intermediary said proof of the man's death would only be provided if the British government agreed to negotiate.

The fate of the five men has received increased scrutiny in Britain, particularly following the first broadcast featuring Jason and another video, aired in February, showing Moore.

In late February the families of the men released their own video, read by Pauline Sweeny, Moore's stepmother, pleading for their release. The kidnappers apparently responded a month later with a posting on a militant Web site rejecting the plea as inspired by the British government.

In May, the former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey lent his voice to the families' appeal, addressing the kidnappers as "honorable men" and "men of faith."

UK plans pull out of its troops from Iraq early next year

British troops in Iraq might be withdrawn as early as next year, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has indicated, while hailing the improved security situation in the war-torn country.
Brown who was on a day's visit to Iraq yesterday said Iraqi forces would soon take over the Basra airport, the main British military headquarters.

He outlined a road map for training and strengthening of Iraqi security forces that might ultimately aid withdrawal of UK troops before the scheduled general election in 2010.

Brown told British soldiers that they were on the final leg of duties in Iraq. Last October, he had stated that the troops in Iraq would be cut to 2,500 by spring, but there were still 4,100 troops holed up at the Basra airport.

According to a report in The Observer, Brown, however, made it clear that he would not "set any artificial timetable." His statement comes a day after White House announced that the US and the Iraqi authorities had agreed a "general time horizon" for the "further reduction of US combat forces in Iraq."

Contrasting goals in Iraq

WITH FRIDAY'S announcement by the White House that the United States and Iraq have agreed to set a "general time horizon" for a US troop withdrawal, it is increasingly obvious that Iraqi political leaders are calling the shots when it comes to a future role for the United States, and that President Bush has not learned anything about Iraq in the last five years.

Since November 2007, when Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki agreed on a declaration of principles that would provide for the rules of engagement for US forces beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, when the United Nations mandate legitimizing the US occupation expires, Maliki has continued to try to force the Bush administration to accept their policies.

The Bush administration envisions a prolonged US military presence in Iraq with hundreds of large bases, and with American forces free to conduct military operations against what they perceive as Iraq's internal and external enemies. The administration says this would achieve victory over the terrorists, who in its view were preventing Iraq from becoming a peaceful, stable democracy allied to the United States that could help contain Iran. Despite Friday's announcement, the president still insists he is against an artificial timetable for withdrawal.

The Iraqis see it differently. Maliki argues that the terrorists have been defeated and the United States needs to set a withdrawal date if it wishes to remain when the UN mandate expires. Why the difference between Maliki and Bush? There are at least four reasons.

First, Maliki knows that if the United States does not set a withdrawal date, the status of forces agreement, or even a memorandum of understanding, will not be approved by the Iraqi Parliament. A majority of the Iraqi Parliament has signed a letter to that effect. Iraq's elected legislators know that the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people want the American forces out and believe that these foreign forces are actually causing much of the violence. The American people agree that the United States should have never invaded and want US forces to leave as quickly as possible. But, since Bush will not submit the agreement to Congress, he can ignore the wishes of the American people.

Second, there were not that many foreign terrorists to begin with. Despite the administration's claim that we are fighting them (Al Qaeda) over there (in Iraq) so we do not have to fight them over here (the United States), the number of Al Qaeda loyalists who came into the country after the US invasion never numbered more than 2,000. Moreover, Al Qaeda in Iraq is an overwhelmingly Iraqi organization with domestic aims. When members began killing Iraqis and tried to force a rigid version of Islam on their Iraqi collaborators, the Iraqis turned on them. Once the United States sets a date for a complete withdrawal, Al Qaeda in Iraq will lose what little support it has from the Iraqi people.

Third, with the rising price of oil, Iraq is awash in money and no longer needs US assistance to rebuild its war-torn infrastructure. When the United States invaded, oil was $25 a barrel. Now it is about $130. The Iraqi government now produces 2.5 million barrels a day, and with the contracts it has recently signed with Western companies, it soon will begin producing even more. This means that the Iraqis will be bringing in $100 billion to $200 billion a year.

Fourth, the Shi'ite dominated Iraqi government is not as concerned about the threat from Iran as the Bush administration. Many of Iraq's Shi'ite leaders lived in Iran during the regime of Saddam Hussein and see the Iranians as Shi'ite allies with whom they can and should have a close relationship - unlike Bush who sees the Iranians as the second coming of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

As recently as June, when the president said "you know, of course, we're there at their invitation," Bush never envisioned them actually telling us to leave before his mission was accomplished. Just as he misjudged and mismanaged the situation going in, it is clear that he is equally clueless about when to get out and regain control of US policy.

Army's History of Iraq After Hussein Faults Pentagon

A new Army history of the service's performance in Iraq immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein faults military and civilian leaders for their planning for the war's aftermath, and it suggests that the Pentagon's current way of using troops is breaking the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.

The study, "On Point II: Transition to the New Campaign," is an unclassified and unhindered look at U.S. Army operations in Iraq from May 2003 to January 2005. That critical era of the war has drawn widespread criticism because of a failure to anticipate the rise of an Iraqi insurgency and because policymakers provided too few U.S. troops and no strategy to maintain order after Iraq's decades-old regime was overthrown.

Donald P. Wright and Col. Timothy R. Reese, who authored the report along with the Army's Contemporary Operations Study Team, conclude that U.S. commanders and civilian leaders were too focused on only the military victory and lacked a realistic vision of what Iraq would look like following that triumph.

"The transition to a new campaign was not well thought out, planned for, and prepared for before it began," write Wright and Reese, historians at the Army's Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. "Additionally, the assumptions about the nature of post-Saddam Iraq on which the transition was planned proved to be largely incorrect."

The results of those errors, they add, were that U.S. forces and their allies lacked an operational and strategic plan for success in Iraq, as well as the resources to carry out a plan.

Their analysis is to be released tomorrow, but the 696-page document was posted last night on the Army's Combined Arms Center's Web site. The New York Times first reported the study's findings yesterday.

The study also calls into question the focus of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on issues such as a modernization of the U.S. military, rather than on the war.

"The intense desire to continue DOD's transformation to smaller and lighter forces, to implement a perceived revolution in military affairs in the information age, and to savor the euphoria over seemingly easy successes in Afghanistan using those techniques seemed to outweigh searching through the past for insights into the future," the study reports.

It also reports that Army National Guard and Reserve soldiers have demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan that they "are a fully capable, and indeed, an absolutely essential part of the Army." But it warns that "the price paid by reservists and communities to sustain the long and repetitive mobilizations, however, may not be sustainable in the future."

The Army study is a follow-up to "On Point: The United States Army in Operation Iraqi Freedom," which looked at the initiation of combat operations in Iraq through April 2003. The new work picks up from the moment President Bush announced the end of major combat operations on May 1, 2003, and goes through the January 2005 Iraqi elections. The authors make clear that the Army never thought it would need such a study, largely because few people believed the war would last much beyond 2003.