What's new

IRAQ Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

KashifAsrar

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
0
As Britain remembers it dead, four more soldiers killed in Iraq13.11.06

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23374253-details/As%20Britain%20remembers%20it%20dead,%20four%20more%20soldiers%20killed%20in%20Iraq/article.do


As Britain remembered the fallen of two world wars, the conflict in Iraq added four more names to those killed in action. They died when their patrol boat was blown apart by a hidden bomb in Basra.

Three more of the crew, understood to be a mixture of Army and Royal Marines personnel, were seriously injured in the Remembrance Sunday atrocity.

It was the worst single tragedy to hit UK troops in more than six months. And it can only add to the growing demands for a speedy withdrawal from a conflict which few still support.

Defence Secretary Des Browne said: 'Today at the Cenotaph and across the country, we remembered those brave souls that have served this nation across the years. That dedication is still evident and the events today in Iraq are a stark reminder of the perils they face.'

It is thought the bomb was concealed in a pontoon on the Shattal-Arab waterway in Basra city - close to the Old State Building military camp where a British soldier was shot dead while on guard duty last week - and that it was triggered as the river craft passed by on a routine patrol.

While improvised bombs are used daily to attack road patrols in Iraq, this was the first time such a device has been used against a boat.

The Ministry of Defence was attempting to contact all next of kin before releasing further details of the attack, which came at 9.50am UK time, little more than an hour before the Remembrance Services. The British military death toll in Iraq now stands at 125, with hundreds more injured.

The latest bloody attack comes as the impetus appears to be growing in Britain and America for an early exit from Iraq, following President George Bush's battering in the mid-term elections.

The current surge in violence will make it all the harder for Washington and London to present a withdrawal as anything other than a defeat.

As well as the four Britons killed in Basra, three U.S. soldiers died yesterday while 52 civilians were killed in Baghdad in a horrifying bomb attack on a police recruiting centre plus a number of other incidents. A further 75 bodies were found on the streets of the capital, many showing signs of torture.

With the scene of the Basra attack sealed off pending an investigation, a British Army spokesman said it was still unclear how and where the bomb was positioned to attack the boat.

One possibility the experts will examine is that the attack was carried out from or supported by Iran.

British commanders are convinced that many of the weapons used to attack coalition forces are being smuggled across the nearby Iranian border.

A spokesman added: 'We will be carrying out a follow-up operation to target those responsible.'

The Shatt-Al-Arab is a 120-mile waterway fed by the Euphrates, Tigris, and Karun rivers and flowing into the Persian Gulf.

For much of its length it forms the boundary between Iraq and Iran and is heavily patrolled by British forces to try to stop smuggling.

In 2004 the Iranians sparked a major diplomatic row by seizing three British patrol boats and arresting eight crewmen, accusing them of straying on to the Iranian side. The boats, along with sensitive electronic equipment, have never been returned.

Military analyst Colonel Mike Dewer said yesterday's attack showed how sophisticated the enemy had become and to what extent the military has to be constantly 'on its toes' in the area.

He told the BBC: 'I would expect they would be a great deal more circumspect about how and when they use river transportation.

'All they can do is continue to vary the operations, vary the routes and hope, in that manner, to be one step ahead of the enemy.'

He said the attack was particularly poignant coming on Remembrance Sunday but that it would not affect the morale of the soldiers. 'They will of course be sad, they have lost comrades, but their morale won't be affected. They will get on with the job.' Defence Secretary Browne said: 'My thoughts are with the families of the four service personnel so tragically killed today and of those who were wounded. This terrible incident reinforces in our minds the sacrifice made by the brave men and women of our Armed Forces.'

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said: 'On a day when we remember those who have given their lives for their country, this news is another reminder of the sacrifice that our brave Armed Forces make.'

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: 'On this particular-day these casualties are a powerful and poignant reminder of the difficult and dangerous tasks we ask our Armed Forces to undertake.'

The Ministry of Defence claims to have no accurate figures for the number of personnel injured in Iraq. More than 7,000 have been treated in military hospitals in Iraq, with almost 5,000 evacuated to the UK for medical or personal reasons.

Of those it is thought more than 300 were injured in combat, with around 50 suffering life-threatening injuries.

Ministers have also admitted that more than 1,300 British troops have developed serious psychiatric problems after serving in Iraq.

At the Remembrance Sunday ceremony at the Cenotaph in Whitehall, six-year-old Greg Jamison was given the honour of laying a wreath for the Royal British Legion in the bright autumn sun. He walked proudly beside his father John, 38, and elder brother Nathan, 12.

