Comments to a journalist

A few days ago I was asked to comment on what the daesh (ISIS) strategies are and what effect the US led coalition would have by a leading journalist for a British newspaper. Below are my original comments as I sent to him, in response to some questions, so they may appear a bit random:

Saudi has shown itself of being barely able to contain terrorism within its borders and certainly a sizeable chunk of fighters, recruiters, funding, support, preachers for ISIS has come from Saudi the country, though probably not the govt or monarchy. Their deradicalization programs have not been hugely successful and the preaching of jihadist ideology is in Saudi, not Egypt or elsewhere. Saudi is an intolerant country, my guess is Obama wants Western leaning Syrian rebels to be trained in Saudi and not Islamist ones, which is a strange mix: using the strict, Salafi based nation where a lot of jihadists and ideology comes from to train Western leaning and secular rebels. Doesn’t seem to be a smart move, can’t think of any positive results likely.

As for examples of mistrust, Iraq was and still is mistrustful of Syria, they believe Assad allowed Baathists to use Syria as a base and allowed foreign suicide bombers to come into Iraq through Syria in order to destabilise it. The govt had wanted Assad to tackle ISIS and recognise that their presence is being taken advantage of by Assad to weaken the FSA and other rebel groups.

The Arab states are mistrustful of any Shia led government in Iraq because they believe it to be too close to Iran and will serve their interests above all. Iraq has fallen fully under the Iranian sphere of influence and the Arab states cannot allow that to remain. Iraq is mistrustful of Arab states because they believe they will never allow a Shia led state to be in place and are finding ways to destabilise Iraq in order to bring back the Sunnis to power.

ISIS would dearly love for Western troops to be deployed to Iraq. That would bring it more recruits, justify some of their actions to the Muslim world, and give their jihadist cause more legitimacy. ISIS has studied the situation, saw how the Maliki led govt was disliked by the West and knows there is much rivalry among the forces fighting it. Above all it has been able to provoke sectarianism and the involvement of the militias means any meaningful alliance against ISIS will either not happen or fall apart quickly. ISIS are strategic, they are not thugs, their leaders are smart and know how to sow discord between its enemies. Remember in Syria ISIS was much hated by the other groups and much weaker but now it has dominated them because they were able to cause friction and avoid head on conflict as much as possible. Fear and propaganda have been their biggest weapons.

Based on this I do not see the defeat of ISIS at the hands of a coalition made of rivals who have much dislike for each other. I think the US recognises this and so the strategy will be one of containment, degradation, and limitation. ISIS knows this too, so is looking for a long term campaign of survival, entrenchment, and influence. Look at the Taliban as an example of how you can outlast your enemies despite their superiority.

The American and Iranians did not cooperate directly in Amerli, it was through the Iraqi intermediaries and both needed to act in Amerli for differing reasons but in essence to save the Shia under siege there. I think the non-aggression pact is now implicit as part of the nuclear negotiations, but that will not stop from either side regularly reminding each other (through very limited actions that they will claim deniability for) that they are willing to go military against each other. The threat of ISIS is forcing states and actors to work with each other but I don’t think that will change views or lead to tolerance or trust in each other. Temporary alliance but not a long term change in attitudes. As you say, my enemy’s enemy is my friend. But there is another saying that your enemy today may be your friend tomorrow, and your friend today may be your enemy tomorrow.

I know they have been self-financed for nearly a year now. The methods they use are: extortion and racketeering, ransoms, taxes, sales of seized goods and property, oil smuggling, robbery of cash, bartering. I’ve also heard that they traffick people/sell them, conduct weapons sales, and are involved in drugs sales and smuggling. They also took jewellery from the Assyrians and sold/auctioned it. They’ve taken over farms, land, homes which they use as investments.

| Leave a comment

The fake sheikh: Why the media repeat Ali Hatem’s false ‘claim’

Ali Hatem Sleiman. Credit: SAFIN HAMED/AFP/Getty Images

From his hotel lobby in Erbil he appears on TV screens in crisp white attire, like an Iraqi Lawrence of Arabia. In fact his delusions of grandeur are almost as good as Peter O’Toole’s acting. But this ‘crown prince’, as one media outlet referred to him, is only a charlatan, who has time on his hands and some powerful sponsors. Ali Hatem Sleiman claims to be the leader of Iraq’s largest super-tribe, the Dulaim, which maybe number over 3 million members, and is a confederation of hundreds of tribes each with their own tribal elders and nominal leader. None of these recognise that Ali Hatem is the leader of the confederation yet somehow Hatem has managed to have his claim accepted as fact in the media, both Arab and foreign.

The issue of the tribal leader is overstated since the role does not exist practically, because the Dulaim confederation is not a single cohesive unit. A majority of the tribes in Anbar are part of the Dulaim confederation, yet each tribe has its own policies, such as fighting alongside the Iraqi security forces, or holding uneasy agreements with ISIS, as has been the case for the past decade.

To compound the point that Hatem is just for show, Hatem’s own great-uncles, who are actually recognised as leaders of the Dulaim, disowned him. Joel Wing, Iraq analyst at the blog Musings On Iraq, describes Hatem: “He is an opportunist. He aligned with the Anbar Awakening, the Americans, Prime Minister Maliki, the Anbar protests and now the insurgency all in his pursuit of personal power in Iraq. These moves have all failed him as today he holds no office, apparently has no real followers, and his own tribe ended up disowning him for his inflammatory statements.”

Even US officials, thanks to Wikileaks, are shown to know exactly who Ali Hatem really is, and made the deal with the devil.

Kirk H. Sowell, a political risk analyst and the publisher of Inside Iraqi Politics, has studied the various groups of the ‘tribal revolutionaries’ and says: “We find no evidence Hatem has any substantial military organization, and aside from his personal guards, and he may not have any at all. He is a pan-Arab media star and from what we can tell, nothing more. His group is called the ‘Arab Tribes Revolutionary Council’ and no one seems to be fighting on their behalf.”

But not only is Hatem just a façade, he has actually caused much infighting and discord among the tribes themselves. In fact a gathering of Ramadi tribal leaders passed a tribal death sentence on Hatem, referring to him as a criminal.

The poster boy is always highly sought after by the media, someone dashing and able to roll off top-notch sound bites on demand, and Hatem fits the criteria to the dot. He’s worked with the Americans before, he ‘fought’ al-Qaeda so has a badge of honour, he is the ‘leader’ of a large Sunni Arab ‘tribe’, and he is available pretty much all the time, perfect for filing a story the desk chief is breathing down your neck for. So if he claims he is the tribal leader, that’s what you write after his name, without the word claimed of course. As Joel Wing says: “Ali Hatem has some of the best press of any figure in Iraq. For some reason Sleiman has become the sheikh to talk to about the insurgency by both the western and Arab press.”

His sponsors paying for his name and image (and the hotel room) need him to threaten Baghdad with, or at least to use the media for that. Some are Americans raging on about getting the tribes aboard, arming them so they can fight ISIS, others are Gulf Arabs complaining about the lack of inclusivity and the need for Sunnis to lead the Sunnis. Were it possible that Hatem is actually capable of doing so and being that fighting leader then that might not be such a bad thing. But unfortunately it’s a case of his bark being worse than his bite.

In the end you cannot blame Hatem for trying. There is money, weapons, influence and political positions up for grabs. The Americans threw those at some tribes in return for outsourcing the battle against Al-Qaeda, creating the Sawha militias and calling them ‘Sons of Iraq’. They created yet another culture of money talks when dealing with Iraq, opening it up to corruption and abuse. This has plagued the good people of Anbar in particular, who suffer from poor leaders and a cycle of treacherous violence. Some US military officials say Hatem did a job then so he can do it again, but that job was America sweeping it’s dirt under Iraq’s carpet and walking away as if nothing happened.

So the next time you read Ali Hatem, head of the Dulaim tribe, don’t bother with the pinch of salt, just click back on your browser.

(photo credit: SAFIN HAMED/AFP/Getty Images)

Posted in Iraq | Tagged | Leave a comment

7 reasons why daesh are not Muslim, actually conflict with Islam, and go against the Quran

1. They kill human beings without just cause

“O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do” [4:135]

let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice” [5:8]

if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people” [5:32]

take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom” [6:151]

  1. They want to force people to following the same religion as them

“Let there be no compulsion in religion” [2:256]

“To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute” [5:48]

Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah” [6:108]

If it had been thy Lord’s will, they would all have believed, all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!” [10:99]

“Say, “The truth is from your Lord”: Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it)” [18:29]

“Say: O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine” [109:1-6]

  1. They ignore the fact that Islam respects multiple religions and cultures

“Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians, any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve” [2:62]

And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, “We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)” [29:46]

“O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you” [49:13]

Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just” [60:8]

  1. They ignore the fact that non-Muslims are also rewarded for doing good by Allah

whoever submits His whole self to Allah and is a doer of good, He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve” [2:112]

