Friday, February 29, 2008

Dozens killed in Pakistan blast

Suicide bomber targets funeral of policeman in militant-ridden northwest
BREAKING NEWS
MSNBC News Services
updated 12:46 p.m. ET, Fri., Feb. 29, 2008

PESHAWAR, Pakistan - A suicide bombing at a funeral for a police officer killed at least 30 people and wounded 62 others Friday in northwestern Pakistan, a police official said.

The attack occurred in a government high school in the town of Mingora while funeral prayers were being held for a police officer killed in a roadside bombing earlier in the day, said Deputy Inspector General of Police Syed Akhtar Ali Shah.

Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said the attack occurred in Swat, a mountainous region where Pakistani security forces have been battling Islamist militants for months.

Waqif Khan, a senior police officer in the region, said officials have been trying to gain a better handle on the death toll.

The policeman being buried was one of three killed by a roadside bomb in Bannu, a town at the gateway to the troubled North Waziristan tribal region.

Pakistan's army deployed to Swat earlier this year to quell an uprising led by a pro-Taliban cleric, and claims it has dispersed thousands of militant followers but attacks persisted. Last Friday, a roadside bomb hit a wedding party, killing 12 people.

Taliban militants have stepped up attacks and taken control of tracts of northwestern Pakistan bordering Afghanistan in the past couple of years. Before militants took root last summer, Swat was once a draw for tourists because of its fine mountain scenery.

Please check back for details on this breaking story.

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
© 2008 MSNBC Interactive

U.S. may sign Guantanamo accord with Algeria: agency

Reuters
Wednesday, February 27, 2008; 12:29 PM

ALGIERS (Reuters) - The United States may soon sign an agreement with Algeria on the possible return home of Algerian prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, the official Algerian APS news agency reported on Wednesday.

Visiting Assistant U.S. Secretary of State David Welch told Algerian reporters that Washington hoped "to conclude soon an accord with Algeria" on the issue, APS reported.

Algerian newspapers have said there are believed to be between 17 and 25 Algerians held at the facility on Cuba.

U.S. President George W. Bush has said he would like to close the camp, which holds about 275 detainees and he calls a necessary tool in the war on terrorism.

Human rights groups and foreign governments have said holding suspects for years without trial violates basic international legal standards.

"The question is to know if we have prisoners who ought to be prosecuted," APS quoted Welch as saying. "Even if that is not the case, that does not mean that they are not dangerous.

"We want to send prisoners back to their countries of origin, but we must assure ourselves that they do not represent a danger, because we have seen examples of prisoners returning to their countries and who were later released."

U.S. officials say some governments will not take custody of their citizens held at Guantanamo, others would not treat their citizens humanely and still others are not willing to provide security guarantees Washington believes are necessary.

Algerian President Bouteflika offered an amnesty for Islamist rebels in 2006 as part of a reconciliation policy aimed at ending years of violence in the north African country.

As part of the reconciliation drive he authorized the release from jail of more than 2,000 former members of an Islamist armed rebellion that aims to overthrow the government.

Algerian newspapers say some of the released former fighters rejoined the rebellion after they were freed and have taken part in attacks on government targets in recent months.

(Reporting by Hamid Ould Ahmed; Writing by William Maclean, editing by Robert Woodward)

US: Afghan Opium Crop Hurts Democracy

By ANNE GEARAN
The Associated Press
Friday, February 29, 2008; 11:25 AM

WASHINGTON -- Record illegal drug production in Afghanistan supplies the Taliban insurgency with money and arms and the U.S.-backed government must take direct, prompt action against poppy growers, a State Department report said Friday.

Afghan farmers grew more poppies for opium in 2007 than ever before, the second year in a row of record production in the nation the United States invaded after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. The drug trade deters progress toward a stable, economically independent democracy, the report said.

"The counterinsurgency nexus is both real and growing," said Assistant Secretary David Johnson, the State Department's top drug enforcement officer.

