|
|
|
 |
Homeland Security Focus
Areas U.S. might open office in Iran Diplomatic outpost less than embassy
Tuesday, June 24, 2008 2:53 AM By Matthew Lee and Anne Gearan ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is considering setting up a diplomatic outpost in Iran in what would mark a dramatic official U.S. return to the country nearly 30 years after the American Embassy in Tehran was overrun and the two nations severed relations. Even as it threatens the Iranian regime with sanctions and possible military action over its nuclear program, the administration is floating the idea of opening a U.S.- interests section in Tehran similar to the one the State Department runs in Havana, diplomatic and political officials said yesterday. Like the one in communist Cuba, an interest section, or a de facto embassy, in the Iranian capital would give the United States a presence on the ground through which it could communicate directly with students, dissidents and others without endorsing the government, one official said. It would process visa applications and serve as a center for American cultural outreach to Iranians, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The U.S. has no diplomatic presence in Iran and relies on the Swiss Embassy in Tehran to serve as its "protecting power." The Swiss pass messages to the Iranian foreign ministry on Washington's behalf and handle the affairs of U.S. citizens in the country. The idea of a separate U.S. flag office arose in part out of concern about Switzerland's decision this year to sign a long-term gas contract with Iran. Also yesterday, EU nations, meeting in Brussels, Belgium, approved new sanctions against Iran. The additional financial and travel restrictions target a list of Iranian companies and experts, including the country's largest bank. But don't expect the EU, China, Russia or the U.S. to agree anytime soon to tougher sanctions that would ban oil and gas exports from Tehran in response to its nuclear program. European Union officials stressed the importance of the 27-nation bloc's "carrot and stick" approach, which Europeans feel Western powers should continue as they try to sway Iran from an alleged plan to build nuclear weapons. They acknowledged that any agreement on harsher energy sanctions, which could further push up energy prices, would be hard to reach, both within the bloc and with China and Russia.
NYTimes.com June 21, 2008 News Analysis Bush May End Term with Iran Issue UnsettledWASHINGTON — For more than five years now, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have made clear that they did not want to leave office with Iran any closer to possessing nuclear weapons than when they took office. “The nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons,” Mr. Bush said in February 2006. The United States is prepared to use its naval power “to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region,” Mr. Cheney said in 2007 from a Navy carrier in the Persian Gulf. But with seven months left in this administration, Iran appears ascendant, its political and economic influence growing, its historic foes in Iraq and Afghanistan weakened, and its nuclear program continuing to move forward. So the question now is: Are Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney resigned to leaving Iran more powerful than they found it when they came to office? The evidence is mixed. For all the talk to the contrary, Bush administration officials appear to have concluded that diplomatic efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions will not yield any breakthroughs this year. Despite a recent flurry of efforts to tighten sanctions on Iran, top officials on both sides of the Atlantic, in recent interviews, had no expectations that Iran’s rulers would make any concessions, particularly on the critical issue of suspending the enrichment of uranium, while Mr. Bush remained in office. On the military front, the picture is fuzzier. Two senior administration officials said that barring a move by Israel, which one characterized as “the wild card” on the Iranian issue, this administration would not be likely to pursue military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets. Mr. Bush himself seemed to signal as much at the start of his European tour last week in Slovenia, when he said of Iran that he expected to “leave behind a multilateral framework to work on this issue,” a statement that seemed to suggest that military action against Iran may no longer be on the table. But there remains the possibility that Israel could force the hand of the Bush administration, foreign policy analysts and diplomats said. Israel carried out a three-day military exercise this month that American intelligence officials say appeared to have been a rehearsal for a potential strike on nuclear targets in Iran. Israeli officials have tried to put pressure in recent months on the Bush administration to consider such a strike if Iran did not abandon its nuclear program, and the exercise may have been intended as a new signal that Israel might be willing to act alone if the United States did not. “Israel prefers this threat be dealt with peacefully, by dramatically increasing sanctions and maintaining a credible resolve to keep all options on the table,” said Sallai Meridor, the Israeli ambassador to the United States. “But time is running out.” Iran, he said, “should understand that under no circumstances will the world allow it to obtain a nuclear capability.” Mohamad ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Al Arabiya television that he would quit his job in the event of a military strike on Iran. “It would turn the region into a fireball,” he said in an interview broadcast Friday, according to Reuters. Israeli officials have expressed fear to the Bush administration that a new administration would take months, if not years, to decide on its approach to Iran. The consensus in the United States and Europe is that Iran is still at least two years away from a nuclear weapon. Israeli officials say they believe the threshold is closer to a year. An Israeli military strike on Iran would almost certainly require American help. For one thing, Pentagon officials say, it would take hundreds of sorties to take out a big swath of Iranian air defense. For another, the United States controls much of the airspace around Iran. Beyond that, Iran would hold the United States accountable for an Israeli strike, and could retaliate against American troops in Iraq. In Moscow on Friday, Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov urged dialogue rather than confrontation with Iran and said that the United States and Israel had not offered any proof that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. “So far we have not seen any,” Mr. Lavrov said, according to Interfax news agency. A trip to Tehran last weekend by European diplomats with a new package of incentives was largely for Iranian public consumption, and to appease Russia and China by appearing to be still trying to woo Iran, European and American diplomats said. But European diplomats have been loath to acknowledge publicly that diplomacy on Iran’s nuclear development is in a holding pattern for the next eight months because they fear that Iran will only use that time to make progress on its nuclear program, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes. “One should not talk about keeping the status quo because that would be dangerous,” one European diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity under diplomatic rules. “We can’t say the clock has stopped and we will begin work again after Jan. 1; that is not a good recipe for success.” Administration efforts to convey a sense of urgency about stopping Iran’s nuclear program were dealt a blow late last year with the release of a National Intelligence Estimate reporting that Iran had stopped work on a nuclear weapons program in 2003. In recent months, Bush administration officials have tried to walk back from that report, repeating often that Iran’s nuclear program remains a threat. Many foreign policy experts are now looking to the next administration for a possible new approach to the standoff with Iran. “The Europeans all understand that the carrots-and-sticks approach is not working, and the entire Iran diplomatic policy has to be rethought,” said Vali R. Nasr, an Iran expert at Tufts University. Until a new administration takes over, he said, “we’re stuck in a process where the ball is kicked to the bureaucrats.” Sophia Kishkovsky contributed reporting from Moscow.
Iraqi Official: Security Pact Altered By Karen DeYoung U.S. and Iraqi officials negotiating long-term security agreements have reworded a proposed White House commitment to defend Iraq against foreign aggression in an effort to avoid submitting the deal for congressional approval, Iraq's foreign minister said yesterday. The alternative under discussion will pledge U.S. forces to "help Iraqi security forces to defend themselves," rather than a U.S. promise to defend Iraq, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said. Although "it's the other way around," he said, "the meaning is the same, almost." Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.), one of the most outspoken critics of the proposed agreement, called the change "a distinction without a difference." Senior Democratic and Republican lawmakers have questioned whether the accord will constitute a defense treaty requiring congressional ratification and have accused the Bush administration of withholding information on the talks. Zebari, who spoke yesterday with Washington Post reporters and editors, also said he was "reassured" by his telephone conversation Monday with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. Obama has said he would begin an immediate withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq. Zebari said Obama told him that the Iraqi government and people could be sure that, "if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action" that would endanger security gains. "Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field," Zebari said Obama told him. Obama "wants redeployment, he wants a timetable" for withdrawal, Zebari added. But "he is not interested to pull all the troops out. He wants a residual force" to continue fighting terrorists in Iraq, protect U.S. diplomatic facilities and possibly continue training Iraqi security forces. Obama has spoken of such a "residual" force, without specifying where it would be based or how many troops it would include. Denis McDonough, who advises Obama on foreign policy, yesterday confirmed much of Zebari's account of their conversation, saying that the two "discussed" where residual U.S. troops would be based and that "at least some of that force will have to be in Iraq." McDonough disagreed with Zebari's observation that there was "not too much difference" between Obama's position and that of the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), with whom Zebari met Sunday. While McCain favors continuing current administration policy, "Barack has made clear that he favors a timetable . . . and wants to use that timetable to press Iraq's political leaders to resolve their political differences," McDonough said. Zebari said he was optimistic that the negotiations -- on a status-of-forces agreement, or SOFA, governing the rights and responsibilities of U.S. troops in Iraq, and on a "strategic framework" outlining long-term political, cultural and security ties -- could be concluded by the end of July. The agreements are to go into effect Jan. 1, when the U.N. mandate governing the U.S. military presence in Iraq expires. The foreign minister said the United States had compromised on a range of contentious SOFA issues -- including backing down on full immunity for civilian U.S. security contractors in Iraq -- following complaints that those issues would violate Iraq's sovereignty. He indicated that rejected U.S. proposals for unilateral authority over all U.S. military operations and the ability to arrest and detain Iraqi citizens would be resolved by the formation of joint "commissions" that would supervise such actions. While Iraqis across the political spectrum have criticized the terms of the status-of-forces agreement, Congress has focused on the broader "framework" pact. In a document he signed last fall with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, President Bush pledged "security assurances and commitments . . . to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace." Under sharp questioning from U.S. lawmakers, the administration has insisted that the agreement will be "nonbinding" and can be legally signed by Bush without congressional approval. But Maliki said last week that the administration had "abandoned" its defense pledge during negotiations and that Iraq still wanted a vow that "it would be defended" from foreign attacks. Zebari said "our lawyers and their lawyers" had determined they could avoid the ratification problem with a pledge to "help" Iraqis defend themselves.
NYTimes.com June 16, 2008 No Rushing Talks on Pact With U.S., Iraqis SayBy ALISSA J. RUBIN and SUADAD AL-SALHY BAGHDAD — Discussions among Iraqi politicians on the country’s long-term security agreement with the United States were under way over the weekend, but it will take many weeks and more likely months before the agreement is completed, people close to the negotiations said. American officials would like a deal by the end of July, before the Democratic and Republican national conventions. But for Iraqis, who have an election law to complete in the next month so they can prepare for an election of their own in the fall, that seems like a tight deadline. “None of the articles have yet been agreed to,” said Fouad Massoun, a Kurd who is involved in the discussions. “The negotiations are in the primary stage.” Meeting the July 31 deadline “will be very difficult,” said Humam Hamoudi, a powerful member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a Shiite party that backs the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. The agreement will regulate the relationship between the American military and the Iraqis after the expiration at the end of the year of a United Nations resolution authorizing the presence of foreign troops in the country. The latest draft of the new bilateral agreement offered by the Americans made some significant concessions but in several important areas did not move close enough to Iraqi demands, according to several participants in the Iraqi committee that is meeting regularly to discuss the pact. They consulted for several hours on Saturday and agreed that Mr. Maliki should lead the negotiations. The overarching question is how much control Iraq will have over the activities of the American military on Iraqi soil. The Americans have said they will allow civilian contractors to be held accountable under Iraqi law, said Mahmoud Othman, a member of the Political Council for National Security. He said they had also agreed to hand over to the Iraqis people captured by American soldiers and accused of crimes. Such detainees are now held in American facilities. They will also transfer suspects already held in American detention centers to the Iraqis, Mr. Othman said. But that leaves many practical questions unanswered. There are now roughly 21,000 detainees in American custody; if they were transferred to Iraqi custody, where would they go? The Iraqis do not have facilities for them, and it would not be easy for Americans to hand over their detention centers at Camp Cropper and Camp Bucca to the Iraqis. The Iraqis appear to have agreed to allow the Americans to continue to control their airspace because the Iraqis lack the extensive flight control expertise and equipment necessary, said Mr. Othman and another member of the Political Council for National Security. When Iraqis say they want their sovereignty respected, they are talking in part about having the power to set the terms of the relationship between the United States and Iraq. For instance, will American soldiers be able to undertake military operations as they see fit, as they do now? The Iraqis are discussing possible compromises. “One idea is to have a joint Iraqi-American committee that would approve all operations,” Mr. Hamoudi said. Although the United States has agreements around the world with countries about the behavior of American soldiers stationed on foreign soil, including those with many American troops, like South Korea, Japan and Germany, none involve soldiers carrying out active combat operations. Another reason the Iraqis believe it will take some time to complete a pact is that they have been visiting other countries with American bases, to look at their security agreements. The Iraqis want to hire European and American legal consultants to review those and their own proposed security agreement with the Americans.
NYTimes.com June 13, 2008 Brown Faces New Protests Over Terror BillLONDON — Prime Minister Gordon Brown faced down a revolt within his governing Labor Party on Wednesday, winning a precariously narrow victory in the House of Commons for a measure that among other things would allow the authorities to hold terrorism suspects for up to 42 days without charges. But he faced further protest against the measure Thursday when a senior opposition politician, David Davis, the Conservative Party’s home affairs spokesman, abruptly resigned his parliamentary seat. Mr. Davis said he would stand in the by-election in his constituency forced by his resignation when he would argue “against the slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms by this government.” The move by Mr. Davis, who was speaking to reporters outside the House of Commons, is likely to keep a focus on the contentious counterterrorism measure. Whether it becomes law, and when, now depends on the government’s success in navigating the new bill past the House of Lords, where it may not be introduced until the fall and where it is expected to meet stronger opposition than in the House of Commons. Opponents of the measure, which extends the current detention limit of 28 days, say it would give Britain detention powers that have few parallels in other Western democracies. They have promised a legal challenge under the European Convention on Human Rights, a recourse that has led to increasingly frequent rebuffs for the British government on issues affecting civil liberties. The House of Commons vote was 315 to 306, with the nine-vote margin supplied by a last-minute decision to vote for the measure by the Democratic Unionist Party, a group of Northern Ireland Protestants who share power in the Belfast government with the predominantly Roman Catholic Sinn Fein. More than 30 Labor rebels who voted against the measure appeared to have stood firm in their opposition despite intense pressure from Mr. Brown, whose determination to press ahead with the bill had turned the vote into a test of his own embattled leadership. For weeks, backbench opposition within the Labor Party had threatened Mr. Brown with a humiliating parliamentary defeat. The Labor rebels were joined in their fight against the measure by the opposition Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, by Britain’s leading civil liberties groups, and by organizations representing Britain’s population of at least 1.5 million Muslims, which warned that use of the extended detention powers against Muslim terrorism suspects would further alienate Muslims and weaken the wider struggle against Islamic militancy. By avoiding an immediate crisis for the government, Mr. Brown, 57, appeared to have won breathing space over