Bush criticizes Syria; U.S. senator sees Assad
By Caren Bohan and Susan CornwellWed Dec 13, 6:57 PM ET
President George W. Bush sharply criticized Syria on Wednesday despite calls for him to engage with the country over Iraq, while a Democratic senator defied administration wishes and met Syria's president.

Bush, who has resisted pressure to hold talks with Syria, as well as Iran, as part of a new approach to ending violence in Iraq, issued a statement calling on Syria to "immediately free all political prisoners."

Bush called on Syria to "cease its efforts to undermine Lebanese sovereignty" and disclose the whereabouts of Lebanese arrested during Syria's military occupation of Lebanon.

Washington accuses Syria of allowing weapons and fighters to cross the border into Iraq, something Syria denies.

Florida Sen. Bill Nelson (news, bio, voting record), named to the Senate Intelligence Committee this week, said he saw an opening for dialogue in his meeting on Wednesday with President Bashar al-Assad.

"He (Assad) stated that we in fact, have an interest, common interest, to stabilize Iraq. I think it is a crack in the door, and it is for discussions to continue," he said in a conference call from Jordan after meeting Assad in Damascus.

Assad indicated a willingness to cooperate with the United States and the Iraqi army to close or control the border between the two countries, Nelson added.

The official Syrian news agency, SANA, said Nelson and Assad discussed instability in Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian territories. "There was mutual interest to activate dialogue and putting in place mechanisms for cooperation," it said.

The White House said members of Congress should not be going to Syria.

"I think it is a real stretch to think that the Syrians don't know where we stand or what we think. We have made it clear and we will continue to make it clear," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

"What has not happened is the appropriate response by the Syrians in terms of their adventurism within the region, especially with regard to Lebanon, their continued support and housing of terrorist organizations," Snow said.

Another Democratic senator announced he too was heading for Syria for a meeting with Assad next week. Connecticut's Chris Dodd said in a statement he originally planned to make the trip in April but at that time heeded a senior administration official's warnings not to go.

This time, he said he was going despite State Department opposition because "it is clear that a policy of isolation has not altered Syria's behavior and the instability in the region is greater, not less, than it was eight months ago."

CALL FOR DIRECT TALKS

Last week, the Iraq Study Group of respected senior figures from both parties, led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, urged the Bush administration to consider direct talks with Iran and Syria.

The White House has so far rejected such contacts.

Nelson said the State Department had sought to discourage him from meeting Assad "because their position is that they did not want to have any contact with Assad."

"I replied that in light of the Baker-Hamilton study group report, that it was obvious that we were going to have contacts, and that remember what the goal was ... to stabilize Iraq," Nelson said. He had met the Syrian leader twice before.

Political sources in Damascus said other U.S. senators would visit before year's end, including Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry and Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter.

Next month, Democrats will take control of the U.S. Congress from Republicans.

Nelson said he and Assad sharply disagreed about the Lebanese government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora as well as the pro-Syrian Hezbollah group and Hamas Palestinian movement.

Radical Islamist Fights U.S. Efforts to Silence Him
The U.S. government goes after an Islamic mullah they suspect of terrorist involvement by targeting his finances.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 2:19 p.m. AKT Dec 13, 2006
Dec. 13, 2006 - Mullah Krekar, a radical Islamist Mullah who U.S. officials charge has been helping to direct and finance insurgent attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq, is pushing back against Washington's latest efforts to shut him down.

Krekar, who once led a Taliban-style jihadist enclave in Iraqi Kurdistan but now lives in exile in Oslo, told NEWSWEEK that a new U.S. Treasury Department order that labeled him a terrorist financier and "facilitator" was based on "100 percent lies."