The International Narcotics Control Strategy Report says the largest and best-known insurgent group _ the hard-line Taliban _ benefits with money and weapons while offering protection to growers and traffickers.

"Eliminating narcotics cultivation and trafficking in Afghanistan will require a long-term national and international commitment," the State Department said in the report, which added: "The Afghan government must take decisive action against poppy cultivation soon to turn back the drug threat before its further growth and consolidation make it even more difficult to defeat."

The report noted that Afghan President Hamid Karzai considered limited aerial spraying to eradicate opium poppies last year, but opted not to do it. Such action would have been extremely dangerous and highly unpopular.

Afghanistan grew 93 percent of the world's opium poppy last year, according to United Nations figures cited in Friday's report. The haul, worth an estimated $4 billion on the illegal world market, represented more than a third of Afghanistan's combined total gross domestic product, or GDP, of $11.5 billion.

Production was up 34 percent above 2006 levels and was nearly double the total for 2005.

Land under cultivation for poppies increased 17 percent in 2007 and good weather helped increase production on land already under cultivation, the report said.

Johnson welcomed some projections that say Afghan drug production will fall in 2008.

The report measures foreign drug production and efforts to fight it. The report does not examine drug production, interdiction or eradication in the United States.

Despite Problems, Iraqi Leader Boasts of Success

Rivals See Maliki's Confidence as Rash, but Publicly Deny a Move to Topple Him

By Amit R. Paley and Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, February 29, 2008; A12

BAGHDAD, Feb. 28 -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki gazed out at a sea of chanting Shiite pilgrims Thursday and offered a brash appraisal of his administration's 21-month tenure.

"We promised we would bring national reconciliation to the sons of Iraq, and we have succeeded!" Maliki thundered to hundreds of thousands of Shiites gathered at the golden-domed Imam Hussein Shrine in Karbala. "Iraqis are once again loving brothers!"

Maliki is facing a drumbeat of criticism that his government has achieved little progress as well as constant calls for his ouster, but these days he hardly sounds like a man fighting for his political survival. He acts as if he has the upper hand over his political rivals, brusquely rejecting demands from key allies and making a bold grab for greater control of the federal bureaucracy.

The 57-year-old Shiite and former exile feels little cause for concern, according to his aides, because he enjoys the strong backing of the Bush administration, which worries that the chaos triggered by the collapse of Maliki's government would prompt a new wave of sectarian bloodletting across Iraq. With the infighting by the political class in Iraq as bitter as ever, Maliki believes the odds are remote that any coalition could come together to oust him, his aides say.

"The message is that he is tough and he is not going to compromise," said Sami al-Askiri, a Shiite member of parliament who is a confidant and informal adviser to Maliki. "I think now the prime minister feels that he is more secure, both for himself and for the country in general."

Maliki's confidence seems untethered to political reality. Predicting when his government will fall has become a parlor game in certain circles in Baghdad. And some of his pronouncements -- like one on Thursday that "sectarianism has been eliminated" -- have struck Iraqi and American officials as bordering on the delusional. Sectarian killings are still common and political reconciliation remains elusive, a fact underscored by the veto this week of a law calling for nationwide elections, one of the few major pieces of legislation approved by parliament.

"He's failed at governing," acknowledged a senior U.S. official in Baghdad, who was granted anonymity so he could speak candidly, but the official said there was no better option. "If Maliki were to be removed by a vote of no confidence, we'd go into an extended period of stagnation."

Publicly, at least, Maliki's major political rivals have expressed support for him and denied persistent rumors that they are plotting to topple him. One of the figures most regularly listed as a potential successor, Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi, has no current plans to unseat Maliki, his associates said.

"For the time being, our strategy is to see that he remains," Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of Abdul Mahdi's Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a powerful Shiite political party, said in an interview. "It's necessary to see a change happen in the government, not a change of the government."

But the emerging braggadocio displayed by Maliki has tested the limits of that support.

Perhaps the most serious showdown came in December, when a group of senior Kurdish officials flew to Baghdad to discuss a list of demands with Maliki.

