Thread: Iraq/Dinar News. 09/05 to 01/14/07

A ride into the heart of Baghdad's worst battle zones

26 August 2006


General John Abizaid made headlines three weeks ago when he told Congress that civil war was a possibility in Iraq. On Thursday, he went into two of Baghdad's most dangerous neighborhoods to see if a new American-led offensive against the death squads and insurgents is making any progress.

Abizaid invited me and a CBS reporter to join him on this journey into the heart of the Baghdad battle zone. In what follows, I want to draw a picture of what we saw.

First some background: This summer, any chance of success in Iraq seemed to be slipping away. Even Abizaid, who as head of Central Command has overall responsibility for the troops here, had to admit in his congressional testimony that the trends were going the wrong way. Baghdad was being terrorized by Sunni insurgents and Shiite death squads. Over 1,500 people were murdered in Baghdad in July, a daily average of 52 victims a day. The level of sectarian violence was so high that many wondered whether Iraq wasn't already in a civil war. The new government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki seemed powerless to stop the downward spiral.

Abizaid and his commanders decided to focus on Baghdad, the eye of this hurricane of violence. They crafted a new plan called "Operation Forward Together" in which US troops, backed by Iraqi forces, would wrest back control of the city's most violent areas. This new battle of Baghdad began on August 7, led by Major General James D. Thurman, a bristly, rough-hewn Oklahoman who commands the 4th Infantry Division and has been dubbed "the Thurmanator." He was Abizaid's guide Thursday into two of the three neighborhoods that have so far been cleared: Amiriyah in northwest Baghdad and Doura in the southern part of the city.

As we entered Amiriyah in the late afternoon of a 115-degree August day, the streets were almost deserted. When the cleanup began, the area was cordoned off and then searched house to house by American and Iraqi troops. People live behind their gates; through the metal fences, you can see well-tended gardens, despite the trash in the alleys. Surprisingly, perhaps, there was little resistance. People were fed up. In the two weeks since the crackdown began, there has been a 44 percent decline in violent attacks compared with the previous month and an 83 percent drop in murders.

As our convoy of armored Humvees rumbled down Amal al-Shaabi Street, we approached a little store selling toys and knickknacks. Abizaid, a Lebanese-American who speaks good Arabic, bounded out of his vehicle and began conversing with the owner, a man named Firas. The shopkeeper seemed amused to meet an American general who asked in Arabic, "How's it going?" His message to Abizaid was repeated many times by others during the afternoon: Sunnis here are glad to see the Americans restore order; they tolerate the Iraqi Army, but they distrust the Iraqi police; they want basic services such as water and electricity. As for Maliki's government, "It doesn't do anything," the owner of an ice cream parlor called Afna told Abizaid.

We stopped a few minutes later at Abbas Mosque, a small Sunni shrine. Sheikh Khaled Mohammad al-Ubaidi, dressed in a knitted white prayer cap and a long white robe, came out to greet Abizaid. The general asked if security had improved and the sheik answered: "Thank God, yes!" Now that US forces are going after Shiite death squads, he said, Sunnis here "understand the Americans are serious about the rule of law."(In the past three weeks, the US military has killed about 25 death squad leaders and captured more than 200, according to Thurman.)

The cleanup has brought a similar respite to Doura, the second neighborhood we visited. You can still see the pieces of red tape on the front gates of each of the homes that were swept. The murder rate has fallen by 83 percent in August, compared to the 30 days before the crackdown began. For Baghdad overall, the murder rate has dropped 41 percent this month.

What does the new battle of Baghdad tell us? I'm still mulling the answer, but my sense is that it's something we already knew: With enough troops and aggressive tactics, American forces can bring order to even the meanest streets. But it's only the Iraqis themselves who can stabilize these neighborhoods permanently. I'm sure about one thing: Iraqi leaders need to do what Abizaid did Thursday escape the artificial world of the Green Zone and get back on these streets, where they can begin to lead by example.



Syndicated columnist David Ignatius is published regularly by THE DAILY STAR.

A ride into the heart of Baghdad's worst battle zones - Zawya.com | Middle East Business News

Iraq and US-Led Coalition Troops

26 August 2006
In just over three months, the United Nations mandate under which the US-led multinational force is present in Iraq will end. This means that the 130,000 troops provided by the US, Britain and 32 other countries would have either to go home or see their stay extended under a new arrangement.