"The George W. Bush administration told more than 1,000 lies against me," says the Kurdish-born Krekar, whose real name, according to a U.S. Treasury statement, is Najmuddin Faraj Ahmad. Krekar denied Treasury allegations that a charity he set up financed a jihadist insurgent group in Iraq now known as Ansar Al-Sunnah. Krekar also disputes that he travelled from Norway to Iraq and Germany as part of his effort to support the group. Krekar says he has no direct contact with anyone in Iraq and has not set foot out of Norway since 2003. "I am only in my house now," he insists, adding that he believed the Bush administration had issued a sanctions order against him because Washington "wants to press Norway. They want to press me."

Krekar's defiance, and continued freedom in Norway, points up the continuing frustrations the U.S. government has faced when trying to curb the activities of suspected terrorist leaders or fixers who take refuge in countries that are sympathetic to the Bush administration's campaign against terrorism but also have to abide by their own strict laws protecting human rights and civil liberties. For the past four years, Krekar has been repeatedly targeted by U.S. intelligence officials who at one point even considered snatching him off the streets. But U.S. efforts have thus far failed to lead to his apprehension in large part because Norwegian authorities have demanded stronger proof of Washington's claims. Last week, the Treasury Department tried a new approach, issuing an order designating Krekar a terror financier and freezing any U.S. assets he has. A U.S. official also says that the United Nations this week had agreed to add Krekar to its worldwide list of alleged terror financers subject to economic sanctions.

According to his own account, in the final days of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, Krekar led Ansar Al-Islam (now known as Ansar al-Islam), a fundamentalist movement which set up its own militant ministate within a tiny sliver of Kurdistan on Iraq's border with Iran. Intelligence reporting suggested that when the United States attacked Taliban and Al Qaeda infrastructure in Afghanistan after 9/11, some fugitive followers of Osama bin Laden took refuge in Krekar's enclave in northern Iraq. Conservative conspiracy theorists searching for evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to 9/11 and Al Qaeda cited Ansar Al-Islam's presence in northern Iraq as possible evidence of collaboration between Saddam and bin Laden's followers.

After American and Kurdish forces raided Krekar's encampment in the wake of the invasion of Iraq, some evidence was found that jihadis fleeing Afghanistan had indeed used it as a refuge. In an interview with NEWSWEEK in October 2003, Krekar acknowledged he had met bin Laden once, in 1998, when Krekar and some associates were trying to raise money for "orphans." But he claimed he did not actually speak with bin Laden. Krekar also consistently claimed that his group and Saddam Hussein were mortal enemies—a claim that was supported by most U.S. intelligence analyses, which noted that Krekar's enclave was located in a Kurdish area outside the control of Saddam's government.

In the spring of 2002, Krekar left the Ansar enclave for Iran but was arrested by Iranian authorities and deported to the Netherlands. While in the Netherlands, he was interviewed by FBI agents, and the government of Jordan issued an indictment against him for drug trafficking. Dutch authorities concluded that the Jordanians had produced insufficient evidence to justify Krekar being held in custody in Holland, however, and he was subsequently deported to Norway, where members of his family had lived for years. Norwegian authorities then instituted deportation proceedings against Krekar, which are still pending in the courts. Norwegian government officials have repeatedly expressed their view that Krekar is an undesirable alien and may have connections to terrorist groups.

But Brynjar Mehling, Krekar's lawyer, told NEWSWEEK that Norwegian law also prohibits the deportation of anyone from Norway to a country where he might be subjected to the death penalty or torture. According to Mehling, this means the Norwegian government is unlikely to carry out its threatened deportation of Krekar any time soon, if ever.

Since his return to Norway, Krekar's name has cropped up in several investigations—including probes conducted by Germany and Italy—of jihadist networks allegedly involved in recruiting fighters and providing logistical support for insurgents in Iraq. Krekar has acknowledged that he may have had some contact with people under investigation in Italy, but claims that any such contacts were related to people seeking his advice as a spiritual leader and Islamic scholar and had nothing to do with the Iraqi insurgency.