And spend of your substance in the cause of Allah, and make not your own hands contribute to (your) destruction; but do good; for Allah loveth those who do good” [2:195]

“Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous. Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right” [3:113-115]

But those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, We shall soon admit to Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath, their eternal home: Therein shall they have companions pure and holy: We shall admit them to shades, cool and ever deepening” [4:57]

Thus do We certainly reward the Doers of Good” [77:44]

5. They do not have religious authority to act on behalf of Muslims

“He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:” and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding” [3:7]

O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination” [4:59]

So take what the Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you. And fear Allah; for Allah is strict in Punishment” [59:7]

6. They do not treat people with mercy and kindness as the Quran orders the Prophet and all Muslims

It is part of the Mercy of Allah that thou dost deal gently with them Wert thou severe or harsh-hearted, they would have broken away from about thee: so pass over (Their faults), and ask for (Allah’s) forgiveness for them; and consult them in affairs (of moment). Then, when thou hast Taken a decision put thy trust in Allah. For Allah loves those who put their trust (in Him)” [3:159]

We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures” [21:107]

Is there any Reward for Good – other than Good?” [55:60]

7. They use violence when it is forbidden to do so

“When it is said to them: “Make not mischief on the earth,” they say: “Why, we only Want to make peace!” Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not.” [2:11-12]

Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them)” [4:90]

Do no mischief on the earth, after it hath been set in order, but call on Him with fear and longing (in your hearts): for the Mercy of Allah is (always) near to those who do good” [7:56]

But if they incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)” [8:61]

| 3 Comments

Iraq neighbourhood watch update

20120227-224716.jpg

A neighbourhood like the Middle East doesn’t encourage friendly neighbourly-like behaviour, but being nice is certainly not in fashion at the moment. With the Arab spring crawling along the ground bloodied and bruised, some faces have changed, but not enough for most people.

In the midst of this, Iraq is now ‘liberated’ for the second time in the last 9 years and finds itself in a rough neighbourhood with not much for protection or allies. While the US has repeatedly said it is committed to the security of Iraq and the protection of its borders and people, most believe the US has left Iraq to the dogs. While allowing Iraq to fall into total lawlessness like Sudan in the 90s or Somalia more recently is definitely not the favoured scenario for the US, supporting a strong state that may become anti-US in its foreign policy is definitely not acceptable or will be allowed to happen.

As it stands Iraq is not strong enough politically or economically to influence the Middle East and certainly nowhere near powerful enough militarily to support its foreign policy there. It has worked out a basic long term strategy to develop the economic power (increase oil export capacity but not production to allow Iraq to control the only spare capacity in the world) but seems unsure of how to develop policy with regards to its immediate neighbours. Currently Iraq seems to receive its ME policy from Iran, with some internal rewording to soften the tones for the US, but has not managed to figure out its own long term foreign policy that includes Iran as an equal but not superior. Instead dealings with its neighbours seem to be reactionary and short sighted, with no strategy that is designed to accommodate for events on the ground. Some believe that Iraq spends all its time and energy in reacting to events on its own soil that other countries engineer: in effect Iraq is being tapped on the shoulder by so many at once that it is in a daze.

With the Arab League summit due in Baghdad soon, it will be interesting to see who turns up and what the mood will be. So I have drawn up what I understand is the current situation with the 6 immediate neighbouring states, and from this we can see that Iraq is rather isolated at the moment and that the US departure, while helpful in many ways, has served to highlight Iraq’s preoccupation with internal control to the detriment of its foreign policy.

    Turkey

Has followed up strong economic role in Iraq with increasing political influence. Despite Erdogan’s visit last year that saw all parties welcome him, his criticism of Baghdad which lead to a diplomatic spat shows Turkey is stepping up its attempt to counter Iranian influence in Iraq. Opposition figures still flock to Turkey and even the Kurds now see Turkey as a lesser threat than before and are willing to make drastic concessions to maintain good ties. PM Maliki has not obtained any significant support from Turkey for his current maneouvers and the government is still complaining about Turkey’s stifling supply of water. Goods, contracts and oil still flowing well between the two, second highest trade partnership for Iraq.

    Iran

Remains the most powerful actor in Iraq. While it still funds almost all parties, movements, insurgents and militias, it has seen growing resistance to its control over domestic politics. Resentment is high because nearly everyone has defied Iran at some point and paid a price, but now other states are supporting and protecting those who push back against Iran. While a chaotic Iraq is now not favourable following the US withdrawal, a weak Iraq would be ideal as it would remain beholden to Iran politically and economically, but would work against a strong Iraq. Using Iraq as a forward base to defend against an Israeli and/or US attack, and to threaten a regional war with Syria and Lebanon acting in the same capacity as Iraq. Most important trade partnership for Iraq, only ‘ally’ for Iraq in the region.

