-
Senior Economist : private banks chosen to be shops, banking instead of raising their capital
.. Expert criticized the economic peace Sumaisem central bank's decision to reduce 15% of the roof of legal cover , passed by the former civil banks in Iraq, noting that the private banks prefer to keep franchise shops to raise their capital.
The central bank had asked the private banks that do not usually have much access to the outside world to increase its capital to 250 billion dinars (214 million dollars) by 2013, but he returned to cut 15% of the capital decision.
The Sumaisem in contact with the agency, the independent press (Iba), according to the previous decision was to either private banks to merge with each other or raise their capital offering of shares in the financial markets and the introduction of the new partners.
She added, but private banks taken a negative and remained stuck in their positions, prompting the central bank, unfortunately, to submit to the roof and reduce the legal cover stipulate that previously private banks.
She said that the bank previously required either upgrading or to the existence of private banks as shops banking which banks chosen by not complying with instructions of the Central Bank.
She pointed out that private banks had missed an opportunity by which the entry of foreign capital into the Iraqi market through the purchase of shares in these banks to raise their capital from banks and the transfer of family businesses to public joint stock company as it is in the rest of the world.
It showed that the central bank when it called for an increase of legal cover, was designed to ensure that there is cash in the banks covered by letters of guarantee issued by.
Sumaisem called the central bank to prepare a plan to rescue banks from the civil situation in which it is raising the level to suit their dealings with the size of banking required by the process of investment and influx of foreign companies in Iraq.
She explained that the terms and conditions established private banks, which put a certain degree, either the phase of the country now require development of terms and conditions commensurate with the nature, as it can not attract investors without a developed banking sector financially and technically as it takes to perform the role required in the reconstruction process, reflecting the need Expansion of liquidity and the provision of appropriate staff and the use of automation.
Demanded Sumaisem taking, however, private banks by the Central Bank and Securities Commission and the Association of private banks, wondering if he can live up private banks to reach the conditions set by the Central Bank and the requirements of the construction phase to Iraq is experiencing at present.
And called for not only government appropriations for government banks, and dealing with private banks that are responsive to conditions of the Central Bank and the Chairs raise money and exemption from some existing controls with their involvement in the plan of investment and development.
The Sumaisem that political interests and its association with some private banks, these banks have made in the position of refusing to implement the decisions of the Central Bank and thus make a decision to reduce 15% of the roof cover jurisprudence established by the Bank earlier.
http://www.ipairaq.com/index.php?nam...onomy&id=29530
-
The U.S. and Iraq: what now?
Since President Obama took office, more than 90,000 U.S. troops have come home from Iraq. Last week, the Pentagon reported, the last U.S. combat brigade left. The number of U.S. combat troops there is now below 50,000, officials say. That fulfills Obama's pledge to pull out all but 50,000 troops by the end of this month, with the vow that the U.S. combat mission in Iraq is over. The question is: now what?
Actually there are several big questions.
To what extent are "combat troops" being replaced by Special Operations forces, other U.S. personnel, and private contractor mercenaries?
Will all U.S. troops leave in December 2011, as the U.S.-Iraqi agreement specifies? Reports are that Special Operations forces will stay on. What about other U.S. forces and private contractors?
What exactly is the U.S. role in Iraq between now and the end of 2011? And what will it be beyond that?
What is the U.S. responsibility to the Iraqi people, and how should it be fulfilled?
The president says the "transitional force" now remaining there will switch its focus from combat to "supporting and training Iraqi forces, partnering with Iraqis in counterterrorism missions, and protecting our civilian and military efforts."
"Make no mistake: Our commitment in Iraq is changing - from a military effort led by our troops to a civilian effort led by our diplomats," he told a convention of Disabled American Veterans in Atlanta Aug. 2.
He told the veterans he wants to bring the Iraq war to a "responsible end." We applaud that. Certainly, as we read of new rounds of vicious violence around Iraq, leaving dozens of innocent Iraqis dead and wounded, we ponder the U.S. responsibility for this violence. As we read about Iraq's ravaged economy, the sewage running in the streets, the lack of electricity, the joblessness, we remember that it didn't have to be this way.
Some Iraqis, most notably the Iraqi Communist Party - with a heroic record of resistance to Saddam Hussein's bloody dictatorship - warned that a U.S. invasion was not the way to get rid of Saddam.