The delegation, led by the prime minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government, Nechirvan Barzani, wanted to ensure that the Kurds would receive 17 percent of Iraq's $50 billion budget, a figure that Maliki believed was far too high. The Kurds also wanted the central government in Baghdad to fund their regional military, known as the pesh merga; to allow them to pursue independent oil contracts with foreign companies; and to support their push to bring the oil-rich northern city of Kirkuk under Kurdish control.

Maliki didn't mince words. "Everything the constitution says is your right, we will give you," Askiri, his informal adviser, recalled him saying. "Everything the constitution says is not your right, I will take it from you."

The next morning, the Kurdish delegation canceled its remaining meetings and flew back to northern Iraq, according to Askiri. "So they got a message," he said.

A few days later, the Kurdish leadership sent a letter outlining its concerns over the direction of the government and calling for immediate changes. The implicit threat was that the Kurds could pull out of the government at any time, and some members of the bloc seriously considered a campaign to oust Maliki, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.

"The prime minister cannot go solo," said Abdul Khaliq Zangana, a Kurdish member of parliament. "We are not obligated to stay in this government. We could bring it down."

The Kurds ultimately did not engage in a sustained effort to topple Maliki, but they did set in motion a number of changes to the political landscape. In late December, the two top Kurdish leaders -- Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani, and the president of the Kurdish region, Massoud Barzani -- announced a new political alliance with the top Sunni official in the government, Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a longtime enemy of Maliki.

Not long after, Maliki agreed to hold his first meetings in months with some of his fiercest political rivals. The sessions of the "three plus one" group -- Maliki and the three-member presidency council, which is made up of Talabani, Hashimi and Abdul Mahdi -- began in January after a six-month hiatus during which some of the leaders hardly spoke to one another.

The parliament also passed a budget that gives the Kurds the 17 percent they had demanded.

The tense relationship between Maliki, the top Shiite in government, and Hashimi, the highest-ranking Sunni, had been particularly acrimonious. "That is one relationship that really is genuinely bad," said the senior U.S. official, calling it "dysfunctional."

"The levels of fear and mistrust are so great between every party," the official said. "Nobody trusts anybody else. There is no background or history of political compromise."

In an interview, Hashimi said the prime minister recently seemed more comfortable in exchanging information with top government officials whom he had previously shut out of the process.

"There is a sign of improvement in mentality and attitude," said Hashimi, whose party pulled out of Maliki's cabinet last year and continues to boycott it. "He's now sharing views with us about the candidates for high-ranking posts in the government. For the first time he is telling us what has been done, what he is going to do. I myself have been invited for the first time to attend high-level meetings."

Maliki's associates said he is more willing to engage in dialogue with Hashimi because he now feels less apprehensive that the Sunnis are prepared to launch a coup, something he previously felt was a strong possibility.

At the same time, however, the prime minister is reluctant to cede any actual control to rival politicians. In a move that would greatly expand his control over the government, Maliki proposed a radical overhaul of the cabinet that would result in the dismissal of nearly all the ministers and concentrate more power in his hands. Specifically, the measure would reduce the number of ministries from 37 to 32; forbid the selection of ministers affiliated with political parties; and grant Maliki control over appointing them.

The measure would be such a blow to the other political parties that even Maliki's aides said it is unlikely he will be able to push the project through the legislature.

"I'm not too optimistic about a positive response," said Sadiq al-Rikabi, a political adviser to the prime minister.

Turkey continues raids in northern Iraq

Talks between Turkish and Iraqi officials yield nothing, as Pentagon chief Gates arrives in Ankara for talks. He says he'll urge a quick end to the operation.
By Borzou Daragahi and Peter Spiegel
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

February 28, 2008

BAGHDAD — A sixth day of fighting continued Wednesday between Turkish troops and Kurdish rebels in Iraq as U.S., Turkish and Iraqi officials clashed over terms for ending the conflict.