Because Iraq has regained full sovereignty and has a government of its own, the United Nations alone can no longer take the decision whether or not foreign troops should remain on Iraqi soil. The final word on the subject must come from the government of Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki with the consent of the Iraqi National Assembly (Parliament).


Maliki had promised to come up with a package of proposals on the subject within the first 100 days of his premiership. That he has not done so indicates the failure of his coalition to achieve anything resembling a consensus.


The coalition, which includes a broad spectrum of parties and groups with the widest range of ideologies, is united in the belief that new Iraq would need foreign military support for some time yet - maybe until the next general election in 2009. That military support is needed for three reasons: To deter "predatory" neighbors from intervening in Iraq, to prevent the militias from making a bid for power before the national army and police are operational, and to hunt down the insurgents and terrorists still active in parts of the country.


Beyond that, the coalition is divided into three camps with regard to the nationality, size and mission of the foreign forces that might still be needed.


In the first camp are the Kurdish parties and some Arab leftist groups, including the Communist Party that believe that only a force led by the US, and with a massive American presence, could keep the country together and persuade the insurgents and their terrorist allies that they cannot wreck new Iraq through murder and mayhem. The failure of the Europeans to assemble a small force to monitor the cease-fire in Lebanon has strengthened the position of those who believe that only the US has the will and the power to provide military muscle when and where needed.


Critics of that option, however, point to the fact that the US is facing midterm congressional elections and that, come November, President George W. Bush may no longer have a majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate. With only 20 of Americans still prepared to remain involved in Iraq, it would be hard for a lame-duck president facing a hostile Congress to provide the kind of commitment that Iraqis in this camp hope for. Even supposing Bush succeeds in persuading the next Congress to continue investing blood and treasure in new Iraq, many in Baghdad believe that his successor, whether Republican or Democrat, would not be as committed as he has been to what many Americans regard as a disastrous venture in a far-away land.


The second camp is that of the various Shiite parties, including those with links to Iran. What they want is a smaller multinational force, under US leadership, to continue fighting the insurgents in the four mainly Sunni provinces for as long as it takes. At the same time, however, they want the US-led multinational force to transfer control of the Shiite provinces to them - that is to say their militia. In 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces the US-led multinational force is still in charge of security, and in four it is still fighting the insurgents. Plans are under way for the transfer of three more provinces, now under British control, to Iraqi control by October.


Critics of this camp say the idea of using the US Army as a force of mercenaries fighting the insurgency without having a say in the rest of Iraq is a non-starter in Washington. The American public will not see why it should provide blood and treasure to protect the predominantly Islamist Shiite parties against their Sunni enemies, thus allowing them to create in parts of Iraq a "lite" version of the Khomeinist republic in Iran.


The third camp, consisting mostly of secularist parties, both Shiite and Sunni and supported by a good part of what one might call the " civil society", proposes a broadened multinational force in which half of the 130,000 troops needed would come from Arab and other Muslim countries. This would enable the US to cut the number of its troops in Iraq by half by early next year.


Architects of this proposal insist that the needed troops should not come from any of Iraq's immediate neighbors. This would exclude not only Iran, which is unacceptable to the Arab Sunnis, but also Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia whose troops would not be welcomed by Iraq's Shiite majority.


The countries expected to provide troops include Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia. Because Sunni Muslims are in majority in all those countries, the presence of their troops may attenuate the anxieties of the Arab Sunni minority in Iraq.


But how likely is it that those countries would be prepared to provide any troops? Not very likely, at least at present. Most do not want the Iraq project to succeed because they loathe the idea of the US forcing Muslim nations to adopt Western-style structures. The only reason why some Arab countries, notably Egypt, might want to help Iraq at this point is to prevent Iran from dominating the scene there and emerging as a regional "superpower." Even then, no Arab country would be prepared to challenge Iran without the support of the United States, a support that may not be forthcoming after Bush has left the White House.


Another problem is that few countries would be prepared to put their troops in harm's way in a country awash with weapons and rival militias. The message we get in private conversations with officials from several major Muslim nations is clear: We may be able to come in provided the US disarms the militias first. And that, of course, is a tall order if only because it is not at all clear whether the militias are part of the problem or, in a different context, could be part of the solution.