Mr Jamison, from Belfast, took his sons to the service in memory of their great-great-grandfather John Rea, who survived the Battle of the Somme. Mr Rea served in the 15th Battalion of the Royal Irish Rifles in the 36th Ulster Division.

An Iraq war widow was also chosen to lay a special wreath during the Royal British Legion parade.

Raqual Harper-Titchener, 31, lost her husband Major Matthew Harper-Titchener of the Royal Military Police, when he was killed in Iraq in 2003.

The mother of two said: 'It is an honour and a privilege to be marching here today. It is also recognition for Matthew and national recognition for all those who have continued to pay the ultimate sacrifice.

'I also feel that, for me, being here is about making the ceremony more relevant to younger wives as well as to older generations.'
 
Marine killed in copter crash in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A Marine helicopter carrying 16 people made an emergency landing in a lake in a volatile province west of Baghdad, killing one and leaving three missing, the military said Monday
Twelve passengers survived the crash Sunday in Anbar province, according to a statement. The military said a Marine was pulled from the water but attempts to resuscitate him were unsuccessful, while three other service members were listed as "duty status unknown."

The military said the incident did not appear to be due to enemy action but was still being investigated.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061204/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_helicopter_down
 
Iraqi resistance is stepping up; soon they will get rid of the occupiers (Inshallah)
 
Imho it's too late already, Iraq will be engaged in a civil war even if the occupiers left anytime soon.

I see a devided Iraq in future, atleast in two, possibly three if the Kurds get help from the West.
 
Monday, December 04, 2006

Rumsfeld says US failing in Iraq

* Asks for forces’ withdrawal from vulnerable positions, money to key Iraqi leaders
* Bush to consider Rumsfeld’s options

WASHINGTON: Former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld has admitted to American failings in Iraq and called for a major policy change.

In a memo to the president released at the weekend, Rumsfeld suggests second thoughts and fundamental rethinking over the administration’s Iraq policy. The memo was submitted to the president a day before the Congressional midterm elections.

The memo begins with the admission that “it is time for a major adjustment” because, “what US forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough”.

Rumsfeld suggested both “above the line” and “below the line” options.

The first category consisted of the following: publicly announce a set of benchmarks agreed to by the Iraqi government and the US - political, economic and security goals - to chart a path ahead for the Iraqi government and Iraqi people (to get them moving) and for the US public (to reassure them that progress can and is being made).

Significantly increase US trainers and “embeds”, and transfer more US equipment to Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), to further accelerate their capabilities by refocusing the assignment of some significant portion of the US troops currently in Iraq.

Initiate a reverse “embeds” programme by putting one or more Iraqi soldiers with every US and possibly coalition squad, to improve ‘our’ units’ language capabilities and cultural awareness and to give the Iraqis experience and training with professional US troops.

Aggressively beef up Iraqi ministries critical to the success of the ISF. Conduct an accelerated drawdown of US bases. Retain high-end capability and necessary support structure to target Al Qaeda death squads, and Iranians in Iraq, while drawing down all other coalition forces.

Initiate an approach where US forces provide security only for those provinces or cities that openly request US help and that actively cooperate. Put reconstruction efforts in only those parts of Iraq that are behaving. Position substantial US forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi government.

Withdraw US forces from vulnerable positions and move them to a Quick Reaction Force status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance. Begin modest withdrawals of US and coalition forces so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country.

Provide money to key political and religious leaders to get them to help ‘us’ get through this difficult period. Initiate a massive employment programme for youth under US forces. Announce that whatever new approach the US decides on, the US is doing so on a trial basis. Recast the US military mission and the US goals (and) go minimalist.

Reuters adds: White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said on Sunday President Bush was considering a “laundry list” of options for Iraq policy changes suggested by Rumsfeld. The memo was one of the proposals that Bush will consider before making decisions on how to proceed, Hadley said on ABC’s “This Week”.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\12\04\story_4-12-2006_pg1_1
 
Monday, December 04, 2006

Rumsfeld says US failing in Iraq

* Asks for forces’ withdrawal from vulnerable positions, money to key Iraqi leaders
* Bush to consider Rumsfeld’s options

WASHINGTON: Former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld has admitted to American failings in Iraq and called for a major policy change.

In a memo to the president released at the weekend, Rumsfeld suggests second thoughts and fundamental rethinking over the administration’s Iraq policy. The memo was submitted to the president a day before the Congressional midterm elections.

