7-10-10
Biden and Obama Push Iraq to form Saddam Hussein Sunni Baathist Dominated Government
Vice President Biden met with Iyad "too many Sunni" Allawi to try and figure out a way to make Allawi Prime Minister of Iraq. All thinking Americans realize Biden and Obama are directed by the Rothschilds operating through Goldman Sachs. Just as Rothschild communi$t$' run the political show in the USA the Rothschildies/Goldman cabal run the political show in Iraq. In the name of deception and the Blackwater al-Sadr scam the bad guys allowed a fair election to take place in Iraq and naturally the Shiites won the majority of seats in the Iraqi Congress. Problem. Iraqi have seen through the Blackwater/al-Sadr scam from day one. Al-Sadr movement is touted as Shiite and many Shiites are deceived and vote for al-Sadr political candidates, although Blackwater operates the Sadr movement manned at the top by Saddam Hussein Sunni Baathist. Al-Sadr is dead or stays in hiding. The plan is to keep the control of Iraq in the hands of Saddam Hussein Sunni by getting the Sadr movement to vote with Sunni. The reason there is no government formed in Iraq even though the election took place March 7, 2010 is Obama and Biden want the Iraqi government to be led by Iyad Allawi, the front for Saddam Hussein, Sunni, and the Baathist party.
It is critically important to Biden, Obama and the communi$t$' to make Iyal Allawi Iraq's Prime Minister. Allawi must have Saddam Hussein's bunch running Iraq because Saddam Hussein's military is the key to invading Iran and forming a Sunni Baathist military force to conquer the entire region - Caspian Sea, Turkey and Russia. The Rothschilds love the feeling it gives them when a group they control realize they are dead and the Rothschilds in fact kill them. The Rothschilds get this pleasure when they Holocaust Jews. Sunni will be killed in mass invading Iran, the Caspian Sea and Russia. When Sunni realize they are dead and the Rothschilds see Sunni disappointment in their eyes this gives the Rothschilds the same pleasure as the disappointment is the eyes of Jewish people when they realize they are going to die at the hands of the Rothschilds.
The communi$t$' distribute the photo Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Iran's President "Jewish Roots" Mahmoud "closet zioni$t" Ahmadinejad as propaganda to install Saddam Hussein Sunni Iyal Allawi Prime Minister of Iraq. They know the photo hurts Maliki. Ahmadinejad is all too happy to help the Rothschilds and the Goldman Sachs bunch because he supports Sunni take over of Iran and other zioni$t causes.
President Obama says the US military is moving out of Iraq on schedule. Obama: U.S. leaving Iraq ‘on schedule’
The US military personnel withdrawing from Iraq are moving across the border into Afghanistan. There is no reduction of US military strength in the Mid East, as Obama is leading the world to believe when he says US forces are withdrawing from Iraq. On July 4 General David Petraeus assumed command of 142,000 U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan at a ceremony in the Afghan capital of Kabul. This means we have 142,000 troops in Afghanistan and around 75,000 troops in Iraq for a total of around 230,000 troops. No reduction in our military Mid east strength since Obama assumed office. If the truth be known our military levels in the Mid east most likely have increased since Obama became president. The massive amount of US drone bombings in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the fact Obama Seeks Massive Expansion of Arms Exports, the new stronger sanctions on Iran and the constant rhetoric to nuke Iran is more proof Obama is increasing the war effort and making the world more dangerous, not reducing it. The military Mid east manpower figures do not take into account the number of civilians and Blackwater paramilitary types in the region. Senators Raise Prospect of US Attack on Iran An article posted July 7, 2010 which has Senator Lieberman predicting the USA was going to nuke Iran. When? Rosh Hashanah begins September 8, 2010. There is a coincidence factor which ties Rosh Hashanah with dramatic world events.
Irregardless, this world is getting much more dangerous. Not less. The Obama Administration pressuring Iraq to install a government of Saddam Hussein Baathist Sunni does not bode well for world peace. The fact Obama has religious training in Sunni Islam is a key to understanding the US is and has always been on the side of Saddam Hussein and the Sunni Baathists. Congress is due back in DC July 12, 2010. We can expect a seriously falling stock market during the second half of July and August to help Goldman and the communi$t$ get their Financial Reform bill passed. Logic dictates Goldman and company are banking on big summer hurricane to interfere with the capping of the BP spill and to work as a hammer to give the communi$t$' their cap and trade taxes and contracts. Then a Rosh Hashanah surprise.
---------
July 5 - 11 Senate Recess July 4 Independence Day July 5 - 11 House Recess
August 9 - September 12 Senate Recess
Rosh Hashanah - In Hebrew, Rosh Hashanah means, literally, "head of the year" or "first of the year." Rosh Hashanah is commonly known as the Jewish New Year.