Beyond the political elite and at the grass-root level most Iraqis, including a majority of Arab Sunnis, would prefer to see the US-led multinational force's mandate extended for at least another year. Last month, news that the US troops were resuming patrol duties in Baghdad led to scenes of rejoicing by both Sunni and Shiites in the capital.


" Iraqis and Americans are in this together," says Adnan Pachachi, the man regarded by many as the father of Iraq's new democratic constitution. "Whatever shape the new multinational force might take, it would not be able to do the job without US commitment and determination."


It is doubt about that commitment and determination that encourages all those who oppose new Iraq to keep fighting. The next meaningful move, therefore, could only come from the United States where the "cut-and-run" party appears to be in the ascendancy while the " stay-the-course" coalition is fast dwindling.

By Amir Taheri

© Arab News 2006

Iraq and US-Led Coalition Troops - Zawya.com | Middle East Business News

FIL Must Be Approved Before September 16th, 2006


Abdul Latif : Law Territories must be completed before 16 next month

Baghdad - (Voices of Iraq)
Examines the House during its next federal budget and investment law. and the law private sector imports of petroleum derivatives and the law of the Territories and legal formulas to deal with foreign forces. He is a member of the Chamber of Deputies, Wael Abdel Latif Exclusively News Agency (Voices of Iraq) Independent yesterday, Saturday, "that before the House of Representatives at its next legislative, which will last for four months, many of the important projects that there must be legislation." He said that among these projects "Development of the federal budget for Iraq before the end of this year. "In addition to the two important waited for the amendment and validation set Latif" investment law which will outline the economy of Iraq for the next phase and the law private sector imports of petroleum derivatives, "and added that" accomplices N Territories must be completed prior to 16 months from September next. where the Constitution provides for the completion Latzid six months from the date of the meeting or of the Parliament, which was on 16 March last month. " Abdel Latif, "the Parliament and the Council of Ministers of Iraq must provide legally by the end of the current year identifies mechanisms to deal with legal foreign forces in Iraq and the United Nations prior to 31 December the first Dismbramegbl." He added that "the Council should devote its efforts to carry out these laws and to form a commission to review the constitution, the side away from the differences in order to carry out his functions effectively and slipshod.

http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?h.../language_tools

Iraqi trade ministry activates international agreements
Baghdad, 21 August 2006 (Aswat Al Iraq) -- Iraqi Trade Ministry is taking steps to activate its commercial and economic relations with many states worldwide, a trade ministry statement said on Monday.

Getting close to 11:00 am...going to check to see if Maliki is going to be on CNN....




P.S....why does my heart beat like CRAZY when posts have multiple exclamation marks and Adster's double smilies?!?! lol!

Maliki gave a very lengthy interview! I wish there would have been more questions on the economy...but Maliki was able to sneak in a couple tidbits that the economy will prosper with the foreign investment law and that there most certainly WILL NOT be a civil war...the violence comes from the reconciliation, he said.

Wolf, the news reporter, repeatedly drilled Maliki about a timeframe or timeline for U.S. troops withdrawl. Maliki said he hopes for within a year, but would not give a specific date. Wolf also questioned about Israel/Palestine and if Israel had a right to exist. Maliki was poised and answered each question...I guess I wouldn't make a very good PM because I would have told "Wolf" ~~"If you were listening to my reply to your LAST question, you wouldn't have had to ask me that one!!!" lol!

There was a lot more...but I know there will be an official transcript that someone will pop in here! I just wanted to let you all know that Maliki ACTUALLY SAID THE WORDS FOREIGN INVESTMENT LAW!

Originally Posted by tiffany

There was a lot more...but I know there will be an official transcript that someone will pop in here! I just wanted to let you all know that Maliki ACTUALLY SAID THE WORDS FOREIGN INVESTMENT LAW!

This good news Tiff, Good Ears.

'Not long' before US troop withdrawal

From correspondents in Washington
August 28, 2006 05:43am
Article from: Agence France-Presse

IRAQ'S Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said overnight it "will not be long " before US troops can start withdrawing from his country but would not commit to a timetable.

