Lobotero’s Info Ink

For many months the threat has been there, some sort of action against Iran, but what would the consequences be for Iraq if such an action was begun.

Iraq will be plunged into a new war if Israel or the US launches an attack on Iran, Iraqi leaders have warned. Iranian retaliation would take place in Iraq, said Dr Mahmoud Othman, the influential Iraqi MP.

The Iraqi government’s main allies are the US and Iran, whose governments openly detest each other. The Iraqi government may be militarily dependent on the 140,000 US troops in the country, but its Shia and Kurdish leaders have long been allied to Iran. Iraqi leaders have to continually perform a balancing act in which they seek to avoid alienating either country.

The balancing act has become more difficult for Iraq since George Bush successfully requested $400m (£200m) from Congress last year to fund covert operations aimed at destabilising the Iranian leadership. Some of these operations are likely to be launched from Iraqi territory with the help of Iranian militants opposed to Tehran. The most effective of these opponent groups is the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), which enraged the Iraqi government by staging a conference last month at Camp Ashraf, north-east of Baghdad. It demanded the closure of the Iranian embassy and the expulsion of all Iranian agents in Iraq. “It was a huge meeting” said Dr Othman. “All the tribes and political leaders who are against Iran, but are also against the Iraqi government, were there.” He said the anti-Iranian meeting could not have taken place without US permission.

May I suggest that a rethink should been done on any action against Iran, the region cannot stand another upheaval like the one began by the invasion and occupation of Iraq.  The troops may NEVER come home it the ignorance prevails.

In Iraq for 25, 50 100 years?  With stories like this, then I would say there is a good possibility unless someone has the cajones to end it!

Iraqi security forces are unable to maintain order following operations targeting al-Qaida fighters in the northern city of Mosul, officials said Thursday.

U.S. and Iraqi authorities view Mosul, the provincial capital of Ninawa, as one of the last remaining al-Qaida strongholds in Iraq. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered a military crackdown in the northern city in May.

The gains from these operations, however, have disintegrated as militant groups re-entered the city and gunmen reportedly are roaming the streets in force, the Iraqi daily Azzaman reported.

Ninawa officials said there was an insufficient number of Iraqi troops to maintain security following operations in May.

“Residents are hopeless once again after shortly enjoying the faint light at the end of the tunnel,” officials said on condition of anonymity.

Officials said they are also concerned about the presence of the Kurdish Peshmerga force, which guards their political districts in the largely Arab city.

At least 18 people died and nearly 80 were wounded in a car bomb attack in Mosul Thursday that targeted the offices of Ninawa Provincial Governor Duraid Kashmula.

The media has successfully pushed Iraq to the back burner and not reported on the war as it should be.  There are still Americans dying in this country and for this president so I believe that anything that happens in the country of Iraq is newsworthy.  Our troops deserve better treatment by the media.

Insurgent activity is increasing sharply in Afghanistan and has spread into once stable areas, with attacks up almost 40% in the eastern provinces alone, according to new American military data that have prompted alarm among senior Pentagon officials.

Rising attacks against Afghan and NATO troops in the east represent the latest in a series of troubling developments that have led to markedly higher U.S. casualties and have prompted the military’s top leadership to order a review of its strategy in Afghanistan, including how to make do with limited numbers of American troops. Any significant troop increase in Afghanistan would be dependent on future force drawdowns in Iraq.
Southern Afghanistan has long been the most violent part of the country, and U.S. officers have complained that shorter tours of NATO commanders in the south have hampered the counterinsurgency effort. The current southern commander, Canadian Maj. Gen. Marc Lessard, is serving a 10-month tour. Incoming commanders would serve at least 12 months under the new pact. More broadly, senior U.S. military officers hope to hammer out a “comprehensive campaign plan” with NATO allies, which would include agreements on military strategy as well as such efforts as counter-narcotics programs and reinforcing the Afghan government.
Despite the unexpected rise in violence in eastern Afghanistan, Schloesser did not call for additional forces in his region. American-led forces there are facing a patchwork of Sunni Muslim groups, unlike in the south, where the Taliban is resurgent. Schloesser attributed the increase in attacks in part to more aggressive patrols by Afghan and allied troops into previously untrod areas.

You would think that the only war being fought today that can be justified, would have more support from the rest of the world.  Americans need to pay more and closer attention to this war.

Israel on Wednesday publicly pushed to open peace negotiations with Lebanon, seeking to add another initiative to an already burgeoning diplomatic roster that includes talks with some of the Jewish state’s foremost adversaries.

While Lebanon immediately indicated it has no desire for a deal with Israel, the overture came just a day after Israel agreed to a truce with the armed Islamist group Hamas that took effect early Thursday in and around the Gaza Strip. Israel is also negotiating a prisoner exchange with Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite movement it fought to a standstill in 2006, and last month announced the resumption of long-stalled peace talks with Syria.

The sudden diplomatic activity represents a turnabout from just this spring, when Israel was leading the charge for the world to isolate — rather than engage — armed groups and Middle Eastern governments considered hostile to the West. In its policies and pronouncements, Israel favored sanctions over dialogue and threats of force over cease-fires.

Negotiations between Israel and Lebanon, if they happen, would probably be intimately linked to the talks between Israel and Syria, which are being mediated by Turkey.

There is widespread skepticism in Israel that the negotiations will amount to much, although there is a possibility that Olmert will meet Syrian President Bashar al-Assad at a conference in France next month, a move that would be likely to further weaken U.S. efforts to isolate Syria.

Many Israeli commentators believe Olmert is launching the diplomatic initiatives only to deflect attention from a corruption probe that threatens to bring down his government. But some note that there could be benefits, even if the motives are complex.

Maybe if the two sides spend more time talking with each other, then maybe, just maybe, they will not have enough time to kill each other.  Just a thought.

Peace between Israel and Syria will usher in a new era of prosperity and allow people to travel freely throughout the Middle East, Syria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Faysal Mekdad told the Chicago Tribune Tuesday.

“When people can move freely between Syria, Israel, Palestine, Jordan and Egypt, a great change will take place,” Mekdad told the U.S. daily in an interview. “Our people will enjoy life without bad dreams of the martyrdom of their children, we will improve living conditions and we will open up to the international community. The impact of peace will be bliss for the entire region.” Riad Abrash, an aide to the government in Damascus, was quoted as saying that Syria would like the U.S. to participate in further talks with Israel. “We would like America to be the caretaker of the whole thing. We don’t expect them to do it under this administration but we have high hopes for the next administration,” Abrash said.

Meanwhile, Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan said yesterday that indirect peace talks between Israel and Syria held in Turkey over the past few days were a success, and two more sessions have been planned for July.

Appears that war has finally made all players see the need for a peaceful settlement of the hostilities.

An Egyptian-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip that could ease a crippling Israeli blockade of the coastal territory will begin Thursday, an Israeli official has confirmed.

The announcement of the ceasefire came on a day when Israel killed six militants in air strikes in Gaza. The ceasefire aims to end rocket and mortar bomb attacks on Israel from the coastal enclave and Israeli raids and air strikes in the territory.

Confirming details provided to Reuters by a Palestinian official in Gaza on Tuesday, Zaki said the truce would go into effect at 6 a.m. (11 p.m. Wednesday ET) on Thursday.

Hamas leader in Gaza Mahmoud al-Zahar told a news conference in Gaza City that the truce was intended to last six months. Israel has said it would continue preparing for possible large-scale military action should a truce fall apart.

Senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said his group believed the ceasefire would hold and help those living in the coastal enclave: “We believe that what was agreed upon will last and the Palestinian people will see the fruits of their endurance.

U.S. officials, who reject contact with Hamas because they view it as a terrorist organization, dismissed suggestions they were being eclipsed as peace brokers

The White House had no comment on reports of the truce.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai threatened Sunday for the first time to send troops into Pakistan to kill Taliban fighters if they pursued cross-border attacks.

Karzai said at a news conference that Afghanistan has the right to self-defense, and because guerrillas from Pakistan “come and kill Afghan and kill coalition troops, it exactly gives us the right to do the same.”

Analysts said they doubt military action by Afghanistan is imminent, but Pakistan’s prime minister said the threat “will not be taken well.”

Pakistan has warned it will not tolerate any violations of its borders.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said Pakistan did not interfere with other countries and would not allow any interference in its affairs.

His warning came after Afghan President Hamid Karzai threatened to send troops over the border into Pakistan to confront militants based there.

He said his nation had the right to retaliate in “self-defence” when militants crossed over from Pakistan.

Now the US has a double problem to be concerned with–if the attack comes will Pakistan remain in the US fold?

The issue erupted after Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) said in an interview with NBC’s “Today” show that the timetable for U.S. forces to come home from Iraq is not of great concern as long as U.S. casualties in the Middle East fall to levels comparable to those in allied countries where U.S. forces have been stationed for decades without incident.

“That’s not too important,” McCain said, when asked by host Matt Lauer if he could better estimate when U.S. forces would come home. “What’s important is the casualties in Iraq,” he said. “Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany. That’s all fine.”

McCain has long emphasized bringing U.S. military casualties down in Iraq to bolster the American public’s commitment to stabilizing Iraq. But even if McCain’s statement yesterday differed little from his past pronouncements, it came at a delicate diplomatic juncture. The Bush administration is trying to hammer out bilateral agreements governing the future status of U.S. forces in Iraq, to take effect when the current U.N. mandate expires at the end of December. The two accords — a status-of-forces agreement and a broader security “framework” — have come under sharp criticism in Iraq because of administration proposals to retain unilateral control over U.S. military operations as well as the ability to detain Iraqi citizens while providing legal immunity for U.S. security contractors. Iraqi politicians have also charged that the United States plans to maintain up to 60 military bases there.

I guess I am looking at it differently, if the US pulled forces from Korea, Germany or Japan there would be NO violence, but I guess that is part of the argument, that if we had left too early from aforementioned countries they would not be as stable as they are today…..Now I am looking at other statements…like the US has a duty to bring stability to Iraq..well yes and no..first we caused this massive f/up so there can be a position made that we need to fix it.  But also, the US cannot bring something that the people do not want.  It depends on your thought process.  There is NO easy answer to the Iraq situation.  My biggest problem with the war is that the squandered funds that could be more expertly used in the US.  I also have a problem with this war because they were told what would happed if the US invaded, especially by Dr. Zbig (and I wish I could spell his last name), when on the day of the invasion he told the media what would be the outcome.  Everything else is hindsight and once again the powers that be do not have foresight.

Do you know how many years that question been asked?  And by how many people?  The war continues rockets fall on Israel and then bombs fall on the Palestinians.  And then it starts all over again.  But over the years Israel has agreed to many things and many positions.  But here is the reason for the tensions:

The Israeli government revealed plans Friday to build 100 homes in two Jewish settlements — one of them deep in the West Bank — in violation of its pledge to freeze settlement expansion.

Palestinian officials said the new construction in the settlements of Ariel and Elkana is undermining U.S.-backed efforts to reach a peace deal by the end of 2008.

Since a U.S.-hosted Mideast peace conference in November, Israel has announced several new building projects in areas of Jerusalem claimed by the Palestinians for their future state. However, Friday’s announcement marked the first time the Israeli government approved construction deep in the West Bank.

An Israeli security official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the new construction apparently is part of ongoing negotiations between the Israeli government and Jewish settler leaders. Approval for the 100 homes came in return for the recent voluntary evacuation of two small unauthorized settlement outposts, the official said.

They agree to much but seldom carry the promises through.  of course, the Pals are just as dishonest.  Until these people decide to keep their word and agreements, there will always be tensions in the area.