The Jewish New Year is a time to begin introspection, looking back at the mistakes of the past year and planning the changes to make in the new year. Days of Awe.
Jewish Year 5771: sunset September 8, 2010 - nightfall September 10, 2010
assumed command of 142,000 U.S. and NATO troops in a ceremony in the Afghan capital of Kabul.
U.S. TROOP LEVELS:
October 2007: 170,000 at peak of troop buildup.
25 May 2010 Troops are continuing to flood into Afghanistan as part of Barack Obama's surge, while the United States is rapidly withdrawing from Iraq.
The most recent Pentagon figures show 94,000 US personnel are now in Afghanistan compared with 92,000 in Iraq.
Senators Raise Prospect of US Attack on Iran
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/07/07/senators-raise-prospect-of-us-attack-on-iran/
McCain Says Israel Won't Attack, Lieberman Says US Will
by Jason Ditz, July 07, 2010
Senators Joe Lieberman (I – CT), John McCain (R – AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R – SC) are in Israel today discussing as they so often do the prospect of America launching yet another massive, ill-conceived war, this time against Iran.
Sen. McCain opened with comments suggesting he did not believe that Israel, which has repeatedly threatened to launch a military attack on Iran, was close to making any such decision. Sen Lieberman was quick to add that he believes that even if Israel doesn’t attack, the US is prepared to.
Lieberman insisted that one way or another, Iran would be prevented from becoming a “nuclear power,” adding this would be either through “economic sanctions if we possibly can, through military actions if we must.”
Sen. Graham was even more blunt in his support for launching the war on Israel’s behalf, saying that “the Congress has Israel’s back.”
The officials went on to condemn Turkey for its “hostile rhetoric towards Israel,” with Senator McCain calling Turkey’s behavior “disturbing.” Turkey, a long time ally of Israel, was critical of last month’s Israeli attack on a Turkey aid ship, an attack which left eight Turkish aid workers and one American dead.
Odierno: Kurdish-Arab Fighting may Require UN Force in post-American Iraq
Posted on July 7, 2010 by Juan Cole
Despite the optimism obvious in the speeches of Vice President Biden on Iraq, the outbreak of fighting between the Iraqi army and Kurdish forces in the town of Qara Tappa in Diyala province on Sunday and Monday is a reminder of how divided Iraq remains on the eve of the US withdrawal of combat troops. It is not the first such clash– in early fall of 2008, as well, Iraqi army troops and Kurdish Peshmerga fired at each other in Khaniqin in Diyala. Veteran Kurdish member of parliament Mahmoud Osman warns that Iraq is every day more clearly a failed state.
The tensions between Kurds and Arabs in the north, which could lead to yet another Iraqi civil war, so alarmed Gen. Ray Odierno, the outgoing commander of US troops in Iraq, that he told the Associated Press that it might be necessary to bring in UN peacekeeping troops when the US forces are no longer there. (US troops currently jointly patrol with Iraqi army units and with peshmerga, inserting themselves in the middle of the antagonists, with some success). But there are only 77,500 US troops in Iraq now, and there will be no formal combat troops by September 1.
Biden’s mission to Iraq over the Fourth of July weekend was intended to accomplish four things. He wanted to reassure Iraqi nationalists that the US is indeed ending its military occupation of the country on schedule. He wanted to reassure US clients in Iraq, such as the Kurds and some pro-American Arabs, that the US is not abandoning the country altogether, but will remain willing to help with its development. He wanted to deliver a strong message to Iraqi political factions that they must form a government soon or risk instability. And, he wanted to work against Iranian hegemony over Iraqi affairs as the US becomes less potent in Baghdad. He should have had a fourth goal, of Arab-Kurdish reconciliation before the US loses its leverage, but that issue appears not to have been central to this trip.
Biden wanted to reassure those nationalist Iraqis suspicious of US motives that Washington fully intended to abide by its time line for troop withdrawal– that is, the era of US military occupation of Iraq is drawing to a close. He said, “I hope you know we’ve kept our commitment so far, and on August 31st, we will change our military mission by drawing closer to all of you, not further apart.” There are now only 77,500 US troops in Iraq, the lowest number since the war was launched in 2003, and both Biden and Gen. Ray Odierno are affirming that the number will fall to 50,000 by September 1. That is, an average of a about 2,500 troops will be withdrawn every week until September. (And yes, the civilian contractors supporting the military will come out as well).
Biden wanted to reassure the Iraqis, who still lack essential services like electricity and whose infrastructure has been degraded by decades of US/UN sanctions and of war, that Washington is still interested in Iraq. He said, “As you continue to stand up and build your democracy, we’ll be there with you economically, politically, socially, science, education. I’ve been put in charge of our government’s effort to unite all the elements of our government, from the Department of Education to the Department of Commerce to the Department of Science and Technology — to work with you if you want us to.” I’m not sure that this sort of economic and scientific assist is really what the more nervous Iraqis are looking for, but lets face it, there likely won’t be more than a handful of US troops in Iraq as of Jan. 1, 2012, so Biden can’t offer them the US infantry much longer (the air force is a different matter).
Aljazeera English covers the crisis in Iraqi electricity and infrastructure:
The immediate task facing the Iraqi political class is to form a government. Elections were held March 7, but there still is no new cabinet. The constitution calls for a government to be formed by one month after the first meeting of the new parliament, which will be July 15. Iraqi politicians have been known, however, to operate outside the constitution, so there is no guarantee that deadline will be met.
Iraq uses a party list system that allows for several parties to do well. The prime minister will come from the leading party in the largest coalition, one which can get to 163 members of parliament, a majority of the 325 seats. So far there has been gridlock, essentially a hung parliament in which there is no majority. The four leading parties are 1) the Iraqiya list (91 seats) of Iyad Allawi (a secular part with overwheliming Sunni support but also that of some middle class Shiites); 2) the State of Law coalition (89 seats) of incumbent prime minister Nuri al-Maliki, made up of lay Shiite fundamentalists and nationalists; 3) the National Iraqi Alliance (70 seats) of Shiite fundamentalist parties such as the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and the Sadr Movement of Muqtada al-Sadr; and 4) the Kurdistan Alliance (43 seats) that unites the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan). Several other small Kurdish parties will likely vote with the Kurdistan Alliance.
Forming a government would be easy for the Shiite coalitions if Nuri al-Maliki, the incumbent, would step aside. The Sadrists refuse to accept a Maliki second term, and an earlier Iran-backed attempt to make a Shiite grand alliance has all but fallen apart because the State of Law (the core of which is the Da`wa or Islamic Mission Party) will not relinquish al-Maliki. Al-Maliki launched his Charge of the Knights military operation against the Sadrist Mahdi Army in Basra and east Baghdad in spring-summer 2008, for which the Sadrists decline to forgive him.
Since the State of Law cannot get to 163 seats with just the Kurdistan Alliance as a partner, al-Maliki only has three possible paths to keeping his office.
One would be to find a way to entice the other parties in the National Iraqi Alliance, i.e. Ammar al-Hakim’s Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and some others, to break with the Sadrists and support him, and to line up all the Kurdish parties behind him.
Another would be to form a coalition with the Iraqiya list of Iyad Allawi. Since al-Maliki and Allawi deeply dislike each other, and the Da`wa Party is more Shiite fundamentalist than it is usually represented, this alliance would not be intuitive but rather involves a lot of strange bedfellows and awkward compromises. But it could be done, perhaps, and al-Maliki and Allawi have recently met on the possibility. The problem here, again, is that al-Maliki is seeking a way to remain prime minister, while Iyad Allawi wants that post. Since, however, Allawi does not have the partners in other parties necessary to get to 163, he cannot be prime minister and I think even he and his advisers recognize it by now. There is some talk of making Allawi president, but that plan has two drawbacks. The presidency is, in practical terms, extremely weak and almost irrelevant in today’s Iraq, and Allawi is said not to be interested in being a figurehead. Moreover, the Kurds desperately want to retain the presidency, and they are key to getting to 163. Allawi might have to remain an eminence grise while his party gets some high-powered cabinet posts, such as Defense or Interior, as a bribe for joining al-Maliki. (Since the security forces are dominated by Shiite fundamentalists, how an Iraqiya secular (and possibly Sunni) boss will sit with them is hard to see).
The third possibility is a government of national unity, with al-Maliki as prime minister but buy-in from and cabinet posts for the Iraqiya and for those elements in the Shiite fundamentalist parties willing to join him, as well as for the Kurds. That third possibility seems to be the one pushed by Vice President Biden: “In my humble opinion, in order for you to achieve your goals, you must have all communities’ voices represented in this new government — proportionately. Iraqiyya, State of Law, Iraqi National Alliance, the Kurdistan Alliance — all are going to have to play a meaningful role in this new government for it to work, in my humble opinion.”
Of course, it would be easier to form a government if al-Maliki would step down. But al-Maliki has built up control of key ministries and of important elements in the officer corps, along with southern tribal chiefs, and it would be difficult to simply push him aside, as the Sadrists and some of the Iraqiya leadership would like to do. He does not, however, have infinite time to form his government, and at some point if this process drags out much longer, a move will begin in his own party to dump him, so that the party, at least, can remain in power.