the summer to try to rebuild the Labor Party’s dismal political fortunes and to bolster his own position. Opinion polls show that after barely a year in office, he is the most unpopular British leader of modern times. But the murmurings against Mr. Brown within the Labor Party, which must face the resurgent Conservatives in a general election within two years, are not likely to be stilled by a vote that the government survived only because of the last-minute support of the deeply conservative Democratic Unionists. The bloc’s nine members made little secret of the fact that they had traded their votes for concessions on a range of unrelated issues affecting Northern Ireland, including a multimillion-dollar subsidy on water rates. Other concessions offered by Mr. Brown appeared to have had only a marginal impact on the vote. Among these was a pledge by the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, to pay compensation, which some lawmakers said would be as much as $6,000 a day, to detainees held beyond 28 days who were released without charge. The government had already redrafted the terrorism bill to provide a complex network of safeguards. For suspects to be held beyond 28 days, the government would have to win parliamentary backing for an order, valid for 30 days, declaring “a grave exceptional terrorist threat.” Any suspect held beyond 28 days would have the right to appeal to a judge. The new counterterrorism bill was passed three years after the July 7, 2005, attacks on the London transit system that killed 56 people, including the four suicide bombers. And it reflects growing fears that underground militant groups are infiltrating mosques and Muslim community groups across Britain. Jonathan Evans, the director general of Britain’s domestic intelligence service, MI5, warned last year that there were at least 2,000 people in Britain who posed a threat to national security because of their support for terrorism, and said that youths as young as 15 were being recruited by groups sympathetic to Al Qaeda. Supporters of the extended 42-day detention limit, including many of the country’s top police officials, have pointed to a wave of terrorism trials since the 2005 attacks, including one under way in London in which eight men are accused of a 2006 plot to smuggle explosives in soft drink bottles onto airliners leaving Heathrow airport, in London, for the United States. Ms. Smith has said that 65 Islamic terrorists have been convicted in trials held in Britain in the past year alone. Police commanders have said that some recent terrorist cases, including the Heathrow plot, have involved complex investigations reaching into a web of interlinked terrorist cells, and the decryption of evidence found on hundreds of seized computers and the examination of thousands of computer disks. In some cases, the commanders have said, they have brought charges right at the end of the 28-day limit. Civil liberties groups have said that the crucial evidence in the cases cited by the police was available much earlier in the detention period. The Brown government’s decision to push for the longer detention limit is a new step in the process of strengthening Britain’s detention law in recent years. From 48 hours in 2000, the limit was extended to 14 days in 2003, and to 28 days in 2006, after the Blair government was defeated in 2005 in a bid to push the limit to 90 days. After taking office last year, Mr. Brown proposed a limit of 56 days, but settled for 42 days in the face of widespread opposition. Before the vote, Mr. Brown told the Commons that the government wanted to change the law “in a moment of calm,” rather than wait for a “a moment of panic” after a major terrorist attack. “Our first duty is the protection of national security, and we fail in our duty if we don’t take preventative measures,” he said. David Cameron, the Conservative leader, suggested that Mr. Brown was seeking to reverse his sinking popularity by acting tough on terrorism, even at the cost of legal safeguards that had taken centuries to develop. “Isn’t it clear that terrorists want to destroy our freedom, and when we trash our liberties, we do their work for them?” he said. Graham Bowley contributed reporting from New York.
Iraqis Condemn American Demands
By Amit R. Paley and Karen DeYoung BAGHDAD, June 10 -- High-level negotiations over the future role of the U.S. military in Iraq have turned into an increasingly acrimonious public debate, with Iraqi politicians denouncing what they say are U.S. demands to maintain nearly 60 bases in their country indefinitely. Top Iraqi officials are calling for a radical reduction of the U.S. military's role here after the U.N. mandate authorizing its presence expires at the end of this year. Encouraged by recent Iraqi military successes, government officials have said that the United States should agree to confine American troops to military bases unless the Iraqis ask for their assistance, with some saying Iraq might be better off without them. "The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq," said Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite politician on parliament's foreign relations committee who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you here anymore.' " Congress has grown increasingly restive over the negotiations, which would produce a status of forces agreement setting out the legal rights and responsibilities of U.S. troops in Iraq and a broader "security framework" defining the political and military relationship between the two countries. Senior lawmakers of both parties have demanded more information and questioned the Bush administration's insistence that no legislative approval is required. In Iraq, the willingness to consider calling for the departure of American troops represents a major shift for members of the U.S.-backed government. Maliki this week visited Iran, where Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, urged him to reject any long-term security arrangements with the United States. Failing to reach agreements this year authorizing the future presence of American forces in Iraq would be a strategic setback for the Bush administration, which says that such a presence is essential to promoting stability. Absent the agreements or the extension of the U.N. mandate, U.S. troops would have no legal basis to remain in Iraq. President Bush has spoken directly to Maliki about the issue in recent days and instructed his negotiating team to show greater flexibility, Iraqi politicians said. U.S. officials circulated a draft of the status of forces agreement over the weekend without many of the most controversial demands, buoying hopes that a deal could be reached, according to Iraq lawmakers. David M. Satterfield, the State Department's top adviser on Iraq, said he is confident the pacts can be finalized in July, a deadline that Bush and Maliki endorsed last year. "It's doable," he told reporters in Baghdad. "We think it's an achievable goal." U.S. officials have refused to publicly discuss details of the negotiations. But Iraqi politicians have become more open in their descriptions of the talks, stoking popular anger at American demands that Iraqis across the political spectrum view as a form of continued occupation. "What the U.S. wants is to take the current status quo and try to regulate it in a new agreement. And what we want is greater respect for Iraqi sovereignty," said Haider al-Abadi, a parliament member from Maliki's Dawa party. "Signing the agreement would mean that the Iraqi government had given up its sovereignty by its own consent. And that will never happen." Iraqi officials plan to present the status of forces document and the security framework to parliament as a single agreement. In a news conference in the heavily fortified Green Zone, Satterfield repeated several times that the U.S. goal is to create a more independent Iraq. "We want to see Iraqi sovereignty strengthened, not weakened," he said. Abadi and other Iraqi officials said that assertion is undercut by the U.S. request to maintain 58 long-term bases in Iraq. The Americans originally pushed for more than 200 facilities across the country, according to Hadi al-Amiri, a powerful lawmaker who is the head of the Badr Organization, the former armed wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the country's largest Shiite political party. Iraqi officials said the U.S. government also demanded the continuation of several current policies: authority to detain and hold Iraqis without turning them over to the Iraqi judicial system, immunity from Iraqi prosecution for both U.S. troops and private contractors, and the prerogative for U.S. forces to conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi government. The American negotiators also called for continued control over Iraqi airspace and the right to refuel planes in the air, according to Askari, positions he said added to concerns that the United States was preparing to use Iraq as a base to attack Iran. "We rejected the whole thing from the beginning," said Jalal al-Din al-Saghir, a senior lawmaker from the Supreme Council. "In my point of view, it would just be a new occupation with an Iraqi signature." If the talks collapse, several Iraqi officials said, they would request another one-year extension of the U.N. mandate. But Iraqi officials said they would also ask for modifications to the mandate similar to those they are seeking in the current negotiations. "All the same issues would then be transferred to the talks with the U.N. Security Council," Abadi said. Assuming that violence in Iraq will continue to decrease, politicians such as Saghir have begun discussing another option: asking the U.S. military to leave Iraq. "Maybe the Iraqi government will say: 'Hey, the security situation is better. We don't need any more troops in Iraq,' " he said. "Or we could have a pledge of honor where the American troops leave but come back and protect Iraq if there is any aggression." The Iraqi government is also upset because it wants the United Nations to lift its Chapter 7 designation of Iraq as a threat to international security, which dates from Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Iraqi officials said the United States will not commit to supporting the removal of the label -- a position the Iraqis call an inappropriate bargaining tactic. U.S. negotiators also said the agreements would not obligate the American military to protect Iraq from foreign aggression, Iraqi officials said, a promise they believe was a fundamental part of a declaration of principles signed by Bush and Maliki last winter. "The prime minister is not happy about this," said Askari, who helped negotiate the declaration of principles, which outlined the strategic framework. "This is not what we agreed on." Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish member of parliament who has been briefed on the negotiations, said the Americans recently had changed their position on four key issues: Private contractors would no longer be guaranteed immunity; detainees would be turned over to the Iraqi judicial system after combat operations; U.S. troops would operate only with the agreement of the Iraqi government; and the Americans would promise not to use Iraq as a base for attacking other countries. "Now the American position is much more positive and more flexible than before," said Mohammed Hamoud, an Iraqi deputy foreign minister who is a lead negotiator in the talks. In Washington, the White House hastily organized a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday after Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.), the chairman and ranking minority member of the Armed Services Committee, respectively, demanded Monday that the administration "be more transparent with Congress, with greater consultation, about the progress and content of these deliberations." In a letter Monday to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Levin and Warner wrote that Congress, "in exercising its constitutional responsibilities, has legitimate concerns about the authorities, protections and understandings that might be made" in the agreements. Although they have questioned the status of forces agreement's contents, lawmakers have not raised the issue of its congressional ratification. The United States is a party to more than 80 such bilateral agreements in countries where American forces are stationed, but its proposals for the Iraq accord far exceed the terms of any of the others. Such agreements are traditionally signed by the U.S. president under his executive authority. Although the administration has since said that the security framework is "nonbinding" and would not include any provisions for permanent bases or specific troop numbers, lawmakers charged that the White House was trying to tie the hands of Bush's successor and said the terms of the accord amounts to a defense treaty requiring congressional approval. In a Senate hearing in April, a senior Defense Department lawyer acknowledged under questioning by Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) that the Pentagon had no definition for the term "permanent base" and that it "doesn't really mean anything." DeYoung reported from Washington.
Iran's supreme leader opposes US-Iraq dealBy ALI AKBAR DAREINI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA Associated Press Writers 10:10 PM CDT, June 9, 2008 TEHRAN, Iran Iraq's prime minister made little headway in easing Iranian opposition to a U.S.-Iraqi security pact, as Iran's supreme leader told him Monday that American troops must leave the country.
Air Force Magazine Online
Air Force Leadership Resigns: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates accepted the resignation of Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Gen. Michael Moseley, Chief of Staff, on June 5. Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon that same day, Gates said he believed that a change in leadership was needed "to bring in a new perspective and especially to underscore the issue of accountability." Gates faulted USAF's leadership pair for a "lack of effective oversight" in the service's stewardship of nuclear weapons, "perhaps its most sensitive mission." Indeed, he said, these declining standards were epitomized by the errant transfer of nuclear cruise missiles aboard a B-52 bomber last August and the mistaken shipment of Minuteman III ICBM missile components to Taiwan that came to light in March. Gates said these shortcomings "required strong action" on his part. The Taiwan incident "clearly was the trigger," Gates said, in accepting the resignations. "I think it . . . prompted me to believe that there were serious systemic problems here" that went "well beyond" the B-52 incident. Gates said he consulted with President George Bush and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen on this action. He thanked Wynne and Moseley for their service, saying "they both deserve our gratitude." He said he would recommend a new CSAF and service secretary shortly. Wynne issued a statement June 5, saying it has been "an honor and pleasure" to lead the service and its airmen "while working side-by-side with Gen. Moseley." However, he said. "recent events convince me that it is now time for a new leader to take the stick and for me to move on." Moseley, in his June5 resignation announcement, said, "Recent events have highlighted a loss of focus on certain critical matters within the Air Force." As USAF's senior uniformed leader, "I take full responsibility for events which have hurt the Air Force's reputation or raised a question of every Airman's commitment to our core values," he said. "I think the honorable thing to do is to step aside." AFA Reaction to Wynne and Moseley Resignations: The Air Force Association noted "with the utmost regret" the resignations of Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley on June 5 (see above). In a statement, AFA said both men "made significant contributions" to the Air Force during their tenure. AFA Chairman of the Board Bob Largent said "their visionary leadership in articulating legitimate Air Force requirements is precisely what our Air Force needs during these challenging times."
. . . And Senior Lawmakers Weigh In: Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, expressed his gratitude to Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Air Force Gen. Michael Moseley, Chief of Staff, for their many years of service on the news June 5 that they are stepping down. However, in a statement, Levin said Defense Secretary Robert Gates "took appropriate action" in accepting their resignations. His counterpart, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, similarly said Wynne and Moseley "have earned our deep respect and gratitude." But he, too, said he fully understands "the importance of properly handling and securing nuclear weapons and components" and the errant transfer of nuclear armed cruise missiles last year and the misshipment of missile nose cones to Taiwan--for which Gates faulted USAF's leadership--"should never have happened" (see above). Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) who oversees DOD nuclear-related issues as chair of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, issued a release, stating that Gates "made the right decision by accepting" their resignations. Despite Wynne's and Moseley's "long and patriotic contributions," these changes should serve as an opportunity "to correct major cultural and systemic flaws" in USAF's handling of nuclear materials, she wrote.
Israel, Hezbollah carry out exchange Spy freed; soldiers' remains returned
Monday, June 2, 2008 3:04 AM By Aron Heller Associated Press
HUSSEIN MALLAASSOCIATED PRESS Nasim Nisr, who had just completed a six-year term for spying in Israel, rejoices over being released to Lebanon. JERUSALEM -- Israel handed over a convicted Hezbollah spy to Lebanon yesterday, and in a surprise move, Hezbollah turned over what it said were the body parts of Israeli soldiers killed in their war in 2006. The gesture by the Islamic militant group, along with recent comments by its leader, signaled that a larger prisoner exchange could be in the works between the two bitter enemies. Israel said that yesterday's exchanges were unrelated to any deal that would include Israel releasing the longest-serving Lebanese prisoner and Hezbollah freeing two soldiers kidnapped in a cross-border raid in 2006 that sparked the monthlong war. But a senior Israeli military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a deal is in the works, even though there is no timetable for finishing it. Israeli authorities took Nasim Nisr, an Israeli of Lebanese descent who had just completed a six-year sentence for espionage, and drove him from central Israel to the border. Hezbollah official Wafik Safa told the group's al-Manar TV station that it handed over a brown box containing the remains of Israeli soldiers killed in the war. The Israeli army said the remains will undergo forensic examination. Israel is believed to be holding seven Lebanese prisoners, including Samir Kantar, who has been in an Israeli prison since he was convicted of killing an Israeli family in 1979. Even if the larger exchange does goes through, it is unlikely to temper the animosity between Israel and Hezbollah, which, with Iranian backing, remains committed to the destruction of the Jewish state. The release of Kantar would be difficult for Israelis to accept. He is serving life sentences for infiltrating northern Israel in 1979 and killing four Israelis: a 28-year-old man, the man's 4-year-old daughter and two Israeli policemen. As Kantar beat the girl to death, her mother, while trying to silence the cries of her other daughter, accidentally smothered the 2-year-old.
Envoys sized up for Iraq duty 'Prime candidates' might be forced to serve, U.S. says Wednesday, May 28, 2008 4:18 AM By Matthew Lee ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- The State Department has begun to identify diplomats who could be forced to serve in Iraq next year unless enough volunteers come forward to fill about 300 positions, the Associated Press has learned. A department-wide notice issued yesterday says officials have looked through the files of all foreign-service officers who will be applying or "bidding" for new jobs in 2009 and have compiled a roster of candidates who are well-qualified to work at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and in outlying provinces. Those on the list will be notified of their status this week and urged to volunteer, according to the internal notice, which also was sent to all U.S. diplomatic missions abroad. If positions remain unfilled after the summer, those notified will become the core of a group of "prime candidates" who might be forced to go to Iraq, it says. The announcements, accompanied by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's appeal for volunteers, were obtained by the AP. "I am asking that you consider joining this highly motivated team of professionals as we look for volunteers for positions opening in 2009," Rice said. Her recorded message, which also deals with jobs coming open next year in Afghanistan, is to be shown on the State Department's internal television network. "Our brave volunteers are doing a tough but necessary job far away from family and friends," she said. "Employees and families deserve the nation's gratitude. I can assure you that they have mine, and I encourage you to join our teams in Baghdad and Kabul." The notices say the department hopes and expects that the call will be answered. A similar move late last year for 48 vacant jobs in Iraq caused an uproar when some foreign-service officers objected to forced tours in a war zone in what would have been the largest diplomatic call-up since the Vietnam War. That furor petered out when enough volunteers stepped up. As a result, the department decided to begin the process of staffing Iraq earlier with a "targeted recruitment effort." As part of that effort, State Department Director General Harry Thomas said in yesterday's announcement that his office is determining which diplomats are "particularly well-qualified to staff key positions in Iraq" that will come open in summer 2009. Since the United States reopened its embassies in Baghdad and Kabul, positions there have been filled with volunteers who serve one year and are offered numerous incentives including significant pay increases. At least three foreign-service personnel -- two diplomatic security agents and one political officer -- have been killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003.
NYTimes.com May 23, 2008 Generals Tell Senate They Hope for Modest Cut in U.S. Troops in Iraq This FallBy DAVID STOUT and STEVEN LEE MYERS WASHINGTON — President Bush’s nominees for commander of forces in the Middle East and senior commander in Baghdad told a Senate hearing on Thursday that modest troop reductions might be possible this fall and that the United States might not need to strengthen patrols for provincial elections now expected in November. But they acknowledged that Iraqi security forces would probably be unable to take the lead in all provinces of the country this year, as the Pentagon had optimistically predicted in December in an assessment of conditions. Gen. David H. Petraeus said at the hearing on his nomination to lead the military’s Central Command, which includes the Middle East and some adjacent areas, that the provincial elections would probably be held in November rather than October. The reason for the delay, he said, is the recent violence in Basra. That might mean that Iraq’s next vote occurs after presidential and Congressional elections in the United States on Nov. 4. Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, nominated to succeed General Petraeus as the top United States commander in Iraq, said he did not foresee a need for extra troops to guard against violence around the time of the Iraqi elections. Nevertheless, in response to a question from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who took time from her presidential campaign to vote on a war spending bill and attend the hearing of the Armed Services Committee, General Odierno said, “I will never say ‘never.’ ” As expected. General Petraeus forecast modest, further troop reductions before he leaves the Iraq command in the fall. “I do believe that there will be certain assets that, as we are already looking at the picture right now, we’ll be able to recommend can be either redeployed or not deployed to the theater in the fall,” he said. Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the panel, said, “That, I think, is good news to most of us.” He complimented the officers’ qualifications, indicating their confirmation was all but assured. “Regardless of one’s view of the wisdom of the policy that took us to Iraq in the first place and has kept us there over five years, we owe General Petraeus and General Odierno a debt of gratitude,” he said. “And regardless how long the administration may choose to remain engaged in the strife in that country, our troops are better off with the leadership these two distinguished soldiers provide.” President Bush, during a visit on Thursday to the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, N.C., again deferred to General Petraeus for any decision on more withdrawals. Another brigade of the division is headed back to Iraq in the fall. “My message to our commanders is this: You will have all the troops, you will have all the resources, you need to win in Iraq,” Mr. Bush said at the division’s annual review ceremony before 17,000 soldiers, as well as their families and friends. Having faced criticism that he had not outlined a strategy for ending America’s role in Iraq, or reducing it, Mr. Bush sought to do so, though only broadly. “Success will be when Al Qaeda has no safe havens in Iraq and Iraqis can protect themselves,” he said. “Success will be when Iraq is a nation that can support itself economically. Success will be when Iraq is a democracy that governs itself effectively and responds to the will of its people. Success will be when Iraq is a strong and capable ally in the war on terror.” Mr. Bush cited Iraq’s military operations in Basra and Baghdad, and declining inflation and increasing oil production, as progress. He also praised Iraq’s leaders, who have begun passing legislation that is viewed as necessary for political reconciliation. “We can’t expect them to reach agreement on every issue,” he said. “But we can expect Iraqis of all backgrounds to take an increasingly active role in the democratic process, share power and settle disputes by debating in the halls of government rather than fighting in the streets.” Mr. Bush toured a barracks that became notorious in April when the father of a sergeant returning from Afghanistan posted video online showing poor conditions there, including backed up sewage in the latrine. The Army said it had spent $3 million on repairs since. Mr. Bush, touring that latrine, now repainted and spotless, said the fort’s older barracks were being replaced by new ones. David Stout reported from Washington, and Steven Lee Myers from Fort Bragg, N.C. Thom Shanker contributed reporting from Washington.
Bush warns of talks with 'radicals'In Israel, evokes appeasement of Hitler Obama, others call remarks unwarranted political attackBy Sasha Issenberg, Globe Staff | May 16, 2008 WASHINGTON - President Bush yesterday used a high-profile speech in Israel to attack the idea of pursuing diplomatic talks with renegade countries such as Iran, a key element of Barack Obama's agenda, likening it to the failed appeasement of Germany prior to World War II. "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said in a speech to the Knesset, Israel's parliament, in Jerusalem. Bush pushes for Mideast peace. A6. Bush did not mention the Democratic frontrunner by name and the White House officially denied that Bush was referring to Obama. But White House officials indicated that the criticism applied to Obama, who has said that as president he would rely on greater diplomacy to improve relations with unfriendly nations. Obama responded immediately and angrily, saying in a statement: "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack." The intercontinental exchange between a junior Illinois senator and the sitting president confirmed Obama's new status as his party's standard-bearer - and Bush's willingness to defend his foreign policy in the midst of the campaign to replace him. "We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." Bush apparently referred to the words of William Borah, an Idaho Republican who sought his party's presidential nomination in 1936. Bush used the anniversary celebration to testify to a continued American-Israeli alliance against terrorism and rogue states, and implicitly to dismiss his domestic political opponents as a potential obstacle to those goals. While Bush's remarks were consistent with views expressed by his administration before, the location and timing provoked a furor. "I can't imagine there's a precedent for a sitting president to go before the legislative body of a foreign government and launch a political attack on a major-party nominee running to succeed him," said Brian P. Murphy, a fellow in American history at the University of Pennsylvania. The White House professed not to understand Obama's ire. "There are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to," said press secretary Dana Perino. "I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case." Obama has regularly criticized the Bush administration for refusing to engage unfriendly nations diplomatically. Last July, rival Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton called Obama's position "irresponsible and frankly naïve" after he said at a debate among Democratic candidates that he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba without preconditions. "The reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them - which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous," Obama said during the debate. Even though he was not named by Bush yesterday, prominent Democrats rushed to defend Obama throughout the day, including some who are neutral in the race. Even Clinton, who has used the issue as a point of contrast with Obama, called Bush's remarks in Israel "offensive and outrageous." Delaware Senator Joseph Biden, a former presidential candidate, offered an expletive when first asked about it; later he described Bush's remarks as "purely raw politics beneath the president," and a "long-distance Swift Boating," a reference to Republican attacks in 2004 against Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry's military record in Vietnam. "For this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water's edge," said Representative Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat and chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "Does the president have no shame?" Arizona Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee who has criticized Obama's views on diplomacy in the past as evidence of poor judgment, appeared to accept Bush's historical analogy but refused to label Obama directly as an "appeaser." "This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people and that is why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?" he told reporters in Columbus, Ohio. McCain delivered a speech laying the goals of his presidency that emphasized the need for bipartisan cooperation, but it was overshadowed to a degree by the long-distance dispute between Bush and Obama. The controversy followed recent criticism of former President Jimmy Carter for meeting with leaders of Hamas, the Palestinian movement that the US State Department has listed as a terrorist organization. Although Obama has said he would not meet with Hamas until it recognized Israel's right to exist and abandoned violence, he has faced criticism from some Jewish organizations for his willingness to meet with hostile governments in the Mideast. Obama has lost the Jewish vote to Clinton in some key recent primary contests, and polls indicate that Obama cannot count on the traditionally overwhelming Jewish support for the Democratic presidential nominee. "Our electoral politics with regard to foreign policy are vicious, and always have been," said Murphy. "But leaving the country and suggesting to an ally that our foreign policy is going to be crippled by someone in his own government - it's something that would have been inconceivable to earlier generations of presidents."
| |||||||