Krekar insisted that he only leaves his modest apartment near Oslo's main railway station once a week—to go to a mosque for Friday prayers—and that he has no direct contact with anyone in Iraq. During his interview with NEWSWEEK in 2003, however, he appeared well-informed about the activities of Sunni insurgent factions inside Iraq. He seemed particularly knowledgeable about the internal machinations of the faction that he once led, Ansar Al-Islam, whose members first fled to Iran after the U.S. attack on their encampment and then filtered back into Iraq to join the Sunni insurgency. When questioned by NEWSWEEK about how he knew in such detail what was going on in Iraq, he maintained he got all of his information from satellite TV or the Internet.

Krekar has long been a target of—and irritant to—U.S. intelligence agencies. American interest in him intensified considerably in the spring of 2003 after the invasion of Iraq. A group of captured Ansar Al-Islam fighters caught with suicide bomb vests told interrogators they were working for Krekar when they planned an attack on U.S. troops. According to former U.S. officials, this led to a series of intense discussions in Washington about conducting a possible "extraordinary rendition" of Krekar. At one meeting, a Pentagon official proposed inserting a U.S. Navy Seal team on the ground to use a "snatch rope" operation against Krekar—a plan that was quickly rejected on the grounds that Norwegian police might start shooting at the invading Seals, according to a former U.S. intelligence official who was present at the meeting.

However, the former U.S. intelligence official strongly denied there was ever a CIA plan to carry out a rendition of Krekar. Instead, the former official says, the CIA operatives who traveled to Norway in 2003 were seeking to assist Norwegian officials in developing a public criminal case against Krekar. The case was to have been based on the testimony of one of the captured Iraqi suicide bombers. The U.S. government even flew Norwegian prosecutors to Iraq to take the testimony of the suicide bomber. But the case later fell apart when Krekar's lawyers got the bomber to recant his allegations against Krekar and claim he had been tortured by Kurdish forces to make his allegations. A CIA spokesman declined to comment.

The Treasury Department issued its order designating Krekar a terror financier, and freezing any U.S. assets he has, only days after allegations surfaced that the CIA might have contemplated—but never carried out—a "rendition" operation against the Iraqi exile.

Molly Millerwise, a Treasury spokeswoman, denied that the announcement of the sanctions order against Krekar was in any way prompted by a Washington Post report that alleged Krekar got a tipoff from an anonymous Norwegian official in 2003 that the CIA might be trying to get him. The Post reported that a CIA officer previously involved in the "rendition" of a radical imam from Italy to Egypt had visited Norway that year on another, possibly similar mission and that two other CIA officers made similar trips shortly thereafter, though all left the country after a few weeks. A government official familiar with antiterrorist investigations says the sanctions order against Krekar was in the works long before the Washington Post story surfaced.

Mehling, Krekar's lawyer, said this week that by issuing economic sanctions against Krekar and formally labelling him a terrorist financier, the Bush administration was "trying to help the Norwegian government solve a problem," because otherwise authorities in Oslo have nothing concrete against Krekar.

In a statement accompanying its order designating Krekar a terror financier, the U.S. Treasury claimed that as of the spring of 2005, branches of a charity founded by Krekar were "overtly and covertly gathering money and recruiting personnel" for Ansar Al-Sunnah. The statement also cites otherwise unsourced "information" that "shows that in January 2006, Krekar may have routed funds through associates in Bulgaria and Iraq to support" the Iraqi insurgent group. The statement also accuses Krekar of "regularly" travelling from Norway to Iraqi Kurdistan and of visiting Germany several times to raise funds and arrange support for Ansar Al-Sunnah. However, Krekar and his lawyer both insist that Krekar has not set foot out of Norway since 2003. Asked whether the Treasury statement about Krekar's alleged activities might have conflated old reports on Krekar's movement with more recent intelligence, an official acknowledged that language—and facts—sometimes become stilted when intelligence information is declassified by U.S. agencies.

The Treasury Department action against Krekar once again raises questions about the effectiveness of such terrorist "designation" actions. Like Krekar in Norway, other targets of similar Treasury Department sanctions have continued to live openly and freely in Europe despite being publicly branded as terrorist financiers. For example, Yousef Nada, a wealthy Egyptian-born banker who has been publicly branded by Treasury as a financier of Al Qaeda (an allegation that he strongly denies) still resides in a lavish private villa in an enclave of Italian territory that overlooks Lake Lugano.

But Adam Szubin, director of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, says that such sanctions can have a "dramatic" impact in curbing the actions of the targets. "It exposes the target as a supporter of terrorism and practically makes it much more difficult to conduct any kind of business in the world economy," he tells NEWSWEEK. Banks and other financial institutions know there will be a cost to doing business with anybody designated by Treasury. "If I'm a wealthy businessman, I don't want to be seen with Mullah Krekar," he says.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16192655/site/newsweek/

In my western mind, I get the idea of tolerance and dialogue, however I don't get the idea that it can happen quickly with the generations of tribal conflict and genocide in the region. Like the Balkans to some extent, there has to be a fight, separation and then the dialogue can start when mutual interest outweigh old scores.
========
Tolerance and dialogue are the bases to a peaceful Federal Iraq

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

KurdishMedia.com - By Dr Munther Al-Fadhal

The speech was delivered in Oslo, in the third conference on International law and the situation of human rights during 9-12 of December, 2006.

Ladies and Gentlemen and distinguished guests:

It is both honor and pleasure to be among you today in Oslo, the capital of peace during the celebration of The Noble Prize of Peace. Peace is the law of life, which achieves security, stability and development for people. It is, however, impossible to achieve peace among human beings without a coexistence that is based on tolerance, dialogue and renunciation of violence and terrorism, because the culture of hatred and vengeance can only bring destruction and pave the way for creating political violence and tragedies among societies.

After the fall of Nazism in the Second World War and despite the experiences of peoples and humanity, the world was exposed to many armed conflicts and violation of human rights. The absence of democracy, peaceful transformation of power, tolerance among different religions and rule of law are the reasons behind such conflicts.

Since the First World War took place, the International Community has been considerably concerned about the fundamental rights of the humankinds. Therefore, the necessity of paying respect to the human rights has steadily been increased despite armed conflicts that arise amongst people. Afterwards, the human beings appear as defenders of the international law to avoid the violation of their inalienable rights regardless to their nationality, belief, color, race or religion.

In Iraq, the demised dictatorial regime dangerously violated human rights in the last four decades. The deadly regime committed many international crimes in Kurdistan, such as: the use of banned weapons in the city of Halabja, in a campaign called “Anfal,” the mass extermination and execution of Faiyli Kurds and Barzani. Also, the Shiite Arabs were exposed to extermination campaigns especially during and in the wake of their uprising in 1991, after the liberation of Kuwait, where the fate of thousands of them ended in mass graves. Many holy sites were destructed in operations of revenge by the dictatorial regime. Being warmonger the former regime started regional wars and threatened the peace. It is important to mention that even some of the Sunni Arabs have not been excluded from such campaigns.

With the help of the Coalition Forces, the liberation of Iraq in April 9th, 2003, indicated the end of the dictatorial regime. Afterwards, a national government was established that gave the Iraqi state a new form and redefined it to a voluntary union, which is a Federal Republic. According to the new permanent constitution all citizens are equal and all the resources will be distributed justly among the inhabitants. Though, the same constitution was accepted by the Iraqis in a national referendum, we maintain our reservation because it does not mention The International Declaration of Human Rights as one of its chapters. Moreover, the constitution may contain partial discrimination between the sexes as it has ignored the rights of women that should be equal to the rights of men.

The constitution fails to achieve the establishment of a civil society and democracy entirely. However, we tried to bridge such gaps during our participation in the Drafting Committee; yet, we encountered many difficulties due to the presence of some people who are infected by national fanaticism and religious extremism.