The outcome Biden and Washington more generally seems to fear is the alliance of the State of Law with the National Iraqi Alliance, i.e., the two big Shiite blocs, who could with some independents or small parties get to 163 all by themselves, allowing them to dispense with Allawi and the Iraqiya. Such a Shiite grand alliance would be more oriented toward and dependent on Iran than a national unity government that gave significant power to the Iraqiya Sunnis and secularists (neither of whom like Tehran). Biden warned, “You should not — and I’m sure you will not — let any state, from the United States to any state in the region, dictate what will become of you all.”
I think Washington’s fears of Iranian hegemony in Iraq are overblown. Iraqis are nationalists and while Shiite Iraqis may look favorably on Tehran as a regional ally, they are unlikely to take their marching orders from Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei or President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. On the other hand, Iraq is unlikely soon to play the role again that Saddam’s Baath army did, of forming a bulwark against Iranian influence in the Arab world. For that, Washington has itself to thank.
Allawi: Meeting with Biden focused on speeding up govt. formation
July 4, 2010 - 05:14:10
http://en.aswataliraq.info/?p=134092
BAGHDAD / Aswat al-Iraq: Al-Iraqiya bloc leader Iyad Allawi said a meeting with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden on Sunday focused on the need to accelerate formation of a new government, adding Biden did not carry any proposals in this respect.
“A two-hour meeting was held in the house of Iraqiya member and Deputy Prime Minister Rafie al-Issawi between Iraqiya leader Allawi and U.S. Vice President Biden,” Issawi’s office said in a statement received by Aswat al-Iraq news agency.
“The meeting was attended by the U.S. ambassador to Iraq and a host of Iraqi and U.S. political experts and advisors,” it added.
The statement quoted Allawi in statements to reporters after the meeting as saying that the talks dealt with the current situation in Iraq and the region as well as the need to speed up formation of a new government.
“There were no certain proposals offered in this regard on the part of the U.S. side,” Allawi noted.
He pointed out that Biden expressed interest in Iraq’s stability and the need to avoid prolonging the formation of a government so that circles seeking to undermine Iraq’s interests would not capitalize on the current state of affairs.
Biden, entrusted with the Iraqi affairs file, had arrived in Baghdad on Saturday on an unannounced visit amidst faltering talks among Iraqi political powers to form a new government four months now after the country’s second ever legislative elections since 2003 were held.
Differences are heating up among the al-Iraqiya, which obtained 91 seats, and Dawlat al-Qanoon, which came second with 89 seats, to win the post of prime minister for the new government.
Incumbent Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s bloc struck a coalition with Ammar al-Hakeem’s Iraqi National Alliance (INA), together having 159 seats, in a bid to form the largest parliamentary bloc, a matter viewed by Allawi’s al-Iraqiya as a twisting of democracy on the grounds that his bloc was the largest one with votes in the elections and consequently it has the right to form a government.
Iraqiya Bloc: Allawi Must Be PM
Opposition Say Iraqiya 'Too Sunni' to Hold Prime Ministership
by Jason Ditz, July 01, 2010
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/07/01/iraqiya-bloc-allawi-must-be-pm/
Spokesmen for the Iraqiya bloc today announced that the bloc will insist upon former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, their faction’s head, as the next prime minister of Iraq. Iraqiya won the largest number of seats in the March 7 election.

Iraqiya’s desire to appoint the PM is hardly exclusive, of course. State of Law, the second place finishers, insist that their leader, the current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, must retain his office, while the third place Iraqi National Alliance (INA) is backing former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a member of their bloc, as their “moral” choice.
Furthermore, opponents of Allawi’s candidacy are claiming that the secularist bloc contains “too many Sunni” lawmakers for Allawi, himself a Shi’ite, to be considered a candidate. Both State of Law and the INA are Shi’ite religious blocs.
None of these blocs has the clout to force their candidate through the split parliament, and despite a number of high profile meetings between the three, and meetings between two designed to “pressure” the other one to favor one or the other bloc, there are no strong indications that a new government, let alone a new prime minister is imminent.
Tensions Rise as Sadr Bloc Eyes Jaafari as Next PM
by Jason Ditz, June 30, 2010
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/06/30/shiite-bloc-may-trim-next-iraqi-pms-powers/
The decision of who will be the next Iraqi PM remains up in the air tonight, and perhaps even more uncertain as the Sadr Movement is throwing its weight behind former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari for the position, calling him the “moral” choice.

Sadr’s followers bring with them the weight of the Iraqi National Alliance (INA), the third place finishers, while current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki insists he is the “only” choice and the Iraqiya party continues to push its own candidate, other former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, as the winner of the election.
But whether one of these three or someone else entirely takes the position, a growing number of the Shi’ite politicians which dominate the government are looking to seriously curb the power of the next prime minister, Under the current system, Maliki has near dictatorial powers over broad swaths of Iraqi society.
In a future government, it seems that the real power will be the Najaf Marja’iyah, a council of Shi’ite religious leaders dominated by Grand Ayatollah Sistani. With both the INA and Maliki’s State of Law bloc committed to accepting the council’s edicts as rule of law, the shift will largely depend on how much the Marja’iyah is willing to exercise its newfound power.
No Deal Announced as Maliki, Allawi Meet
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/06/29/no-deal-announced-as-maliki-allawi-meet/
Iraqi Government Remains Up in the Air
by Jason Ditz, June 29, 2010
Today, some three and a half months after the March 7 election, the leaders of the top two vote-getting blocs, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, held what may well be the highest profile meeting since the vote.

The meeting concluded with no apparent progress on the formation of a government, and no announcement was made suggesting whether the two will meet again. Maliki spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the discussion didn’t touch on potential roles in a future government
It had been predicted by Maliki aides that the talks would “lead to important results,” which would be a welcome change for many as the previous three and a half months have yielded only tenuous alliances and nothing concrete. It seems however that these results remain elusive.
Allawi’s Iraqiya bloc won 91 seats in the election, to Maliki’s State of Law bloc’s 89. A government would need 163 seats to hold a parliamentary majority, and both sides have been courting the third place Iraqi National Alliance bloc, which won 70 seats.
It has previously been suggested that State of Law and the Iraqi National Alliance could form a government that cut Iraqiya out entirely. Iraqiya officials have warned that they may refuse to participate in the parliament if this happens, however.
--
Muqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army militiamen slowly resurface
After two years, ex-militiamen are being seen again in Baghdad neighborhoods. Officials fear the shadowy group could take advantage of Iraq's festering political crisis and U.S. troop withdrawals.
By Borzou Daragahi, Los Angeles Times
http://freedomsyndicate.com/fair0000/latimes00258.html
June 28, 2010
Reporting from Baghdad
Mohammad and his gang are back. There may not be a Glock semiautomatic strapped to his waist anymore, but the terrifying mystique of the Mahdi Army still shrouds the Shiite Muslim militiaman like the menacing black uniform he once wore.
Civil servant Haidar Naji remembers how Mohammad used to strut around his east Baghdad neighborhood like a mob boss, ordering him not to wear Bermuda shorts, too immodest and Western for his Islamic tastes.
Naji changed into longer pants.
He felt satisfaction in 2008 when he heard Mohammad, whose last name he never knew, and his friends had been rounded up and imprisoned, a well-deserved comeuppance after the militia's years of kidnapping, torturing and killing Iraqis, and dread this year when he saw them back on the streets, a little more polite, but with the same righteous attitude.
"We're seeing their mobility, their presence, in the mosques, in their gatherings, in the alleyways," said Naji, a resident of Habibiya, a poor Shiite district next to vast, impoverished Sadr City, a Mahdi Army stronghold.
"Maybe they are not wearing the same black uniforms as before," he said. "But we can identify them. We are worried that they will come back and sabotage our neighborhoods."
The return of the Mahdi Army poses a dilemma for the Obama administration. For now, at least, Washington's goals coincide with those of the militia: Both want to hasten the departure of U.S. troops, and the group's leader, cleric Muqtada Sadr, has publicly urged supporters to avoid taking up arms.
But with its ideological fervor intact and bolstered by a powerful 40-member parliamentary bloc, the shadowy organization could take advantage of the country's instability as a political crisis festers and U.S. troops withdraw.
"The Mahdi Army has a wish to come back to the arena again," said Emad Hossein, a representative of an older, moderate Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Hossein Sadr, who is related to Muqtada Sadr but politically his opposite.
"They had this golden time when they controlled the streets, neighborhoods and gas stations," Hossein said. "Now they are just waiting for something to happen, or to receive an order. They are waiting to use the moment to climb on the shoulders of others to get what they want: power, at the expense of the people."
Muqtada Sadr, scion of a famous and powerful clerical family, launched the Mahdi Army in 2003, drawing in thousands of poor, young Shiite men into what eventually became a loosely defined sectarian militia that repeatedly confronted U.S. and Iraqi forces. Sadr demobilized the militia in 2008, after Prime Minister Nouri Maliki launched a series of offensives against it in Baghdad and Basra.
Now the militia members have regrouped, say supporters and critics of the organization, and sought — not for the first time — to recast themselves as a social movement aiming to educate the young.
In interviews with Sadr supporters, they speak of computer and Koran classes, providing money for the sick and repairing broken sewage lines.
"They're trying to create [a nongovernmental organization] to deal with cultural issues, to deal with education, to increase IT skills," said lawmaker Mohammad Deraji, a British-educated rising star in the Sadr movement. "That's why we created these new entities. Hundreds of thousands of people are involved."
But in an ominous echo of the Mahdi Army's early rhetoric, they also vow to protect their communities as a wave of terrorist bombings and shootings has coincided with the deadlock over forming a new government.
"The security situation has deteriorated," said Hassan Kashef, a 25-year-old ex-militiaman now serving as a member of the Monasseroon, one of the three new branches of Sadr's organization. "The security forces are loyal only to the parties, and not to the people."
Though they insist they are unarmed, Kashef and others in the Sadr movement say they reserve the right to fight any continued U.S. presence.
"There are occupation forces," Deraji said. "Any country that is occupied by other countries, they have the right to resist the occupation."
Adding to the confusion and the potential for violence, observers say there are at least two major outgrowths of the Mahdi Army's militia: the Promised Day Brigades sanctioned by Sadr and a splinter group called the League of the Righteous. Some describe the latter as an Iranian-controlled militia linked to Shiite militant organizations, which the U.S. called Special Groups, that were once accused of using sophisticated roadside bombs against troops.
Iraqi and U.S. forces have already had some run-ins with Promised Day. On May 28, Iraqi security forces arrested a member of the group "allegedly involved in sniper, indirect fire and improvised explosive device attacks" against American and Iraqi forces, according to a U.S. military news release.
U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill said in a briefing with reporters last month that American forces were closely monitoring reports of the resurrection of the Mahdi Army but were not convinced that it was an imminent threat to Iraqis or U.S. forces.
"Iraqi security forces are the legitimate force authorized by the Iraq Constitution to secure and protect the population," Maj. Gen. Stephen Lanza, a spokesman for U.S. forces in Iraq, said in response to an inquiry. "We agree with Prime Minister Maliki that militias operating outside the constitution would be problematic and counterproductive."
During December religious ceremonies commemorating the martyrdom of the Shiite saint Imam Hussein, Promised Day and League of the Righteous organized competing processions, alarming bystanders who watched them taunt each other.
"It's hard to distinguish which is which," Hossein said. "There is some mixture, but there is also a lot of bad blood between them."
In Baghdad neighborhoods such as Habibiya and Sadr City, as well as southern Iraqi cities that were once Mahdi Army strongholds, former militants such as Mohammad stand watch over streets.
They appear unarmed, dress in civilian clothes and trim their beards neatly, part of an image makeover Sadr movement supporters are attempting.
Occasionally, along crowded sidewalks and during Friday prayers, they distribute discs loaded with video of Promised Day and old Mahdi Army military operations against U.S. and Iraqi forces, accompanied by soundtracks of martial anthems.
Mohammad, a burly and muscular man in his 30s, recently nodded hello to Naji. There was nothing menacing in the gesture. It was just an acknowledgement that they know each other.
"Now I see him again on a regular basis, with his gang," Naji said. "They run the alleyway. Nobody from the neighborhood talks to them. There is a real fear."
Unusually Frank Condemnation Leaves Shi'ite Govt in Doubt
by Jason Ditz, June 27, 2010
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/06/27/sadr-bloc-maliki-not-trustworthy-as-pm/
Sadrist Party spokesman Saleh al-Obeidi today issued an unusually frank condemnation of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, suggesting that he was wholly unacceptable as a candidate to retain his position in the next government.

“Iraq needs a government that relies on mutual trust,” Obeidi insisted, adding that Maliki had failed to fulfill his commitments to eliminate corruption. Maliki’s State of Law bloc has insisted that Maliki is the only acceptable candidate for the job.
The Sadrist Party has the largest number of seats in the Iraqi National Alliance, the bloc with which State of Law had planned on forming a government. Today’s comments were just the latest in a growing number of reports suggesting all was not well between the two Shi’ite blocs, however, and it seems that the path to government remains unclear.
The possible collapse of this alliance has given renewed hope to the Iraqiya bloc of Ayad Allawi, which won the largest plurality in the vote but was expected to be cut out of the government in favor of less secular blocs. Iraqiya met with the Sadrist faction last week, and Allawi and Maliki are said to be planning a talk in the next 48 hours.
Three and a half months after the Iraqi election, it remains unclear if any side will be able to negotiate enough of an alliance to form a serious coalition government. The process has been expected to be a slow one, but after several abortive attempts it seems little progress has been made, and no end is in sight.
Afghan war remains 'absolutely essential,' Obama says
March 28, 2010
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/28/obama.afghanistan/index.html?eref=rss_politics&utm_source
=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A
+Politics%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
President Obama tells troops: "Those folks back home are relying on you"
Obama and President Hamid Karzai discuss progress by the Afghan government
Afghan authorities were notified of Obama's trip on Thursday, White House says
(CNN) -- President Obama rallied U.S. troops and pledged continued partnership with Afghanistan during a previously unannounced trip to the country Sunday.
Speaking to about 2,000 U.S. and allied troops at the major U.S. base in Afghanistan, Obama said, "Those folks back home are relying on you."
"I know it's not easy," he said. "You're far away from home. You miss your kids, you miss your spouses, your family, your friends." But he added, "If I thought for a minute that America's vital interests were not served, were not at stake here in Afghanistan, I would order all of you home right away."
Earlier, Obama met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai at the Presidential Palace to discuss progress by the Afghan government in strengthening its ability to run the country and provide security for its people.
After the 30-minute meeting, Obama said he wanted to send a strong message that the partnership between the nations would continue. Obama also invited Karzai to Washington, and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the planned date for that visit is May 12.
Karzai said he wanted to "express the gratitude of our people for the help that America has given us for the last eight years," and he specifically thanked U.S. taxpayers for their aid in helping rebuild his country.
Time.com: Obama arrives in Afghanistan
However, Obama made clear that his main reason for the trip was to visit with some of the roughly 80,000 U.S. troops stationed in the country.
Video: Obama: Keep them on the run Video: Obama's Afghanistan remarks Video: Obama visits Afghanistan
Afghanistan: History's crossroads
After changing from a suit to an Air Force One flight jacket, Obama told the troops they were making progress against al Qaeda and its allies in the Taliban, the Islamic fundamentalist militia that ruled most of Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks.
"All of that makes America safer, and we are going to keep them on the run," he said. "Because that is what is going to be required in order to ensure that our families back home have the security that they need."
To cheers from the combined joint task force that includes troops from all four services, Obama said: "The United States of America does not quit once it starts on something. ... We keep at it. We persevere. And together, with our partners, we will prevail. I am absolutely confident of that."
Following his speech to the troops, Obama met with U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of allied troops in Afghanistan, before his scheduled departure for the flight home.
Obama's trip began in secrecy, with the president leaving his Camp David retreat. He flew to Afghanistan on Air Force One, landing at Bagram Air Base at 7:24 p.m. (around 11 a.m. ET). Obama then flew on a helicopter to the Presidential Palace to meet with Karzai.
The two presidents took part in a 10-minute arrival ceremony before walking into the palace for their meeting. U.S. officials said the two leaders planned to first meet along with key aides, and then bring in Karzai's cabinet.
In a briefing with pool reporters on the trip, National Security Adviser James Jones said Obama would push Karzai to improve efforts to meet benchmarks for better governance in his second term, which began last year.
According to Jones, Obama planned to point out that certain issues such as a merit-based system for appointing key government officials, battling corruption and taking on narcotics trafficking that helps fund insurgents needed more attention.
"We have to have the strategic rapport with President Karzai and his Cabinet to understand how we are going to succeed this year in reversing the momentum the Taliban and the opposition forces have been able to establish since 2006," Jones said.
A senior administration official said Obama told Karzai that some progress had been made, particularly involving local governance, establishing more credible national institutions and battling corruption.
The senior official characterized the meeting as very productive and businesslike.
Related: Afghanistan Crossroads
The trip came after what has been perhaps the most successful week of Obama's presidency, in which he signed comprehensive health care legislation -- his top domestic priority -- into law and announced plans to sign a new nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia on April 8.
Gibbs said Afghan authorities were notified of Obama's trip on Thursday. The president previously postponed a trip to Indonesia and Australia planned for March 21-26 in order to see through passage of the health care bill.
Since taking office, Obama ordered the deployment of an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan while also saying he intended for combat forces to start coming home in July 2011.
U.S. officials said Sunday there were nearly 80,000 U.S. troops now on the ground in Afghanistan, and the surge announced by Obama would increase the total to 98,000 once fully implemented by the end of the year. Roughly 10,000 of the 30,000 surge troops were in place now, officials said. In addition, NATO partners have more than 40,000 troops in Afghanistan, according to the officials.
Karzai has said that by the end of 2010, Afghan security forces will be able to take over some security responsibilities from international forces. By the end of his second term in 2014, Karzai has said he would like his government to have full responsibility for security.
Karzai emerged victorious from August presidential elections that were marred by widespread fraud. Two months after the vote, a U.N.-backed panel of election monitors threw out nearly a third of Karzai's votes, citing fraud. Left short of a majority, Karzai agreed to a runoff with challenger Abdullah Abdullah, but Abdullah withdrew just before the runoff vote.
The trip is Obama's second to Afghanistan. He first traveled there in 2008, four months before his victory in the election that made him president. On that visit, part of a broader trip to the Middle East, Obama traveled to eastern Afghanistan to meet with U.S. forces and also met with Karzai.
Obama: U.S. leaving Iraq ‘on schedule’
Posted: 08/02/2010 11:18:27 PM EDT
http://www.benningtonbanner.com/news/ci_15662702?source=rss
Monday August 2, 2010
ATLANTA (AP) -- President Barack Obama declared Monday that the Iraq war was nearing an end "as promised and on schedule," touting what he called a success of his administration though it comes amid persistent instability and uncertainty in Iraq.
Obama cited progress toward meeting his deadline of withdrawing all U.S.combat troops from Iraq by the end of this month. A transitional force of 50,000 troops will remain to train Iraqi security forces, conduct counterterrorism operations and provide security for ongoing U.S. civilian efforts. Under an agreement negotiated in 2008 with the Iraqis, all American troops are to be gone from Iraq by the end of next year.
"The hard truth is we have not seen the end of American sacrifice in Iraq," Obama said in a speech to the national convention of the Disabled American Veterans. "But 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."
The main focus of Obama’s appearance was the move toward fulfillment of Obama’s campaign promise to end the Iraq war, a position that perhaps most defined his 2008 candidacy and was key to his base of support in the liberal wing of his party.
With pivotal congressional elections approaching, the White House wants to highlight the progress as a success story. Monday’s speech was only the first in a series of such
events planned for this month, with others to be headlined by the president as well as Vice President Joe Biden and other administration officials.
"The message is, when the president makes a commitment, he keeps it," White House spokesman Bill Burton told reporters traveling with Obama to Georgia on Air Force One.
But the rhetoric comes amid deep concerns about Iraq’s stability.
U.S. officials have stepped up the pressure on Iraqi leaders to overcome a political impasse that has prevented the formation of a new government for the nearly five months since parliamentary elections that did not produce a clear winner.
In a reminder of Iraq’s fragility, two bombings and a drive-by shooting killed eight people there Monday.
With such attacks remaining a daily occurrence, especially in Baghdad, questions persist about the readiness of Iraqi security forces to take over for the Americans and tamp down insurgents. Obama said, "Violence in Iraq continues to be near the lowest it’s been in years," but figures released by Iraqi authorities over the weekend -- dismissed by the U.S. military as too high -- showed July to be the deadliest month for Iraqis in more than two years.
At the same time Obama has drawn down forces in Iraq, he has increased the U.S.commitment in Afghanistan, ordering a surge of 30,000 additional troops for the 9-year mission there.
But with casualties on the rise, fresh concerns have arisen -- with some saying the Afghanistan war should be ended and others questioning Obama’s plan to begin winding it down as soon as next July. Critics say such a timetable will embolden the Taliban and other extremist groups in the region.
With such debate and low public support, the White House has launched a fresh effort to paint the U.S. goals in Afghanistan as modest: keeping the region from being a haven for terrorists.
"We face huge challenges in Afghanistan," Obama said Monday. "But it’s important that the American people know that we are making progress and we’re focused on goals that are clear and achievable."
Despite the increase in Afghanistan, there are fewer U.S. troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan now than there were when Obama took office last year. Come September, when the Iraq drawdown is complete, the White House says there will 146,000 troops on the ground, down from 177,000 in January 2009.
Speaking before a mostly friendly crowd of more than 2,500 disabled veterans, some in wheelchairs, others with lost limbs, Obama promised an all-out effort to support troops. "Your government is going to take care of you when you come home," he said.
After the speech, he was heading to a lunch benefiting the Democratic National Committee, his latest stop in a summer fundraising sprint that also includes events in Chicago later this week. But Georgia’s most prominent Democrat, former Gov. Roy Barnes, wasn’t joining Obama in Atlanta. Barnes, who is running to get his old job back, had previously scheduled events in southern Georgia, his campaign said.
Distancing himself from the president could be politically smart for Barnes. Georgia is a Republican stronghold that John McCain carried in 2008. A poll conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. in July had Obama with a 37 percent approval rating in the state. Fifty percent of those surveyed disapproved of Obama’s performance.