    Kuwait

Wary of Iraq’s increasing assertiveness and economic power. Though Iraq still seems to be the weak bumbling giant in this relationship, Kuwait is taking steps to check Iraq’s economic progress without damaging political relations (Mubarak port excellent example). Kuwait is still aggressively pursuing repatriations and debt, and has UN and US support in this. Almost all of Iraq’s cash is in the US and it won’t dare defy Kuwait while the US has guaranteed to protect and support it against Iraq. Royal Family has good links with all sides in Iraq, but Kuwaiti parliament is wary of a united Iraq with a nationalist sentiment. Potential for both good and bad outcomes in this relationship, but bad in the mid to long term more likely.

    Saudi Arabia

Most hostile neighbour with no incentive to better relations. Bitter relationship between Maliki and Abdullah has not improved, and both governments can see a huge clash on oil coming. In many ways Iraq is the equal and opposite of Saudi and the potential for political conflict is high. Trade, travel and diplomacy is very limited between the two, and religious enmity and fear is seen on all levels. Saudi has supported groups to fight a proxy war with Iran, but lost out eventually and seems willing to cede political influence to Turkey and Iran, but strengthening economic influence through control of OPEC and support of Kuwait. Negative outlook for the future.

    Jordan

Only favourable relationship for Iraq, Jordan growing weaker and more dependent. Despite poor relations earlier, 2011 showed weakness of Jordan’s economy and poor political influence. Iraq has successfully neutered political opposition and money in Amman, while improving diplomatic ties. Unrest in region and high energy prices have made Jordan more reliant on Iraqi gas and oil, which the Iraqi government still provides at a favourable discount. Both sides seem to be willing to strengthen accord and have been careful to avoid damaging statements. Outlook is highly positive for Iraq.

    Syria

Hedging bets, attempting to develop influence. This is the only state in which Iraq has an extensive intel network and can operate a policy of its own that may not be in line with Iran’s. The Iraqi government has not supported Asad publicly, but privately would like him to stay in power as the alternatives are less favourable, despite accusations of Damascus supporting or allowing terrorists to fund and operate in Iraq. If Assad falls, Iraq will support the new government and will gain influence, and also be in a stronger position when dealing with Iran. If Assad survives, Iraq will find itself in a murkier position between Tehran and Damascus, but not necessarily a hostile one. Positive outcome for Iraq likely in mid to long term.

Perhaps the Arab League will shed more light on these and other relations but at the moment it seems none of Iraq’s neighbours like Iraq and vice versa.

Posted in Iraq | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The “Monkey Master” fable – Why the Arab Revolution caught on

 

In his book “From Dictatorship to Democracy”, Gene Sharp uses a famous Chinese fable to explain why people tolerate oppressive dictatorships for so long.

A Fourteenth Century Chinese parable by Liu-Ji, for example, outlines the neglected understanding of political power quite well:

In the feudal state of Chu an old man survived by keeping monkeys in his service.  The people of Chu called him “jugong” (monkey master). Each morning, the old man would assemble the monkeys in his courtyard, and order the eldest one to lead the others to the mountains to gather fruits from bushes and trees. It was the rule that each monkey had to give one-tenth of his collection to the old man.  Those who failed to do so would be ruthlessly flogged.  All the monkeys suffered bitterly, but dared not complain.

One day, a small monkey asked the other monkeys: “Did the old man plant all the fruit trees and bushes?”  The others said:  “No, they grew naturally.”  The small monkey further asked:  “Can’t we take the fruits without the old man’s permission?”  The others replied:  “Yes, we all can.” The small monkey continued:  “Then, why should we depend on the old man; why must we all serve him?”

Before the small monkey was able to finish his statement, all the monkeys suddenly became enlightened and awakened.

On the same night, watching that the old man had fallen asleep, the monkeys tore down all the barricades of the stockade in which they were confined, and destroyed the stockade entirely.  They also took the fruits the old man had in storage, brought all with them to the woods, and never returned.  The old man finally died of starvation.

Yu-li-zi says, “Some men in the world rule their people by tricks and not by righteous principles.  Aren’t they just like the monkey master?  They are not aware of their muddle-headedness.  As soon as their people become enlightened, their tricks no longer work.”

This fable explains in some way how the Arab street woke up from its slumber. The small monkey, whose voice was that of freedom in the fable, is reflected in the young Tunisian man who burnt himself to get the others to realize they needed to do something.

 

Posted in Middle East | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Why should America continue to pay for Iraq’s reconstruction?

I’ve now read in full the report released today by the Government Accountability Office of the United States Congress on Iraqi-US cost sharing. The subtitle of this report, Iraq has a cumulative budget surplus, clearly elucidates the Obama administration’s policy that the US has done enough for Iraq and that it should now proceed on its own.

The general ‘let the Iraqis shoulder all the costs now’ attitude is regularly seen among American commentators especially those who have started to openly call for a dictator to return to rule Iraq and that it was a big mistake for the US to topple Saddam Hussein. Some of the titles of these articles begging for billions, sitting on billions and Iraq posting massive surplus thanks to US taxpayers are frankly insulting and hostile. Yes, the Iraqi governments so far have been corrupt, weak and ineffective, but that does not mean the Iraqi people owe the US any debt whatsoever, for whatever financial assistance they have provided.

The United States supported the Baath coup that brought Saddam to power. The US provided the billions for Saddam to build his army and to fight Iran and subsequently Kuwait. It allowed him to crush the rebellion of 91 and then imposed sanctions which destroyed the country. It was a major factor behind Iraq’s spiralling debt and even post-2003 it has been reluctant to remove the chapter 7 provisions sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. Why should America continue to pay for Iraq’s reconstruction? Because it is an accomplice in the crimes committed against the Iraqi people over the last four decades.

Below is a summary of what the GAO study found, which can be read in full at this link

What GAO Found

GAO analysis of Iraqi government data showed that Iraq generated an estimated cumulative budget surplus of $52.1 billion through the end of 2009. This estimate is consistent with the method that Iraq uses to calculate its fiscal position. Adjusting for $40.3 billion in estimated outstanding advances as of September 2009 reduces the amount of available surplus funds to $11.8 billion. In April 2010, a senior Ministry of Finance official stated that advances should be deducted from the budget surplus because they are committed for future expenditures or have been paid out. According to this official and Board of Supreme Audit reports on Iraq’s financial statements, advances include funds for letters of credit, advance payments on domestic contracts, and other advances. However, Iraq’s Board of Supreme Audit has raised concerns that weaknesses in accounting for advances could result in the misappropriation of government funds and inaccurate reporting of expenditures. Furthermore, the composition of some of these advances is unclear; about 40 percent of the outstanding advances through 2008 are defined as “other temporary advances.” Under the terms of a February 2010 International Monetary Fund (IMF) arrangement, Iraq agreed to prepare a report on its outstanding advances, which will identify those advances that are recoverable and could be used for future spending, and set a time schedule for their recovery. This Iraqi report is to be completed by September 30, 2010.

Another means of assessing Iraq’s fiscal position is to examine its financial deposit balances. Iraqi government data and an independent audit report show that, through the end of 2009, Iraq had accumulated between $15.3 billion and $32.2 billion in financial deposit balances held at the Central Bank of Iraq, the Development Fund for Iraq in New York, and state-owned banks in Iraq. This range reflects a discrepancy between the amount of government-sector deposits reported by the Central Bank of Iraq to the IMF and the amount that the Ministry of Finance asserts is available for government spending. In November 2009, the Ministry of Finance reclassified $16.9 billion in state-owned banks as belonging to state-owned enterprises and trusts, leaving $15.3 billion of $32.2 billion available to the Iraqi government for other spending. The IMF is seeking clarification on the amount of financial deposits that is available for government spending. Under the terms of Iraq’s 2010 arrangement with the IMF, the Ministry of Finance is required to complete a review of all central government accounts and return any idle balances received from the budget to the central Iraqi Treasury by March 31, 2010. As of August 2010, according to the IMF, this review was still under way.

Iraqi government data show that Iraq’s security ministries—the Ministries of Defense and Interior—increased their spending from 2005 through 2009 and set aside about $5.5 billion for purchases through the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program. However, over this 5-year period, these ministries did not use between $2.5 billion and $5.2 billion of their budgeted funds that could have been used to address security needs. The administration is requesting $2 billion in additional U.S. funding in its fiscal year 2011 budget request to support the training and equipping of Iraq’s military and police.

Posted in Iraq | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Will any of the black gold wealth finally reach the Iraqi people?

The Rumaila oil fields. The contracts with CNPC and BP have been approved by Iraqi supreme court

Posted in Images | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment