The first Iraqi perminent government

[Guest Guest]

Good article..

[salim]

today Almaliki might flag his first day to prove to Iraqis that he is as expected to be , a tough leader!

In a very sharp move, he declared the state of emergency and asked the Army to take control on basrah! a move that might be considered in clear defiant to political parties and their miltia.. More than that he called for amnisty to government forces from critizism by political parties " refrence might go both ways " , I think I called for such months ago.. You can't fight terrorists and criminals while their is no law to protecte you..

[salim]

The nomination of the three remaining posts was not a surprise, but to be on same historical day of Zarqawee killing, is some thing else. For me this was also a special day for other reason.. To see one of my friends become a minster after long cut in connection.. That was Sherwan Alwaely who was nominated for the security affiars post.

 

Sherwan is a typical Kurd name while Alwaeli is typical Iraqi Arab from south sknown tribe of Wael.. I was wondering if he is same friend Sherwan that ran into In basrah in 1979 while I was working for ellectrical network in Alsheaba camp east to basra as electrical engineer. The name was strange because you might never find such name stick to a typical arab family.. Sherwan was military resident engineer just graduated from militry engineering college. he was a thin polite very low profile officer that just graduated from college.

He was upset because they nominated him to a field that not related to his study of aircraft engineering. We talked a lot and I remember I asked him about his name, he told me that he is from Suak Alshuakh in Nasria and his father named him after a close kurd friend ..

 

Then i moved to baghdad and never heard about him

 

Today Sherwan Alwaeli stand in fornt of the assemply to talk about his career, he told that he graudated in 79 and working for military works in basrah !1 It was to my full surprise! yes he is my old friend, that one day we dreamed together that some day we might see a different Iraq , a one that all can speak freely! and here we are

[salim]

If there any good description to Bush surprise visit , it might be the arab "Tharbat Mualim" a master strick!

 

This visit should n't be looked at from Bush's Amaerican poll figures enhancing prospective. It is just in time to keep the momentum. A momentum that started with nominating a unifed governement ogf Maliki. Over the last three years, the lack of strong central government had it positives and negatives, now after establishing the new Iraq structure we need to work fast to fix the unbalance. Iraqis are in need for a strong Democratic governemnt. This visit is giving a lot of boost to Almaliki.. The clear support by Bush to malaiki by having the first reciption in close doors is very critical.. It has it's strong message that Maliki is getting the full support of Americans , the main player in Iraq, after all support he already got from all main Iraqi political parties, not to mention the generic acceptance by most Iraqi..

 

 

I think this visit and what will emerg later in applying the emergency plan tomorrow will have it's results sooner than later..

[Guest After Iraq Visit, an Upbeat Bush]

After Iraq Visit, an Upbeat Bush Urges Patience

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Published: June 15, 2006

WASHINGTON, June 14 — Seeking political momentum from his surprise trip to Baghdad, President Bush said Wednesday that Iraqis feared "America will lose its nerve," and pointedly warned Democrats that an early withdrawal of troops would set back counterterrorism efforts and "endanger our country."

In a news conference in the Rose Garden, the president said that he expected steady progress in Iraq, not a sea change in the fight against insurgents.

 

The president also said he had directed several cabinet members, including the secretaries of commerce, energy and agriculture, to travel to Iraq to offer support to the nascent government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

 

While Mr. Bush said he sensed a "tangible difference" in Iraq, he warned that the violence there was far from over. And he acknowledged international unease over the treatment of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

 

"The challenges that remain are serious," Mr. Bush said, referring to Iraq, "and they will require more sacrifice and patience."

 

In Baghdad, Mr. Maliki began a new crackdown intended to reduce attacks in the capital by putting as many as 75,000 Iraqi troops and police officers on the streets. Iraqi forces took up positions across the city, searching vehicles and imposing a curfew. [Page A13.]

 

In Washington, Mr. Bush praised the prime minister for "working to build confidence in the Iraqi security forces."

 

But with three recent public opinion polls showing a fresh hint of optimism about the prospect for long-term stability in Iraq, the president also turned to American politics, drawing a link between Iraq and the fortunes of Congressional Republicans in the coming midterm elections. Hinting at a return to a strategy that proved successful for his party in 2004, Mr. Bush said he believed his course in Iraq was correct and vowed to "keep talking about it and talking about it."

 

Spotlighting divisions among Democrats, Mr. Bush cited what he called "an interesting debate in the Democrat Party about how quick to pull out of Iraq." He also said he had a message for terrorists: "Don't bet on American politics forcing my hand, because it's not going to happen."

 

The news conference was the latest in a week of events, beginning with Monday's cabinet meeting at Camp David, carefully staged by a White House that is determined to take the offensive on Iraq. Yet aides to the president are well aware that if Mr. Bush wades too deeply into partisanship, he risks losing a claim to above-the-fray statesmanship.

 

So Mr. Bush stopped well short of the combative attacks being lobbed by some of his advisers, including Karl Rove, who in a speech in New Hampshire on Monday attacked Democrats for what he called "that party's old pattern of cutting and running."

 

And the president hinted at the tension between his competing roles as world leader and leader of the Republican Party, saying that while he looks forward to the fall campaign, "The timing's not right for me to get out there yet."

 

Though he complained of jet lag and fatigue, Mr. Bush seemed energized by his brief Baghdad trip — a reflection, perhaps, of a string of positive developments for his administration, beginning with the killing last week of the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

 

The president spoke with obvious relish about sitting in the cockpit of Air Force One as he flew into Baghdad. "It was unbelievable — unbelievable feeling," he said. And he recounted meeting the speaker of the Iraqi Parliament, a Sunni Arab who vehemently spoke out against the American invasion and who "wouldn't have taken my phone call a year ago."

 

Mr. Bush also acknowledged that he was concerned about the image of the United States abroad, particularly in light of the recent suicides of three detainees at the American prison camp at Guantánamo Bay.

 

"I'd like to close Guantánamo," Mr. Bush said, repeating a comment he made in May, though he quickly added that shutting it down was not feasible in the near future.

 

"No question Guantánamo sends, you know, a signal to some of our friends," Mr. Bush said. "It provides an excuse, for example, to say the United States is not upholding the values that they're trying to encourage other countries to adhere to."

 

For Republicans nervous about maintaining control of the House and Senate, Mr. Bush's performance Wednesday morning was a comforting sign. In the afternoon, he met with Congressional leaders to brief them on his trip; afterward, the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, said he told Mr. Bush that it was "very useful" for the president to focus public attention on Iraq.

 

Three national polls suggest that Americans may be more hopeful about the prospects for success in Iraq after Mr. Zarqawi's death, though most of the people surveyed still consider the invasion a mistake.

 

A USA Today/Gallup Poll found 48 percent of respondents thought the United States would probably or definitely win in Iraq, up from 39 percent in April. In a CNN poll, 43 percent said things were going either very or moderately well in Iraq, up from 38 percent in March. A CBS News poll found 60 percent said it was somewhat or very likely that the United State would eventually succeed in Iraq, a slight increase from May.

 

Still, there are signs that Republicans in Congress will not give Mr. Bush a free pass on the war. As lawmakers prepared to pass an emergency spending bill to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Senate on Wednesday voted unanimously to force Mr. Bush to submit a formal budget for future war expenditures rather than financing them through such emergency bills, which receive less scrutiny.

 

The vote came in the thick of an intense debate on Capitol Hill over the administration's policy in Iraq.

 

In the Senate, Mr. Bush's 2004 Democratic opponent, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, is pressing a resolution calling for Mr. Bush to require the withdrawal of troops by the end of this year. But Mr. Kerry's fellow Democrats are divided over whether and how to call for a withdrawal; the Democratic whip, Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, said the party was trying to come up with an alternative.

 

The House, meanwhile, is scheduled to vote Thursday on a Republican-backed resolution declaring that "it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of troops" in Iraq.

 

Mr. Bush said that in addition to the security situation, progress in Iraq would be measured in tangible ways: oil sold on the market on behalf of the Iraqi people, megawatts of electricity delivered to Iraqi households. But as with the issue of troop withdrawal, the president refused to set a timetable for when he would like those developments to occur.

 

"The answer to electricity is, sooner the better," he said. "I mean, it's hot over there!"

[Guest from Aladhamia]

The situation is very calm in Adhamia "Baghdad" today. There was some firing yesterday but soon got setteled down. Army check points all around the distceret is giving people much causioned calm. Last week there was an icident that might reflect the new spirit within iraqis. In Alqam area some terrorists tried to kill the owner of a shop who was threatened earlier to close his shop. Three of them approached the shop to kill the owner cold bloodly, as usually the case. However this time, his brother was standing outside the shop, he noticed them entring, so immediately he took a gun of one of the guard police of a neighboring Bank and went after them. He killed them all , the body of the three were laying in the street until the police came, his brother was injured and man escaped the scene !

 

Standing in front of such criminals is not an easy job, but people fed up ...

[salim]

as expected the terror strock back with a seriese of suicide and radndom explosions, aslo assasination of a salafee " no takfeeri" shikh in Tikreet and also sunni clergy in Basara who had critisised the terror acts.

 

Dr. alrubaiee , Iraqi national security advisor, already expected that in an interview four days ago claiming that such acts are already planned but we will see a better situation later because the terror is in chaotic situation now and migh lack the planning for new acts.

For me I think these radom car explosions are a sign of real weakening in the Sadamist and qaeda coalition.. Such acts would raise larger demands by people "all" to take stronger measures, even those who might sympathy with their acts for political reasons. The radom kill is hitting evry one .. The government is in it's upmost peak of stretching muscles, all what it needs is more support from political parties and people.

