Iraqis Weigh Limits On US Military
Leaders of parliament may seek to restrict American operations in response to a rash of civilian casualties.
BAGHDAD - Leaders in the Iraqi parliament said Monday that they were taking steps to examine the U.S. military presence in Iraq with an eye toward possibly restricting the force’s activities, in a continuing backlash over an American raid that Iraqi officials say killed 13 civilians.
Before the end of the year, the United Nations is expected to take up its annual reauthorization of a Security Council resolution that allows the presence of U.S. troops here. Iraqi leaders have complained that the U.S. military has used too much force in responding to attacks, leading to the deaths of civilians, and that the Americans have not coordinated enough with Iraqi forces.
The U.S. military maintained that it killed 49 “criminals” in the raid Sunday on Sadr City, a mostly Shiite Muslim neighborhood in the Iraqi capital, and was unaware of any civilian casualties. But journalists for Western news organizations, including The Times, saw the bodies of two children at the Imam Ali hospital who were killed in the attack and interviewed other children who were wounded.
The parliament speaker’s office, which includes representatives from all three of Iraq’s major ethnic groups, issued a statement Monday saying: “The Iraqi parliament condemns these violations that are against the basics of military work and human rights. . . . The Iraqi parliament is taking these negative violations seriously as it touches the life and dignity of Iraqis.”
Leaders in parliament are to meet Oct. 31 to consider forming a committee, to be made up of representatives from various parties, to make recommendations on limitations Iraq should seek in the U.N. resolution. Factions are already squaring off, with some Sunni Arab moderates saying that the continued U.S. presence is crucial to Iraq’s future and Shiite leaders angry over the U.S. incursions into their neighborhoods seeking to curtail the American presence.
It is not clear what recommendations the committee might ultimately make, but members of parliament speculated Monday that they could include limiting the U.S. presence to certain areas in Iraq. The committee also could express a desire for a mission statement that the primary goal of American troops should be to train Iraqi forces, while establishing a timeline for U.S. withdrawal.
A recommendation to oppose the U.N. reauthorization entirely would appear to be unlikely.
“We think the issue is about establishing and developing Iraqi security forces capable of confronting the challenges,” said Salim Abdullah Jabouri, a member of parliament and spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance Front, the body’s main Sunni bloc. “It’s not right to speak about not having the presence of the U.S. forces, taking into consideration the chaos and security instability.”
Iraqis have increasingly chafed under the U.S. occupation, now well into its fifth year. Passions have been inflamed in recent weeks after a rash of civilian casualties stemming from military operations gone awry and killings of unarmed Iraqis by Western security contractors. Two previous military raids in Sadr City this summer killed a total of more than 50 people.
Should the parliament ultimately move forward with the effort to restrict U.S. military operations here, it would be the second time this year that members have sought some form of control over the U.S. presence. In June, the parliament passed a resolution, over the objections of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, requiring the government to seek parliament’s permission before asking the U.N. to extend the authorization for the U.S. troop presence.
The spokesman for the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, declined to comment, saying he was unfamiliar with the proposal. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy could not be reached by telephone and did not reply to an e-mail seeking comment.
Any changes to the U.N. military authorization would have to be approved by the 15-member Security Council, which will vote on the measure after hearing from military leaders and the Iraqi government. Although Iraq’s position would carry great weight in the deliberations, said Farhan Haq, a spokesman for the U.N. on Iraq issues, the U.S. is one of five Security Council members that has veto power and it could dash any changes it finds unpalatable.
Meanwhile, a roadside bomb in the Shiite enclave of Karada in Baghdad killed four people Monday and injured 12, including victims who were riding in a minibus that passed by at the time of the explosion.
An additional three people were killed and 11 injured, including four policemen, by a pair of roadside bombs near a day laborer site. And another roadside bomb attack targeting an Iraqi army patrol killed one soldier and injured two others Monday afternoon.
Police found the bodies of five men, who had been shot to death, on the streets of Baghdad.
Times staff writers Saif Rasheed and Saif Hameed contributed to this report.
christian.berthelsen@latimes.com
© 2007 The Los Angeles Times
It’s pretty unlikely that America is going to pay much attention to any Iraqis’ attempts to “limit” American operations in their country unless, and until, we have a Democratic president. And even then, unwinding a mess is not instantaneous.
Daniel David,
A Democratic president is not going to solve the problem. She will only make it worse.
Hillary, that is.
That would be a great embarassment to the neo-con agenda…The “democratically elected” and “representative government” of Iraq demanding that Americans leave…
And then you would see George Bush’s and Cheney’s stubborness brought out, and their true agenda exposed- as if people aren’t already onto them already.