Mr Maliki told CNN Iraqi security forces were growing stronger alongside the 138,000 US troops still in Iraq nearly three-and-a-half years after the invasion to oust Saddam Hussein.

"The more our security agencies have developed, the less the period will be for the (American) forces to remain," Mr Maliki said through an interpreter.

"And I think this period will not be long because we have begun to have security responsibility in the provinces," he said, according to the translation provided by CNN.

But Mr Maliki would not be drawn into a discussion of exactly when the Americans could think about leaving the country, beset with escalating sectarian violence as well as a stubborn insurgency.

"I don't want to commit to a certain time or a certain period, but I want to make my best efforts to decrease this time," he said. "It could be a year or less, or a few months.

"This has to do with the success of the democratic or the political process in Iraq, and with having the security agencies to protect this process."

Mr Maliki disputed analyses that Iraq was sliding into civil war between the majority Shiite and minority Sunni Muslims. He insisted efforts to reconcile the groups were making progress.

"The violence is on the decrease, and our security ability is increasing," Mr Maliki said. "I want to assure he who loves Iraq that Iraq will never be in a civil war."

US officials have alleged Iran was providing money and arms to Shiite death squads inside Iraq but the prime minister would say little more than that the matter was under investigation.

"We have communications and exchanges with the Iranians to know the truth and to make efforts to prevent this interference," Mr Maliki said.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...6-1702,00.html


.

This is first transcript.. subject to update
*****
BLITZER: Welcome back. The grim numbers tell the story. According to the Iraqi government, July was the deadliest month for the country's civilians since the war began back in March of 2003; 3,438 Iraqi civilians were killed.

As August draws to a close, the deadly sectarian violence remains the number one concern.

Just a short while ago, I spoke with Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, in an exclusive interview. He joined us from Baghdad.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: Prime Minister, thanks very much for joining us on "Late Edition." Let's get right to an issue of deep concern to the American people.

How much longer do you anticipate U.S. troops will be need in Iraq?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): This period is limited. It has to do with the success, as far as the troops. And this has been agreed upon with the joint commission.

And the more our security agencies has developed, the less the period will be for the forces to remain. And I think this period will not be long because we have begun to have the security responsibility in the provinces.

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): This is an indication of the strength of our security forces.

BLITZER: When you say this process will not be long, could you be more precise? Are you talking months? Are you talking years? Are you talking many years?

Because "not long" has various definitions.

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): No. In truth, it is not defined by time. But by the end of this year, we will have the rest of the provinces to take control of.

And in the first three months of next year, and when we take over, we will take over, and we'll assess our needs, whether they need these forces or not and whether the Iraqi security forces were as able to take over the security responsibility.

BLITZER: A few days ago, Mr. Prime Minister, you were quoted as saying this. I'll read to you what you said.

You said, "Iraqi forces are now capable of taking charge of security tasks in most of Iraq's provinces and would be able to fill the vacuum if multinational forces withdrew."

If the forces withdrew, let's say, within the next year, would Iraqi security forces be OK in dealing with the security and stability of your country?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I think, yes, the forces will be able because the friendly multinational force is working hard to finish the building of Iraq.

And as you know, our force was able to have success and was able to extend its control in the provinces and in many difficult situations. And I think our joint efforts will give us an opportunity to cut the time to have an Iraqi security force that was able to restore stability in Iraq.

BLITZER: One United States congressman, a Republican from Connecticut, Chris Shays, who's visited Iraq 14 times, just came back with this assessment. And I'll read it to you, what he said on Friday.

He said, "It may be that the only way we are able to encourage some political will on the part of Iraqis is to have a timeline for troop withdrawal, a timeline of when the bulk of heavy lifting is in the hands of Iraqis."

Is it a good idea, Mr. Prime Minister, for there to be a specific timeline, a deadline if you will, when U.S. and other international forces should leave your country?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Perhaps I don't find it suitable to have certain historic periods. But we are committed, with the events that our forces to continue with the rebuilding efforts, because we don't want to lose what we have achieved in Iraq and the democratic system and economic and political -- wonderful things we have accomplished.

But we want to make sure that our efforts will have the maximum stability and security so when the troops withdrawal, our mission will continue on.

BLITZER: I asked the question about the U.S. and the international forces in Iraq because, as you know, there are some in Iraq who say this is part of the problem, that the perception among many Iraqis is that the American troops are occupiers and that you would be better off seeing these American troops leave.

Is there a sense that you have that that is a prevalent, that that's a strong view in your country?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): These forces are here with international cover by the U.N. Resolution 1546. And it gives the elected Iraqi government and the constitutional one -- gives it the right to ask the Security Council to ask those troops when they feel that they are no longer needed.

And this international cover cannot be taken as some of those people who think of it as such who want, essentially -- they want to harm the democratic process in Iraq.

BLITZER: Let me rephrase the question, Mr. Prime Minister. Is it better or worse, for Iraq, for a prolonged U.S. military stay? In other words, does the presence of American forces help your government or hurt your government with the Iraqi people?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): No, it helps. But as I said to you, that we are, the level of strength that we could -- that if the multinational forces want to lessen its presence, it could do that because we could cooperate with the rest of the operation and have stability and security to protect the democratic process.

BLITZER: So you think you, maybe, need the bulk of these troops for another year, a half a year, two years?

Can you give us a little guideline of how much longer you think it's necessary to have this foreign presence in Iraq?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In reality, there was an agreement between us and with the leadership of the multinational forces. The agreement was about a certain period and certain time. We agreed to work and to decrease the time so we could evaluate our troops so we could be able to control the situation and so it would enable the multinational forces to leave.

BLITZER: In short, Mr. Prime Minister, you don't want to give a timeline, is that right?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In truth, as I said to you, I don't want to commit with a certain time or a certain period. But I want to have my best efforts to decrease this time. It could be a year or less, or a few months.

This has to do with our success of the political process in Iraq and to have the security agencies to protect this process.

So given the changes that we have, so therefore, we agreed to work together to have the force to protect Iraq, to protect the security operation; therefore the multinational forces could leave Iraq.

BLITZER: And you say they could leave within a year or less. Is that what you're saying?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): This has to do with our ability to succeed with finishing building the forces and our troops.

BLITZER: There is an assessment that many analysts have pointed to in recent weeks, suggesting the situation in Iraq is getting worse -- the sectarian violence -- and is approaching a civil war, if there hasn't been a civil war yet.

Do you see a civil war emerging in Iraq?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): No. The violence is not increasing. But no, we're not in a civil war. In Iraq, we'll never be in civil war.

What you see is an atmosphere of reconciliation and the leadership of the tribes, of the parties -- the political parties. And all their efforts are coming up to end these activities and the violence.

The violence is in decrease. And our security ability is increasing. And I want to assure he who loves Iraq that Iraq will never be in a civil war.

BLITZER: Let me point to some statistics that have recently come out from the Iraqi Health Ministry.

In January, about 1,600 Iraqi civilians were killed; in May, 2,600; in June, 3,100; and in July, last month, 3,438 Iraqi civilians were killed.

It looks, based on those numbers, like the situation, the sectarian violence is getting worse.

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): No. Quite to the contrary. The official statistics -- and when we see the diagrams, the violence operations, as you see, has decreased to 72 percent in unsolved killing and 60 percent as far as the displacement that some agencies, some organizations have done.

And the world sees this decrease and improvement in the security situation in Iraq through the joint control of the multinational forces over the operations that the terrorist organizations do.

And we are sure we will continue to attack terrorism and the terrorists and not to have the terrorists to have the control over us.

BLITZER: Also, the New York Times reported recently that, in January of this year, there were 1,454 explosives found in Iraq. And in July, that one number went up, almost doubling to 2,625.

Are there more explosives that are routinely being used against Iraqi civilians and multinational forces in Iraq?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): These statistics were there in the past, especially after the blown-up -- the Samarra shrine. But we were able to cut down on these numbers to 30 percent.

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): And this is the huge decrease, not because we enforced security by force, but because of the feelings of Iraqis to agree to confront the terrorist operations and the militias, in which it will present dangers on the national unity and the Iraqi people.

Therefore, the agreement of the Iraqis is like a ship that all Iraqis should all be in to face terrorism and explosions that you mentioned with these numbers.

BLITZER: There's also concern about the economic conditions in Iraq. Let me read to you from the August 18th issue of the Economist magazine. "The poor economic conditions of many Iraqis -- unemployment as high as 40 percent, inflation in double figures, a fifth of the population said to be in 'abject' poverty, risk undermining support for Iraq's fragile new democratic institutions."

Is that an assessment you agree with?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Perhaps I could agree with these estimations, but this is a new Iraq and inherited from the previous regime, who left unemployment and destruction.

But if we measure what has been accomplished in the new Iraq, that the limited period for this government, that we were able to achieve a lot and to bypass a lot of the legacy of the previous Iraqi regime.

And we have employed a lot of people. And we accomplished a lot of projects. And we have the money allocated to do a lot of projects. And the services now are increasing. But we still have a lot of legacies from the previous regime.

And the next budget and the next year, we will have major and big accomplishments in the economy and through the general economic policy, and through the liberal economy and through the investment law, who will give Iraq and the Iraqis -- and the foreign capital and the national one -- to work and contribute to produce many services as far as the economic situation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back to "Late Edition." Just a short while ago, I spoke with Iraq's prime minister, Nouri Al-Maliki. Here's part two of that interview.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: I interviewed, a couple weeks ago, the United States ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad. And he told me that Iran, your neighbor, is playing a very negative role in encouraging the violence inside Iraq.

I'll read to you what he said: Quote, "Iran is playing a role in the sectarian violence that is taking place here. It is providing arms, training and money and other support to groups involved in sectarian violence, including militias that have death squads associated with them."

Do you agree with Ambassador Khalilzad that Iran is undermining the entire security situation in Iraq?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): There are talks, but the policy we follow in the new government, that we will do our efforts, that we'll commit the neighbors not to intervene in Iraqi affairs. And we had talks with this regard.

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): And we have reached many results, but not final, in which that it will impose a respect or not to interfere in Iraqi internal affairs.

There are attempts in the region to fix the cards in the country. But the policy by our government, it will not allow any neighbors in the region to interfere in Iraqi affairs. And he who cooperates and receive aid from these countries will be subject to the law and anti- terrorism laws.

BLITZER: Is Iran, your neighbor, providing money and arms to death squads inside Iraq, specifically Shiite death squads?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Some reports are saying this. And we are investigating. And to confirm the credibility of these information, some of these reports say, but we have communication and exchange with the Iranians to know the truth and to have the efforts and to prevent this interference and the people who come into Iraq to prevent these attempts.

BLITZER: What is the relationship between Iran and the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr, whom many U.S. officials see as a terrorist leader inside Iraq?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I don't know the nature of this relation. But you can ask him about the nature of this relation, whether this relation is with Iran.

BLITZER: What do you consider Muqtada al Sadr to be? Because as you know, earlier, U.S. military personnel have said he has tried to kill American troops, that he has blood on his hands, yet he remains a free man inside Iraq today.

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Truly, I feel with this issue with the regard -- as per the legal situation, with the political process, and he has said many things and this group will be committed with the political process and against violence.

But the problem, that I want to move toward find solutions, that we want everybody to participate in the political process.

As I said, it's commitment. And this commitment means committed to the constitution and law and not to violate the security situation.

There's a development in the situation. And I hope that the Iraqis will be positive about this and to work with the new government.

BLITZER: So Muqtada al Sadr, from your perspective, is a legitimate political figure inside Iraq?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): As far as are committed with the security and (inaudible) the law, yes, it will be. But any violation of law and security, it will remove him from this description.

BLITZER: The U.S. killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Al Qaida leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in recent months, that was supposed to be a major turning point in stopping the terrorism. But it seems to be continuing.

Was that overblown, the assessment that the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would turn things around?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): It happened -- the killing of the Zarqawi has weakened Al Qaida a lot, especially that many leaders of Al Qaida that were hunted down and were arrested.

We have achieved a lot, and Al Qaida is now suffering a huge weakness in Iraq. And we'll continue to hunt them down and defeat them.

BLITZER: What is a bigger threat to Iraq, the insurgency led by Al Qaida and other groups in Iraq, or the sectarian violence, the death squads, the killing between Sunni and Shia? MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): All these are challenges for us. They are goals that we are against, and we should come to conclude that we shouldn't have any death squads or militias or threats from others.