Iraqi officials have demanded that Turkey halt the operation in the northeastern mountains of Iraq and withdraw immediately.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who arrived in Ankara, the Turkish capital, Wednesday night, told reporters he intended to advise Turkish leaders that their incursion into northern Iraq must last no more than a few weeks. He also planned to tell them that the military operation should be complemented by political efforts to resolve the grievances of the Kurdish minority in eastern Turkey.

But Turkey ruled out specifying a timetable for an end to the offensive.

"Our objective is clear, our mission is clear and there is no timetable until . . . those terrorist bases are eliminated," Turkish envoy Ahmet Davutoglu told reporters after talks in Baghdad with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari.

Turkish troops, artillery and fighter planes pushed into the northern Iraqi mountain stronghold of the Kurdistan Workers Party, known by its Kurdish acronym PKK, which has been fighting a guerrilla war against the Turkish government for a quarter-century.

Kurds, spread out over Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria, constitute the world's largest ethnic group without a nation. They have periodically clashed with the region's Arab, Iranian and Turkish governments. And Turkey has long complained that PKK fighters have used the semiautonomous Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq as a base to launch attacks.

Gates is scheduled to meet with Turkish President Abdullah Gul and Prime Minister Recip Tayyip Erdogan, as well as the country's military leadership, today. He said he would use the meetings to caution the government that the Bush administration expected Turkish troops to return to their side of the border quickly.

"Making this operation as quick and as precisely targeted as possible and then getting out is important," Gates told a small group of reporters in New Delhi before departing Wednesday for Ankara. "I measure quick in terms of days, a week or two, something like that, not months."

The incursion has become increasingly awkward for the U.S. as the Iraqi Cabinet and the Kurdish regional government have condemned the move, calling it a violation of Iraqi sovereignty.

Both Turkey and Iraq are U.S. allies, and Washington has been providing intelligence to Ankara on operations of the PKK, which has been carrying out attacks on Turkish military and civilian targets in the border regions.

Gates declined to comment on what the United States would do about the growing tensions between Turkey and Iraq, saying he would wait for discussions with Turkish leaders before making any assessments.

The Pentagon chief said the military action by Turkey would not solve the problem of Kurdish insurgency unless it was accompanied by economic development in Kurdish territories and the political will to address the community's grievances.

"There certainly is a place for security operations, but these also need to be accompanied with economic and political initiatives that begin to deal with some of the issues that provide a favorable local environment where the PKK can operate," Gates said. "They need to address some of the issues and complaints that some of the Kurds have."

The latest Turkish offensive began after months of efforts by Turkish officials failed to convince Iraqi and U.S. security officials to crack down on the PKK.

Reports on casualty figures differed. Turkish officials said 77 Kurdish fighters were "neutralized," but did not elaborate, and five Turkish soldiers and three village guards were killed in the fighting. A PKK official said five of the group's fighters had been killed in the last round of clashes.

Witnesses said 50 families were displaced amid heavy artillery bombardment. Kurds said the Turks destroyed several bridges and planted mines around new encampments deep inside Iraqi territory.

A PKK spokesman said the group's fighters were succeeding.

"We have the Turkish forces trapped," said Ahmed Denis, a PKK spokesman reached by telephone.

Since the 1990s, Turkey has launched dozens of offensives against PKK strongholds in northern Iraq, often with the tacit or explicit permission of Iraqi Kurds. But the latest operation comes at a time of heightened Kurdish nationalism and clout in Iraq and has sparked angry protests among Kurds as well as vehement denunciations by Iraqi officials.

The Kurdistan regional government's parliament, based in Irbil, on Tuesday authorized its troops to attack Turkish forces if they expanded their offensive beyond the PKK's forbidding mountain hide-outs.

The Turkish delegation that arrived Wednesday in Baghdad was met with icy comments. The diplomats emerged for a media appearance after 2 1/2 hours of talks. Foreign Minister Zebari, a Kurd, described the latest incursion as "unprecedented" and "not acceptable."

"Our message to the Turks is to cease the military operation immediately and to withdraw the Turkish military troops as soon as possible and to negotiate with Iraq to solve this problem," he said.

For his part, Turkish diplomat Davutoglu extended an invitation to Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, also a Kurd, to travel to Ankara on an official state visit. "The invitation is accepted," Zebari said, "provided the timing is convenient and there are no Turkish troops on Iraqi territory."

daragahi@latimes.com

peter.spiegel@latimes.com

Daragahi reported from Baghdad and Spiegel from Ankara. Special correspondents Asso Ahmed in Irbil, Yesim Comert in Istanbul, Turkey, and others in Baghdad contributed to this report.

U.S. warns Europe of Iran missiles

Tehran is close to building arms capable of reaching major capitals, says an official promoting a defense system.
By Kim Murphy
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

February 29, 2008

LONDON — With American officials working to close a deal on a missile defense system in Europe, the head of the U.S. program warned Thursday that Iran was within two or three years of producing a missile that could reach most European capitals.

"They're already flying missiles that exceed what they would need in a fight with Israel. Why? Why do they continue this progression in terms of range of missiles? It's something we need to think about," Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry Obering III, director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, told a conference here on missile defense.

The message was aimed at staving off skepticism in Europe and clinching a deal for radar and interceptor sites in the Czech Republic and Poland. It underscored increasing concern among defense experts that while attention has focused on nuclear proliferation, nations such as China, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and India have made significant strides in developing missiles that can reach far beyond their immediate neighbors.

"Our short-range defenses could protect Rome and Athens," Obering said, but he warned that London, Paris and Brussels would remain vulnerable "against an Iranian [intermediate-range missile] threat."

Many in Europe have expressed doubts that Iran would target European cities. But Obering said it was possible to imagine as little as seven years from now a nuclear-armed Iran shutting off oil shipments in the Persian Gulf, or Al Qaeda militants seizing freighters off Europe and arming them with nuclear-tipped Scud missiles "to punish the West for invasion of Muslim holy lands."

The timing of the warning was hardly coincidental, as Bush administration officials this week were attempting through talks in Washington to clear the last hurdles for agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic on the U.S.-run system of interceptor missiles and radar in Europe.

The Czech Foreign Ministry official in charge of security policy, Veronika Kuchynova Smigolova, predicted that the deal could be signed as early as next month's NATO summit in Bucharest, the Romanian capital, and ratified by the Czech Parliament by summer.

But Russia remains vigorously opposed to what it sees as a permanent new U.S. military infrastructure near its borders in Central Europe, and there are concerns on the continent about further alienating Iran and Russia. Some critics have questioned the wisdom of allowing the U.S., rather than the European Union or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to take the lead in defending Europe against such missiles.

Malcolm Chalmers, a onetime foreign policy advisor to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, said the decision to locate the system in former Warsaw Pact nations may have sparked opposition in Moscow that otherwise "would be much less vociferous."

"Did we only deploy it there because that's the only place available?" said Chalmers, who is now a fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, which sponsored Thursday's conference.

Some Europeans have questioned whether Iran represents a genuine threat to Europe, and have accused the Bush administration of undermining existing arms control agreements by proceeding unilaterally on missile defense.

"This is firstly and foremostly an American choice and should be taken as such," said Yves Boyer, deputy director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. "It has not been requested by any European state and . . . it does not answer the critical need for Europeans to process their own assessment of strategic capabilities."

Jane Sharp, senior research fellow in defense studies at King's College London, said the Bush administration had cost the West a once-cooperative relationship with Russia.

"Even if ballistic missile defense did look credible to a potential adversary, they're still destabilizing, because the logical response for any adversary for a credible defense is to acquire more offensive capability -- this is what the Russians are telling us every day," she said.

But reflecting the wariness of Russia long present among the European Union's newest members -- Poland has made it clear that it fears attack from Russia much more than from Iran -- Smigolova said the proposed defense program would restore equality of security on both sides of the Atlantic.

"Russia knows very well that one radar and 10 interceptors won't change the strategic balance and doesn't present any real military problem for them," she said. "But for them, a U.S. presence in Central Europe is the final confirmation of the loss of their influence over this part of Europe."

Smigolova said the Czech government was "well aware" of widespread public opposition to the system in that country and in Europe, but would be pushing to ratify the agreement after remaining concerns over environmental protections were worked out.

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek met Wednesday at the White House with President Bush but withheld his approval for the system, citing remaining differences on environmental standards for the radar equipment. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk is scheduled to visit Bush on March 10.

U.S. negotiators are due in Poland today to discuss modernizing that country's military, a key Polish request in the missile defense talks.

Bush said in a news conference Thursday that he still hoped to persuade the Russian government to drop its opposition. "I believe it's in our interests to try to figure out a way for the Russians to understand the system is not aimed at them, but aimed at the real threats of the 21st century," Bush said.

U.S. officials and many European security experts have said the rate at which new nations are obtaining the capability to build longer-range missiles, with increasingly sophisticated maneuvering ability, is greatly expanding.

kim.murphy@latimes.com

Times staff writers Paul Richter in Washington and Janet Stobart in London contributed to this report.

Fidel Castro Says Raul in Charge of Cuba

By ANITA SNOW
Associated Press Writer

6:55 AM PST, February 29, 2008

HAVANA — Fidel Castro said Friday that his younger brother was fully in charge as Cuba's new president, apparently trying to dispel speculation that he was directing Raul from behind the scenes.

The elder Castro's comments, published in the online edition of the Communist Party newspaper Granma, were his first since parliament named Raul to the country's top post last weekend.

Raul Castro has "all legal and constitutional faculties and prerogatives" to lead Cuba," Fidel Castro wrote.

The 81-year-old Fidel announced last week that he was would not seek a new presidential term, acknowledging he was too ill to govern the communist country after 49 years at the helm.

Raul Castro, 76, already had been governing provisionally for 19 months, taking over when Fidel announced he had undergone intestinal surgery and was temporarily stepping aside. But even during that period, Fidel Castro remained Cuba's uncontested leader.

On Sunday, Raul requested -- and received -- permission from lawmakers to consult with Fidel on "the decisions of special transcendence for the future of our nation" especially those involving "defense, foreign policy and socio-economic development."

In his comments, Fidel Castro also dismissed concerns about the ages of many of the new members of the Council of State, Cuba's supreme governing authority, who were elected Sunday by Parliament.

He noted that two key generals, Leopoldo Cintra Frias and Alvaro Lopez Miera, are both younger than U.S. Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who is 71. Cintra Frias is 66. Alvaro Lopez's age was not immediately available, but he appears to be in his 60s.

The two generals are "much younger than McCain and have much more experience as military chiefs," Castro said.

In his Friday essay, Fidel also referred to the parliament's selection of 77-year-old Communist Party ideologue Jose Ramon Machado Ventura as the government's No. 2 man.

Many Cubans had expected the parliament to chose a much younger successor for Raul, and were stunned by the naming of a man known as a political hard liner.

"You can now hear the howls of the wolves trapped by their tails," Fidel wrote. "What rabidness is provoked especially by the election of Machadito as first vice president" of the Council of State.

Fidel has not been seen in public since falling ill in July 2006, but he had regularly published columns under the title "Reflections of the Commander in Chief." He wrote Friday's column under the title "Reflections of Comrade Fidel," as he had said he would in his resignation letter last week.

Iraq braces for Ahmadinejad visit

The Iranian leader's visit is welcomed, but it comes at a time when Iraqi Shiite allies are growing wary of Tehran's role in their war-torn country.
By Borzou Daragahi
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

February 29, 2008

BAGHDAD — Hussein Athab visited Iran three times after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. The political science professor took in the religious sites and admired Iraq's bigger, richer and stronger Shiite Muslim neighbor to the east.

But his esteem for Iran's government has since plummeted over what many here view as Iranian meddling and subversion in Iraq.

"We thought Iran would extend the hand of friendship," said Athab, a Shiite. "But it looks like Iran considers Iraq a playing card, and we don't want to be used as a playing card."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrives Sunday to an Iraq far more leery of his country than it was after the ouster of Hussein.

Publicly, Iraq's politicians welcome the hard-line president's arrival. He is the first leader of a Middle East country to visit Baghdad and grant the government the international recognition it craves.

But privately, Iraqi officials say that Ahmadinejad and his clique are part of the problem. Iraqis would prefer a visit by a less divisive figure, such as former President Mohammad Khatami, a reformist.

"We know that Ahmadinejad is a controversial figure and we have seen some policy changes since the time of Khatami," Athab said.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who visited Tehran in June, is to play host to Ahmadinejad, most likely at his heavily fortified compound outside Baghdad's U.S.-protected Green Zone. "The United States has no role in the visit," said Rear Adm. Greg J. Smith.

Ties between Tehran and Baghdad's current Shiite leadership run deep and stretch back decades. During the 1980s, Talabani and other Kurds as well as Iraqi Shiite political parties and militias found refuge in Iran and fought alongside Iranian forces against the Iraqi army. Iran was among the first countries to officially recognize the post-Hussein government.

But even among Iraq's Shiite majority, which has long looked to Iranian coreligionists as protectors and patrons, there is a wariness about Tehran's ambitions and tactical maneuvers in their country. Many feel that Iraq has become a battleground in the 30-year feud between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that Tehran has few qualms about sacrificing Iraqi lives and stability for its strategic goals.

"There's a problem because the Iranians feel threatened by the Americans, and they want to act tit-for-tat with the Americans," said Haider Abadi, a high-ranking advisor to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki. Both belong to the Islamic Dawa Party, which Iran sheltered during Hussein's rule. "Whenever Americans pressure Iran outside Iraq, the Iranians respond in Iraq. We're paying for this in blood."

Iraq's Sunni Arabs and former Baath Party loyalists have long resented Iran's influence and ambitions. But over the last two or three years, tensions have also increased between Iraq's Shiites and Iran.

Abadi and other Iraqi officials said they would use Ahmadinejad's visit as an opportunity to warn Iran about its behavior in Iraq, including U.S. allegations that powerful explosives and other arms are smuggled from Iran into Iraq.

"The relationship between Iran and Iraq started off very good after the collapse of the regime," Abadi said. "But it has become worse because of this. The Iranians must see this. It is not in their interest to have the Iraqis as their enemies. Ahmadinejad will be told that we cannot have good neighborly relations while Iraqis are being killed by Iranian bombs."

Iraqi officials are also struggling to defuse what they view as the rationale for Iran's alleged transgressions: the fear that the U.S. presence in Iraq will be used to undermine Tehran. Both Iraq's Kurds and Shiites have vigorously lobbied leaders in Washington and Tehran to set aside differences, at least when it comes to Iraq.

"Officials in Iraq are still putting great efforts to improve this relationship. . . . Instead of being a place for war, [Iraq] will be a place for peace," said Sheik Hamid Muala, a lawmaker who is a member of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, which has deep ties to Iran. But Muala and others acknowledged that more Iraqis have grown sensitive to Iran's role.

"Whether we like it or not, the Iranian influence is at a very high level in Iraq," said Qassem Dawoud, an independent lawmaker with close ties to the Shiite clerical leadership in Najaf. "We really are looking forward to a period when this influence should disappear."

Abadi praised Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi- Qomi as one of only two foreign diplomats who regularly make the rounds of ministries to facilitate business deals and increase contacts. Trade between the two countries now totals $8 billion a year, much of it Iranian exports. Iran is also giving a $1-billion loan to Iraq.

But U.S. and Iraqi officials allege that Iran's positive contributions come with a host of headaches. They accuse Tehran of supplying arms, training and direction to Shiite and Sunni paramilitary groups.

"They are bringing in tomatoes, potatoes, gas and electricity," said Jawad Bolani, Iraq's interior minister and a Shiite. "But then we also get rockets, weapons and missiles."