The memo begins with the admission that “it is time for a major adjustment” because, “what US forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough”.

Rumsfeld suggested both “above the line” and “below the line” options.

The first category consisted of the following: publicly announce a set of benchmarks agreed to by the Iraqi government and the US - political, economic and security goals - to chart a path ahead for the Iraqi government and Iraqi people (to get them moving) and for the US public (to reassure them that progress can and is being made).

Significantly increase US trainers and “embeds”, and transfer more US equipment to Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), to further accelerate their capabilities by refocusing the assignment of some significant portion of the US troops currently in Iraq.

Initiate a reverse “embeds” programme by putting one or more Iraqi soldiers with every US and possibly coalition squad, to improve ‘our’ units’ language capabilities and cultural awareness and to give the Iraqis experience and training with professional US troops.

Aggressively beef up Iraqi ministries critical to the success of the ISF. Conduct an accelerated drawdown of US bases. Retain high-end capability and necessary support structure to target Al Qaeda death squads, and Iranians in Iraq, while drawing down all other coalition forces.

Initiate an approach where US forces provide security only for those provinces or cities that openly request US help and that actively cooperate. Put reconstruction efforts in only those parts of Iraq that are behaving. Position substantial US forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi government.

Withdraw US forces from vulnerable positions and move them to a Quick Reaction Force status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance. Begin modest withdrawals of US and coalition forces so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country.

Provide money to key political and religious leaders to get them to help ‘us’ get through this difficult period. Initiate a massive employment programme for youth under US forces. Announce that whatever new approach the US decides on, the US is doing so on a trial basis. Recast the US military mission and the US goals (and) go minimalist.

Reuters adds: White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said on Sunday President Bush was considering a “laundry list” of options for Iraq policy changes suggested by Rumsfeld. The memo was one of the proposals that Bush will consider before making decisions on how to proceed, Hadley said on ABC’s “This Week”.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\12\04\story_4-12-2006_pg1_1

He found this out now.:disagree: What a guy!:angry:
 
2 attacks in Baghdad kill at least 30

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Suspected insurgents set off a car bomb to stop a minibus carrying Shiite government employees in Baghdad, then shot and killed 15 of them, the government said. In another attack in the capital on Tuesday, two car bombs exploded in a commercial district, killing 15 other Iraqis, police said.


The U.S. command said an insurgent attack on an American military patrol in Baghdad on Monday killed one soldier and wounded five. Another U.S. serviceman also died in southern Iraq that day in an accident involving his vehicle.

Their deaths came after a weekend during which 13 American service members died in Iraq, including four whose Sea Knight helicopter plunged into a lake in volatile Anbar province on Sunday, the military said.



The deaths raised to at least 2,904 the number of members of the U.S. military who have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count

]
 
The president is under pressure to draft a new blueprint for U.S. involvement in Iraq. A bipartisan commission — headed by James A. Baker III, former Republican secretary of state, and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana — is expected to present its recommendations to Bush on Wednesday.

The group is expected to recommend gradually changing the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq from combat to training and supporting Iraqi units, with a goal of withdrawing American combat troops by early 2008.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061205/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
 
I also think that there will be all out civil war even if occupiers leave. As far as Kurdistan is concerned, a lot of it depened on Turkey and Iran, both having a quite substantial presence of Kurds. Since Turkey, in particular, would not want a seprate Kurd state, a Kurdistan looks a remote possibility at the moment. But Shia and Sunni would continue to cut each others throats, with the help of thier foriegn masters.
Kashif
 
Iraq was better under Saddam, says Annan


Jane Merrick


Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Saddam Hussein, Kofi Annan said on Monday. The situation is ‘much worse’ than the civil wars in other troubled areas of the Middle East such as Lebanon, according to the UN secretary-general.
The comments were the strongest verdict yet on the Iraq invasion from Annan, who steps down from his post at the end of the year. His remarks came on the eve of a crucial Washington meeting between George Bush and Tony Blair to discuss the future of Iraq.
Blair who admitted last month that the war had been a ‘disaster’ will meet President Bush to discuss a handover to Iraqi forces. But Annan cast doubt on the ability of the Iraqi government to solve the country’s problems. He told the BBC: “When we had the strife in Lebanon and other places, we called that a civil war this is much worse.”
Iraqis who claimed their daytoday lives were worse than before the 2003 invasion were right, Annan said. “If I were an average Iraqi, obviously I would make the same comparison that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, ‘Am I going to see my child again?’
“And the Iraqi government has not been able to bring the violence under control.” UN officials estimate nearly 200 are killed every day in Iraq. DAILY MAIL, LONDON
 
Five US troops killed in Iraq


BAGHDAD (updated on: December 28, 2006, 21:01 PST): Five US troops have been killed in Iraq, the military announced on Thursday, bringing December's death toll to 101 and keeping the month on course to be among the bloodiest for American forces this year.

