Iraq Fails to meet most benchmarks

Bush will find enough positives here and there in any report to "stay the course" although I guess that phrase is long ago banned. There just does not seem to be any appetite among the opposition to meaningfully challenge Bush. The opposition is reduced to rhetoric that is increasingly hollow. In fact on some issues such as Iran the Democrats sound no less menacing than the Bushies.


GAO Report Says Iraq Fails to Meet Most Benchmarks for Success
By Deborah Tate
Capitol Hill
04 September 2007



A report released Tuesday by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, says Iraq has failed to meet most of the benchmarks aimed at measuring political, economic and military progress. The report is one of several to be released to Congress in the coming days as growing numbers of lawmakers are calling for a redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq. VOA's Deborah Tate reports from Capitol Hill.


David Walker appears before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing to deliver GAO's report on performance of Iraqi government, 04 Sept 2007
The Government Accountability Office says Iraq has met only three of 18 benchmarks, has failed to meet 11 others, and has only partially met four.

The GAO's Comptroller General David Walker presented the findings to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

"Overall, key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend the $10 billion in reconstruction funds it has allocated," he said.

Walker says the goals the Iraqi government has met include establishing joint security stations in Baghdad, ensuring minority rights in the Iraqi legislature and creating support committees for the Baghdad security plan.

Among the benchmarks not met include reducing the level of sectarian violence and eliminating militia control of local security, enacting laws to ease restrictions on former Ba'ath party members from holding public office, and enacting a law to guarantee the equitable distribution of oil resources among the country's ethnic groups.

Critics of the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq were quick to seize on the report's findings. Senator John Kerry is a Massachusetts Democrat:

"It is hard to draw any assessment except there is a failing grade for a policy that is still not working," he noted.

The panels' top Republican, Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, suggested the report raises troubling questions about the willingness of Iraqi government officials to forge political reconciliation.

"If the answer ultimately is that Iraqis are really not as concerned about being Iraqis, but only Iraqis if they are in charge, they will continue civil strife, and this is an awesome dilemma," he said.

The White House has acknowledged not all benchmarks have been met, but spokesman Tony Fratto urged lawmakers to wait for next week's report from U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and the top U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, for a more thorough report on the current status in Iraq.

In addition to that report, retired Marine General James Jones, head of an independent commission set up by Congress, is to brief lawmakers on Iraq security forces later this week.

The series of status reports come as Congress is expected to resume debate on Iraq.

Last month, Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia, an influential member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called on President Bush to begin withdrawing U.S. troops by the end of the year.

In a speech on the Senate floor Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, called on other Republicans to back Warner's call.

"Everyday we must continue to fight for a sensible, responsible path out of Iraq in order to restore America's national security," he said.

But the Senate's top Republican, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, stopped short of embracing a timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal. He said whatever decision is made on U.S. troop levels in Iraq, the United States should keep forces in the region to fight al-Qaida and deter Iran.

"We need a long-term deployment, somewhere in the Middle East in the future for two reasons: al-Qaida and Iran," he said.

President Bush, on an unannounced visit to Iraq Monday, cited progress in the security situation in Anbar province and raised the prospect of fewer U.S. troops in Iraq if such progress continues.

Bush administration no closer to getting benchmarks achieved

The oil bill will hardly pass unless the objections of the Kurds are met and de-Baathification is just going to anger the Shia majority and no doubt many Kurds as well. I had not heard anywhere else the suggestion that Bush might be contemplating replacing the Malika government by some sort of National Salvation junta. Just how he could pull that off is hard to imagine!

Bush administration failing to achieve its “benchmarks” in Iraq
By James Cogan
28 May 2007


US President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have all personally warned Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that time is running out. Deadlines have gone or are fast approaching. Still, the Bush administration is no closer to achieving the “benchmarks” it demanded of the Iraqi government on January 10 and linked to the success of its current military “surge”.

The benchmarks are intended to pressure the Shiite- and Kurdish-dominated Iraqi government into agreeing to a new power-sharing arrangement. The US wanted major concessions made to the predominantly Sunni Arab elite of the former Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein, in the hope that significant sections of the Sunni insurgency would end their armed resistance. The marginalisation of the Baathists and the elevation of Shiite and Kurdish parties following the US invasion was a factor in the eruption of an anti-occupation guerilla war in Sunni areas, as well as the subsequent outbreak of a sectarian civil war.

