Britain could cut its troops in Iraq by end of the year

Michael Evans, Defence Editor
The Times of London

• Timing depends on security position
• Talks to continue with Syria and Iran

A cutback in British troops in Iraq could still go ahead this year, despite the new US strategy of sending an additional 20,000 soldiers to reinforce efforts to defeat the insurgents, Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, told MPs yesterday.

However, addressing a joint session of the Commons Defence and Foreign Affairs committees, he gave no promises of substantial reductions and said that decisions on any reduction of troops would have to wait until security conditions in southern Iraq, where the British are based, had stabilised.

He told the MPs he was “aware of the possibility” that any future American strike on militia in Sadr City, the Shia slum in Baghdad, might have repercussions in the Shia community in Basra. He said that contingency plans existed for that eventuality.

However, he and Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, jointly questioned by the MPs, both emphasised that southern Iraq was different from Baghdad in terms of the level of violence, and there was still hope that a reduction in forces could happen this year.

Defence sources said that under present military planning, the next rotation of troops in Basra — with 1 Mechanised Brigade taking over from 19 Light Brigade in the early summer — was due to go ahead without any cut in numbers, maintaining the strength of the British presence at about 7,000.

“If the security conditions are looking better by then it might be possible to remove the odd unit from the brigade, but not a substantial amount,” one defence source said.

Mr Browne told the MPs that the situation had not changed since November when he had said that he had every expectation that he would be able to announce a withdrawal of troops in 2007 and that he hoped it would be “in the thousands”. He said that Tony Blair had made it clear he would make a statement to the Commons next month or in March about the security situation in Basra once Operation Sinbad, the drive to clear extremists from Basra city, was over.

Mr Browne told the MPs that as an indication of the success of British efforts in the south, the number of murders being committed in Basra had gone down from 139 in June last year to 29 in December.

Both Mr Browne and Mrs Beckett emphasised that the present strategy in Basra and elsewhere in southern Iraq would continue as before.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, sitting alongside the two ministers, reassured the MPs that the US had made no request for British troops to serve elsewhere in Iraq.

He also said that plans to put all British troops in Basra into one base, at the airport site, were going ahead and should be completed soon. There are also troops at Shaibah, a logistics base, south of Basra.

Mrs Beckett told the MPs that the Government intended to carry on talking to Iran and Syria and that it supported the Iraq Study Group recommendation that America should include Iran and Syria in discussions about Iraq’s future. Mr Bush made it clear in his speech that he has rejected this proposal.

Read full post and comments:
"Britain could cut its troops in Iraq by end of the year" >>

FDA investigates Texas business that lets prospective parents choose embryos

By Elizabeth White, Associated Press
Last update: January 12, 2007 – 6:29 PM
The Minneapolis Star Tribune

SAN ANTONIO — Federal officials are investigating a business that produces batches of ready-made embryos and lets prospective parents select one based on the donors' looks, ethnicity, education and other factors.

A consumer safety officer from the Food and Drug Administration was at Jennalee Ryan's house Friday during an Associated Press interview with the woman who runs the Abraham Center of Life. The officer would not comment.

An FDA spokeswoman in Dallas confirmed that the agency is investigating but would not elaborate. It was unclear what laws or regulations were the focus of the investigation.

Ryan's service involves a New York physician who uses donated eggs and sperm to create embryos that can be bought for $5,000 a pair. Ryan said she allows customers to choose embryos after reviewing the donors' characteristics, including their ethnic and educational background and, in some cases, their photos.

"Who wants an ugly, stupid kid?" she said.

At Ryan's business, sperm donors must have doctorates; egg donors must be young, intelligent and attractive. Egg donors are paid $3,500 by the recipient family but may be paid extra if they have "earned a postgraduate degree; have a unique skill, characteristic or trait," her Web site said. The sperm, which she said cost about $400 per vial, comes from sperm banks. Only one or two women so far have contributed eggs to Ryan's project.

Ryan, who runs the business out of her home in a well-to-do section San Antonio, offers already-made embryos, meaning clients cannot customize their choices by eye or hair color. Parents-to-be must choose from what Ryan has put together.

"Anybody off the street can walk into a clinic and do exactly what I'm doing. They can hire an egg donor, they can hire a sperm donor, and they can create embryos," she said. "The problem is because I took the egg and the sperm and put them together. Now all of a sudden it's Pandora's box."

Ryan said she started the center last summer but does not hope to profit from it and said she hasn't so far.

"People say, 'Well, is this ethical to do what you do? Is it moral to do what you do?"' Ryan said. "Is it ethical or moral not to do it when I have the means and ability to do it? Knowing that I can, should I continue listening to women lament that can't have children?"

Read full post and comments:
"FDA investigates Texas business that lets prospective parents choose embryos" >>

Tensions rise as Washington accuses Iran over militias

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 14 January 2007
The Independent/UK

Tensions between the US and Iran were set to escalate last night after it was revealed that President George Bush had signed an executive order several months ago, authorising American troops to undertake wide-ranging military action against Iranian operatives active inside Iraq.

That discreetly issued directive was the basis for at least two raids against Iranian targets last week - including one in the Kurdish city of Irbil.

The President's decision - revealed by Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, who yesterday arrived in the Middle East for talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders - was taken amid growing concern that Iran has been providing weapons and training to Shia forces in Iraq. Without irony, the US has long accused Iran of meddling in the affairs of its neighbour.

"There has been a decision to go after these networks," Ms Rice told The New York Times before leaving Washington. "[The President acted] after a period of time in which we saw increasing activity among Iranians in Iraq and increasing lethality in what they were producing." Her comments echoed those made by Mr Bush during his address to the nation on Wednesday evening, when he outlined his plan to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq. In his address, without citing any evidence, he accused Iran of supplying support for attacks being carried out on US troops and vowed to respond.

"[Iran and Syria] are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops," Mr Bush said. "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Privately, US officials claim Iran has provided explosives and infrared triggering devices for roadside bombs that can penetrate armour. Some of the attacks have been on British forces in southern Iraq. Officials have also reportedly claimed that thousands of Shia militia fighters have been trained in Iran by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security. Again, no evidence to support these claims has been made public.

US officials deny that the Bush administration is seeking to provoke Iran. The White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said that there was "an urban legend that's going around that Mr Bush was trying to prepare the way for war" with Iran or Syria.

But in recent days the US has deployed an additional aircraft carrier off the Iranian coast. USS John Stennis will join the battle group led by USS Dwight D Eisenhower. In addition, a 600-strong Patriot anti-missile defence system unit from Fort Bliss, Texas, has been deployed to the Middle East, though it is unclear where precisely it will be located.

Against this backdrop, Ms Rice, perhaps not surprisingly, has played down expectations from her trip to the Middle East - her eighth since becoming Secretary of State. Speaking to reporters on the way to Israel, she said: "I'm not coming with a proposal. I'm not coming with a plan." She added: "I expect this trip to really be one in which we have intensive consultations. If you don't lay the groundwork very well, then it's not going to succeed. And I think no plan can be made in America."

Her mission was given some headway last night by news that significant progress had been made in secret coalition talks in Damascus between the supreme Hamas leader and envoys of the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. As another round of talks was held yesterday in the Syrian capital, officials from both sides signalled a sudden shift in atmosphere after several weeks of tough internal fighting.

Ms Rice was last night due to meet Israel's defence and foreign ministers. Today she heads for the West Bank city of Ramallah to meet Mr Abbas, and tomorrow talks are scheduled with the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert. Her trip also includes stops in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Germany and Britain.

Read full post and comments:
"Tensions rise as Washington accuses Iran over militias" >>

Shock and oil: Iraq's billions & the White House connection

Stephen Foley reports from New York
The Independent/UK
Published: 14 January 2007

The American company appointed to advise the US government on the economic reconstruction of Iraq has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into Republican Party coffers and has admitted that its own finances are in chaos because of accounting errors and bad management.

BearingPoint is fighting to restore its reputation in the US after falling more than a year behind in reporting its own financial results, prompting legal actions from its creditors and shareholders.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, BearingPoint employees gave $117,000 (£60,000) to the 2000 and 2004 Bush election campaigns, more than any other Iraq contractor. Other recipients include three prominent Congressmen on the House of Representatives' defence sub-committee, which oversees defence department contracts.

One of the biggest single contributors to BearingPoint's in-house political fund was James Horner, who heads the company's emerging markets business which is working in Iraq and Afghanistan. He donated $5,000 in August 2005.

The company's shares have collapsed to a third of their value when the firm listed in 2001, and it faces being thrown out of the New York Stock Exchange altogether. Despite annual revenues of $3.4bn, the company made a loss of $722m in 2005. Those figures were released only last month, nine months late, and the company has not yet been able to report any fully audited figures at all for 2006.

Analysts in the US claim the reason is a culture of poor management controls stretching back to before the company was carved out of KPMG, the global accounting giant, at the start of the decade. A litany of failings included invoices going astray, poorly trained accounting staff and a failure to work out the tax implications of having so many employees working in foreign countries.

The chaos is not the result of malfeasance, but is "embarrassing and inexcusable" none the less, according to Harry You, a former computer company finance chief brought in to head BearingPoint in 2005 after it fired its long-standing previous chief executive, the former US army captain Randolph Blazer. BearingPoint did not return calls asking for comment yesterday.

BearingPoint is being paid $240m for its work in Iraq, winning an initial contract from the US Agency for International Development (USAid) within weeks of the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. It was charged with supporting the then Coalition Provisional Authority to introduce policies "which are designed to create a competitive private sector". Its role is to examine laws, regulations and institutions that regulate trade, commerce and investment, and to advise ministries and the central bank.

Last week The Independent on Sunday revealed that a BearingPoint employee, based in the US embassy in Baghdad, had been tasked with advising the Iraqi Ministry of Oil on drawing up a new hydrocarbon law. The legislation, which is due to be presented to Iraq's parliament within days, will give Western oil companies a large slice of profits from the country's oil fields in exchange for investing in new oil infrastructure.

BearingPoint's first task in Iraq in 2003 was to help to plan the introduction of a new currency, and it was hoped that it would eventually organise small loans to Iraqi entrepreneurs to stimulate a significant market economy. The contract award was immediately criticised by public integrity watchdogs and by the company's rivals, because BearingPoint advisers to USAid had a hand in drafting the requirements set out in the tender. It spent five months helping USAid to write the job specifications and even sent some employees to Iraq to begin work before the contract was awarded, while its competitors had only a week to read the specifications and submit their own bids after final revisions were made.

USAid's independent inspector ruled that "BearingPoint's extensive involvement in the development of the Iraq economic reform program creates the appearance of unfair competitive advantage in the contract award process". The company said it was selected through a transparent and competitive bidding process.

Across the world, BearingPoint has become, thanks to USAid funding, a part of the US government's strategy of spreading free-market reforms to developing countries and America's allies. Elsewhere in the Middle East it is advising the government of Jordan on how to minimise the regulation of business and reform its tax policies in order to attract foreign investment; in Egypt it is advising on customs reform and respect for international companies' patents.

It has won more than $100m of business in Afghanistan since American troops invaded in 2002, and has been helping to build a banking system, training civil servants in the finance ministry and offering advice on economic policy.

Its economic reconstruction work grew out of early work in eastern Europe after the fall of communism, and became a significant contributor to the business after it won contracts in the former Yugoslavia following US intervention there.

The company changed its name to BearingPoint from KPMG Consulting in 2002, shortly after separating from its parent company. In the years since, contracts with the US government have proved the highlight of the business, while its work for private company clients has failed to live up to hopes. In part because of its reliance on the US federal government - which accounts for about 30 per cent of revenues - BearingPoint has dramatically stepped up its attempts to buy influence in Washington. Its contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan coincide with a big increase in its lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill. In 2005, the latest year for which figures have been collated, BearingPoint paid $1m to lobbyists, equalling the record total it paid in 2003. That is five times its average annual bill for lobbyists prior to the war in Iraq.

It also dramatically increased its political contributions in the run-up to the midterm elections, distributing $120,000 to candidates and campaign groups from its employee-sponsored political fund. That compares with $61,000 in the 2004 elections.

Read full post and comments:
"Shock and oil: Iraq's billions & the White House connection" >>

Surge: US troops prepare for George Bush's last stand

But with allies they don't trust and enemies who confuse them,
commanders know it will be bloody

By Kim Sengupta
Published: 14 January 2007
The Independent/UK

The narrow ambush alleys of Kadhamiyah, the tenements providing sniper cover at Diyala Bridge, the dusty, sprawling killing grounds of Sadr City. These are the strongholds of the Shia militias that the Americans will have to take in the battle for Baghdad.

The US forces in the "surge" into the Iraqi capital face a war on two fronts. The murder miles of Haifa Street and Adhamiyah are the homes to the Sunni insurgency, which continues its bloody course four years after the official end of the war, and there is no sign of this stopping as the US forces take on the Shias.

There are other logistical difficulties of fighting an urban guerrilla war in a city like Baghdad. The militias have spread from their power bases into the so called "mixed areas". Outside the Hamra Hotel, where the dwindling group of Western journalists in Baghdad stays, there are checkpoints run by the Mehdi army, led by the radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr; their Shia competitors, the Badr Brigade; and the Kurdish Peshmerga. Further out are the Shia Defenders of Kadhamiyah, set up by Mr Sadr's cousin Hussein al-Sadr and the government-backed Tiger and Scorpion Brigades.

They all look similar: balaclavas or wrap-around sunglasses and headbands, black leather gloves with fingers cut off, and a very lethal arsenal of weapons. When not manning checkpoints, they hurtle through the streets in 4x4s, scattering the traffic by firing in the air. It is impossible to say which particular group they belong to.

This is what confronts the US forces gathering for George W Bush's last throw of the dice in Iraq. He sees the battle to wrest control of Baghdad from the militias as the key to salvaging victory in the Iraqi quagmire, but distinguishing friend from foe will not be easy. The President has already warned that bloodshed will increase, but will there be any gains?

The main target, the Mehdi army, has around 50,000 well-armed fighters in the capital, mostly concentrated in Sadr City, the vast slum next to Baghdad, and the Shia holy city of Najaf and surrounding areas. But Mr Sadr also has 25,000 more militiamen in the south, where British forces will be in the firing line of retaliation for what the Americans do in Baghdad.

The Shia militias are backed by Iran, while the Syrians are accused of harbouring Sunni insurgents. In his speech last week Mr Bush once again accused the two countries of "allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq ... We will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq. "

To many, this rhetoric is paving the way for a wider escalation. William Arkin writes in The Washington Post: "There is an ominous element here ... To me that means the threat of strikes on targets in those countries." A British analyst, Robert Emerson, adds: "The Americans want to take on the Shia militias. Iran backs them, and will undoubtedly step up covert aid to them. How long will the Americans let that continue before they do something?" Even if there is no "hot pursuit", the Iranian response to US action in Baghdad is likely to place British forces in danger. The UK military has withdrawn from much of the south, concentrating its 7,200 troops in Basra. US authorities were against the British pullout from much of Maysan province, including the capital, Amarah, and are now particularly concerned about plans to hand over all security in the province, including the long Iranian border, to the Iraqi government at the end of February.

Instead of ending patrols by the 600-strong detachment of the Queen's Royal Lancers, the Americans want the British to significantly boost their numbers, especially at the border, in anticipation of Iran's attempts to aid its allies. Doing so would not only mean reversing the process of gradual disengagement, under which up to 3,000 British troops were due to return this spring, but getting sucked back into what threatens to be a prolonged war of attrition. This is particularly problematic for Britain, with its Afghanistan commitment in the background. The accepted consensus is that the Taliban, with hundreds of fighters training and arming in Pakistan, will launch a spring offensive after the winter lull in fighting.

But the first effects of the "surge" will be felt in Baghdad. At present the Americans have more or less withdrawn from the streets of the city, leaving Iraqi forces to man the checkpoints. Instead they base themselves in "Fort Apaches" - heavily fortified camps - emerging to carry out operations, invariably with the use of pulverising, and sometimes indiscriminate, firepower. After being reinforced by some 20,000 troops, the Americans will once again deploy on the streets. Baghdad will be divided into either nine or 11 sectors, according to different contingency plans being drawn up, in which the US troops will work alongside Iraqi forces with "embedded" US personnel.

The soldiers will aim to create mini "green zones" - cut-down versions of the area in the capital where US and British officials, and the Iraqi government, take refuge - guarded by checkpoints, sandbags and barbed wire. Residents would be issued with ID badges, and their every entry and exit logged.

To do this the US and Iraqi government forces will have to win back these areas from the militias. In particular they will have to take on the Shia fighters, many of them government backed, who have been accused of operating death squads.

Ironically, these death squads are the direct by-product of US policy. At the beginning of 2004, with no end to the Sunni insurgency in sight, the Pentagon was reported to have decided to train Shia and Kurdish fighters to carry out "irregular missions". The policy, exposed in the US media, was called the "Salvador Option" after the US-backed counter-insurgency in Latin America more than 20 years ago, which led to 70,000 deaths and countless violations of human rights. Some of the most persistent allegations of abuse have been made against the Wolf Brigade. Their main US adviser until April last year was James Steele, who states in his autobiography that he commanded the US military group in El Salvador during the height of the guerrilla war. The complaints against Iraqi special forces continue.

While in Iraq, I interviewed Ahmed Sadoun, who was arrested in Mosul and held for seven months before being released without charge. He showed the marks on his body of beatings and burning. Mr Sadoun, 38, did not know which paramilitary group had seized him. But they were accompanied by American soldiers, and the Wolf Brigade was widely involved in suppressing disturbances in Mosul at the time.

As for the Mehdi army, the Americans fought a short and fierce battle with Mr Sadr's militia in Najaf two years ago. At the time, however, the Sunni insurgents were still the bigger threat, and it was deemed convenient to let Shia clerics organise a truce. Since then the Mehdi army has been left relatively untroubled by both the US and UK forces. When it briefly took over Amarah in a recent action and blew up a number of police stations, a British force was sent up from Basra, but did not intervene, leaving the Iraqi army to deal with the situation.

There are also tricky political considerations. The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, depends on parliamentary support from Muqtada al-Sadr's followers. Recently US and Iraqi forces went into Sadr City, named after the cleric's father, to capture, according to the military, "a top, illegal armed group commander directing widespread death-squad activity".

Instead of congratulating the troops, Mr Maliki angrily complained he was not told about the operation. "We will ask for clarification of what happened in Sadr City, we will review the issue with the multinational forces so that it will not be repeated," he added. Falan Hassan Shansai, leader of the Sadr bloc, which has 30 of the 275 seats in parliament, warned of the consequences if there was a repetition.

Many in the US military believe the Shia militias, especially the Mehdi army, is too entrenched to be removed. Sergeant Jeff Nelson, an intelligence analyst with the US army's 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, in Baghdad, said recently: "They have infiltrated every branch of public service and every political office they can get their hands on. As soon as the US leaves, they will be able to dominate the area with key citizens, key offices."

Sgt Nelson said his battalion had investigated 40 sectarian killings and collected 57 bodies in a week. None had led to an arrest: "Sometimes we have a feeling of complete hopelessness."

The new strategy is modelled on an operation carried out by Colonel HR McMaster in Tal Afar, north of Baghdad, in 2005. His troops took over the town, which had a reputation for violence, searched it section by section, established a presence and kept the insurgents out. Col McMaster became established as a counter-insurgency expert, and his name is intrinsically linked with the new policy. Both President Bush and his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, have spoken of his action at Tal Afar as a blueprint for Iraq as a whole.

The overall commander picked by Mr Bush to lead the mission, Lt-Gen David Petraeus, is another Iraq veteran with a counter-insurgency reputation. He is one of the few senior members of the US military to support the " surge". He also supports the "hearts and minds" policies advocated by the British military, again unlike many of his US colleagues, who believe the army is for fighting, not nation-building.

They are not the only ones, however, who doubt whether some sort of Northern Ireland option can really be applied to a state in anarchy, like Iraq, especially by an army not culturally attuned to it. The time when it could have been applied, say US and British officers, has gone. The last chance may have been in 2005, when a plan presented by the British was rejected by Donald Rumsfeld.

Critics point out that Baghdad is not Tal Afar, a small place in a remote area. There is also deep scepticism about the ability of the Iraqi armed forces to fulfil their role in the equation. They were supposed to play a major part along the Americans in Operations "Forward Together" and "Forward Together II" in Baghdad last summer. However, at that time, only two of the six battalions supposed to take part in the mission actually turned up.

The correct analogy for the coming battle for Baghdad is not Tal Afar, but a US operation carried out in the Iraqi capital last year. More than 12,000 US troops, supported by helicopter gunships swooping over the rooftops, were sent in to destroy the Shia militias and break the back of the Sunni insurgency.

But by the end of the campaign the power of the gunmen had not diminished, and the scale of bloodshed had risen. It is an ominous template for a struggle on which not only President Bush's credibility, but the future of Iraq is likely to depend.

US ARMY: The plan to 'sanitise' Baghdad

Most of the extra 20,000 US reinforcements will deploy in Baghdad, which will be divided into up to 11 sectors. A plan based on the successful pacification of the northern town of Tal Afar will be carried out, with " safe zones" being created, surrounded by checkpoints, sandbags and barbed wire. Residents would be issued with ID badges, and have their entry and exit logged. The eventual aim is to "join up the dots" and create a large "sanitised" area, from which both Shia militias and Sunni insurgents will be kept out. US troops will also be "embedded" with Iraqi forces taking part in the operation.

IRAQI GOVERNMENT FORCES: Infiltrated and unreliable

The battle for Baghdad will fail unless the newly trained Iraqi army, paramilitary and police forces play their part. In a strategy called " clear and hold", the ultimate aim is for them to retain control when US forces eventually go back into their barracks.

But the Iraqi police in particular has been heavily infiltrated by Shia militias, and the Iraqi army, although not tainted to such an extent, has not proved the most reliable of allies for the US in the past. Out of six battalions scheduled to take part in an operation in Baghdad last year, only two turned up for duty.

MILITIAS: US to take on Shia leader

Until now the focus of US action in Iraq has been the Sunni insurgency. The new strategy is to take on the Shia militias which, often in official uniforms, have operated death squads and carried out sectarian attacks on Sunnis and, at times, Christians. The main target of the Americans is said to be Muqtada al-Sadr, whose heavily armed Mehdi army is blamed for much of the communal strife. Any action against his fighters in Baghdad may lead to retaliation against British troops in the Shia south. There is also anxiety about the reaction of Iran, which backs the Shia militias.

---Raymond Whitaker

Read full post and comments:
"Surge: US troops prepare for George Bush's last stand" >>

Among Troops and Families, Mixed Reaction to American Expansion in Iraq

By N. R. KLEINFIELD
Published: January 14, 2007

Cpl. Michael Hubert, 22, will see war for the first time in April. The corporal is part of the infusion of troops being poured into Iraq under President Bush’s new plan, and as he weighed his coming departure at Galloping Gertie’s, a soldier-thick watering hole outside Fort Lewis, Wash., he was brimming with confidence.

Cpl. Michael Hubert, 22, will see war for the first time in April. The corporal is part of the infusion of troops being poured into Iraq under President Bush’s new plan, and as he weighed his coming departure at Galloping Gertie’s, a soldier-thick watering hole outside Fort Lewis, Wash., he was brimming with confidence.

“We’re going to go over and change things,” Corporal Hubert said.

In eastern Pennsylvania, as Heidi DeBlock absorbed the implications of the president’s words during his televised address, she said she felt otherwise: “numb.”

“I could write a book about how I feel, but he’s O.K. with it,” Ms. DeBlock said of her husband, Sgt. Andrew DeBlock. “He says he has a job to do and takes his job pretty seriously.”

Mr. Bush’s new approach means that Sergeant DeBlock, 41, a member of the New Jersey National Guard (the Blocks recently moved to Pennsylvania from New Jersey), will have his Iraq stay extended by four months.

Sergeant DeBlock, home on a brief break, chose to ignore Mr. Bush as he spoke on television. He busied himself vacuuming the house.

The decision to increase the American military presence in Iraq is being greeted with a blend of optimism and anxiety among American soldiers and their families, those most directly affected by the change. Unlike in Congressional corridors and across the civilian landscape of the country, there seems far more support than outrage, more cheer than cheerlessness, and a hope that maybe this will do it.

At the same time, especially among relatives of National Guard members dispatched to battlefields they never expected to stand on, there is plentiful disappointment and even anger at the prospect of prolonged disruptions in lives that have not been normal for a long time.

The expansion calls for more than 20,000 additional troops, including five active-duty combat brigades, to be sent to Iraq in the next few months. Some National Guard units will have their tours lengthened. The Pentagon has also relaxed the rules for mobilizing Guard members, so that units will return to battle quicker than anticipated.

The fresh troops will include nearly 4,000 members of the Second Infantry Division, Fourth Brigade, a front-line combat unit based at Fort Lewis. They leave in April, about a month earlier than previously planned.

Fort Lewis, the nation’s third-largest military installation, has already felt the price and pain of the war. It has had 89 soldiers die in Iraq. A “Word of the Month” is posted at one of the base’s exit, succinct wisdom for departing replacements. This month’s word is “risk.”

Corporal Hubert, 22, a reconnaissance specialist, said the troop increase made sense. “It seems like they’re really starting to have a stronger focus and to embed troops, which I like to see,” he said. “It’s more aggressive and more supportive.”

Sgt. James Mayotte, an infantry leader in the Fourth Brigade who was visiting Galloping Gertie’s the other morning, was more restrained. “If it works, it’s a great idea,” Sergeant Mayotte said. “I don’t personally like having anyone over there, but if it’s good for the country....”

At Fort Benning, Ga., where several combat units are returning early to Iraq, soldiers generally seemed supportive of the change.

“I think we have to do something about what’s going on in Baghdad,” said First Lt. Jonathon Draper, 28, who has already spent a year in Iraq. “We’ll get the job done, whatever the president says.”

Staff Sgt. Shwon Brooks, 29, who has yet to go to war, said, “I kind of figured it was going to happen, but I thought it was going to be in the summer.”

Sgt. Kyle Cullen finished a deployment to Iraq a year ago and is not happy about returning. “I think sending more troops is not the way to go,” Sergeant Cullen said. “That will just be adding more to get killed.”

Sergeant Cullen enlisted for four years, and said he planned to leave the Army when he returned.

The new approach has a pronounced impact on National Guard members, who must vacate civilian jobs to serve. Protocol had been to limit Guard members’ mobilization to no more than a cumulative total of 24 months every five years, but now reservists who have been deployed within the last five years can be summoned again, though the intention is to keep a new tour to no more than a year.

At the Manor Road Armory in West Brighton, Staten Island, members of the 41st Infantry Division offered competing views.

“I think they should let them all come home; they’re over there for no reason,” said Pvt. Diana Ware, 20. “I know I don’t want to go. I joined the National Guard to go to college.” Private Ware’s goal is to become a nurse.

Specialist Douglas Block, 40, a father of four, saw things otherwise. “The more troops you have, the better it is,” Specialist Block said. “If they would have done this from the beginning, we’d be out of there by now.”

Under the new thrust, various Guard members already fighting in Iraq will remain months longer; they include a reconnaissance unit of the 117th Cavalry of the New Jersey National Guard. Its members had been slated to return by early April, after a year’s service, but now are likely to stay until sometime in July.

Salvatore DelRosario, of Staten Island, whose brother, Sgt. Ronald DelRosario, is in Iraq with the 117th Cavalry, was dispirited by the news. “It all seems for naught,” Mr. DelRosario said. “It would have been nice to have him home sooner, but he’s doing what he wants.”

Ms. DeBlock, the Pennsylvania resident whose husband’s stay will be extended by four months, said — as other Guard families did — that the extended assignments, and the lost income involved, complicated their lives.

Ms. DeBlock has had to battle her heating-fuel company, which wanted cash up front, and her husband’s cellphone provider, which will not let him out of his contract even though he is off fighting a war.

The Minnesota National Guard brigade of Specialist Isaac Pratt, 22, is having its active duty tour extended by about four months. Specialist Pratt called his parents a week ago, excited about coming home soon, only to find out a few days later that everything had changed.

“He’s disappointed,” said his father, John Pratt. “But at the same time, he senses that you can’t just leave Iraqis high and dry over there.”

For parents of children killed in Iraq, the war tears in different ways.

Debi Qualtieri, a registered nurse in Norwalk, Conn., said she always believed in the war, and still does, though her son, Sgt. Jonathan Lootens, of Lyon, N.Y., was killed in Iraq in October.

Ms. Qualtieri said she supported the escalation in troops, and had in fact been hoping for it. “I wish they had done it earlier, having spoken to my son when he was there,” she said. “He thought they needed more troops.”

Annette Brown has supported the war from the beginning, and continues to do so, but with reservations. Her son, Lance Cpl. Donald Brown, a marine, was killed at the end of October, and another son, Kenneth Brown, 24, has served three tours with the Marines in Iraq. He returned home last September.

Ms. Brown said she agreed with the troop increase “if it would settle things down over there so the guys can come home.”

But she does not want Kenneth to be part of it, and when she recently spoke to him, he told her he did not want to go back. Ms. Brown, a bank supervisor who lives in Succasunna, N.J., said, “I told him I’ll do whatever I have to so you don’t have to go back.”

Read full post and comments:
"Among Troops and Families, Mixed Reaction to American Expansion in Iraq" >>

House GOP Shows Its Fractiousness In the Minority

By Jonathan Weisman

Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 14, 2007; Page A01
The Washington Post


House Republican leaders, who confidently predicted they would drive a wedge through the new Democratic majority, have found their own party splintering, with Republican lawmakers siding with Democrats in droves on the House's opening legislative blitz.

Freed from the pressures of being the majority and from the heavy hand of former leaders including retired representative Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), many back-bench Republicans are showing themselves to be more moderate than their conservative leadership and increasingly mindful of shifting voter sentiment. The closest vote last week -- Friday's push to require the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare -- pulled 24 Republicans. The Democrats' homeland security bill attracted 68 Republicans, the minimum wage increase 82.

"You're freer to vote your conscience," said Rep. Jo Anne Emerson (R-Mo.), who received an 88 percent voting record from the American Conservative Union in 2005 but has so far sided with Democrats on new budget rules, Medicare prescription-drug negotiations, raising the minimum wage and funding stem cell research. "Or, really, I feel free to represent my constituents exactly as they want me to be."

"Times have changed. I don't want to be someone who they say is too stubborn to change too," said Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), whose 92 percent conservative rating did not stop him from voting with Democrats on the homeland security and minimum-wage bills.

After their stinging defeat in November, Republican leaders in the House had gamely promised to draft procedural motions and parliamentary gambits that they said would split the new majority. With so many new Democrats hailing from moderate-to-conservative districts, even some Democrats saw the pledge as plausible.

In theory, Republicans have made good on their promises. Republicans argued vociferously against Democratic measures over the past two weeks, saying new deficit-control rules would guarantee tax increases, stringent homeland security measures would cripple commerce, and a minimum-wage increase would hurt the economy.

To counter the prescription-drug bill, GOP leaders drafted a parliamentary move that they said would ensure senior citizens' access to local pharmacists and the full panoply of prescription drugs. They tried to beat back the stem cell bill with a popular alternative, a ban on federal funds for human cloning. And they countered the minimum-wage bill with a motion to send it back to be redrafted to include tax breaks and health-insurance benefits for small businesses. On the minimum-wage bill, Republican leadership aides even offered a list of 25 Democrats they could pull over to their side.

The results? Eighty-two Republicans joined a unanimous Democratic front to vote to increase the minimum wage, while 54 Republicans voted against their leadership's counteroffer. Eighteen Republicans defied their leadership by opposing the parliamentary move against stem cells.

The homeland security bill -- designed to implement most of the remaining recommendations of the commission that examined the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- even garnered the vote of Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), who as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee last year, thwarted one of its central provisions, the screening of all shipping containers heading to U.S. ports.

Some Republicans, such as Reps. Todd R. Platts (Pa.) and Jim Ramstad (Minn.), sided with the Democrats on every major vote. But it was not just closet mavericks.

Last year, Rep. Deborah Pryce (Ohio) was a powerful member of the Republican leadership, responsible for uniting her fractious colleagues behind a single message. After narrowly escaping defeat in November, the swing-district Republican bolted from her party's leadership last year. Last week, she virtually bolted from the party.

With just one exception, Pryce sided with the new Democratic majority on every major bill and rule change that came to a vote in the past two weeks, even voting against her party on a procedural vote, a move considered heretical in the years of GOP control.

The Democrats "deserve the same credit that we got in 1995," when Republicans took control, said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.). "They've picked up on the really big issues of the day, the ones they won the election on, and the ones that really resonate in Republican districts."

Democratic leaders say even they have been surprised by their margins of victory, but they were always counting on GOP votes. Republicans from swing districts who have been beat up for years over their party-line voting have been liberated by their minority status, said Rep. John B. Larson (Conn.), vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

"They've really been the ones that have been oppressed," he said.

GOP leaders were quick to dismiss the significance of the Democratic winning streak, however. For one thing, the Democrats' opening legislative blitz is being conducted under parliamentary rules that run roughshod over the Republicans, foreclosing any chance to actually amend the bills. But Democratic leaders have promised to give the GOP more latitude once the so-called 100-hours agenda runs its course next week.

For another, the Democrats will soon exhaust their carefully constructed opening list of bills that were designed to appeal across party lines.

"Republican discipline was critically important when we were passing legislation and moving an agenda," House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said. "The Democrats will soon move from these issues that poll at 80, 90 percent to issues that really matter."

Read full post and comments:
"House GOP Shows Its Fractiousness In the Minority" >>

Democrats may push to shutter war prisons

WASHINGTON -- House Democratic leaders yesterday outlined plans to try to force the Bush administration to close the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, taking aim at two sites that have sparked an international furor over the Bush administration's war policy.

Representative John P. Murtha, the chairman of the powerful Defense Appropriations subcommittee and a close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said he wants to close both prisons by cutting their funding, "to restore our credibility worldwide." If he succeeds, it would force the administration to find a new location for high-value terrorism suspects.

"We have the role, as elected officials, to exert our influence through the power of the purse -- that's what it's all about," said Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat whose committee will hold hearings on Iraq next week. "We try not to micromanage the Defense Department, but I tell you, they need micromanagement. They're out of control."

The effort to close the prisons, which Murtha said Pelosi supports, illustrates how congressional Democrats are confronting the president over his war policies. The aggressive push to change the war's course has intensified after the president's address Wednesday night in which he announced plans to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.

Democratic leaders will try to include the measure to close the prisons in a spending bill designed to pay for war operations, Murtha said. He acknowledged that closing Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo would be more symbolic than substantive. Abu Ghraib gained international infamy in 2004 after pictures emerged of US soldiers torturing and sexually abusing Iraqi prisoners there. The Guantanamo facility, which has housed Al Qaeda members and other terror suspects for more than five years, has emerged as a lightning rod for criticism of US policies in combating terrorism.

Numerous human rights groups and a United Nations commission have called for it to be shuttered, citing widespread reports of prisoner mistreatment. Starting last fall, Bush has used the prison as a holding place for suspects who were previously held in secret CIA prisons.

"My action is trying to restore credibility in the Middle East," Murtha said.

Bush has defended the detention center as a "necessary" part of the war on terror.

"I'd like to close Guantanamo, but I also recognize that we're holding some people that are darn dangerous and that we better have a plan to deal with them in our courts," Bush said in June.

A Pelosi spokesman, Brendan Daly, said the speaker isn't going to make a final judgment on whether the prisons should be closed until after Murtha's committee has hearings on the issue.

"She has encouraged him to look into it," Daly said.

Murtha's plan emerged as a new series of volleys over the president's war plans played out on Capitol Hill.

House and Senate Democratic leaders say they still hope to change the president's mind about the troop "surge" by passing a non binding resolution of disapproval in the coming weeks. But a growing number of Democrats say that -- because Bush is almost certain to ignore such a resolution -- more must be done to hasten the end of the war.

The most likely step, many Democrats say, would involve spending restrictions on the war budget.

"The non binding resolution is symbolic, and that's nice to do if you've got the time to do it," said Representative John F. Tierney, a Salem Democrat. But lawmakers have to use their power over the budget to stop the war, he said.

"That's where we're going to find out which Democrats and which Republicans are going to take a stand on this," Tierney said.

Though some Republicans are also skeptical of Bush's plan, they indicated they will resist Murtha's attempts to close prisons and control war policy.

"You can't conduct a war or a battle from the House chamber or a committee room," said Representative C.W. Bill Young of Florida, the ranking Republican on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee.

Still, in an indication of the president's waning support in Congress, House Republican leaders held a "listening session" yesterday morning to hear out GOP members' concerns, and Republican leaders have been invited to join the president at Camp David for further talks this weekend.

Bush yesterday made calls to King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt to rally support in the Middle East. And for a second straight day, lawmakers grilled top administration officials about the plan on Capitol Hill.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates insisted that the White House has no plans to attack targets in Iran. He also said he believes that having more US troops in Iraq will succeed because Iraqi leaders say they are committed to reaching political settlements to pacify the nation.

"If they fail to do those things, then I think it's incumbent upon the administration and incumbent upon me to recommend looking at whether this is the right strategy," Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The White House got some support from Senator John McCain of Arizona, the committee's top Republican and a 2008 Republican presidential prospect. McCain said the troop increase will give Iraqis "the best possible chances to succeed."

But Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, said the US mission has changed substantially since Congress gave the president the authority to destroy weapons of mass destruction and depose Saddam Hussein.

"Why not come back to the Congress? Why not come back and permit us to have a vote on this surge?" Kennedy asked.

Gates said he would pass that message on to the president, but "I think he feels that he has the authority that he needs to proceed."

That is driving much of Democrats' interest in forcing the president's hand. Kennedy and other Democrats have proposed keeping the president from sending more troops to Iraq by blocking the money he would need to do it.

Representative James P. McGovern, a Worcester Democrat, said he is preparing a bill that would go even further, cutting off funds for nearly all troops after six months and allocating only enough resources to provide for the "safe and orderly withdrawal" of US forces.

© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

Read full post and comments:
"Democrats may push to shutter war prisons" >>

Democrats no longer fearful of anti-war reputation

By Noam N. Levey
Times Staff Writer
January 13, 2007
6:12 PM PST
The Los Angeles Times


WASHINGTON -- Emboldened by President Bush's deeply unpopular proposal to send more troops to Iraq, congressional Democrats are shedding their wariness about tackling the war and embracing positions once held primarily by the party's most liberal fringe.

Fewer than two weeks after taking power, party leaders who had promised just an increase in oversight hearings on the war now are talking openly about cutting off funds for military operations.

Centrist Democrats are lining up beside longtime anti-war liberals, promising to do everything in their power to stop the president's plans to deploy an additional 21,500 troops in Baghdad and Al Anbar Province.

And the war's most passionate opponents in the House, whose last meeting before the elections was relegated to a basement room, met last week in one of the grandest rooms on Capitol Hill and drew scores of supporters, television cameras and journalists.

"Ours is now the mainstream position," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., who two years ago saw her resolution calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq crushed on the House floor. Today, the congressional Out of Iraq Caucus co-founded by Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., has more than 80 members.

Congressional Democrats, suddenly united in their intent to pass resolutions against the escalation, still face challenges in deciding how far to go in what could become a historic showdown between two branches of government over the course of a war.

Their threat to cut off funds drew a rebuke Saturday from President Bush, who challenged the war critics to offer their own plan for Iraq.

"Those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success," he said in his weekly radio address. "To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible."

The Democrats' rapid embrace of what were once minority positions capped an extraordinary week on Capitol Hill as Congress stirred after years of standing by a wartime president.

More than two dozen members of Congress went to the floor of the House to condemn the war Thursday. Just one Republican rose to challenge them.

Democrats, who campaigned against the war, seized majorities in the House and Senate last fall largely because of unhappiness with the president's policies.

But when the Democrats returned to Capitol Hill this month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other senior party leaders had planned to focus on a purely domestic agenda.

They cautiously avoided talk of cutting funding or other measures to compel Bush to change course in Iraq. As recently as Monday, Pelosi had refused to discuss possible legislation to limit an escalation in Iraq.

But the next day, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., in a speech laced with references to the mistakes of Vietnam, announced his intention to introduce a bill that would require the president to seek congressional approval for any troop increase in Iraq.

Within hours, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would introduce a resolution the following week condemning any White House plans to send additional troops. Pelosi's office quickly announced that House Democrats would do the same.

By the time Bush addressed the nation Wednesday night, congressional Democrats across the ideological spectrum were rallying to oppose the president.

"We have to take a stand. ... We have to do everything we can," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., a centrist Democrat who said she wanted to sign on to the House version of Kennedy's bill, which is sponsored by one of her chamber's most liberal members.

Friday, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a decorated Vietnam veteran and longtime military supporter, said he would use his position as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee to try to block funding for any troop increase in Iraq. Murtha also said he wanted to force the closure of the controversial military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and put limits on how long military service members could be deployed.

A Pelosi spokesman said the speaker had encouraged Murtha to explore the funding limitations.

The same day, in a mark of how much has changed in Washington, House Republican leaders hosted a sober meeting to air the complaints of members of their caucus about the president's plans.

Read full post and comments:
"Democrats no longer fearful of anti-war reputation" >>

Budget delays hamstring hiring at Justice Dept.

Crime-fighting agencies pinched

By Lara Jakes Jordan
Associated Press
January 13, 2007
The Boston Globe

WASHINGTON -- A hiring freeze has hit two federal crime-fighting agencies and a third has slowed its recruitment efforts because of congressional budget delays that some officials say threaten efforts to combat terrorism and violent crime.

Congress has yet to approve the Justice Department's 2007 spending request. Lawmakers are now negotiating how much -- if at all -- to increase government spending. In the meantime, the agencies are being funded according to last year's budget levels.

Agencies feeling the squeeze :

The Drug Enforcement Administration. Although more than 400 agents and support staff are expected to quit or retire this year, chief financial officer Frank Kalder said, the DEA might have to lose additional employees if Congress does not give it about $95 million more than it did in 2006.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ATF says it needs $71 million more than last year just to sustain its workforce of 4,900 employees.

The FBI. Recruiting and hiring has slowed since the budget year began on Oct. 1. The agency has stopped advertising for job openings on its website. Assistant Director John Miller said the bureau still is hiring agents, linguists, analysts, and other high-priority employees. The FBI employs about 12,600 agents and 18,000 support staff.

Read full post and comments:
"Budget delays hamstring hiring at Justice Dept." >>

Senate votes to deny pensions to convicted lawmakers

By Jim Abrams
Associated Press
Published Jan. 13, 2007
The Boston Globe

WASHINGTON -- Former representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham, behind bars for bribery, can at least be consoled by the federal pension he'll continue to collect. Current or future lawmakers convicted of crimes might not be so lucky.

The Senate yesterday voted 87 to 0 to strip the pensions from members of Congress convicted of white-collar crimes such as bribery, perjury, and fraud. That could result in benefit losses for some former lawmakers of more than $100,000 a year.

"With this vote, we are preventing members of Congress who steal or cheat from receiving a lifelong pension that is paid for by the taxpayers," said Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts and sponsor of the measure with Senator Ken Salazar, Democrat of Colorado.

The pension measure was attached to a comprehensive ethics and lobbying bill the Democratic-controlled Senate, trying to improve the image of Congress after the scandals of last year, took up as its first legislative act of the year.

The Democrats' return to power in both the House and Senate occurred after a campaign in which they stressed the "culture of corruption" under GOP rule.

Cunningham, Republican of California, was sentenced to more than eight years in prison last year after pleading guilty to receiving $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors. Among the favors he received were a Rolls Royce, Persian rugs, antique furniture, use of a yacht, and a lavish graduation party for his daughter.

In December, Robert W. Ney, Republican of Ohio, resigned from the House of Representatives after pleading guilty to conspiracy and making false statements in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.

Kerry's office said that by law Congress cannot take away pensions retroactively and the so-called Duke Cunningham Act won't affect the benefits of Cunningham or Ney. It would also not change Cunningham's military benefits .

Under current law, pensions can be forfeited only if a lawmaker commits crimes such as treason or espionage.

The National Taxpayers Union, which tracks congressional pensions, said Cunningham could garner benefits of about $64,000 with his military service, a sum that includes $36,000 from his eight terms in Congress.

The taxpayers union says there are roughly 20 former members convicted of serious crimes who qualify for pensions.

Read full post and comments:
"Senate votes to deny pensions to convicted lawmakers" >>

Stormy Outlook as Gonzales Faces Senate Democrats

By DAVID JOHNSTON

Published: January 13, 2007
The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who has faced controversy throughout his two-year tenure, is likely to enter an even stormier phase next Thursday when he appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee for the first time since control fell to the Democrats.

But he shows little anxiety about more vehement criticism of his stewardship at the Justice Department.

“They have an institutional interest to gather up information about what the executive branch is doing,” Mr. Gonzales said Friday, in an interview in which he adopted the mildly juridical tone of a law professor.

Referring to the Justice Department, he said: “We likewise have an institutional interest in maintaining the confidentially of certain kinds of information. From my perspective, there are two competing institutional interests. This is not a partisan issue. It’s an institutional issue of interests that have to be accommodated.”

But there seems to be little likelihood that the Judiciary Committee will be satisfied with that kind of summation.

Mr. Gonzales’s chief antagonist is likely to be the panel’s chairman, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, a Democrat who in recent public statements has castigated the Bush administration for years of “corrosive unilateralism” in refusing to cooperate with Congress and said he would enforce the committee’s demands for information with subpoenas if necessary.

“The very nature of the job means I’m going to be in the middle, the department will be in the middle, of all the hard issues, all the difficult issues that the Congress will be very, very interested in,” Mr. Gonzales said. “You’re not going to have total agreement, it’s not going to be a love fest necessarily between the Congress and the attorney general of the United States.”

It was Mr. Gonzales, a former Texas judge, who as White House counsel provided legal thinking to support some of the administration’s most hotly debated operations, like its program of surveillance without warrants. He also wrote a draft memo in January 2002 that said captured members of Al Qaeda should not be covered by the Geneva Conventions — a position later adopted by the administration. He succeeded John Ashcroft as attorney general in 2005.

Although Mr. Leahy recently had lunch with Mr. Gonzales and the two men are on cordial personal terms, the senator has ripped into the Justice Department for ignoring or rejecting his requests over the years for dozens of internal documents and for failing to turn over information about a host of activities, mostly related to counterterrorism policies.

Even so, Mr. Gonzales said he was looking forward to testifying. “I view these hearings as an opportunity to tell our story,” he said. “I think in many ways we have a good story to tell. Sometimes we are constrained because we are in a period of war in giving out as much information as we’d like because there are things we’d like to talk to about.”

In the interview, he said he would seek a conciliatory relationship with Democrats, when and where he can, but would continue to protect zealously what he regards as the department’s core interests. He said the Justice Department had already provided a great deal of information to Congress according to traditional practice and court decisions on the subject.

He said the Justice Department would review each Congressional request in an effort to comply with Congressional demands: “Is there a way to limit the scope of the request? Is there a way to give them the information without actually turning over the documents? Would it suffice to provide a briefing without compromising something that would be extremely damaging to the national security of our country? Could we provide a summary, a written summary, that they would want to see? Perhaps someone in the executive branch would read a portion of a document. We have legal obligation to see what can be done.”

Mr. Gonzales expressed the hope that battles with Congress would not undermine his efforts to accomplish his goals at the Justice Department. “The American people lose if we spend the next two years fighting over documents,” he said.

Mr. Gonzales said he hoped that Congress would work with the Justice Department on other administration priorities, like the protection of children against predators and pedophiles, an overhaul of immigration laws, the elimination of disparities in prison sentences and a crackdown on online pharmacies that sell drugs to teenagers.

He said that he had realized when he took over at the Justice Department that he was likely to be thrust into controversies between law and politics. “I came into this job with my eyes wide open, understanding what the challenges would be, and I have not been disappointed. It’s tough. At the same time, it’s exhilarating.”

Read full post and comments:
"Stormy Outlook as Gonzales Faces Senate Democrats" >>

An Uphill Push for Public Opinion on Iraq

By JIM RUTENBERG

Published: January 14, 2007
The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 — Bush administration officials, acknowledging that the war in Iraq may get worse before it gets better, face a daunting public relations challenge as the White House pursues its new strategy to quash the insurgents.

After President Bush’s address to the nation this week, in which he promoted his strategy to increase the American military presence in Iraq, his aides conceded that more troops would mean more fighting and possibly more grisly televised images.

That prospect will do little to help the administration as it seeks to build public support for an increasing unpopular war.

Even if all goes according to plan, officials conceded in interviews, early signs of progress will do little to compete with continued or worsening signs of strife.

“They need to engage these guys if they’re going to make progress, and yet that’s probably going to lead to less favorable news,” said Thomas Patterson, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. “He’s in the position of trying to carry a piano upstairs.”

Administration officials said that their strategy to quell the violence in Baghdad was in a race against dwindling public patience, but that it was a race they believed they could win. They said in interviews that they factored a potential spike in violence into the plan, and the effect it would have on public opinion.

They described a likely, initial increase in violence as an inevitable down payment for the better images out of Baghdad they hope will come later, and ultimately, more support for the Iraq campaign.

“The president gets it,” said a senior administration official involved in the planning. “He knows public opinion is not going to change until those images on the evening news improve.” That official said reaching milestones would help, like a show of readiness by new Iraqi forces, or a new law creating an equitable mechanism to distribute oil revenues across the sectarian divide.

But such benchmarks also give war critics in Congress a more clear-cut way to measure failure, said Dennis Ross, a Middle East envoy for President Clinton and for Mr. Bush’s father. “It gives you an actual measure by which to say, ‘How are they doing: Are these things happening, or not?’ ” he said. “In an interesting way what the president has done for the first time is to create benchmarks to evaluate the administration’s approach.”

Even if the economic and political goals in the plan are swiftly achieved, they will only go so far in affecting public opinion as fighting continues: Images from a signing ceremony for an oil agreement are inevitably less compelling than pictures of exploding cars, charred bodies and American war dead.

The complexities are causing no small bit of anxiety for Mr. Bush’s allies, chief among them Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican whose support of a troop increase will be judged on its success during his likely presidential bid in 2008.

Senator McCain said in an interview this week that he did not expect to see significant improvement on the ground in Iraq for “at least a couple of months,” adding, “I very much worry about the casualties, from the human side to the political side.”

The senator, who has harshly criticized the administration’s failure to manage expectations in the past, said of the president, “I would hope he would say how tough this is going to still be.”

White House officials said that was the plan. “You’ve heard the president say before that, as commander in chief, one of his most important responsibilities is informing the public about the course of the war,” said Kevin Sullivan, the White House communications director. “You’ll see an ongoing effort to do that.”

Mr. Bush stopped short of calling for great national sacrifice in his address, something some allies had suggested he do to prepare the public for more rough days ahead. But he did warn, “Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad’s residents.”

But for now, Mr. Bush’s decision to add troops — despite election results that were widely interpreted as a “no” vote on the war — has been taken as another sign that he is stubbornly going his own way against the public mood, a perception the White House was prepared for, senior administration officials said.

Gambling metaphors were hard to escape this week in the news coverage of the plan, but they applied. The White House calculated that it had to promise a major change to get the public to give its latest new plan a hearing. But it raised the stakes for the administration in the process.

“It’s a tremendous gamble — the administration opens itself up to losing control of the policy if it isn’t judged as succeeding,” said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former State Department official.

“There’s a sense now that, with this, we will have done everything we can.”

Read full post and comments:
"An Uphill Push for Public Opinion on Iraq" >>

Deletions in Army Manual Raise Wiretapping Concerns

By ERIC LICHTBLAU and MARK MAZZETTI

Published: January 14, 2007
The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 — Deep into an updated Army manual, the deletion of 10 words has left some national security experts wondering whether government lawyers are again asserting the executive branch’s right to wiretap Americans without a court warrant.

The manual, described by the Army as a “major revision” to intelligence-gathering guidelines, addresses policies and procedures for wiretapping Americans, among other issues.

The original guidelines, from 1984, said the Army could seek to wiretap people inside the United States on an emergency basis by going to the secret court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, or by obtaining certification from the attorney general “issued under the authority of section 102(a) of the Act.”

That last phrase is missing from the latest manual, which says simply that the Army can seek emergency wiretapping authority pursuant to an order issued by the FISA court “or upon attorney general authorization.” It makes no mention of the attorney general doing so under FISA.

Bush administration officials said that the wording change was insignificant, adding that the Army would follow FISA requirements if it sought to wiretap an American.

But the manual’s language worries some national security experts. “The administration does not get to make up its own rules,” said Steven Aftergood, who runs a project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists.

The Army guidelines were finalized in November 2005, and Mr. Aftergood’s group recently obtained a copy under the Freedom of Information Act. He said he was struck by the omission, particularly because of the recent debate over the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program. President Bush has asserted that he can authorize eavesdropping without court warrants on the international communications of Americans suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda.

Like several other national security experts, Mr. Aftergood said the revised guidelines could suggest that Army lawyers had adopted the legal claim that the executive branch had authority outside the courts to conduct wiretaps.

But Thomas A. Gandy, a senior Army counterintelligence official who helped develop the guidelines, said the new wording did not suggest a policy change. The guidelines were intended to give Army intelligence personnel more explicit and, in some cases, more restrictive guidance than the 1984 regulations, partly to help them respond to new threats like computer hackers.

“This is all about doing right and following the rules and protecting the civil liberties of folks,” Mr. Gandy said. “It seeks to keep people out of trouble.”

Read full post and comments:
"Deletions in Army Manual Raise Wiretapping Concerns" >>

Military Is Expanding Its Intelligence Role in U.S.

By ERIC LICHTBLAU and MARK MAZZETTI
Published: January 14, 2007
The New York times

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 — The Pentagon has been using a little-known power to obtain banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage inside the United States, part of an aggressive expansion by the military into domestic intelligence gathering.

The C.I.A. has also been issuing what are known as national security letters to gain access to financial records from American companies, though it has done so only rarely, intelligence officials say.

Banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions receiving the letters usually have turned over documents voluntarily, allowing investigators to examine the financial assets and transactions of American military personnel and civilians, officials say.

The F.B.I., the lead agency on domestic counterterrorism and espionage, has issued thousands of national security letters since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, provoking criticism and court challenges from civil liberties advocates who see them as unjustified intrusions into Americans’ private lives.

But it was not previously known, even to some senior counterterrorism officials, that the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have been using their own “noncompulsory” versions of the letters. Congress has rejected several attempts by the two agencies since 2001 for authority to issue mandatory letters, in part because of concerns about the dangers of expanding their role in domestic spying.

The military and the C.I.A. have long been restricted in their domestic intelligence operations, and both are barred from conducting traditional domestic law enforcement work. The C.I.A.’s role within the United States has been largely limited to recruiting people to spy on foreign countries.

Carl Kropf, a spokesman for the director of national intelligence, said intelligence agencies like the C.I.A. used the letters on only a “limited basis.”

Pentagon officials defended the letters as valuable tools and said they were part of a broader strategy since the Sept. 11 attacks to use more aggressive intelligence-gathering tactics — a priority of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. The letters “provide tremendous leads to follow and often with which to corroborate other evidence in the context of counterespionage and counterterrorism,” said Maj. Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman.

Government lawyers say the legal authority for the Pentagon and the C.I.A. to use national security letters in gathering domestic records dates back nearly three decades and, by their reading, was strengthened by the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act.

Pentagon officials said they used the letters to follow up on a variety of intelligence tips or leads. While they would not provide details about specific cases, military intelligence officials with knowledge of them said the military had issued the letters to collect financial records regarding a government contractor with unexplained wealth, for example, and a chaplain at Guantánamo Bay erroneously suspected of aiding prisoners at the facility.

Usually, the financial documents collected through the letters do not establish any links to espionage or terrorism and have seldom led to criminal charges, military officials say. Instead, the letters often help eliminate suspects.

“We may find out this person has unexplained wealth for reasons that have nothing to do with being a spy, in which case we’re out of it,” said Thomas A. Gandy, a senior Army counterintelligence official.

But even when the initial suspicions are unproven, the documents have intelligence value, military officials say. In the next year, they plan to incorporate the records into a database at the Counterintelligence Field Activity office at the Pentagon to track possible threats against the military, Pentagon officials said. Like others interviewed, they would speak only on the condition of anonymity.

Military intelligence officers have sent letters in up to 500 investigations over the last five years, two officials estimated. The number of letters is likely to be well into the thousands, the officials said, because a single case often generates letters to multiple financial institutions. For its part, the C.I.A. issues a handful of national security letters each year, agency officials said. Congressional officials said members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees had been briefed on the use of the letters by the military and the C.I.A.

Some national security experts and civil liberties advocates are troubled by the C.I.A. and military taking on domestic intelligence activities, particularly in light of recent disclosures that the Counterintelligence Field Activity office had maintained files on Iraq war protesters in the United States in violation of the military’s own guidelines. Some experts say the Pentagon has adopted an overly expansive view of its domestic role under the guise of “force protection,” or efforts to guard military installations.

“There’s a strong tradition of not using our military for domestic law enforcement,” said Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, a former general counsel at both the National Security Agency and the C.I.A. who is the dean at the McGeorge School of Law at the University of the Pacific. “They’re moving into territory where historically they have not been authorized or presumed to be operating.”

Similarly, John Radsan, an assistant general counsel at the C.I.A. from 2002 to 2004 and now a law professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, said, “The C.I.A. is not supposed to have any law enforcement powers, or internal security functions, so if they’ve been issuing their own national security letters, they better be able to explain how they don’t cross the line.”

The Pentagon’s expanded intelligence-gathering role, in particular, has created occasional conflicts with other federal agencies. Pentagon efforts to post American military officers at embassies overseas to gather intelligence for counterterrorism operations or future war plans has rankled some State Department and C.I.A. officials, who see the military teams as duplicating and potentially interfering with the intelligence agency.

In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has complained about military officials dealing directly with local police — rather than through the bureau — for assistance in responding to possible terrorist threats against a military base. F.B.I. officials say the threats have often turned out to be uncorroborated and, at times, have stirred needless anxiety.

The military’s frequent use of national security letters has sometimes caused concerns from the businesses receiving them, a counterterrorism official said. Lawyers at financial institutions, which routinely provide records to the F.B.I. in law enforcement investigations, have contacted bureau officials to say they were confused by the scope of the military’s requests and whether they were obligated to turn the records over, the official said.

Companies are not eager to turn over sensitive financial data about customers to the government, the official said, “so the more this is done, and the more poorly it’s done, the more pushback there is for the F.B.I.”

The bureau has frequently relied on the letters in recent years to gather telephone and Internet logs, financial information and other records in terrorism investigations, serving more than 9,000 letters in 2005, according to a Justice Department tally. As an investigative tool, the letters present relatively few hurdles; they can be authorized by supervisors rather than a court. Passage of the Patriot Act in October 2001 lowered the standard for issuing the letters, requiring only that the documents sought be “relevant” to an investigation and allowing records requests for more peripheral figures, not just targets of an inquiry.

Some Democrats have accused the F.B.I. of using the letters for fishing expeditions, and the American Civil Liberties Union won court challenges in two cases, one for library records in Connecticut and the other for Internet records in Manhattan. Concerned about possible abuses, Congress imposed new safeguards in extending the Patriot Act last year, in part by making clear that recipients of national security letters could contact a lawyer and seek court review. Congress also directed the Justice Department inspector general to study the F.B.I.’s use of the letters, a review that is continuing.

Unlike the F.B.I., the military and the C.I.A. do not have wide-ranging authority to seek records on Americans in intelligence investigations. But the expanded use of national security letters has allowed the Pentagon and the intelligence agency to collect records on their own. Sometimes, military or C.I.A. officials work with the F.B.I. to seek records, as occurred with an American translator who had worked for the military in Iraq and was suspected of having ties to insurgents.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Rumsfeld directed military lawyers and intelligence officials to examine their legal authorities to collect intelligence both inside the United States and abroad. They concluded that the Pentagon had “way more” legal tools than it had been using, a senior Defense Department official said.

Military officials say the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, which establishes procedures for government access to sensitive banking data, first authorized them to issue national security letters. The military had used the letters sporadically for years, officials say, but the pace accelerated in late 2001, when lawyers and intelligence officials concluded that the Patriot Act strengthened their ability to use the letters to seek financial records on a voluntary basis and to issue mandatory letters to obtain credit ratings, the officials said.

The Patriot Act does not specifically mention military intelligence or C.I.A. officials in connection with the national security letters.

Some F.B.I. officials said they were surprised by the Pentagon’s interpretation of the law when military officials first informed them of it. “It was a very broad reading of the law,” a former counterterrorism official said.

While the letters typically have been used to trace the financial transactions of military personnel, they also have been used to investigate civilian contractors and people with no military ties who may pose a threat to the military, officials said. Military officials say they regard the letters as one of the least intrusive means to gather evidence. When a full investigation is opened, one official said, it has now become “standard practice” to issue such letters.

One prominent case in which letters were used to obtain financial records, according to two military officials, was that of a Muslim chaplain at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, who was suspected in 2003 of aiding terror suspects imprisoned at the facility. The espionage case against the chaplain, James J. Yee, soon collapsed.

Eugene Fidell, a defense lawyer for the former chaplain and a military law expert, said he was unaware that military investigators may have used national security letters to obtain financial information about Mr. Yee, nor was he aware that the military had ever claimed the authority to issue the letters.

Mr. Fidell said he found the practice “disturbing,” in part because the military does not have the same checks and balances when it comes to Americans’ civil rights as does the F.B.I. “Where is the accountability?” he asked. “That’s the evil of it — it doesn’t leave fingerprints.”

Even when a case is closed, military officials said they generally maintain the records for years because they may be relevant to future intelligence inquiries. Officials at the Pentagon’s counterintelligence unit say they plan to incorporate those records into a database, called Portico, on intelligence leads. The financial documents will not be widely disseminated, but limited to investigators, an intelligence official said.

“You don’t want to destroy something only to find out that the same guy comes up in another report and you don’t know that he was investigated before,” the official said.

The Counterintelligence Field Activity office, created in 2002 to better coordinate the military’s efforts to combat foreign intelligence services, has drawn criticism for some domestic intelligence activities.

The agency houses an antiterrorist database of intelligence tips and threat reports, known as Talon, which had been collecting information on antiwar planning meetings at churches, libraries and other locations. The Defense Department has since tightened its procedures for what kind of information is allowed into the Talon database, and the counterintelligence office also purged more than 250 incident reports from the database that officials determined should never have been included because they centered on lawful political protests by people opposed to the war in Iraq.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Rumsfeld directed military lawyers and intelligence officials to examine their legal authorities to collect intelligence both inside the United States and abroad. They concluded that the Pentagon had “way more” legal tools than it had been using, a senior Defense Department official said.

Military officials say the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, which establishes procedures for government access to sensitive banking data, first authorized them to issue national security letters. The military had used the letters sporadically for years, officials say, but the pace accelerated in late 2001, when lawyers and intelligence officials concluded that the Patriot Act strengthened their ability to use the letters to seek financial records on a voluntary basis and to issue mandatory letters to obtain credit ratings, the officials said.

The Patriot Act does not specifically mention military intelligence or C.I.A. officials in connection with the national security letters.

Some F.B.I. officials said they were surprised by the Pentagon’s interpretation of the law when military officials first informed them of it. “It was a very broad reading of the law,” a former counterterrorism official said.

While the letters typically have been used to trace the financial transactions of military personnel, they also have been used to investigate civilian contractors and people with no military ties who may pose a threat to the military, officials said. Military officials say they regard the letters as one of the least intrusive means to gather evidence. When a full investigation is opened, one official said, it has now become “standard practice” to issue such letters.

One prominent case in which letters were used to obtain financial records, according to two military officials, was that of a Muslim chaplain at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, who was suspected in 2003 of aiding terror suspects imprisoned at the facility. The espionage case against the chaplain, James J. Yee, soon collapsed.

Eugene Fidell, a defense lawyer for the former chaplain and a military law expert, said he was unaware that military investigators may have used national security letters to obtain financial information about Mr. Yee, nor was he aware that the military had ever claimed the authority to issue the letters.

Mr. Fidell said he found the practice “disturbing,” in part because the military does not have the same checks and balances when it comes to Americans’ civil rights as does the F.B.I. “Where is the accountability?” he asked. “That’s the evil of it — it doesn’t leave fingerprints.”

Even when a case is closed, military officials said they generally maintain the records for years because they may be relevant to future intelligence inquiries. Officials at the Pentagon’s counterintelligence unit say they plan to incorporate those records into a database, called Portico, on intelligence leads. The financial documents will not be widely disseminated, but limited to investigators, an intelligence official said.

“You don’t want to destroy something only to find out that the same guy comes up in another report and you don’t know that he was investigated before,” the official said.

The Counterintelligence Field Activity office, created in 2002 to better coordinate the military’s efforts to combat foreign intelligence services, has drawn criticism for some domestic intelligence activities.

The agency houses an antiterrorist database of intelligence tips and threat reports, known as Talon, which had been collecting information on antiwar planning meetings at churches, libraries and other locations. The Defense Department has since tightened its procedures for what kind of information is allowed into the Talon database, and the counterintelligence office also purged more than 250 incident reports from the database that officials determined should never have been included because they centered on lawful political protests by people opposed to the war in Iraq.

Read full post and comments:
"Military Is Expanding Its Intelligence Role in U.S." >>

Analysis: Congress presses Bush on Iraq

ROBERT H. REID
Associated Press
The Kansas City Star

Congressional opposition to President Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq has opened a new front in an increasingly complex war, setting the stage for political battles whose effects may be felt long after U.S. forces have come home.

The battle could well subvert administration efforts to bolster the power of the presidency, which many Bush supporters believe was undermined in the wake of another unpopular war a generation ago.

As if Sunni nationalists, Islamic extremists, foreign fighters and Shiite militias were not enough, Bush must now battle the Democratic leadership in Congress, as well as influential figures in his own Republican party, who oppose his plan to throw 21,500 more troops into the fray.

The battlelines are reminiscent of the political struggles that occurred during two other unpopular wars - Korea and Vietnam.

Those half-forgotten struggles produced sweeping changes in the U.S. political landscape that persisted long after the guns fell silent.

Democratic leaders of Congress, fresh from victory at the polls in November, hope to force a vote on the Bush plan in the House and Senate, thereby isolating the president politically.

Although those votes will be nonbinding, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said on MSNBC he expects them to be followed by measures "that restrict troop funding and all kinds of financial support for the war."

During a visit Saturday to Baghdad, Sen. Hillary Clinton told ABC News that instead of sending more U.S. troops to Iraq, it is time to start redeploying American forces out of the country.

A showdown between Congress and the White House could have far-reaching implications not only for Iraq but for American foreign policy as well.

In the best case scenario, the prospect of an American military departure might spur Iraq's ethnic and sectarian factions to reach a political settlement to spare the nation further bloodshed.

But it could also encourage Sunni and Shiite extremists to grab as much power as possible before the Americans leave.

Bush's plan is reminiscent of the furor unleashed by President Nixon's 1970 decision to invade Cambodia during the final stage of the Vietnam War.

The Cambodian incursion, as it was known at the time, occurred at a time when the U.S. public was clamoring for an end to the conflict in Southeast Asia.

In seeking to justify his decision, Nixon said the goal was to destroy North Vietnamese sanctuaries in Cambodia and force Hanoi back to negotiations.

Last week, Bush said the reinforcements were necessary to bring stability to Baghdad so that the Iraqis could reach a political agreement.

Military analysts are divided over whether Bush's plan can succeed, and the administration has refrained from a detailed explanation of what it would do if it fails.

But the 1970 invasion simply drove the North Vietnamese deeper into Cambodia. Five years later, both South Vietnam and Cambodia fell under communist rule.

Nevertheless, the showdown over Cambodia cast a long shadow over American politics for a generation.

The invasion enraged Congress, triggering legislative battles that culminated in the War Powers Act of 1973 that sets limits on a president's power to wage war without congressional approval.

Although the act's constitutionality has never been fully tested in court, Congress has invoked it on several occasions, setting conditions and limitations on the use of U.S. forces in the Middle East, Africa, Haiti and the Balkans.

Vice President Dick Cheney and others have cited the 1973 law as a major element in a series of Vietnam-era legislation that have severely undermined presidential authority to this day.

However, wartime showdowns between presidents and Congress occurred long before the Vietnam conflict.

Those political struggles reflect an ambiguity in the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to declare war but includes no language defining such a declaration.

As a result, many of America's conflicts, including the Civil War, have been fought without a declaration approved by Congress.

In the Civil War, for example, President Lincoln proclaimed Southern states in rebellion and ordered a blockade of their ports, triggering four years of war.

Eight months into the conflict, Congress established a joint committee to oversee the war, holding hearings into Union failures on the battlefield at a time when the very survival of the nation was in peril.

Critics complained at the time that the committee used newspaper leaks to discredit some of Lincoln's generals, undermining Northern morale at a time when Union victory was by no means certain.

Similar complaints were raised again during World War II when a little-known senator from Missouri, Harry Truman, chaired a committee investigating military waste and fraud.

Critics accused Truman of undermining the war effort. But his committee was credited with saving billions of dollars by uncovering waste and war-profiteering.

Truman's efforts won him the Democratic vice presidential nomination in 1944 and propelled him into the White House when President Roosevelt died the following year.

But Truman himself came under criticism for failing to seek a congressional declaration of war when he dispatched troops to South Korea to block an invasion from the communist North.

Public support for the war waned after China entered the conflict, which bogged down in a stalemate. The war became so unpopular that Truman decided against seeking re-election in 1952.

Republican war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower won the White House after promising to halt the fighting, which ended with a cease-fire on July 27, 1953.

Read full post and comments:
"Analysis: Congress presses Bush on Iraq" >>