After the shock and awe invasion, instead of handing over power to Iraqi democratic forces, the U.S. installed its own occupation viceroy, fanned sectarian discord, opened the floodgates of contractor boondoggles and corrupt cronyism - all focused on making Iraq and its vast oil a junior partner to U.S. oil interests.
Seven years later, the thousands of dead and maimed, the shattered families - Iraqis first of all, but also Americans - present the U.S. with a profound responsibility.
Yes we do have a responsibility to help Iraq train its armed forces and security personnel so they can protect their own people, and to provide them with the necessary resources, which the Bush administration failed miserably to do. But it's not our job to manipulate their economy or their politics, to pick and choose who should govern their country.
We do have a responsibility to help rebuild their hospitals, water systems, schools, cultural facilities - wrecked in the invasion or later under our watch or by our own contractors. But the U.S. should not be directing the money or deciding the projects.
Unfortunately, we're seeing some warning signs that point in the wrong direction. A massive State Department presence in Iraq is being developed. Vast numbers of private U.S. contractors are deployed there. And notions are being floated that the U.S. military presence may "need" to continue beyond next year.
Let's make sure all of our occupation of Iraq ends - military, economic and political.
It's time to shed the old foreign policy habit, that sees Iraq as nothing but a giant oil well to fuel America's oil-based economy, and a geopolitical pawn and military launch-pad to keep the rest of the region's oil flowing our way. We just can't afford it - not in taxpayer dollars, not in human lives, not in the survival of our planet.
http://peoplesworld.org/the-u-s-and-iraq-what-now/
-
26/08/10
Commission on Investment, trade between Iraq and America will hold a coordination meeting
... Within the framework of implementation of the Convention strategic framework between Iraq and the U.S. held in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Nuri Shaways day meeting of the Commission on Investment and Trade in the Commission on economy and energy.
A statement from the Information Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the agency received the independent press (Iba) side was headed by Iraqi President National Commission for Investment, Dr. Sami al-Araji was attended by representatives from the Ministries of Interior and Health, Labour and Trade and Industry as the Director of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and his deputy, while the talks were attended on the U.S. side, economic adviser to Mr. Del Eppler addition to the Commercial Counselor and a number of specialists in the field of investment and trade in the U.S. Embassy.
The statement added, was discussed at the meeting to facilitate the work of trade exchange between the two parties through the creation of all the circumstances appropriate for businesses of visas and information about available investment opportunities, and others.
He has also been discussed in the conduct of the review of decisions and laws that facilitate corporate investment, trade and expand the volume of trade exchange in order to attract capital and discuss the difficulties and obstacles and ways to overcome them in order to promote economic growth and the opening of Iraq to a market economy.
He also discussed a file on Iraq's accession to the WTO and measures and the ongoing negotiations to complete the requirements of accession to the WTO the U.S. side expressed its support for this file.
The statement said the meeting came in a series of meetings to formulate recommendations and proposals to be submitted to the Supreme Committee for Economy and Energy, headed by Deputy Prime Minister Nuri al-Shaways and planned to hold its mid-September.
http://www.ipairaq.com/index.php?nam...onomy&id=29547
-
Abdul-Mahdi : the need to provide facilities and legal support to the private sector to encourage investment
Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi, the necessity of providing facilities and legal support for his encouragement to the private sector to invest in the industrial sector in order to activate it, albeit through small projects can continue and expand the success of the future to large projects.
The Information Office of the Vice-President in a statement received by the independent press (Iba) a copy of this confirmation came during a meeting with Abdul-Mahdi, the Minister of Industry Fawzi Hariri, which was discussed with him the economic situation in the country, notably the industrial sector and ways to promote this sector.
For his part, Minister of Industry that Iraq is currently the largest center for investment in the Middle East, and investment opportunities in the country is open to all investors, Iraqis, Arabs and foreigners.
http://www.ipairaq.com/index.php?nam...onomy&id=29415
-
Central : the rate of inflation to 2.7% encouraged the launch of liquidity to banks
Central Bank of Iraq adviser, on Friday, the drop in inflation to 2.7% of Iraq encouraged to release liquidity to the banks by 5% of the existing legal reserves have, in order to expand lending operations and advancing the development.
The appearance of Mohammed Saleh told (Voices of Iraq) that the primary mission of CBI is concentrated in "stabilizing the inflation rate, which amounted to 2.7% currently, a figure not seen since the Iraqi economy for many years."
The Iraqi Ministry of Planning announced that the rate of inflation fell to 2.7% in June after he was last an average of 3%.
Saleh pointed out that the central and by the arrival of prices to this level of stability, "decided to release liquidity to the banks, government and private rate of 5% of the monetary reserve the legal 20% and reduced to 15%, to enable them to expand lending and coverage of economic activities."
About the reasons that prompted the central bank to raise the proportion of the legal reserve previously Saleh said it was "part of the monetary policy, which the CBE which retain 20% of each deposit has a reserve and to reduce the liquidity and limiting expansion of lending," and thus "control the rate of inflation, And when we saw a decline at the rate we release liquidity to achieve a balance between stability and push forward development rates."
Prior to the Iraqi Central Bank to cut the cash reserve ratio, which was legal a 25% to 20% is divided into 5% liquidity at banks and 15% in the central treasury.
Asked told (Voices of Iraq) on the possibility of raising the rates of lending to banks, Saleh said "the lending capacity of banks amounting to eight times the capital and many of them did not reach this level , a conservative credit granting", pointing out that there are "many channels could be expanded through Banks in activities such as investment vouchers treasury or deposit with the CBE, and other other activities."
There are currently 37 banks in Iraq, civil strife is the Iraqi Central Bank with the task of supervision and oversight, as well as government banks Istaran on most banking activities are Mesopotamia and rational.
http://ar.aswataliraq.info/?p=242784
-
Why Najaf matters in post-war Iraq
The last U.S. brigade combat team departed Iraq on Aug. 18. While President Obama says 50,000 U.S. troops will remain there through December 2011 to train the Iraqi army, in reality the U.S. units are focused more on packing up tons of equipment. This is so, as one colonel explained to me this month, "we can shut the lights out and close the door behind us."
The State Department is now the lead agency shaping the future of U.S.-Iraqi relations. "We are fully prepared to assume our responsibilities," spokesman P.J. Crowley declared on Aug. 19. Beyond operating the largest U.S. embassy in the world, in Baghdad, U.S. diplomats will also open consulates in Iraqi Kurdistan and Basra. Missing in the post-occupation plan, however, is any permanent U.S. representation in Najaf, perhaps the most important city in the new Iraq.
Najaf is home to two holy shrines and is the center of Shiite jurisprudence, not just in Iraq but for all Muslims. Only 10 percent of the world's Muslims are Shiite, but that fraction represents more than 100 million people. Between the Mediterranean Sea and Iran, the proportion of Shiites in the Muslim population rises to 50 percent; in Iraq, because of the flight of many Sunnis after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the proportion approaches 70 percent.
Not all Shiites are the same. In Najaf, Quietist strains of Shiism dominate and advocate greater separation of mosque and state. From the Iranian city of Qom, ayatollahs promote a vision of Shiism more in line with the Islamic republic's revolutionary ideology. Freed from Saddam Hussein's yoke, religious life in Najaf is thriving. Security is no longer the problem it was in 2004. And the economy is booming. After oil, religious tourism centered in Najaf is Iraq's most important industry and brings in more hard currency than agriculture.
A new international airport ferries pilgrims -- mostly Iranian -- into Najaf. There is no better place outside Iran for diplomats to interact with ordinary Iranians across socioeconomic divides because everyone, rich or poor, wants to make a trip once prohibited by war and politics. New hotels open constantly. Diners compete for seats in the city's new restaurants. Alas, Iranian money underwrites most of the construction. Juxtaposing Najaf's construction boom with the lack of construction cranes over Baghdad's skyline says as much about Iraq's future as it does about the failure of both U.S. assistance and Iraq's central government.
As both an American official in 2004 -- when I served as a political adviser in the coalition provisional government-- and an American visitor in 2010, I was welcomed in the Shrine of Imam Ali, Najaf's holiest. In January, I visited one grand ayatollah and the offices of two others. Each said he welcomed dialogue with Americans. Indeed, Adnan Zurfi, the elected governor of Najaf, spent his exile years in Dearborn, Mich.
Nevertheless, Shiites remain uncertain about American intentions. During a February 1991 campaign stop, President George H.W. Bush famously called on "the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside." The Shiites listened and rose up, but Bush had second thoughts and remained aloof as Hussein's tanks and helicopter gunships crushed the revolt. Thousands of Shiites were cast into mass graves. Perception means more than reality. In every Shiite seminary, clergy and students asked specifically why they should ever again trust the United States after the 1991 abandonment. They accuse the White House, the State Department and the Defense Department of persistent bias.