 

There are another issue here. it seems to me the growing power of Maliki, specially after the clear support of Bush visit, strated to triger some upset by different political parties, rival Shia within coalition, Kurds and suni Arab. The only one seems happy with this development is Aliraqia slate members who loose nothing after their defeat in siezing prominent positions in the governemnt.

 

Talabani sent clear signals yesterday that he is not happy with the "forward together" government ONLY authority. He wanted the new political council "non constitutional" to rule it... I think talabani is expressing his upset of the growing power of Maliki. Some SRCI members also expressed similar comments, not mentioning the Tawafuk sunni.

 

Todays attacks might be used by these parties to put more pressure on Maliki, but I think he needs to works in fast and dynamic style. Putting such critical security exam in hands of wide interest council might be a disasterous..

[Guest Maliki news confrence]

Iraqi Says Attacks on U.S. Won't Be Pardoned

By SABRINA TAVERNISE and JOHN F. BURNS

Published: June 28, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 27 — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki said publicly on Tuesday for the first time that attacks on American soldiers would not be pardoned under the rules of a new Iraqi amnesty plan.

In his first meeting with Western journalists since he became prime minister a month ago, Mr. Maliki sought to allay concerns raised by many in the United States that the plan, which he unveiled Sunday as part of a broad effort to reduce insurgent violence, could lead to pardons for some who had killed American soldiers and spur attacks on American units.

 

Americans, he said, came to Iraq to help make it free. "Therefore, out of respect for their contribution to Iraq," no pardon will be offered to their killers, or to insurgents who have killed Iraqi soldiers and police officers, he said.

 

It was the most unequivocal statement by any Iraqi official about the amnesty, which had caused confusion among Iraqi political leaders as well as American officials since it was announced in broad terms on Sunday.

 

The amnesty is part of a "national reconciliation" program that Mr. Maliki, a Shiite, offered in an effort to find a political solution to the violence that continues to kill dozens of people a day, a vast majority of them Iraqi civilians. Iraq now has an elected government with a four-year term, but it has failed to improve security here in the battered capital, where Sunni and Shiite militias continue to kill with impunity, and some neighborhoods have sunk into conditions resembling anarchy.

 

Insurgent violence on Tuesday claimed the lives of 21 Iraqis and 2 American servicemen, and wounded an additional 41 people. The American military also announced the deaths of 2 service members killed Monday in fighting in Anbar Province.

 

Mr. Maliki was at pains on Tuesday to explain his reconciliation plan, which emerged from long consultations with the competing political blocs in his national unity government, but drew criticism for the vagueness of its amnesty provisions. They reflected the deep divisions in the government.

 

Religious Shiites strongly opposed amnesty for Sunni insurgents, while Sunni Arabs said it would be meaningless without provisions to encourage insurgents to disarm. The Americans strongly favored reaching out to the insurgents, but opposed anything amounting to a pardon for rebels who participated in killing Americans, more than 2,500 of whom have died in the three-year war.

 

Despite the vagueness of the amnesty terms, Mr. Maliki said the plan had drawn widespread interest from groups important to its success, including members of political militias, tribal groups, religious leaders and insurgent groups. He would not identify the insurgent groups.

 

Asked to identify the sort of groups and individuals who would be eligible, he cited Iraqis who had carried out "sabotage" against the government, though only "minor" acts, as well as to those who had joined the insurgency out of hostility for the American-sponsored political process but had not killed anyone. He said it also would apply to members of the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein who renounced that allegiance. Insurgents who face trial over attacks would be eligible for pardons if they were found not guilty of any killings.

 

"Whoever can prove himself innocent of murder in the judicial process will be allowed to join the political process," he said.

 

Allies of Mr. Maliki have said that the amnesty, presented by American officials and the prime minister's aides among many initiatives that would give momentum to the new government, reflected his relative political weakness.

 

"Maliki's intentions are good, but he is not free to do as he likes," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of Parliament. "He is part of this Shiite bloc, and they don't believe in this initiative to begin with."

[Guest Guest_salim_*]

"Maliki's intentions are good, but he is not free to do as he likes," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of Parliament. "He is part of this Shiite bloc, and they don't believe in this initiative to begin with."

 

I doubt the above to be said by Othman. Kurd yesterday announce their concerns of giving pardon to killers. Most Shia block parties including Alsader are with the plan, only concern they have is not to give pardon to those commited killings

 

Other than that there is no real objection to the plan

[moron99]

Iraq needs international friends who are strong enough to oppose to the radicals, dictators, and mullahs in the region. They are like hyena who will attack whenever the lion is not near. Until Iraq becomes a grown lion then it needs international (western) friends. As such the Iraqi government has no choice other than to publicly say "killers of MNF will not be forgiven". To say otherwise will be interpreted by western citizens as "we still want to kill all infidels". It is something that must be said in order to keep the powerful friends who can stand against the hyena. It is not something that actually needs to be done. IMO, the Iraqi government and western politicians only say this in order to appease americans who do not understand the difference between what must be said and what must be done.