The revamping of the puppet government in Baghdad was also an essential component of the Bush administration’s broader regional strategy. In its escalating confrontation with Iran, the White House has appealed for support from so-called Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which are hostile to the growing Iranian influence in the region, including within the Iraqi government. In part, the US “benchmarks” are aimed at fashioning a regime in Baghdad more acceptable to US regional allies and supportive of any American military action against Shiite Iran.

At the top of Washington’s agenda is the passage of an Iraqi oil law opening up the country to US corporations, but the legislation is mired in conflicting interests.

The Bush administration has demanded that the Iraqi government revise the US-drafted 2006 constitution that handed control over new oil production to the Kurdish- and Shiite-dominated provinces in the north and south where the country’s main fields are located. Unless the constitution is changed, the central Iraqi government and the predominantly Sunni, but resource-poor, provinces of central and western Iraq would see the bulk of oil revenue flowing to the Kurdish and Shiite elites. The alienated Sunni establishment would have no material incentive to withdraw its support for the anti-US armed struggle.

In another concession to the Sunni elite, the US has insisted on an end to the “de-Baathification” policy, which excludes senior members of the Baath Party from holding posts in the government, the state administration or military. Bush also wants provincial elections be held later this year, enabling Sunni parties, which boycotted the previous poll, to gain control of the Sunni provinces.

The White House calculated that the Kurdish and Shiite factions would fall into line with the US agenda. On this political front, however, the surge is clearly failing.

The Iraqi constitutional reform committee, which had until May 22 to recommend changes to the constitution to the parliament, could not agree on a final draft. The Kurdish nationalist parties, key allies of the US occupation from the outset, have refused to accept revisions that would take new oil production out of the hands of the semi-autonomous Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), which administers three northern, predominantly Kurdish provinces.

Some Shiite leaders have also opposed any weakening of the regional and provincial powers over the oil industry. The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), another crucial US ally, has expressed ambitions to establish a Shiite region in southern Iraq, which would contain the largest of Iraq’s untapped oilfields.

The US helped draw up a new oil law overturning regional control, which was accepted by Maliki’s cabinet in April. Parliament is supposed to pass the bill by May 31. The legislation calls for 93 percent of Iraq’s untapped oil fields to be put under the control of a state-owned national oil company, which would be answerable to the central government and would allocate contracts to foreign corporations. Revenues would be collected by the national government, then distributed to the provinces on the basis of population and need.

The failure to modify the constitution, however, effectively kills the new oil law. The KRG issued a statement on April 27 labelling the proposed legislation “unconstitutional”. It declared that the law “will not be supported by the KRG in the federal parliament”. The establishment of a national oil company, the KRG stated, “breaches requirements under the Iraq constitution that the petroleum sector be developed through private investment, with regional control over new petroleum fields, and joint development between regions and the federal government of currently producing fields”.

The wording of the original constitution also means the KRG has a veto over any changes affecting its powers. Clause 126 (4) of the document states: “Articles of the constitution may not be amended if such amendment takes away from the powers of the regions that are not within the exclusive powers of the federal authorities, except by the approval of the legislative authority of the concerned region and the approval of the majority of its citizens in a general referendum.”

The Kurdish parties have also rejected any change to the constitutionally mandated date of December 31, 2007, to hold a referendum in the province of Kirkuk to determine whether it will become part of the Kurdish region. Over 40 percent of Iraq’s known oil fields are located in Kirkuk.

The Shiite movement led by cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, two Sunni-based parties and the secular front headed by former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi have each declared their opposition to the referendum. The International Crisis Group warned in an April report that full-scale civil war was likely to erupt in northern Iraq if the Kurdish parties did not give up their ambitions to take the province. Representatives of the Arab and Turkomen communities in Kirkuk have threatened to take up arms to prevent the referendum—which has been structured to ensure that Kurdish voters will be a clear majority in the area.

While the Kurdish nationalists are blocking the oil law and threatening to plunge the north into turmoil, the Shiite parties in the government are blocking any end to de-Baathification.

The Shiite clerical establishment, the SIIC and the Sadrist movement have opposed any large-scale rehabilitation of the former regime’s upper echelon. While the Bush administration considers “national reconciliation” to be an essential ingredient in convincing Sunni insurgents to lay down their arms, the Shiite religious factions view it as threat to their power and privileges. Moreover, their supporters among the Shiite population suffered brutal repression under Saddam Hussein and bitterly oppose any concessions to the Baathists.

A Sadrist legislator, Falah Hassan Shansal, told the Washington Post last week: “If national reconciliation is at the expense of return of the assassin Baathists, then we will reject reconciliation.”

The Maliki government is stalling on setting dates for the holding of provincial elections. Maliki’s Da’wa Party and the SIIC fear that the Sadrist movement will take control of most of the predominantly Shiite southern provinces if polls take place.

A significant section of the Shiite population view Da’wa and the SIIC as US puppets. The Sadrists, by contrast, fought a brief uprising against American forces in 2004. While they subsequently entered into a coalition with the other Shiite parties and the government, the Sadrists have strengthened their base of support by demanding that the Bush administration set a timetable for the withdrawal of all US and foreign troops. In April, as popular opposition heightened toward the US “surge” in Baghdad, Sadr ordered his supporters to resign from Maliki’s cabinet.

The Sadrists boycotted the provincial elections in 2005 but believe they can now win most of the south in any new poll. In a show of political strength, hundreds of thousands of people took part in a Sadrist rally in Najaf on April 9 to protest against the US occupation. Over the past several months, bloody clashes have taken place between the Saadrist Mahdi Army and rival Shiite militias in Basra, Najaf, Nasiriyah, and smaller southern cities, as local rivalries intensify.

Concerned that the Sadrist movement could become a dangerous focus for opposition to the US occupation, the US military is seeking to weaken or destroy the Mahdi Army and take control of its stronghold in the Baghdad suburb of Sadr City. However, US military operations against the Mahdi Army have done little to weaken its influence.

Seeking to broaden their authority, the Sadrists have initiated talks with Sunni tribes and organisations to establish a political alliance. Some Sunni-based parties and the Sadrists share common ground. Both advocate a strong central government controlling the country’s oil resources and reject the Kurdish claims on Kirkuk. Each are also seeking to making an appeal to broad layers of the population that are deeply opposed to the US occupation.

Associated Press, citing Sadrist insiders, reported on May 23 that Sadr is preparing for the day when his movement can take power in Baghdad. The AP article stated: “The strategy is based in part on al-Sadr’s belief that Washington will soon start pulling out troops or draw them down significantly, leaving behind a huge hole in Iraq’s security and political power structure, al-Sadr’s associates said.... Al-Sadr also believes, his associates said, that Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government may not last much longer, given its failure to improve security, services and the economy. A government collapse is certain to be followed by a political realignment in which the Sadrist movement stands a good chance of emerging as the main player.”

The Maliki government’s inability to meet any of Bush’s benchmarks, combined with the entrenched divisions among the various sectarian and ethnic factions, may well trigger a US move to suspend parliament and appoint some form of “national salvation” junta. There have been reports over the past year that the Bush administration is weighing up installing a military strongman to simply impose US demands on the country.

It is clear, however, that such a naked puppet regime would have no social base of support and its survival would be totally dependent upon the US military. It would confront an increasingly hostile Kurdish north, an ongoing insurgency in Sunni areas and the prospect of a Sadrist-led uprising involving millions of Shiites in Baghdad and southern Iraq.

Deadline on oil law looms

As I understand it the draft law has not even been present to the legislature as yet and the Kurds oppose it as well as Iraq oil unions. The oil representatives are right that the law is more about the political future of Iraq than oil but then the political future of Iraq is to a considerable extent about oil. Is Iraq to be a patsy among middle east oil nations or will it keep control of oil in its own hands as Saudi Arabia and others have done.


Deadline looms on unsettled oil issue
By Sharon Behn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 25, 2007

)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq's proposed oil law, a key U.S. benchmark for political progress, remains in sharp dispute one week before the government's self-imposed deadline for passage, and some say it could create more divisions in the fractured country.
"In general, it is a step forward for the Iraqi political process," said Yahia Said, a London-based analyst with the Revenue Watch Institute who has been closely involved in talks on the draft law.
But Mr. Said and others caution that even if the measure is enacted this summer, Iraq lacks the institutional capability to implement it.
"The design of the law is one thing and implementation is another. There are constraints of capacity," he said in a telephone interview from London.
"A lot more will depend on implementation and the structures established to implement the law. This is one of the weakest elements," he said.
The law, running 33 pages in its third and current draft, lays out terms for the control and management of Iraq's oil fields, with the goal of boosting production and revenues for the benefit of all Iraqis.
The Bush administration has pressed hard for passage in the hope that sectarian tensions fueling the violence in Iraq can be eased by ensuring that Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds will benefit fairly from the oil wealth.
But with negotiators rapidly approaching a deadline on Thursday, the factions remain deeply divided on the sharing of revenues, the extent of the role of international companies in the development of fields and the scope of a national oil company.
All the parties agree that Iraq needs outside capital and expertise to develop the potential of its oil fields.
Kate Dourian, a Dubai-based analyst for the oil industry publication Platt's, said the draft law appears to be deliberately vague about the terms that will be offered to foreign companies.
"At the end of the day, unless you have security and stability, it really doesn't matter -- people are not going to come in," she said in a telephone interview from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Oil executives, who refused to talk on the record given the sensitivity of the talks in Baghdad, said the negotiations are more about the political future of Iraq than oil.

Cheney trying to strongarm Iraqi leaders?

Passing the oil law is one of Bush's benchmarks but it looks as if it will not be passed for some time unless changes are made. Oil workers have gone on strikes over the law and many Sunnis and also the Kurds are against it as it stands.


US Vice President attempts to strongarm Iraqi political leaders
By James Cogan
11 May 2007


US Vice President Dick Cheney flew into Baghdad on Wednesday to insist that the various political factions within the Iraqi parliament accept Washington’s demands and ratify legislation that the Bush administration can present as signs of “progress” in the Iraq war.

According to the New York Times, Cheney engaged in 12 hours of intense discussions. He held separate meetings with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite; President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd; and Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, a Sunni; in a bid to get agreement from the rival ethnic and sectarian parties. He also met with the ministers of oil, finances, interior and foreign affairs; the Iraqi army’s Baghdad commander; and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the largest Shiite faction in Maliki’s government.

Cheney insisted that the Iraqi parliament cancel a two-month break scheduled to begin on June 30 if it has not passed key pieces of legislation. In January, the Bush administration issued an ultimatum to the Shiite and Kurdish parties that dominate Maliki’s government. It demanded that they enact a US-drafted oil law and make a range of political and economic concessions to the Sunni Arab establishment that formed the upper echelon of Saddam Hussein’s regime and was marginalised by the US occupation.

The White House considers these measures essential to stemming the predominantly Sunni anti-occupation insurgency and creating the conditions to exploit Iraq’s vast oil and gas resources. Cheney told a press conference: “I did make it clear that we believe it is very important to move on the issues before us in a timely fashion and that any undue delay would be difficult to explain.” Making clear the urgency, Cheney told the Iraqi factions: “We hoped they would approach these issues with all deliberate dispatch.”

Cheney is the third senior Bush official to travel to Iraq in the past month to pressure the government in Baghdad to implement Washington’s demands. Defense Secretary William Gates held talks with Maliki in April, while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited earlier this month en route to the recent international conference on Iraqi security in Egypt.

The diplomatic activity is a clear sign of desperation in the White House. Four years after Bush strutted the decks of an aircraft carrier and declared victory in Iraq, a considerable proportion of the US war machine is still tied down by an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 guerillas. The US military has proven incapable of defeating the anti-occupation insurgency.

Domestically, Bush heads one of the most reviled administrations in American history. The lies about weapons of mass destruction used to justify an invasion, which has led to the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, have long been exposed. Mass antiwar sentiment in the United States resulted in an electoral debacle for the Republicans last November. The vast majority of Americans want the war ended and troops withdrawn.

Within American ruling circles, the administration is the target of increasingly bitter recriminations over the outcome of the Iraq war. The domestic opposition to the quagmire in Iraq is becoming an obstacle to the use of American military power for other purposes, including against Iran.

The Bush administration’s response—the “surge” announced in January—has been to throw thousands of additional troops into combat in Iraq and to try to refashion the puppet government in Baghdad to include the Sunni factions. At the same time, it is demanding that a crackdown against the Shiite faction led by cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, which has become a focus for popular opposition to the US occupation. The Pentagon also fears that the Sadrist militia could attack American forces in the event of any US confrontation with Iran’s Shiite regime.

However, four months after the “surge” was unveiled, next to no progress has been made toward the US objectives. The Shiite establishment continues to resist any reconciliation with the Sunni elites that would lessen the power and privilege it gained after Hussein’s overthrow. The Kurdish parties, which have established a de-facto separate state in northern Iraq, are resisting the oil law as it would give the central government control over the oil resources in territory they control or aspire to control.

The impasse created by the conflicting vested interests has led Sunni-based parties to threaten to abandon the political process altogether. Moqtada al-Sadr’s movement has already responded to US military attacks on its strongholds by walking out of Maliki’s cabinet and organising anti-occupation protests. The armed resistance to the occupation—by both Sunni and Shiite guerilla groups—is also burgeoning. US casualties in April were the highest for the year. In summary, the “surge” is looming as another political debacle for the Bush administration.

The crisis confronting the White House was exemplified by Cheney’s visit. As with every high profile visit to Iraq, the trip was unannounced. He entered the country in secret wearing a bullet-proof vest and was rushed under heavy guard from the airport to the fortified Green Zone in central Baghdad.

Word of Cheney’s presence spread and provoked a hostile reaction. Angry demonstrations were held by the Sadrist movement in Baghdad, Najaf and Karbala, denouncing the US occupation and labelling the US vice president a “sponsor of terrorism”. In the late afternoon, a rocket fired from the predominantly Shiite suburbs to the east of the Green Zone shook the building where he was meeting with Iraqi politicians.

Despite hours of talks, Cheney effectively left empty-handed. Maliki could give no commitment to pass the legislation wanted by Washington or even to ensure that parliament would continue sitting past June 30. By contrast, the day before Cheney’s visit, Sadrist legislators secured a parliamentary majority for a non-binding resolution demanding the US set a timetable for the withdrawal of all its military forces.

In Washington, the Bush administration is no doubt weighing up other options. If the present political set-up in Baghdad will not serve US ends, the alternative is to dispense with the Iraqi parliament altogether and impose an openly dictatorial form of rule.

US Urges Iraq "Reforms"

THe problem is that major groups such as the Shias and Kurds will not consider reversing the de-Baathification process as a reform, and the same is true of giving the Sunnis more clout. Also, many groups are against the new oil law. Interesting that this is called a reform when what it does is allows exploitation of Iraq oil by foreign interests in ways that no other Middle East country could stand for!
At least if the "reforms" do not go through the US has an excuse for leaving but it is doubful that it will.


U.S. urges Iraq reforms at critical time
By ROBERT H. REID
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER


Baghdad, Iraq, Friday, April 27, 2007. The Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate adopted House-passed legislation calling for U.S. troops to begin leaving Iraq by Oct. 1. U.S. President George W. Bush pledged to veto the measure, and neither body passed the measure with enough votes to override a veto. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)
BAGHDAD -- With Congress demanding the troops come home, pressure is mounting on Iraq's prime minister to deliver on reforms or lose U.S. support - a key pillar of his shaky government.

In the coming weeks, parliament is expected to take up legislation on such issues as regulating Iraq's oil industry, relaxing the ban on government jobs for members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party and amending the constitution to satisfy demands by disaffected Sunni Arabs.

The U.S. has identified those steps as "benchmarks" for Iraq to guarantee continued American support.

All those draft bills, however, face substantial opposition in the Shiite Muslim-led parliament, where Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's nominal supporters hold a majority but cannot agree on steps to expand common ground with Sunnis and Kurds.

On a recent visit to Iraq, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told al-Maliki that Iraqi legislators should not take their summer recess, set for July, until they approve the measures.

Without U.S. backing, al-Maliki's chances of political survival are doubtful and could send Iraq into another political tailspin.

"There is no doubt that we are going through a critical and dangerous period," Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh said. "We need to pay great attention to the political process to achieve national unity to face these terrorist challenges."

But Shiite politicians are resisting any move to bring back large numbers of Baath members into the civil service or the security forces. The head of the government committee that screens former Baath members, Ali al-Lami, has said the draft bill is unconstitutional.

Shiite and Kurdish leaders are also not keen on major amendments to the constitution, which was ratified in an October 2005 referendum but opposed by many Sunni Arabs who felt it favored the other communities.

The oil bill won Cabinet endorsement in February after the Kurds accepted a compromise giving them a major say in awarding contracts to foreign oil companies. But many lawmakers believe the measure grants foreign companies too great a role in Iraq's oil fields, most of them in the Shiite-dominated south and the mostly Kurdish north.

Although the bill would guarantee Sunni Arabs a major share of oil revenue, key Sunni leaders believe it gives away too much authority to regional authorities, especially the Kurds.

U.S. authorities have said little about what they would do if the Iraqis fail to approve the measures by the summer. However, it is clear American patience with al-Maliki's government is running out.

Close associates to the prime minister told The Associated Press last month that al-Maliki fears the Bush administration will withdraw its support if the oil bill and other key legislation is not in place soon. The associates spoke on condition of anonymity because the issue is sensitive.

The political showdown is taking shape as the Iraq war enters a decisive stage. American casualties are rising, and violence is raging across the country.

The U.S. troop increase announced by President Bush in January brought a momentary drop in civilian slaughter in Baghdad. But even the U.S. commander, Gen. David Petraeus, acknowledges the arrival of thousands more American soldiers has not curbed violence nationwide.

Success, Petraeus said Thursday in Washington, will require "an enormous commitment" by the United States - perhaps requiring even more troops than the 30,000 reinforcements that Bush already approved.

U.S. death tolls have surpassed 80 every month since December, when 112 U.S. personnel were killed. So far this month, the toll stands at 90, making five consecutive months American deaths have topped 80 - they never before reached that high for more than two straight months.

The challenge of the Iraq war is its complexity - several conflicts raging in parallel, all within the umbrella of a giant struggle for power among the country's religious and ethnic groups now that Saddam is gone.

Sunni and Shiite extremists battle not only coalition forces but fight among themselves, often turning their fury on civilians from the rival communities.

To the north, Kurds and Arabs compete for control of the oil-rich area around Kirkuk. In the south, armed Shiite groups - some believed aided by Iran - square off for domination in Basra, center of the vast southern oil fields.

In such a free-for-all, politics and violence are intertwined.

The goal of the troop buildup is to reduce violence in Baghdad so Iraqi leaders can reach political compromises. But without compromise, combatants have no incentive to lay down their arms.

Petraeus has described the Iraq war as "the most complex and challenging I have ever seen." His predecessor, Gen. George Casey, referred to the "Pillsbury Doughboy effect" - press the extremists in one area and they step up attacks somewhere else.

U.S. forces have achieved some measure of success against al-Qaida in Anbar province, which stretches from near Baghdad to the Syrian and Jordanian borders. Now the extremists have shifted eastward to Diyala province, which was seemed relatively secure 18 months ago.

American commanders warn it will take months, not weeks, to determine if their new strategy can succeed.

But among Iraq's long-suffering people, trust is wearing thin.

Security forces set up checkpoints in Baghdad to stop suicide bombers, and Iraqis complain of traffic jams. Plans are drawn up for protective walls around neighborhoods to keep out death squads, and residents cry they are being herded into prisons.

"The security plan has added many problems for Iraqis - traffic jams in the streets, random gunfire day and night, abuse by Iraqi security forces" said Kadhim Habeeb, a Shiite lawyer. "This is not a security plan. It is security chaos."

Meanwhile, residents say that Shiite militias, whose pullback early in the latest U.S. buildup was largely responsible for a drop in sectarian murders, are slowly reappearing in Baghdad.

"They are still there," said Abdul-Qader Jamal, a Sunni Arab. "They're still roaming the streets with their weapons, launching attacks against security forces and threatening Sunnis."

---

Robert H. Reid is correspondent-at-large for The Associated Press and has reported frequently from Iraq since 2003.