One soldier was killed and another wounded in a roadside bomb attack -- the deadliest scourge facing American troops in Iraq -- north of Baghdad on Thursday, the military said in a statement.

Two soldiers died and another was wounded south-west of Baghdad in a bomb attack on Wednesday during a security patrol, it added.

Another soldier was killed and two more were wounded in an eastern section of Baghdad on the same day when another bomb exploded, it said.

A marine was killed during fighting in the western Al-Anbar province on Wednesday.
 
U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches 3,000

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The death of a Texas soldier, announced Sunday by the Pentagon, raised the number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq to at least 3,000 since the war began, according to an Associated Press count.

The grim milestone was crossed on the final day of 2006 and at the end of the deadliest month for the American military in Iraq in the past 12 months. At least 111 U.S. service members were reported to have died in December.

Spc. Dustin R. Donica, 22, of Spring, Texas, was killed Thursday by small arms fire in Baghdad, the Defense Department said. Donica was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 509th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Airborne Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division.

His death was not announced by U.S. military authorities in Baghdad.

At least 820 U.S. military personnel died in Iraq in 2006, according to the AP count.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061231/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_american_deaths
 
Iraq was better under Saddam, says Annan


Jane Merrick


Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Saddam Hussein, Kofi Annan said on Monday. The situation is ‘much worse’ than the civil wars in other troubled areas of the Middle East such as Lebanon, according to the UN secretary-general.
The comments were the strongest verdict yet on the Iraq invasion from Annan, who steps down from his post at the end of the year. His remarks came on the eve of a crucial Washington meeting between George Bush and Tony Blair to discuss the future of Iraq.
Blair who admitted last month that the war had been a ‘disaster’ will meet President Bush to discuss a handover to Iraqi forces. But Annan cast doubt on the ability of the Iraqi government to solve the country’s problems. He told the BBC: “When we had the strife in Lebanon and other places, we called that a civil war this is much worse.”
Iraqis who claimed their daytoday lives were worse than before the 2003 invasion were right, Annan said. “If I were an average Iraqi, obviously I would make the same comparison that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, ‘Am I going to see my child again?’
“And the Iraqi government has not been able to bring the violence under control.” UN officials estimate nearly 200 are killed every day in Iraq. DAILY MAIL, LONDON

We wish he had realised that earlier so that 650000 would not have lost their lives.

Saddam was killed for killing a few. Will Bush be ever held accountable for the crimes he has committed in Iraq and Afghanistan
 
Plan to send more troops to Iraq blasted By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated

WASHINGTON - President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq is running into trouble on Capitol Hill, with Republicans joining Democrats in raising eyebrows before the president even has a chance to make his case.

Next week Bush will unveil a new Iraq strategy that entails political, military and economic steps to win the war. The military solution, which has attracted the most attention and skepticism from Congress, is expected to include an increase in U.S. troops, possibly 9,000 additional troops deployed to Baghdad alone.

Bush also reshuffled his military commanders, taping fresh faces to lead the war effort.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., shot down the suggestion of more troops within a day of gaining control of Congress.

"We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq," the two wrote in a letter to Bush. Instead, Pelosi and Reid urged Bush to begin pulling troops out in four to six months.

Bush told more than a dozen senators Friday that he would settle on the option only if the Iraqi government offered certain guarantees, according to senators who attended the meeting.

While lawmakers said they were willing to wait and see the entirety of Bush's plan before dismissing it entirely, members — including some Republicans — said they remained deeply skeptical about sending more troops.

"My conclusion was that it would be a mistake to send more troops to Baghdad. I think the sectarian violence there requires a political, not a military, solution," said Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine., who had not had a chance yet to meet with the president.

Rep. Heather Wilson (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., an Air Force veteran and member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she would not support increasing troop levels "to do for the Iraqis what the Iraqis will not do for themselves."

"I also have not seen a clarity of mission, and I think that's the greatest weakness that we have right now," Wilson said. "We're talking about goals in lofty terms that are not vital American national interests. American troops should only go in harm's way to protect America's vital interests."