The dark period of the previous regime has demised; yet, the forces of terror, with regional and internal support, commit many crimes against humanity in central and southern parts of Iraq, because they apply the policy of extremism and the hatred. Those groups believe in the language of violence and apply it against the human rights. Hundreds of innocent civilians fell daily as victims of the sectarian violence. Therefore, the people of Iraq are in desperate need of support from the international community.

The situation, however, is quite different in Iraqi Kurdistan, specifically in the three governorates that are enjoying a self-rule since 1991, there peace and security prevail. The Regional Government of Kurdistan is working tirelessly to secure the region, something every visitor to the region witness coexistence, tolerance, religious pluralism and respect which pays to the holy sites. Besides, women are playing a considerable role in the governmental institutions and the society as well.

The Kurdish people suffered oppression to a large extent under the repressive regimes that ruled Iraq and stood against their ambitions for freedom and independence. Despite all harsh circumstances, the Kurds continued their struggle towards democracy to be able to live safely in their homeland. It is the result of the culture of tolerance which Kurds learnt from the Immortal leader Mustafa Barzani and was maintained by the President of Kurdistan Region, Massoud Barzani. Such motives are clear through his continuous calls for a national reconciliation among the Iraqis and to transform Kurdistan to an oasis of peace and security in the middle of an area that is ignited by violence. His Excellency expressed his beliefs frankly in an interview when he said, “Our success in Kurdistan is due to our desire to prevent the culture of retaliation.”

Therefore, President Barzani initiated many national reconciliation conferences for the people of Iraq in Hewler, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan. Clearly, without national reconciliation, which is a form of tolerance, dialogue and renunciation of terrorism, it is impossible for Iraq to stabilize and for Iraqis to live in peace. His Excellency, Mr. Jalal Talabani the President of Iraq, also a veteran Kurdish leader, is playing an active role in the Iraqi government to precede dialogue and national reconciliation despite many obstacles. Also, the Shiite parties are playing an active role in this matter.

Since the agreement of Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide that the United Nations adopted in 1948 prohibits amnesty to such related criminals and they will be deprived of their constitutional immunity. The process of the national reconciliation in Iraq excludes war criminals. Therefore, anyone accused of such crimes must be trialed in a court in accordance to the standards of the international criteria of fair trials. Based on this, the former president of Iraq and a number of his aids are tried for committing international crimes.

Ladies and Gentlemen and distinguished guests:

The ordeal of violence, through which Iraq is passing, is the result of the incorrect policies of the former authoritarian regime against the Iraqis. Eventually, that policy created a tendency among some people to react violently against the members of the ruling Baath Party after the liberation of Iraq in 2003. The Committee of De-Baathification has formed and it already has been a target of a lot of controversies. Some personalities think that the idea of such a committee disagrees with not the principles of the human rights and contradicts the principles of the national reconciliation. Other personalities, however, believe that the purpose of such a committee is to eradicate the ideology of the Baathisim in Iraq rather than to root out the members of the Baath party because the former dictatorial regime obliged many Iraqis to join the brutal dissolved party by using means of threatening and frightening.

In spite of the disparate opinions amongst Iraqis regarding the process of De-Baathification and the national reconciliation, whose aim is to reach a social peace, there are many principles and previous reconciliation examples to follow, for instance the experiment of South Africa. Without considering such principles, we can not talk about reconciliation, stability or about the achievement of peace and harmony in our society. The idea of the De-Baathification in Iraq is supported by Article Seven of the current Iraqi Constitution, which considered the idea of Baathisim similar to the idea of Nazism and the excommunicating thought of the terrorists.

It can be argued that the successfulness of any attempt for reaching reconciliation and dialogue in Iraq must be based on drawing distinction among the following-mentioned three components in Iraq:

1. The Ba’athists and Non-Ba’athists War Criminals: The list includes those who committed international crimes such as war crimes and other crimes against humanity, i.e., the crimes which have been committed by the former president and a number of his aids who are been tried in Iraq now. Such criminals must be punished according to the Iraqi law and other related international agreements that are signed by Iraq. It is impossible to have reconciliation and dialogue with them with accordance to the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It is noteworthy to mention that the crimes which are currently committed by the terrorists in Iraq belong to this category.

2. The Baathists affiliated with the former regime but have not committed any crimes: We believe that there is no objection to reconciliation with them and taking benefit from them provided that they only recognize their previous mistakes publicly before the people of Iraq and declare dissociation from the Baath Party and the crimes of the former regime. So, reconciliation is the foundation of social peace, security, harmony and stability and will lead to put an end to violence and individual retaliation. We basically mean that reconciliation must be done with these people after the trial of Saddam and his aids to be able to itemize each part and deal with them on legal bases. It should neither be allowed for the Baath Party to return to the political arena nor to be regarded as a part of the political pluralism.

3. Other Criminals: Common crimes are the result of an anti-law behavior that are mentioned in the Iraqi Penal Code provided that they neither threaten international security and peace nor extends its influence out of the country, such as: stealing, rape, killing, torture…etc. There are many criminals who belong to this category. Those criminals were in jail before the liberation of Iraq but the regime released them before its fall to shake the new security situation. Therefore, they must be prosecuted for their crimes.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

According to the First Article of the Iraqi constitution, the system of the government is to be federal, and Article 118 of the constitution deals about the establishment of regional federations. The reasons for the resurgence of the idea of federalism is due to the importance of democratic values, paying respect to human rights, especially the rights of the minorities and the failure of the totalitarian regimes. It has also related to new economic and political variables and the relative concept of sovereignty of the states, which became non-absolute (limited).

Many Shiite parties desire to implement the successful experience of Kurdistan in management and achievement of security, i.e., splitting Iraq to federal regions. However, there are many opponents to federalism in Iraq, as they prefer to implement a central government similar to the former regime and claim that federalism will split Iraq to several small countries.

The different perceptions about federalism have caused the Iraqi people many conflicts. Therefore, intensive dialogue is necessary to bridge the gaps among them, as the constitution itself rules out federalism to be the system of the government. It is important to mention that federalism is implemented in many countries simply because the idea of unity is the best mechanism to create room for every part to participate in the government, especially in a multi-national country like Iraq. Applying federalism in Iraq will certainly bring peace and stability to the country.

One of the contentious topics that is noteworthy to mention is Kirkuk, which is the key to democracy and peace in Iraq. The city of Kirkuk was exposed to the policy of Arabization under the former regimes Iraq, particularly Saddam’s regime. The original inhabitants of the city were expelled from their homes and were replaced by Arabs. Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution has drawn the Road Map to solve this problem. To respect the rights of the Kurds and the people of Kirkuk, the implementation of Article (140) which contains plan and schedule is very crucial because it guarantees the historical coexistence among Iraqis.

The core obstacle to dialogue and reconciliation is certain parties who are currently participating in the political process in Iraq owing to their reject to dialogue and reconciliation. They desire to amend or abrogate the constitution which was passed in a referendum, to retreat the process of De-Ba’athification, pave the way for the return of the former regime highly placed persons, a central authority besides that they want to support terrorists and withdrawal of the allied forces.

The ongoing trial of the former dictator Saddam and his aids is nether an obstacle to dialogue, tolerance and national reconciliation nor against social peace among Iraqi elements. It is, however, the result of the implementation of the international laws and treaties that must be followed and respected. Never… it is not a political trial, because demanded international criteria are part of its formation and international and Iraqi Penal Code rule out the punishment of criminals and the compensation of the victims. Therefore, we believe that Saddam’s trial is a fair trial, and it will eventually decrease the level of violence and pave the way for a national reconciliation.

We believe that feasible dialogue between the people of Iraq will be through mutual respect and recognition of the rights of every sect, especially the rights of Kurds, Turkmen, Chaldeans and Assyrians. Also, it is imperative for the Arabs in Iraq in particular and in the Arab Nation in general to understand the reality of the existence and history of Kurds in the region: The Kurdish people in Iraq are part of the Kurdish Nation, not the Arab Nation, they have existed in the region for thousands of years and their history precedes the history of Arabs, Persian and Turks. Therefore, any proper and successful dialogue between Arabs and Kurds must be based on the above-mentioned facts.

The human rights issue continues to be a leading reason behind many conflicts in the modern era, due to the policies of the totalitarian regimes in some countries of the world that render the absence of democracy and the rule of law. So it is the duty of the international community to intervene and protect such rights to avoid conflicts and protect international peace and security, as the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan, himself, confirmed that the violation of the human rights is a leading factor that threatens the security and peace of the world.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Please allow me to remind of a statement made by the philosopher John Locke, “Whenever Totalitarianism ends, the rule of law beings.” And without voluntarily respect to the law to build a civil society that is far from violence and terrorism, it will be impossible to build democracy and social peace in Iraq.

Lastly, I conclude my speech by the statement of the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln in 1863, describes the current Iraq, which is plagued by violence to build democracy. “The Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not pass away from the Earth,”

Thank you,

Adviser to the Prime Minister – Kurdistan Regional Government, an academic and a human rights activist. He is member of the Drafting Committee of the Permanent Iraqi Constitution and he is a member of the Iraqi National Assembly 2005. He is an Arab by ethnicity. www.fadhal.net

My strong sense in talking with numerous military personel from Generals down, is that Sec Def, Don Rumsfeld simply had a small military footprint in mind with his 'transforamtion' of the military strategy coming to the post some 6 tears ago.

This doesn't make Rumsfeld evil, but it sure leads to the idea that the military leaders fell in line with the Sec Def objectives.

Now that Rumsfeld is out and Gates is in, the request for more troops strength to accomplish the worldwide missions will come quickly.

-------------
Army, Marine Corps To Ask for More Troops
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 13, 2006; A01

The Army and Marine Corps are planning to ask incoming Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Congress to approve permanent increases in personnel, as senior officials in both services assert that the nation's global military strategy has outstripped their resources.

In addition, the Army will press hard for "full access" to the 346,000-strong Army National Guard and the 196,000-strong Army Reserves by asking Gates to take the politically sensitive step of easing the Pentagon restrictions on the frequency and duration of involuntary call-ups for reservists, according to two senior Army officials.

The push for more ground troops comes as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have sharply decreased the readiness of Army and Marine Corps units rotating back to the United States, compromising the ability of U.S. ground forces to respond to other potential conflicts around the world.

"The Army has configured itself to sustain the effort in Iraq and, to a lesser degree, in Afghanistan. Beyond that, you've got some problems," said one of the senior Army officials. "Right now, the strategy exceeds the capability of the Army and Marines." This official and others interviewed for this report spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the matter.

The Army, which has 507,000 active-duty soldiers, wants Congress to fund a permanent "end strength," or manpower, of at least 512,000 soldiers, the Army officials said. The Army wants the additional soldiers to be paid for not through wartime supplemental spending bills but in the defense budget, which now covers only 482,000 soldiers.

The Marine Corps, with 180,000 active-duty Marines, seeks to grow by several thousand, including the likely addition of three new infantry battalions. "We need to be bigger. The question is how big do we need to be and how do we get there," a senior Marine Corps official said.

At least two-thirds of Army units in the United States today are rated as not ready to deploy -- lacking in manpower, training and, most critically, equipment -- according to senior U.S. officials and the Iraq Study Group report. The two ground services estimate that they will need $18 billion a year to repair, replace and upgrade destroyed and worn-out equipment.

If another crisis were to erupt requiring a large number of U.S. ground troops, the Army's plan would be to freeze its forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and divert to the new conflict the U.S.-based combat brigade that is first in line to deploy.

Beyond that, however, the Army would have to cobble together war-depleted units to form complete ones to dispatch to the new conflict -- at the risk of lost time, unit cohesion and preparedness, senior Army officials said. Moreover, the number of Army and Marine combat units available for an emergency would be limited to about half that of four years ago, experts said, unless the difficult decision to pull forces out of Iraq were made.

"We are concerned about gross readiness . . . and ending equipment and personnel shortfalls," said a senior Marine Corps official. The official added that Marine readiness has dropped and that the Corps is unable to fulfill many planned missions for the fight against terrorism.

Senior Pentagon officials stress that the U.S. military has ample air and naval power that could respond immediately to possible contingencies in North Korea, Iran or the Taiwan Strait.

"If you had to go fight another war someplace that somebody sprung upon us, you would keep the people who are currently employed doing what they're doing, and you would use the vast part of the U.S. armed forces that is at home station, to include the enormous strength of our Air Force and our Navy, against the new threat," Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a briefing last month.

But if the conflict were to require a significant number of ground troops -- as in some scenarios such as the disintegration of Pakistan -- Army and Marine Corps officials made clear that they would have to scramble to provide them. "Is it the way we'd want to do it? No. Would it be ugly as hell? Yes," said one of the senior Army officials. "But," he added, "we could get it done."

According to Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East, the Army and Marine Corps today cannot sustain even a modest increase of 20,000 troops in Iraq. U.S. commanders for Afghanistan have asked for more troops but have not received them, noted the Iraq Study Group report, which called it "critical" for the United States to provide more military support for Afghanistan.

"We are facing more operational risk than we have for many, many years," said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Armed Services Committee. He called it "shocking and scandalous" that two-thirds of Army units are rated "non-deployable." He said the country has not faced such a readiness crisis since the aftermath of the Vietnam War.

The U.S. military has more than 140,000 troops in Iraq and 20,000 in Afghanistan, including 17 of the Army's 36 available active-duty combat brigades. When Army and Marine Corps combat units return from the war zone, they immediately lose large numbers of experienced troops and leaders who either leave the force, go to school or other assignments, or switch to different units.

The depletion of returning units is so severe that the Marines refer to this phase as the "post-deployment death spiral." Army officials describe it as a process of breaking apart units and rebuilding them "just in time" to deploy again.

Training time for active-duty Army and Marine combat units is only half what it should be because they are spending about the same amount of time in war zones as at home -- in contrast to the desired ratio of spending twice as much time at home as on deployment. And the training tends to focus on counterinsurgency skills for Iraq and Afghanistan, causing an erosion in conventional land-warfare capabilities, which could be required for North Korea or Iran, officials say.

If a conflict with North Korea or Iran were to break out and demand a medium to large ground force, the Army would be forced to respond with whatever it had available.

The U.S. military today could cobble together two or three divisions in an emergency -- compared with as many as six in 2001 -- not enough to carry out major operations such as overthrowing the Iranian government. "That's the kind of extreme scenario that could cripple us," said Michael E. O'Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution.

Unable to count on a significant troop withdrawal from Iraq, the Army seeks to ease the manpower strain by accelerating plans to have 70 active-duty and National Guard combat brigades available for rotations by 2011. Next year, for example, the Army intends to bring two brigades on a training mission back into rotation. It is investing $36 billion in Guard equipment in anticipation of heavier use of the Guard.

ARTICLES: Saudis Say They Might Back Sunnis if U.S. Leaves Iraq, By HELENE COOPER, New York Times, December 13, 2006

As far as I'm concerned, nothing re-energizes the Big Bang better right now that calling in the Saudis' bluff/promise on Sunniland support. They refuse to fix (so far those pricks only build a fence on their border), so let's help them step up to the plate and fight Iran for us.

Better to socialize locally, and get Al Qaeda's real target far more in the game.