They alreay can’t explain the logic “Things are going great in Iraq… but we think troops will have to remain there for 5-7+ years…”
We’re never really leaving Iraq… The Admin and congress are building bases to house 75,000 troops permanently. The myth is that we’re ever going to leave.
Iraq is just a pissing hole for the US military to train their troops in the fighting of a civilian insurgency so they will be prepared to fight their own citizens when 100 million of them are rioting because of a lack of jobs and food. So the traitors and idiots who voted for this warmongering administration, i hope get just what they deserve when they are evaporated by the nuclear war that Bush and Co. will start so he can call himself the war president of WWIII while hiding in a bunker miles below the destruction above. The show is about to begin….and not a damn thing can be done about it. So to all the jerks who voted for Bush and Dickless Cheney, you deserve to die for a cause that you voted for. So live with it. You’re all going to hell anyway. Good luck.
Daniel David writes (10:45 am) “It’s pretty unlikely that America is going to pay much attention to any Iraqis’ attempts to “limit” American operations in their country unless, and until, we have a Democratic president.”
Please give it a rest with your braindead commercials for the Democratic Party. Here, in your eagerness to wave pom-poms for the Democrats, you’ve written a laughably dishonest nonsequitur. Democrats support the “War on Terror;” they support the Iraq War; they consistently vote to fund the wars, while refusing to use mechanisms available to them, to halt the funding. From the get-go, they have helped the Bush administration to conceal from the public the wars’ criminal nature. They’ve supported the PATRIOT Act & the various torture-enabling acts, as well as NSA spying on American citizens. They protect Bush himself by keeping impeachment “off the table.” All the “first tier” Dem candidates recently admitted they “can’t promise” US troops would be out of Iraq, even by 2013.
On this background, the Democratic Party is accurately characterized as being 100% complicit in all the crimes of the Bush administration. They are warmongers & war-enablers — and the fact that they’re slightly less voluble about it than the Bush gangsters doesn’t alter that characterization in the least.
With every war since ww2, the number of civilian casulties has increased. The USA’s invasion has caused the violent, sudden death of over 800,000 Iraqis including many little kids and women. It has caused over a million to be crippled.
It seems at this point that if both the white house and pentagon were suddenly blasted into rubble that the vast majority of the people worldwide would want to celebrate.
———-
Here’s a great movie:
The War On Democracy
by John Pilger
1 hr 34 min
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3739500579629840148
It’s John Pilger’s first film for cinema
HE will end this mess immediately.
Dennis Kucinich, that is.
Maybe the big problem is that the world is run by folks who want to keep their Jobs and are paid by folks who don’t need to work.
As far as tactics that seem to work, The Billionaires for Bush group makes folks think and the reverse psychology is just the ticket!
Advocating what they fear too face up to: the guaranteed consequences…. “Bomb Iran and bring on the Revolution!” “Jesus can’t wait much longer!’ and if you are Dressed in black with a mask…… what can we lose?
i wish I had the guts!
Satire, just like music keeps us sane enough to cope.
and oh, John Mcain…While you were tied up in Nam during woodstock, It was Johnson and Nixon who got you over there and it was the Hippies and protesters, the Vets and Grunts and the Four Dead in Ohio that got your sorry ass outta there!
‘celebrity’ attempts a timid little rah-rah for Kucinich (11:52 am). No, Kucinich will not “end this mess immediately,” because he won’t even get 5% of the vote in the primaries — and then he will support Hillary, the pro-war Dem nominee, just as he did for Kerry in 2004.
Kucinich is one of the few decent Democrats. But he is not really running to “win the nomination.” As he would probably admit privately, he’s only running to keep antiwar voters from leaving the Democratic Party altogether.
On a related note: DemocracyNow! is reporting that NBC has refused to allow former senator Mike Gravel (the only other decent Dem presidential candidate) to participate in next week’s Dem debate in Philadelphia. Does anyone imagine the Dem Party bigwigs will be protesting this patently undemocratic decision? Of course they won’t. They probably helped NBC make the decision in the first place.
I guess the right got what it wanted: the ability of the Iraqis to govern themselves. Now can we start pulling our troops out of there?
RichM,
I did not say that Democrats can or will solve everything in Iraq, and my statements here are not “commercials”. What I said is that it’s unlikely that (us) Americans will officially pay much attention to the wishes of Iraqis unless and until we have a change of party in The White House. That change, if we’re lucky enough to get any change at all, will be to a Democratic president for the simple reason (call it braindead if you want) that no one else who can be elected is running.
Claudius. Hillary Clinton is the only Democratic contender that can be rightly labeled ‘pussy’. All the other candidates, both Republicrook and Democrook are just plain ‘pussies’.
OK OK we all know that Hillary will get what she wants…..don’t women always??…
Peter Sirois,
I like the subtle humor.
A recommendation to oppose the U.N. reauthorization entirely would appear to be unlikely.
BIG PROBLEM. Has anyone watched Meeting Resistance? The problem is the OCCUPATION. A recommendation to oppose reauthorization would end the occupation.
Sounds like these guys are worried about losing their own security perhaps.
Another excruciating catch to a Catch-22 that needn’t be.
Hey PETER AND JIM– WOULD YOU PLEASE REFRAIN FROM USING THE WORD “PUSSY” TO indicate weakness? Do you alleged progressive knuckle draggers not see the irony here?
Common dreams — comments need to be removed for this. I DON’T CARE IF JON STEWART SAYS IT. IT IS FUCKING OFFENSIVE TO ALL WOMEN.
Reading assignment: Why don’t you pick yourself up a copy of the Terror Dream?
No it is not only a word you retard, grousefeather, and in this case and most cases it is NOT USED TO INDICATE CAT. It and its increased permissive use demeans women.
this is fucking patronizing.
Rich M -
Kucinich could get the presidency. Of course it’s a long shot, but not totally & absolutely out of the question.
A string of unprecedented and unexpected events could take place between now and Nov 08.
The stock markets could totally collapse is one of many countless possibilities. In any event, the more good people who are familiar with Dennis Kucinich, the better.
In Venezuela, many people didn’t expect Chavez to get in and stay in power. He had the Venezuelan establishment (along with the bastards in washington) fanatically opposed to him - but against all odds, he has prevailed.
All of the relatively radical advances that have been for the people of the past 100 years have been viewed by many as totally impossible.
Sorry annike. Hurting each others feelings is divisive, impolite and counterproductive.
Very mature, daven. A simple request and you turn it into a war. Great example for bloggers. And we wonder why war is always the answer.
“No it is not only a word you retard, grousefeather, and in this case and most cases it is NOT USED TO INDICATE CAT. It and its increased permissive use demeans women.”
Actually in this case it is, ie as in PUSSYCAT, to indicate weakness to compare someone to a PUSSYCAT, so can you please get off your high horse and stop calling people retards when you are the one expressing her ignorance.
Recently I visited a former Gestapo interrogation cell turned museum in the town of Zakopane nestled in the Tatra Mountains of Poland. The museum guide and creator of this museum, a gentleman well into his eighties, recalled how he was a prisoner in the hands of the barbaric and feared Gestapo. Described were the middle of the night kicking down of doors, and the dragging out of so called suspects, which brought about the desired effect of sustained terror in the population, an earlier version of shock and awe. He recalled with pained eyes the techniques deployed by the sadistic interrogators, the hot and cold rooms, the application of pressurized boiling water into the various human orifices, both male and female, and I couldn’t help but think that this story is being repeated again by a nation whose government claims to be enlightened, civilized and justified. Not much different than the Third Reich claims.
Sorry annike, but you are accusing me of using the word “Pussy”.
If i have ever used it it was not in front of you.
are there any other words we cant use?
Oh OH Sorry I brought that up …I think I’ll go yell at the TV now.
RichM posts:”DemocracyNow! is reporting that NBC has refused to allow former senator Mike Gravel (the only other decent Dem presidential candidate) to participate in next week’s Dem debate in Philadelphia.”
The rest of the story is, NBC’s reason for it’s decision, is that he has not raised at least one million dollars.
Now their is fine example of capitalist democracy at work.
The American people should be outrage at this,but it will hardly make a ripple.
A majority of the Iraqi Parliament supported a proposal in May 2007 to request that the US leave Iraq, but the bill is not allowed to be tabled because of US pressure/conniving.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003702542_iraqsadr11.html
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Iraq_MPs_gather_votes_to_force_US_w_05112007.html
A few days later, Muqtada Al Sadr demanded immediate US withdrawal.
Why are we still there?
“a rash of civilian casualties”
All these young children shot down and left to rot. What a terrible waste! The cost of Bush’s war is hitting the working poor wery hard (while the plutocrats collect the warbucks). The price of renting a hovel and puting food on our children (leave no child insured) has gotten out of reach. I have asked my senators and congressman to please have these freshly killed suckling Iraqi children quick frozen and delivered to our local foodbanks so we can at least feed a little meat to our youngsters. I have not had a reply yet. Perhaps if everybody calls our elected officials…we can do something for Tiny Tims everywhere. Thank you.
Oh yeah, the U.S. killed 49 “criminals”, and “was unaware of any civilian casualties”. How would they know about civilian casualties, when they don’t bother to look for any? Or, is it that every Iraqi who they kill is by definition a “criminal” (remember when the only “good” Indian was a dead Indian?). Or, perhaps Iraqi criminals all wear t-shirts with “Iraqi Criminal” printed on them, making identification of criminals the straightforward exercise that the U.S. would have us believe (time and time again0. Or perhaps the children who the reporters saw dead in the hospital were in fact “child criminals”, much like the “baby terrorists” that the U.S. bombs, shoots, and otherwise kills on a regular basis (after all, we weren’t there, so who are we to suggest that those children weren’t criminals?). All I know is that the Pentagon never lies, the Bush Administration is beyond reproach in any of what goes on in Iraq, and that the sooner that Iraq looks like Nebraska the safer we all will be!
Almost anyone’s death is a loss–notice I said “almost”–and the death of a child is a terrible grief. The murder of a child is a crime. So the headline should really read, “US criminals Bush and Cheney kill 49 more Iraqis, including children.”
If Iraq joins the International Criminal Court the ICC would have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute any war crimes in Iraq, even if the country alleged to commit such crimes is not a member of the ICC.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/18/nirq118.xml
I had a discussion with my mother last night. She has been brainwashed by Fox and is getting old so I go easy on her. She supports blowing up buildings having snipers as the only means of protecting the troops, even if it meant civilian casualties. I asked her if she felt that it would be acceptable for her apartment building to be bombed should a sniper begin firing on police from her building, reminding her she would be unlikely to leave the building for fear of being shot. After all, bombing her building would ensure the safety of the police. Her argument was that we are not at war here as we are in Iraq.
Yet the war in Iraq ended in 2003. It is now an occupation with the military being used in law enforcement duties similar to police in the US, and while there is a lot more crime and violence on the streets of Baghdad, the rules of engagement are similar. Bombing densely populated civilian areas in a country we occupy to take out a sniper(s) is a crime. Even the most accurate of precision guided weapons miss their target by 40 ft or more 25% of the time. And bombing apartment buildings with precision where civilians are likely to be living in at the time of the bombing is quite simply a criminal act. Those who support such acts are also subject to prosecution. I look forward to the Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Coulter trials almost as much as the Bush-Cheny trials. Yes, the Baghdad Bob’s of the world that feed the critters their war propaganda Cheerios are not immune from prosecution.
A long time ago…
His Last Question
I answered my country’s call
And blitzkrieged across Iraq.
The stench of burning flesh
Is seared into my brain.
We were liberators, I was told,
And would be greeted with joy!
The misery and hate in their eyes
Is burned into my memory.
The children sometimes smile,
But are quickly hurried away.
Weapons fire rips through the street,
My reflexes drop me to the dirt.
Ambulances, bodies, civilians, children,
And sometimes a buddy of mine.
Automatic weapons and RPG’s
Do not pick and choose.
My Sergeant says, “Don’t trust any of them,
Waste ‘em if they get too close.”
A sick baby, dead with its family, asking for help.
Despite this I’m a liberator, or so I’m told.
Explosions far and near disturb my rest.
The pervading heat dehydrates me.
Every man’s hand is turned against me here,
And I’m to continue “liberating.”
It’s tough at home, the President says,
They’ve got to cut my pay.
My tour’s extended to a year.
I’ve never seen my son.
I’ve seen a lot of babies die
And heard the women cry
And seen my buddies blown apart
by “liberated” men.
I’ve tried to do my duty
But, Lord, it’s getting hard.
The war is over, the Prez has said.
Does he tell that to the body bags?
I joined to get an education,
Agreed to do what I was told.
Was assured I’d be greeted with flowers,
And cheers, and tears of joy.
What I’ve seen smacks of madness,
I’ll never be the same.
My life is one last question,
May I go home, now? Please?
31 August 2003
Steve Osborn
“We’ll stand down when Iraqis stand up,” Dubya said.
I don’t think he has the wherewithal to imagine that they would stand up to some small part the US killing machine.
What’s going on? One million dead. Three million displaced. A whole generation with Post-traumatic-Stress-Disorder. And no one seems to be outraged. No one who can get on TV, that is. With the exception of some guests on C-SPAN BOOK TV.
Why do they try to make Cindy Sheehan look like the nut?
Why do they call Norman Solomon the traitor?
It’s all FUBAR! And I’m getting very very pissed off!