Even Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a Republican who advocates sending more troops in Iraq, said he wouldn't support sending in the additional forces unless the number was adequate enough to finally tamp down the violence.

"I need to know if it's enough or not," McCain said.

McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), I-Conn., said they think at a minimum another three to five brigades should be sent to Baghdad and one more to Anbar province. About 3,500 troops are in a brigade. About 140,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq now.

Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record), who was among the small group of senators who met with the president Friday, said he felt Bush was aware of the high stakes and knew he would have to sell any plan to the American public. Bush suggested to the senators there would be "the expectation of the Iraqis carrying out their part of the deal 'or else,'" said Nelson, D-Neb.

But Nelson said he and others remained reluctant to endorse any plan that would further stretch the military.

"I don't think there was anything partisan about the skepticism," he said.

Briefings with lawmakers were expected to continue through next week, culminating in a meeting with bipartisan leadership Wednesday, according to lawmakers and aides.

To implement his changed policy in Iraq, Bush is tapping new generals to lead the military campaign.

Bush will nominate Adm. William Fallon, who commands American forces in the Pacific, to replace Gen. John Abizaid as top U.S. commander in the Middle East. Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who headed the effort to train Iraqi security forces, is slated to replace Gen. George Casey as top American general in Iraq. Casey in turn will replace the retiring Gen. Peter Schoomaker as Army chief of staff.

Lawmakers said they were pleased with Bush's selections.

"I hope he matches it with a new strategy that will shift responsibility for security to Iraqis and begin the responsible redeployment of American forces," said Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record), D-Mo., chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070106/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
 
Sunday, January 07, 2007

More troops for Iraq: Republicans join Democrats against Bush plan

WASHINGTON: President George W Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq is already running into trouble on Capitol Hill, with Republicans joining Democrats in raising eyebrows before the president even has a chance to make his case.

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid shot down the suggestion of more troops within a day of gaining control of Congress. “We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq,” the two wrote in a letter to Bush. Instead, Pelosi and Reid urged Bush to begin pulling troops out in four to six months.

Bush told more than a dozen senators on Friday that he would settle on the option only if the Iraqi government offered certain guarantees, according to senators who attended the meeting.

While lawmakers said they were willing to wait and see the entirety of Bush’s plan before dismissing it entirely, members including some Republicans said they remained deeply sceptical about sending more troops.

“My conclusion was that it would be a mistake to send more troops to Baghdad. I think the sectarian violence there requires a political, not a military, solution,” said Republican Senator Susan Collins.

Republican Representative Heather Wilson said she would not support increasing troop levels “to do for the Iraqis what the Iraqis will not do for themselves”.

Even Republican Senator John McCain, who advocates sending more troops in Iraq, said he would not support sending in the additional forces unless the number was adequate enough to finally tamp down the violence.

Democratic Senator Ben Nelson, who was among the small group of senators who met with the president Friday, said he felt Bush was aware of the high stakes and knew he would have to sell any plan to the American public.

Bush suggested to the senators there would be “the expectation of the Iraqis carrying out their part of the deal ‘or else’.” But Nelson said he and others remained reluctant to endorse any plan that would further stretch the military.

Briefings with lawmakers were expected to continue through next week, culminating in a meeting with bipartisan leadership on Wednesday, according to lawmakers and aides. A top Democratic senator said on Friday that the US Congress could possibly limit the number of US troops in Iraq by forcing President Bush to seek approval from lawmakers for additional deployments. Assistant Senate Majority Leader Richard Durbin said that was just one of several options before Democrats.

Top Democrats, including Durbin, said the party would not seek to cut funding of troops already there because that could undermine their safety. Durbin told reporters that he and fellow Democrats had discussed trying to cap the number there as a potential option.

In a related development, Saudi Arabia has urged the US to change course in Iraq and warned against the break-up of the country along ethnic or religious lines.

“The coalition forces in Iraq should review the aims of their presence and the strategy of remaining there because the question that should be asked is: what have these forces achieved since their arrival on Iraqi land?” Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz told the London-based Asharq al-Awsat newspaper.

“Has the strategy that these forces are using achieved anything positive? Are there strategic alternatives that should be considered as the existing situation in Iraq deteriorates?”

“We have warned and continue to warn against calls for the division of Iraq, which come up now and then, calling for sectarian rights or minority freedoms,” Prince Sultan said.

Prince Sultan also called on Iraqis to launch a national dialogue to end the bloodshed and urged Iraq’s neighbours to stop meddling in its affairs.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\01\07\story_7-1-2007_pg7_2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom