If you’d like to read the piece…and I hope you will…please have a look here at the link: http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/28/an-iraqi-time-bomb

In wake of the US announcement that nearly seven billion dollars destined for reconstruction in Iraq had been stolen — not just mislaid in an accounting miscue — Iraqi lawmakers are demanding the return of $17 billion they say was stolen since 2003.

The parliament’s totally legitimate and absolutely incontestable “Integrity Committee” has called the alleged theft a “financial crime,” while bemoaning its lack of recourse given America’s position atop the UN Security Council.

Wonderful to learn that the only folks suffering from the running count of the total monies invested, lost or otherwise wasted in the war effort and subsequent occupation ($783,000,000,000 or something, by the way…) aren’t the American taxpayers.

Asleep at the wheel

“Severe inefficiencies and poor management by the Coalition Provisional Authority has left auditors with no guarantee the money was properly used,” said Stuart W. Bowen Jr., director of the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

Some years later. reports are swirling that nearly $ 7 billion of Iraq’s oil money, siphoned into the country to rebuild critical infrastructure, may have simply been lifted by some enterprising crooks.

“It may have been stolen. It was vulnerable to fraud and waste and abuse,” the Financial Times quoted Stuart Bowen, who remains the US special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, as saying.

If the money was stolen, one of the most significant financial crimes in history would have happened under the watch of the very office initially established by Congress to oversee the $61 billion of US money spent rebuilding the country.

Coming on the heels of the “gross incompetence” excuse deployed by Bowen to excuse the disappearance of the billions earlier in the war, should it come as a surprise that Mr. Bowen has managed to keep his job?

It seems Bowen and his pals at the Pentagon have since been trying to find out what happened to this same lump sum since 2005 when it was previously suggested that its disappearance was a matter of sloppy accounting.

Now the question remains…what’s worse: “sloppy accounting” to the tune of several billion dollars or allowing one of the largest heists in American history to occur under the watchful eye of the world’s most powerful military?

In a 23 count indictment handed down last week, Alwan was accused of conspiring to kill US nationals abroad, distributing information on the manufacture and use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Iraq and plotting to transfer Stinger missiles to AQI’s Sunni insurgency. His fellow defendant, Hammadi, is charged with attempting to provide material support to AQI and conspiring to transfer Stinger missiles to Iraq.

Both Alwan and Hammadi arrived to the United States from Iraq in 2009, having been granted refugee status through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). An anonymous official with the agency blamed specific gaps in the screening process that allowed to hostile Iraqis to enter the country with amnesty. Until 2009, those seeking refugee status were matched against a limited array of screening databases. DHS and the State Department have since imposed a more rigorous applicant review process.

James Robinson, executive director of the International Center in Bowling Green, said that his organization has helped some 250 Iraqi refugees in Bowling Green since 2008.

However, it did not take long for Alwan to arouse the suspicions of federal authorities. The FBI began investigating the Iraqi national five months after his appeal for refugee status was approved. Within the year, a confidential informant was engaged in recording their conversations. The investigation into Hammadi began in January of 2011, when he was recruited by Alwan to help in the efforts.

According to court documents, Alwan admitted, on tape, that from 2003 until 2006 he had fought as an insurgent in Iraq, using IEDs and a sniper rifle to target US forces. Investigators uncovered his fingerprints on an undetonated IED that was recovered in Bayji, where Alwan lived and worked.

Officials from the FBI report that Alwan was ready to assist their confidential source, who claimed to provide support to AQI in the form of cash, guns, C-4 plastic explosives and Stinger missile systems. The informant told Alwan that he was funded by a shadowy, if fictional, figure known as the Hajji who received funding from Osama bin Laden. Their task was to move weapons and money from Bowling Green to Franklin, Kentucky where the supplies would be sent to Iraq. Unaware that the weapons were made inoperable by the FBI, Alwan received three rocket-propelled grenade launchers which he transported to the FBI source.

In addition to assistance from Bowling Green police, immigration services and the Defense Department, a Lexington-based anti-terrorism task force comprised of local police and policemen from the University of Kentucky also assisted in the investigation.

No weapons or money reached Iraq, and no domestic sites were ever targeted.

A hearing on their case is scheduled for June 8,  2011.

Once upon a time, Memorial Day marked a moment of remembrance and reconciliation at the end of this nation’s bloody civil war. It’s now commoditized itself into a weekend of shopping, cook-outs, and national media events like the Indy 500 and the Coca-Cola 600 auto races.

This year, I’d like to think that we can all take a moment to remember the brave soldiers, Marines and airmen who have fought and died in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade. Our nation has never been at war for such a long stretch of time – yet we, as a country, have never been so disconnected from the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform.

This Memorial Day, as the twilight of America’s mission in Iraq settles in, let’s remember that this weekend isn’t about politics. Or beaches. Or barbecues. It’s about the brave men and women who gave their lives to defend our constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. They did not choose their fights, but they served when asked, and died for our freedoms.

Our sincere thanks…

As per the current Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between Baghdad and Washington, the U.S. must withdraw nearly all of its troops by the end of this year. The U.S. military would like to keep about 10,000 troops in Iraq, a number which President Obama is expected to approve.

There are whispers in Baghdad that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would support an extension for U.S. troops, but he won his reelection with the backing of Moqtada al-Sadr’s supporters. A Sadr bloc spokesman said the group will continue to view the American presence as an occupation and would hold a peaceful protest on Thursday. If they were to defect from Maliki’s coalition, the fragile Iraqi government could collapse into political chaos.

That Mr. Gates’ speech came before the the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) should not be overlooked. His hawkish audience had most likely read AEI scholar Frederick Kagan’s paper, released Tuesday, that presaged many of Gates’ talking points. Mr. Kagan has expressed concerns that Iraq won’t be able to defend itself against Iran and its proxies without a U.S. troop presence.

“The Iraqi Security Forces will not be able to defend Iraq’s sovereignty, independence from Iran, and internal stability without American assistance, including some ground forces, for a number of years,” Mr. Kagan wrote.

As the architects of the Iraq war remain holed up in this last bastion of neo-conservatism, AEI’s continued influence and Gates’ congruence to their guidance may come as a surprise to many, in an era of hope and change. Something for Americans to considerwhile their country remains entangled in wars Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, while taking on humanitarian assistance to Japan and Haiti over the past 18 months…

The president endorsed US military action aimed at deposing Libya’s Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s brutal regime, in no uncertain terms. He then defended America’s less muscular posture in response to concentrated crackdowns in Bahrain and Yemen. While President Obama avoided a necessary discussion of the administration’s dubious partnership with Saudi Arabia, he deployed tougher language against violent repression in Syria. Most notably, for the first time in his presidency, he called for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian question on the basis of the 1967 borders. All were that repression will fail and that the tyrants will fall in the president’s sweeping analysis of the causes and consequences of the Arab Spring.

Americans were told of their president’s overarching vision for US involvement in the region. However, efforts to construct a cohesive storyline about his administration’s efforts in the region will remain difficult. Bin Laden may be dead, but the Palestinian peace process has ground to a halt and the Arab world’s conflagration will demand a case-by-case decision making process that balances short-term interests in the scope of a long-term narrative. As the president noted, “it will be years before this story reaches its end.”

However, the message for Iraqis is manifest – America’s attention to their political arc has come to a close.  By dialing down the US military presence, and decapitating al-Qaeda, the political demands that defined George W. Bush’s presidency are satisfied. The United States has turned the page, and will welcome the opportunity to usher in a more positive era for the Middle East.

While he hailed the promise of a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian democracy in Baghdad, Mr. Obama revealed the real lesson of our Mesopotamian tragedy, stating “we have learned from our experience in Iraq just how costly and difficult it is to try to impose regime change by force, no matter how well intentioned it may be.” The events of the past six months have demonstrated that “that strategies of repression and strategies of diversion will not work anymore.” America did not put people in the streets in Cairo and Tunis and our support for reform and transitions to liberal democracy cannot be exported at gun-point.

As ever, Obama’s speech was grounded in the soaring rhetoric of rights, dignity and international norms that define America’s commitment to democracy, and the president’s global vision. But as this new narrative takes shape, America’s destiny in the Middle East will be determined less by the battles that are lost and won than by the stories we choose believe in. Given these sentiments, one must pause to think what Saddam’s fate might have been, had he lived to witness the dawn of the Arab Spring.

As we re-imagine America’s role in the Middle East after a decade of war and bloodshed, it is impossible to overlook moments of ambition, idealism, and tragedy that defined this chapter in our shared storyline with the Arab world. Fortunately, our new beginning looks more hopeful.

According to a report filed by the Aswat News Agency, the military sting was executed by security forces connected to the Samarra Operations Command. The four suspects were detained in the early hours of Wednesday during an operation in Samarra city, Salahal-Din Province. One of the detainees, Mikhlif Mohammed Hussein al-Azzawi, also known as “Abu Radhwan,” is the alleged military leader of the al-Qaeda organization in Iraq.

The others arrested were Mohammed Saad Muzzaham al-Daraji, the suspected head of al-Qaeda branch’s assassinations unit, Fawzi Abbas Ali al-Badri, who is also known as Abu Abdulrahman, who is primarily charged with kidnapping soldiers to kill them and torch their bodies.

Recently, Operation Command had reported that external parties were still funding sleeper cells in the region. It was alleged that the al Qaeda planned to incinerate the local pharmaceutical plant – an industry hub in operation since 1970.

That the arrests come less than three weeks after the killing of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in a raid by US special forces in Pakistan, may speak to the intelligence milled from his Abbottabad hideout.

Meanwhile, the core leadership of al-Qaeda named a “caretaker” leader to replace bin Laden. Saif al-Adel, once an Egyptian special forces officer, has been chosen by a council, according to a source with detailed knowledge of the group’s inner workings

It is unclear whether AQI has, or will, swear loyalty to the interim leadership – currently, the Yemeni wing, al Qaeda in the Arabian Penisula (AQAP), is angling for greater influence, and their pushback may indicate an evolving power struggle within the decapitated syndicate.

Maliki’s ministers have become increasing outspoken, as well. Foreign Minister Hosehvar Zebari said that while Iraq supports the peoples’ movement across the Middle East and North Africa, his country maintains a special relationship with their neighbors in Bahrain. Ahmed Chalabi, erstwhile American partner and silver-tongued author of the the 2003 invasion, added that Iraq will play a part in the Bahraini revolution. He stated, “Iraq was able to free itself and impose a democratic system…whoever doesn’t think that Iraqis can take a role in this, they are mistaken.” It was not immediately clear from whom Iraq was able to free itself, but given Chalabi’s deepening ties to Tehran, one might not assume Saddam, at this point.

This Spring's Must Have Accessory

Not to be outdone, firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has encouraged his followers to support the demonstrations in Bahrain. Now, members of Iraq’s Najafi marjaiya, the top Shiite leadership, have discarded their trademark passivity in political matters to speak out against the violence done to their fellow Shi’a in the capital city of Manama. All over the Shi’a south there have been calls to boycott goods from Saudi Arabia, where the Sunni monarchy regards Bahrain as its answer to America’s Puerto Rico, in the Persian Gulf.

The confessional divide in Bahrain, between the ruling Sunni monarchy and the majority Shi’a population, is Saudi Arabia’s most pressing regional concern behind Yemen’s imminent collapse. Riyadh believes that any reforms granted the Shi’a protestors would be seen as a “win” for Saudi Arabia’s nemesis, Iran. Moreover, there are concerns that such concession might embolden the increasingly active Shi’a minority living under the House of Saud.

Given their increasingly vocal stance, and the regional issues at hand, perhaps Iraq’s role at the helm of the contested Arab League summit might suit them after all.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates did make a “reduced budget request” for 2012, although the “spending cuts” he’s requesting will be offset by increases in other areas of defense spending. The bottom line shows that Gates’ budget request still comes to $553 billion — the largest in real terms since World War II. Of course, 700 bases in 130 different countries are expensive, and active engagement in a handful of costly wars that require expensive weapons, equipment and reconstruction projects don’t come cheap. For the record, The Sustainable Defense Task Force has developed a report which shows the United States could slash $1 trillion from it defense budget over the next 10 years, but I digress…

Now Mr. Gates is saying that some troops may stay in Iraq for years. In his farewell tour of greater Mesopotamia, the Defense Secretary remarked that the US and Iraq would have to negotiate the terms of any American presence, while admitting that he had dreamed up at least a couple scenarios that might keep American forces in Iraq, perhaps indefinitely.

Before an audience in Mosul, Gates stated:

“That would be part of any negotiation, whether it be for a finite period of time, whether it would be negotiated that there be a further ramp-down over a period of two or three years, or whether we would have a continuing advise-and-assist role as we have in a number of countries.”

Of course, maintaining a troop presence in Iraq beyond the 2011 deadline authorized by the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) would have dramatic political consequences, both in Washington and Baghdad. Before ramping up our presence in Afghanistan, holding military tribunals on Gitmo and carpet bombing Libya, President Obama actually campaigned on his promise to dial down American forces in Iraq, as soon as he moved into the White House. One can only assume the president is not anxious to disappoint his voting base, again. His counterpart, the ever-unreliable Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is facing mounting pressure from within his political marriage-of-convenience, as Muqtada al-Sadr continues to demand the end of American troops presence. However, while violence is down in Iraq,  bombings and other attacks continue across the country, while ethnic tensions in the north appear to be mounting.

The good Sayyid Sadr is now hoping to capitalize on PM Maliki’s weakness by ditching his sectarian robes for the trappings of populist unity. As regional tensions rattle Iraq’s fragile democracy, the Sadrists declared themselves in favor of a freer press in a sympathetic nod to mounting protests in the streets. If Maliki’s position worsens, look for the firebrand cleric to make more appearances beside opposition leader Iyad Allawi, while urging his followers to join the mostly secular demonstrations.

As Iraqis join Arab neighbors to demand genuine political change, their parliament seems built to collapse. Assembled on a flimsy ethno-confessional, power-sharing agreement, a US decision to extend its stay could capsize the Sadr-Maliki coalition, and sink their ruling bloc. Given these stakes, Congress should regard the decision to exit Iraq as an exercise in ease and stick to the plan. While Iraq is unable, currently, to defend her skies, gather adequate intelligence or use the sophisticated American weaponry we’ve donated at tax-payer expense, the political jeopardy ensured by an indefinite US troop presence would prove even more perilous in Baghdad.

“ The new domains will help people in Iraq and Tunisia find locally relevant information, faster,”  AbdelKarim Mardini, Google’s product manager for the Middle East & North Africa, wrote in a recent blog post. “For example, a search for [central bank] on the Iraq domain yields results relevant to someone in Iraq, such as the Central Bank of Iraq. On the other hand, the same search on the Tunisia domain returns slightly different results.”

The most interesting aspect of the new Google.iq domain is the language support for native Arabic and Kurdish speakers. In keeping with Google’s stated goal of covering the world’s top 40 spoken languages and 99 percent of all Internet users, the company announced its plans to launch more domains in the coming months. Anyone’s guess where and when they’ll emerge.

Here’s hoping the advent of Google in Iraq ups internet usage. It was recently reported that despite a higher mobile penetration since the US invasion, internet penetration in Iraq remains among the lowest in the Middle East. Only 15% of Iraqis said they browse the Internet, and most of these users live in Baghdad.

This low usage is understandable. Under Saddam’s regime, internet access was strictly controlled and very few people were permitted to be online. In 2002, it was estimated that as few as 25,000 Iraqis used the internet. As private companies, NGOs and USAID mend the country’s telecommunications infrastructure, the Iraqi people await the opportunity to explore new land-based Internet access methods. As of 2010, an estimated 5 million Iraqis have access the Internet.

Well, now they’ll have their chance, although it remains to be seen whether they’ll be ready. The current tide of unrest that has rocked the region has not spared Iraq, where the nation’s curious version of democracy seems to many to be creeping backward toward authoritarianism. Still, the widespread protests experienced in the streets of Baghdad and Basra have not been aimed at dismantling the government – rather, demands have been made to improve it.

Some 50,000 American troops remain on station around the major cities and the nation’s reliance on United States advisers to defend its air space and protect against foreign threats lingers. However, Iraq has kept in line with her Arab League neighbors by declining participation in the military action against Libya, which began last Saturday.

While the United Kingdom and the United States were not audacious enough to pressure the UN Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya until the Arab League requested it, the Arabs have spared little time before denouncing the implementation of the decision, on the grounds that it was designed to protect civilians, rather than attack territories in Libya.

After weeks of violent crackdowns by security forces on anti-government protesters in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria, it should come as little surprise that the Arab states are reticent to applaud foreign intervention. The demand for political reforms and greater freedoms will not be beaten back without a swift government action. That the foreign response has been so vigorous must have given many an oligarchic pause to think.

Of course, Iraq has already had a taste of that medicine…

Although the U.N. resolution forbids “a foreign occupation force on any part of Libyan territory,” one must question whether such an action is off the table for the Western powers. Given the intervention in Libya, it’s relevant to consider where “all necessary measures” offered the Iraqi people has gotten them over the past eight years.

With hopes that Libyan resistance will avail themselves of the foreign powers coalition and the aegis of a UN resolution, one must have mixed feelings about a foreign (read: Western) intervention against Gadhafi. While it is unlikely that Libya will devolve into another Iraq, we are once again reminded that there is no shortcut to democracy. It can only be accomplished through an authentic, popular movement, guided by a noble political spirit, through which a national constituency can determine its future, as a whole.

If we have learned one thing from American involvement in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan, it is that you cannot impose democracy by bombing strategic targets. Academic, author and British MP, Rory Stewart, who witnessed post-invasion Iraq first-hand as an emerging diplomat, has warned that we could shift quickly “from dipping our toe in the water to being submerged up to our necks.”

Back in 2003, our leaders skirted the truth about the real reasons for our national splash into military conflict. Let us make sure that our involvement in 2011 is better executed, both logistically and morally.

Applebaum initially responsed to Krauthammer’s introductory statement in his Friday post, when he wrote:

“Voices around the world, from Europe to America to Libya, are calling for U.S. intervention to help bring down Moammar Gaddafi. Yet for bringing down Saddam Hussein, the United States has been denounced variously for aggression, deception, arrogance and imperialism.”

In an expression of abject bewilderment, Applebaum questioned the old hawk’s fantastical invention that somewhere out there, some people are begging for a U.S. intervention to dismantle the Ghaddafi regime. As she notes, there has been discussion of foreign aid or a no-fly zone, but only as part of a last-ditch, multilateral U.N. or NATO action to prevent genocide. But an outright American effort to topple an(other) Arab regime?

While I share Applebaum’s confusion regarding these untold masses calling for more American interventionism into national sovereignty, it was the second half of Krauthammer’s piece that I found truly offensive. As he picks up steam, the good doctor boldly asserts that the Iraqi experience since the US invasion offers a genuine source of inspiration for Libyans, and others in the Middle East and North Africa . As he puts it, “to the Middle Easterner, Iraq today is the only functioning Arab democracy.”

That’s a strong statement.  And one that rings utterly hollow. In no way, shape or form, has the American misadventure in Iraq been helpful to the cause of democracy. Protests that have sprung up in Tunisia, Egypt or Libya have occurred despite of, not because of, America’s Mesopotamian tragedy.

That Krauthammer preserves the hubris to contrast his imagined “moral support” for a military intervention against Gaddafi with the very real “moral opprobrium” piled atop the US for its decision to demolish pre-occupation Iraq, speaks to his own revisionist history.

As if on cue, Robert Kagan and Ruel Marc Gegerct (of “the Iranians…have terrorism in their DNA” fame) have sprung to Krauthammer’s defense. Despite the old timer’s bizarre perspective that the forcible importation of democracy to Iraq has provided “an example for the entire region,” his fellow neo-cons-in-arms have couched their terms to insist that the US nation-building routine did not prevent further calls for democracy.

Of course, they neglect to mention nobody’s asking for American assistance, either. But I guess we know how they sleep at night, and what keeps their dreams alive.

As I understand it, House Republicans have lumped State Department funds in with “domestic discretionary spending.” Now, Democrats are warning that subjecting these funds to massive cuts might dismantle America’s strategy in Iraq, which depends on the drawdown of Department of Defense and a corresponding increase to State Department operations. Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, spoke Thursday on behalf of the State department, warning a Senate committee the the mission in Iraq (and the “gains” we have made) will be critically threatened if State doesn’t get the money it has requested to fund its work as U.S. forces exit this year. Yes, it is strange for one Department head to defend another agency’s funding…but desperate times call for uncommon measures.

Faced with the fact that the training of Iraqi police and other programs once handled by the Pentagon could be permanently abandonded, Gates compared the situation to the 1980s when “we spent billions to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and we couldn’t get a million dollars to build schools in Afghanistan in 1989 and 1990,” leading to a Taliban takeover.

“The same thing is going to happen in Iraq,” he said if the State Department gets shortchanged.

This battle will likely be decided in the Senate, which stands between the ravenous House and President Obama’s White House. On Monday, the president released his budget which proposed spending just $16 billion in Iraq – a significant decrease as US diplomats take over from combat troops.