But there are other threats other than these. The remnants of the previous regime and the foreign interference are threats. And all these, we put them in the category of national threats on Iraq. And we deal with it -- all of it -- because all of it is bad, and all of it danger, and all hurt and harm the interest of Iraq.

BLITZER: A few months ago, you said some words that caused some concern here in Washington here in the United States. On June 1st, after an incident involving alleged U.S. military atrocities in Iraq, you said this -- and I'll quote. You said, "They crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion. This is completely unacceptable."

I wonder if you'd like to clarify by what you meant, because those words were seen as very harsh on the U.S. military at a time when the United States military has done so much to try to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq.

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I hope this is clear: There's a difference between the forces that are there to protect Iraqi experience and help Iraqis, and difference between have violations -- which is natural. When the violations occur, they should be condemned, because some individuals have done so. But we don't want to generalize what's happening with some groups or with an armed group, as though all this is happening to destroy Iraq.

BLITZER: Mr. Prime Minister, we're almost out of time, but a couple of quick questions if you don't mind.

The recent war between Israel and Hezbollah, many of your supporters here in Washington were dismayed, were even angered, by your statements that seemed to suggest you were siding with Hezbollah while the United States President Bush was clearly siding with Israel.

What was your position? Are you supporting Hezbollah in this war with Israel?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): George Bush support us as well. All this has to do with the will of the people. One of these things that has to do with the people as far as their traditions and, in our days, we feel the freedom of expression and the freedom of designation of these things.

BLITZER: Because as you know, there was great anticipation when Saddam Hussein's regime fell and a new Iraq emerged, especially among those advocates of this policy known as the neoconservatives here in the United States, who were hoping that shortly after your new democracy emerged, your new government emerged, Iraq would join Egypt and Jordan in establishing diplomatic relations with Israel.

Is that in the cards? Is that on your agenda, to open up a relationship with Israel?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): What's in Iraq in terms of the problems and challenges and needs and efforts to rebuilding and to work to bypass the ordeal and the problems in the country are not with these causes at this point.

BLITZER: So, at this point, that's not an issue on your agenda, to consider establishing relations with Israel?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): This issue is not on the table at this point. If it was put on the table, it has to be with the parliament, who expresses the will of the people. It's not our concern at this point.

BLITZER: Do you personally believe, Mr. Prime Minister, that Israel has a right to exist?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): To be committed to international law, as with the Security Council, it has to do with the positions; and not to be committed to these laws, it opens the doors to different things.

If we want to reach solutions, we should go back to the Security Council and its resolutions.

BLITZER: So what does that mean? Does Israel have a right to exist or not?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): That means that the international resolution gives it the right, but the international resolutions and the rights and the interest of these and not having solutions, it will give this issue some sort of confusion.

Therefore, we should go back again to what comes out of this international agency as far as Iraq.

BLITZER: No, I'm talking about Israel. What about Israel? Should it exist, or should it not exist?

In other words, to you support a two-state solution, Israel living alongside Palestine? Or a one-state solution, no Israel, just Palestine?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): As I said to you, and again, this issue has to do and should be dealt with as per the international laws.

And not to implement the international laws doesn't give anybody a right to do these things. And it would not help us to reach our conclusion. That what's we want.

BLITZER: All right. I'll leave that.

One final question, Mr. Prime Minister, because you've been generous with your time. Five years from now, 10 years from now, where do you see Iraq standing in terms of its democratic values, specifically in terms of whether Iraq should become an Islamic state ruled by the Sharia, or there should be a separation, if you will, of the mosque from the state?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Iraq, in five or 10 years, it will remain Iraq and the democratic process that we have begun today in its multiplicity and the constitution, it will be continue to be the ruler of Iraq.

And all these milestones that we feel -- what we have today, it will continue in a multi-Iraq, a united Iraq in the future.

BLITZER: Well, we wish you only the best. We hope there will be a peaceful Iraq, Mr. Prime Minister.

Thank you so much for joining us here on CNN and "Late Edition."

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Thank you very much.

A friend of mine said her son had heard on the news that Iraq is considering changing government?!? Because Maliki's government hasn't been able to perform so much... It scared the --- out of me! Because if they were to change government now, then I think we can see into the stars for a revalue...
Has anybody else heard anything like this?