WASHINGTON - Iraq's political process has sharpened the country's sectarian divisions, polarized relations between its ethnic and religious groups, and weakened its sense of national identit
By Drew Brown
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Iraq's political process has sharpened the country's sectarian divisions, polarized relations between its ethnic and religious groups, and weakened its sense of national identity, the Government Accountability Office said Monday.
In spite of a sharp increase in Sunni-Shiite violence, however, attacks on U.S.-led coalition forces are still the primary source of bloodshed in Iraq, the report found. It was the latest in a series of recent grim assessments of conditions in Iraq.
But the report was unusual in its sweep, relying on a series of other government studies, some of them previously unpublicized, to touch on issues from violence and politics to electricity production. Published on the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the GAO report was downbeat in its conclusions - underscoring how Iraq's deteriorating security situation threatens the Bush administration' s goal of a stable and democratic regime in Baghdad.
"Despite coalition efforts and the efforts of the newly formed Iraqi government, insurgents continue to demonstrate the ability to recruit new fighters, supply themselves, and attack coalition security forces," the report says. "The deteriorating conditions threaten continued progress in U.S. and other international efforts to assist Iraq in the political and economic areas."
The report relied on a number of findings made earlier this year by the United Nations, the U.S. State and Defense departments, U.S. intelligence agencies and other sources to reach its conclusions. Unlike the majority of those agencies, the GAO, which reports to Congress, has no responsibility for forming or executing policy in Iraq.
The GAO said Congress must ask several questions as it considers what to do next. Among them:
-What political, economic and security conditions must be achieved before the United States can draw down and withdraw military forces from Iraq?
-Why have security conditions continued to worsen even as Iraq has met political milestones, increased the number of trained and equipped forces, and increasingly assumed the lead for security?
-If existing U.S. political, economic, and security measures are not reducing violence in Iraq, what additional measures, if any, will the administration propose for stemming the violence?
The report, citing the Pentagon, said that enemy attacks against coalition and Iraqi forces increased by 23 percent from 2004 to 2005 and that the number of attacks from January to July 2006 were 57 percent higher than during the same period in 2005.
A graph showed that the number of attacks rose from around 100 in May 2003 to roughly 4,500 in July 2006. More than half of those were against coalition troops; the rest appear to have been split almost evenly between attacks on Iraqi security forces and attacks on civilians.
The report said that electricity production remains inadequate, with Baghdad residents receiving less than six hours of power a day, on average. Residents outside Baghdad received electricity less than 11 hours a day, on average.
Though the Bush administration has hailed each political milestone in Iraq as another step on the march to freedom, the report cited a Defense Intelligence Agency finding that "the December 2005 elections appeared to heighten sectarian tensions and polarize sectarian divides."
That finding was echoed, the GAO said, in a March 2006 report from the government-funded U.S. Institute for Peace. That report said that the political process had sharpened ethnic and sectarian identities "while nationalism and a sense of Iraqi identity have weakened."
Further, a report by the office of Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte concluded in February 2006 that Iraqi security forces "are experiencing difficulty in managing ethnic and sectarian divisions," the GAO said. The intelligence director's report said many Iraqi troops remain loyal to sectarian and political interests, the GAO said.
© 2006 McClatchy Washington Bureau and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.realciti es.com
http://www.realciti es.com/mld/ krwashington/ 15494904. htm
Reply:
Lawlessness and terrorism rule
Replied by(
Noman)
Replied on (14/Sep/2006)
Cairo The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington had many indirect results, including the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.
By Anne-Beatrice Clasmann
Sep 11, 2006, 19:00 GMT
Cairo The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington had many indirect results, including the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.
At the time, US President George W Bush argued the 'war on terror' required the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad.
But ties between Saddam's regime and Islamic terrorist groups were never found, nor were the weapons of mass destruction which US troops had hoped to find in Iraq.
Instead, according to many terrorism experts, the invasion led to something much more dangerous: bigger and more professional terrorist organizations.
In short, observers say, by invading Iraq, the United States essentially shot itself in the foot. Even US secret services had seen this coming for a while.
In 2005, a CIA study reported that Iraq provided 'a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills' of Islamic terrorists.
The war, which began on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates, has now resulted in the worldwide growth of terrorism, according to Western intelligence agencies.
The overwhelming majority of Muslims see Washington's Iraq policies as wrong and unfair.
The presence of US troops in Iraq is regarded as an occupation much like that of Israeli forces in Palestinian areas - a view that increases hatred of the West, which sends more people to join terrorist groups, according to many analysts.
Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the world's centre of lawlessness and now draws terrorists who want to train for future attacks in other countries.
This trend was first noticed last November when a series of hotels in Amman, Jordan's capital, were attacked.
The attackers came from Iraq under orders from Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, a Jordanian who became Iraq's top terrorist before he was assassinated by US forces this summer.
Al-Zarqawi had developed an especially strong terrorist organization in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, specializing in attacks on foreign troops, representatives of the new Iraqi government or military, and many Shiite civilians.
The group was originally known as al-Tawhid al-Jihad (Monotheism and Holy War Movement) and included hundreds of radical Muslims from the entire Arab world.
At some point, possibly after his fighters came into conflict with Iraqi forces, al-Zarqawi saw the benefit in linking his group to the al-Qaeda terrorist network. Thus, the group became al-Qaeda in Iraq.
There are currently two schools of thought in Iraq who differ on how to clear the country of terrorists.
One group believes that removing US troops from Iraq would be the best way to fight terrorism. They reason that the presence of the 'infidel' soldiers is the main reason for Iraq's daily orgy of violence.
The other argues that, without foreign troops constantly killing or capturing terrorists, the country will truly devolve into violence.
What is certain is only the tragedy of people who once prayed for the end of Saddam's regime: Given the constant bombing attacks on civilians and the general anarchy, they now find themselves wishing that that regime had never collapsed.
© 2006 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
© Copyright 2003 - 2005 by monstersandcritics. com.
This notice cannot be removed without permission.
http://news. monstersandcriti cs.com/middleeas t/article_ 1199901.php/ Lawlessness_ and_terrorism_ rule_Iraq_ five_years_ after_9_11