This narrative, encouraged by Iran, is not fair to the thousands of Americans who sacrificed life and limb to give Najaf freedom in 2003 and again the following year, when U.S. troops helped rid the city of Iranian-backed militias. But the freedom enjoyed in Najaf will not matter if the United States has no diplomats permanently in Shiite Islam's Vatican City, ready to make Washington's case; America's enemies will define our legacy.
In his address to Muslims from Cairo last summer, Obama declared that he seeks "a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect," and that the United States "will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron." To more than half of Iraq's population, and 90 percent of Iran's population, the president's words will remain empty unless we sustain a continued outreach to the Shiite world.
The writer is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082605573.html
-
Key political risks to watch in Iraq - FACTBOX
The end of U.S. combat operations this month places the onus of ensuring security squarely on Iraqi leaders, even though they have yet to form a new government almost six months after an election.
Continued divisions between Shi'ite-led and Sunni-backed political factions and persistent, devastating attacks by insurgents are creating an air of peril that has kept potential non-oil investors on the sidelines.
These factors could also affect the work of oil majors which have won significant oilfield development deals.
While there are still 50,000 U.S. soldiers in the country ahead of a full withdrawal due by the end of 2011, a perception that Washington under President Barack Obama has disengaged from Iraq could worsen sectarian differences.
Iraq has muddled on without a new government since the March 7 parliamentary vote that produced no clear winner.
Public sector salaries are being paid, the army and police continue to fight the Sunni Islamist insurgency and counter Shi'ite militias, and small development projects already in the pipeline are being pursued.
Projects Iraq has signed with energy majors such as BP and Lukoil that could more than quadruple oil output in seven years are moving ahead slowly.
But the longer the political impasse continues, the longer it will take to address public anger about poor public services, such as a lack of electricity in the stifling summer heat.
The perception may also grow that democracy in Iraq does not work, and Iraqi leaders are incapable of governing, raising the risks of public disturbances, coup attempts and increased meddling by often troublesome neighbours.
Iraq is isolated from world financial markets and has little credit. Only a few dozen companies are listed on the stock exchange. The Iraqi dinar is thinly traded and the exchange rate effectively determined by the central bank in its dollar auctions.
One place to take a punt from afar on Iraq's future is its Eurobond.
Below are some of the major risks facing Iraq 7-1/2 years after U.S. troops toppled Saddam Hussein.
POLITICAL SQUABBLING, POWER VACUUM
Because no single bloc won a majority in the 325-member parliament in the March election, coalition talks are key to forming a government.
Despite announcing a merger, the two main Shi'ite-led electoral blocs remain at loggerheads over Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's desire to serve a second term.
The Sunni-backed, cross-sectarian Iraqiya alliance which won the most seats in the election has also been unable to seal a deal with others to give it the majority needed to govern.
Iraqiya, led by former premier Iyad Allawi, a secular Shi'ite widely supported by Sunnis who view him as a strongman capable of countering Shi'ite power Iran, took 91 seats in the election. Maliki's State of Law bloc won 89 seats.
The Iraqi National Alliance, a Shi'ite bloc which includes anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, took 70 seats, while a Kurdish alliance picked up 43.
The long delay in forming a government could undermine security, and marginalising Iraqiya may anger Sunnis, just as U.S. troops leave.
What to look out for:
-- A flareup in sectarian violence, as happened during the five months it took to form a government after 2005 polls.
-- A failure by parliament, which cannot function without a government, to pass investment legislation, sending a negative signal to firms interested in Iraq but worried about legal risks.
A RETURN TO MAJOR VIOLENCE
Iraq is far less violent than when sectarian killings peaked in 2006-07. Maliki takes credit for security gains, but a U.S. troop rise and Sunni militia cooperation also played a big part.
Since March, Iraqi forces backed by U.S. troops have scored major victories against local al Qaeda groups, including the killings on April 18 of al Qaeda's leaders in Iraq.
Yet Sunni Islamist insurgents, who the government says are in league with Saddam's Baath party, still stage attacks.
The number of Iraqi civilians killed in July almost doubled from June to 396. Significant attacks in August included an Aug. 17 suicide bombing at a Baghdad army base that killed 57, and coordinated attacks on police throughout the country on Aug. 25 that killed 62.
The insurgents are expected to step up their attacks on Iraqi security forces after the formal end to U.S. combat operations.
Political feuds, Sunni discontent or an attack on a holy site could spark a renewal in broad violence, as could any Israeli strike on Iran. Such an attack might prompt Shi'ite militias to retaliate against the remaining U.S. forces in Iraq.
Any major violence will push up prices on global oil markets, as Iraq has the world's third largest oil reserves.
What to watch:
-- Attacks on oil facilities or foreign oil workers.
-- A successful strike against a major political player like Maliki or Allawi.
-- Signs of a return by militia leaders who fled after a 2008 crackdown on sectarian violence by Maliki.
-- Increased infiltration of the Iraqi security forces by militants or insurgents.
KURD-ARAB CONFLICT
Tensions between Arabs and minority Kurds, who have enjoyed virtual autonomy in their northern enclave for almost 20 years, are festering. Kurds were massacred in Saddam's era, but have gained unprecedented influence since 2003 and hope to reclaim areas they deem historically Kurdish.
Arabs and Turkmen complain Kurds have exploited their new-found prominence at their expense. At the centre of the impasse is Kirkuk, which sits on rich oil reserves.
What to watch out for:
-- Clashes between the army and Kurdish Peshmerga forces.
-- Any breakthrough on oil. Iraqi Kurdistan, which estimates its oil reserves at 45 billion barrels, has signed deals with foreign firms that the national Oil Ministry labels illegal.
-- Passage of modern oil legislation, held up for years because of the Kurd-Arab feud. The delay has not deterred oil majors, but potential investors in other sectors view the laws as an indicator of stability and friendliness to business.
NEW AUTHORITARIANISM
Iraq's democratic experiment is significant in a region where leaders often leave office only in a "coffin or coup".
Many Iraqis believe their country needs a strong ruler. The inability to form a government undermines faith in democracy.
What to watch:
-- Unusual Iraqi troop movements, in particular a lockdown of Baghdad's Green Zone where most government offices are.
-- Any effort to change the constitution to allow leaders to amass power or remain in office.
http://www.forexyard.com/en/news/Key...90856Z-FACTBOX
-
US remains at forefront of Iraq's 'trigger line'
When the US army ends its Iraq combat mission this week, Captain TJ Tepley will stay on the frontline -- keeping the peace at the centre of what commanders say is the country's biggest challenge.
The 27-year-old leads a company made up not only of US troops, but also of Arab and Kurdish soldiers whose job is to patrol a disputed tract of land in oil-rich Kirkuk province in the north, trying to abate ethnic tensions.
While thousands of fellow Americans have packed their kit and headed home as part of plans to reduce the US military presence in Iraq to 50,000 troops, Tepley and his comrades will remain in the field on a separate mission.
"Overall, big picture, sure -- things have changed. We went from more than 100,000 soldiers to 50,000 in a few months," said Tepley, from Cleveland, Ohio.
"But on September 1, the CSF (Combined Security Force) is still going to be here," he said as his heavily armoured MRAP (Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected) vehicle rumbled towards the tiny village of Gorga Chal, north of Kirkuk city.
Tepley's company, and several others like it, are key to efforts to end a long-running dispute between the central government in Baghdad and the north's autonomous Kurdistan region, over the 650-kilometre (400-mile) strip of land.
Dubbed the "trigger line" because of fears that tensions could eventually spill over into armed conflict, the disputed area spreads across Iraq from Syria to Iran.
The tripartite security force which Tepley is part of was inaugurated in January after first being mooted by the top US commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, a year ago.
But in a nod to the withdrawal -- all American troops must leave Iraq by the end of next year, under the terms of a Baghdad-Washington security pact -- US generals are aiming to reduce American involvement and re-configure the force.
"What I would like to see happen is they go from tripartite to bilateral," US Major General Anthony Cucolo, referring to the patrols, told AFP in Tikrit.
The plan could see Americans supervise the Iraqi army and Kurdish Peshmerga fighters currently working alongside US soldiers, Cucolo said, but eventually the patrols would have to be by police or disbanded altogether.
For now, though, US troops in Tepley's company remain firmly in the lead: in a meeting with Gorga Chal's village chief Ramadan Mohammed at the local school, only he and Lieutenant Daniel Spurrier, 23, spoke to the "mukhtar."
Only after prompting from Tepley towards the end of the meeting did the lone Iraqi soldier present, Sergeant Arif Safa Hussein Abdul Ali, eventually speak to the mukhtar.
The territorial dispute stems largely from the so-called "Arabisation" policies of Saddam Hussein. Human Rights Watch estimates the dictator forcibly removed 120,000 Kurds from Kirkuk between 1991 and his ouster in 2003.
After the US-led invasion seven years ago, Kurdish forces advanced south and west, staking a claim over what many in Kirkuk and the nearby provinces of Nineveh and Diyala say is Arab land.
In the years since, both sides have traded allegations of attempting to deliberately increase their own ethnic populations, in a bid to secure the province's energy resources and resulting income.
The mistrust and consequent lack of cooperation between Arab and Kurdish forces has left what US commanders label a "seam" that has been exploited by criminal and insurgent networks.
Since the joint forces began operating checkpoints and conducting patrols in January, however, Gorga Chal chief Mohammed says he has seen security improve.
"When the US leaves, I can only hope they will stay together and continue to provide security -- together," the 40-year-old told AFP.
While senior American commanders insist relations are good on the ground between Arabs and Kurds, comments by Mohammed show that tensions remain and memories linger.
"This was the problem -- under Saddam, we were moved north to Kurdistan," Mohammed told Tepley and Spurrier during their meeting. "But I am from Kirkuk."
Tepley admitted that he often struggles to grapple with the complexities of the region and its history.
"Some of these things are hard to grasp," he noted, adding later: "When you hear about Iraq in the United States, it's usually about the Sunni-Shiite situation," alluding to the conflict between rival Muslim sects that killed tens of thousands of people after the 2003 invasion.
"But then you get here, and now you're dealing with Kurds and Arabs."
With no new government yet formed in Baghdad since elections nearly six months ago, the prospect of a deal between Arabs and Kurds seems a long way off.
"All we need is for the government to form and, inshallah (God willing), everything will be fine," Lieutenant Spurrier said during the meeting with Mohammed.
"Patience is hard, I know, but we have to let it play out."
Mohammed replied: "Yes, we must wait. I'm sure if you look at every country in the world I challenge any of them to be as patient as Iraqis."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...Ktfx-a-33bkJgA
-
One phase in Iraq war ends, but U.S. work isn't done
The U.S. combat mission in Iraq officially ends Tuesday, 2,722 days after U.S.-led troops stormed across the border from Kuwait. The remaining 49,000-some U.S. troops are supposed to depart by the end of next year.
The U.S. combat mission in Iraq officially ends Tuesday, 2,722 days after U.S.-led troops stormed across the border from Kuwait. The remaining 49,000-some U.S. troops are supposed to depart by the end of next year.
The U.S. mission is far from over, however, and it may have to be extended, according to former senior U.S. officials, foreign diplomats and private analysts.
Iraq's leaders, worried about the country's stability, may ask for at least some U.S. troops to remain as an insurance policy, Iraqi and U.S. observers said.
"There is a reasonable probability the Iraqis, once they've got a new government in place, will reassess" and request a change to the 2008 status-of-forces agreement, said Ryan Crocker, who was the U.S. ambassador to Iraq from 2007 to 2009.
President Obama, who will mark the end of the combat mission with an Oval Office speech Tuesday, hasn't said how he would treat such a request.
"We've made a commitment ... to have our troops out by the end of 2011, and that's a commitment we intend to keep," deputy press secretary Bill Burton said.
If the Iraqis ask, however, "it would be damn hard to say no," said Daniel Serwer, a vice president of the nonpartisan U.S. Institute of Peace.
Shaky situation
The uncertainty is a sign of Iraq's precarious position as U.S. attention shifts to this fall's elections, domestic economic issues and the growing war in Afghanistan.
Iraq is better off in many ways since 2007, when a buildup of U.S. combat brigades, a change in military strategy and payments to Sunni Muslim tribal leaders to fight al-Qaida in Iraq stemmed sectarian conflict.
Violence has declined, raw sectarian feelings appear to have ebbed and political horse-trading is the norm.
Iraq isn't as well off as U.S. officials had hoped it would be by late August 2010, however, a deadline that Obama set and that isn't stipulated in the U.S.-Iraqi forces agreement. Many things have improved, but the political system remains deadlocked.
Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a leading moderate Republican voice on foreign policy, said Friday that the timing of Obama's speech was unfortunate, given Iraq's state of flux. It reflects not so much reality in Iraq as the president's need to show he's made good on a campaign promise to withdraw from Iraq, Lugar said.
Asked in a C-SPAN interview if the artificial timeline is a mistake, the senator replied: "Probably."
Officials had hoped Iraq, which held elections five months ago, would form a government before the Islamic holy month of Ramadan started Aug. 11. That didn't happen. Basic services such as electricity are spotty, and there's no agreement on divvying up Iraq's oil and gas riches, and no resolution of territorial disputes between Arabs and Kurds.
Flaws in constitution
Many of the problems stem from weaknesses in Iraq's 2005 constitution. It lacks deadlines for political-party leaders to form a government and leaves the president and the judiciary powerless to take charge in case of a stalemate.
"The constitution was written too early, by people grasping for power," said a senior Iraqi diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The result is a maze of ambiguities that "would be comical if it was not causing so much pain."
Further, in a worrying sign on the security front, more Iraqi soldiers and police officers have been killed in attacks this month than at any time since September 2008, according to data from the website icasualties.org.
Obama and his aides have cautioned that the Iraq mission isn't over. "The hard truth is, we have not seen the end of American sacrifice in Iraq," the president told a Disabled American Veterans conference Aug. 2.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ithdraw29.html
-
Iraq's uncertain future - The reckoning
American troops are leaving a country that is still perilously weak, divided and violent. Little wonder that some Iraqis now don’t want them to go
THE last American combat soldiers in Iraq shuffle through a half-empty base as they prepare for the one-way journey to the Kuwaiti border. Some recall their exploits during many tours of duty over the past seven years, charting their fortunes with language that has become common currency on television back home. The shock and awe of the invasion was eclipsed by insurgents using IEDs. Backed by contractors who erected blast walls around a green zone, the soldiers eventually inspired an awakening among Iraqi tribes that, aided by a surge of extra troops, in time brought something like order. In the soldiers’ telling, the names of places that were little known before the war have acquired the resonance of history: Najaf, Sadr City, Abu Ghraib.
Some 50,000 American troops will stay on in a support role, to “advise and assist” the Iraqi forces that are now supposed to be in charge of the country’s security.
Nonetheless, August 31st marks the official end of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the combat mission that began with the invasion in March 2003. As a sign of America’s changing role in the country, the State Department will now assume some of the responsibilities that were previously undertaken by the Pentagon. Chief among them is the training of Iraqi policemen, a key to keeping the peace. Consular offices will be opened across the country to replace military bases. Since the State Department does not have its own forces, it is hiring private gunmen. They will fly armed helicopters and drive armoured personnel carriers on the orders of the secretary of state long after the last American soldier has gone home.
For their part, the people of Iraq never learned to trust, let alone like, the Americans. Yet public opinion has shifted remarkably in recent weeks. After countless American warnings of their imminent departure, all met with stubborn Iraqi insistence that the “occupiers” would never leave, the penny has suddenly dropped. They really are on their way out. But instead of feeling joy, Iraqis have begun to worry. “We’re not ready to go it alone,” says Wesam, a junior army officer. He, like many others, fears a return of sectarian war. That points to the fragility of much of what the American army can claim to have achieved since 2003.
On the positive side, they conclusively ended the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein. Only his deputy, Izzat al-Douri, escaped capture and punishment in a war-crimes trial. American soldiers were flexible enough to change tactics in order to defeat an insurgency that threatened to overwhelm them; their emphasis on recruiting local allies proved superior to the unadulterated fire power they had used at first. They avoided all-out civil war and cut short the brutal reign of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born jihadist, who was hunted down and killed.
Furthermore, a more open society has taken shape in urban Iraq. Safia Souhail, a member of parliament, holds regular salons where discourse is free and often contrarian. On the streets too, politics is discussed openly, even among strangers. Iraqis are no longer afraid to say what they think. Where once there were only whispers, a cacophony of shouted curses now assaults political leaders. The press is nominally free, though highly partisan and often harassed by officials. Religious freedom is generally accepted, even if some minorities still complain of discrimination. Alcohol cannot be sold at certain times, in deference to Islamic hardliners, but is available nevertheless.
Iraq is also much more open to the world thanks to America’s intervention. Travel is unrestricted, imports are plentiful, internet connections have gone up from 4,500 to 1.6m and the number of mobile phones has risen from 80,000 to 20m.
Yet freedom is still not universal in Iraq. Women and gays suffer discrimination, and there is little they can do about it. Across Iraq the rule of law is usually a distant aspiration rather than a solid achievement. Justice is no longer arbitrary, but judges can still be bought and the pace of trials is often glacial.
These gains have come at a terrible cost. About 150,000 Iraqis as well as almost 5,000 American and allied soldiers lost their lives. More than 2m Iraqis fled the country, many of them desperately needed professionals who are building new lives elsewhere. They despaired of a country in which many residents still don’t have access to basic services. Although American taxpayers have spent more than $700 billion, drinking water is scarce, health care and education are inadequate, electricity is available only for a few hours a day and petrol often runs out. Many say life is harder than ever.
This lack of services has crippled the economy. Manufacturers cannot survive without power; this condemns the non-oil private sector to irrelevance. The Americans have tried to boost business by financing the construction of markets across the country. They also gave seed money to entrepreneurs. But about half the Iraqi workforce is still without a full-time job. The Iraqi government is barely able to collect taxes and spending is financed almost entirely from oil money.
Leave us to bicker
The biggest failure of all is political. Building a state with a democratic government and institutions that work was central to President George W. Bush’s vision of the new Iraq. The country has ended up with a travesty of good governance. Positions in the bureaucracy are awarded on the basis of family or sectarian allegiance rather than merit. Partisan interference so mars elections that no Western diplomat will call them “free and fair”. The watchdog Transparency International reckons that corruption is endemic.
More than anywhere else in the world, Sunnis and Shias still fear each other in Iraq. Trust even between moderates is minimal, and national reconciliation non-existent. Five months after inconclusive elections, Iraq still has no new government. Parties are deadlocked in negotiations. The most obvious coalition partners are the prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, a moderate Shia whose block won 89 seats in the 325-member parliament, and Ayad Allawi, a former prime minister who is mainly supported by Sunnis and controls 91 seats. Yet the two men dislike and distrust each other so much that they rarely speak.
The prime minister could instead strike a deal with the next smaller block, a mix of mostly Shia religious parties dominated by the followers of Muqtada al-Sadr, a hardline cleric. But Mr Sadr too distrusts Mr Maliki. Mr Maliki’s only quasi-ally, the Kurdish block, has too few seats to secure him power.
Attention is now focused on an American proposal that would allow Mr Maliki to keep his job and make Mr Allawi the head of a powerful new national security council. The Kurds and Mr Sadr’s followers are being encouraged to join as well. The result would be government by committee, a recipe for further deadlock, but perhaps the least bad plausible outcome. Corrupt party hacks would further carve up the ministries, but at least Iraq would have an elected government.
None of this would matter quite so much if the country were secure, but Iraq is still under siege. The insurgency is weakened but not defeated. Violence is down by 90% from 2007, but al-Qaeda-affiliated groups have staged a comeback in recent months. Officials and policemen are assassinated almost daily. The number of dead is increasing again, to nearly 500 in July. On August 25th a series of bombs throughout the country killed over 50 people and injured hundreds more. “Al-Qaeda can probably keep this up for a while,” says an American general.
Instability afflicts the whole country. In the south new extremist groups are springing up and old ones like Mr Sadr’s militia, the Mahdi Army, are reforming. In the scarred northern city of Mosul much of the battle damage is recent. Along the dividing line between Arabs and Kurds, tension is as high as ever. Iraq’s territorial integrity is not certain. Borders are routinely violated by aggressive neighbours.
The future of Iraq will hinge on its security forces after the Americans officially hand them control on September 1st. The forces are much better than they were a few years ago; buckling under pressure is no longer a certainty. Yet even their own generals say they are not really ready. The Iraqi army chief of staff wants American help until 2020. Privately, American officers agree their job is not done. Iraqi intelligence work is poor, extremist infiltrators are common, the air force is in its infancy, some commanders follow nakedly political agendas and initiative in the lower ranks is lacking, as is equipment. Prisoners are widely abused.
It is clear that Iraqis will for many years be plagued by corruption, insurgents, meddling neighbours, and their own stubborn politicians. Ending America’s “combat mission” is a gamble—and gambles can be lost.
http://www.economist.com/node/168894...89410&fsrc=rss