Abadi also said Iranians are interfering in Iraq's politics, supporting one faction over another with infusions of cash.

But Iraqi officials point out that even the pro-U.S. Persian Gulf monarchies such as the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have invited Ahmadinejad on state visits.

"This guy came to power by a democratic election," said Khudair Khuzai, Iraq's minister of education and a confidant of Maliki. "Whether he's radical or moderate, the Iranian people chose him."

daragahi@latimes.com

Times staff writer Tina Susman contributed to this report.

Hezbollah Reject US Ships Off Lebanon

Hezbollah Reject US Ships Off Lebanon
By ZEINA KARAM
Associated Press Writer

8:15 AM PST, February 29, 2008

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Hezbollah denounced the deployment of U.S. warships off Lebanon's coast and said Friday it won't be intimidated, while the U.S.-backed Lebanese government distanced itself from the military move.

"We did not request any warships from any party," U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said, hours after the U.S. announced it was sending ships off Lebanon to promote regional stability.

He insisted the U.S. ships would cruise off the coast, not in Lebanese territorial waters.

Saniora, who has been accused by the opposition of following U.S. policy, spoke in front of Arab diplomats at government headquarters in Beirut after his Hezbollah opponents called the U.S. deployment a threat to Lebanese sovereignty and independence.

The U.S. military said Thursday the Navy was sending at least three ships, including an amphibious assault ship, to the eastern Mediterranean Sea in a show of strength during a period of tensions with Syria and political uncertainty in Lebanon.

In Washington on Friday, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe called the move "a show of support for regional stability."

And State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the warships were an important sign of U.S. commitment to security in the region. "It should provide comfort to our friends" and, for U.S. adversaries, "a reminder that we are there," he told reporters.

But Hezbollah legislator Hassan Fadlallah denounced the move as a threat and called on Saniora's government to reject the Navy deployment.

"We are facing an American threat against Lebanon," Fadlallah said on local television. "It is clear this threat and intimidation will not affect us."

Hezbollah is leading the opposition in seeking to topple the U.S.-backed government in Beirut. The group fought Israel in the 2006 war and is believed linked to Muslim militants who attacked U.S. forces and diplomats in Lebanon in 1983-84 during the Lebanese civil war, killing about 270.

Lebanon's long political crisis is increasingly viewed as taking on a regional scope: a proxy confrontation between the United States and some of its Arab allies against Iran and Syria -- both staunch opponents of America's Mideast policies.

Neighboring Syria had yet to react on Friday, a weekend in that country.

The decision appeared to be a not-too-subtle show of U.S. force as international frustration mounts over a long political deadlock in tiny, weak Lebanon. The United States blames Syria for the impasse, saying it has never given up its ambitions to control its smaller neighbor.

"If the Syrians want to take a message from it, happy to have them do so if what that means is it gets them out of the business of subverting democracy and the will of the Lebanese people," Casey said.

The Lebanese opposition accuses the U.S. of scuttling any attempts to settle a political crisis over the president and government that has dragged on for the last 15 months. The majority has accused the opposition of doing the bidding of Syria and Iran.

A presidential election in Lebanon has been delayed 15 times. Just this week the date was pushed back to March 11.

Tensions in Lebanon have sharpened after the assassination in Syria of top Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyeh, who was wanted by the United States for a plane hijacking and was suspected of attacks against American targets in Lebanon as well as Israeli and Jewish interests abroad.

Hezbollah has accused Israel, promising retaliation, and Israel has put its forces along the Lebanese border on alert.

Sheik Afif Naboulsi, a Shiite cleric close to Hezbollah, scoffed at the U.S. Navy deployment.

"We say to the Americans: We will not be afraid of your threats, and we won't hand over the country to you to use it to pressure Syria," he said at a Friday sermon in southern Lebanon.

In 1983, at the height of U.S. intervention in Lebanon, about 17 ships -- two aircraft carrier battle groups and two mammoth battleships -- patrolled the Lebanese coastline with a Marine contingent deployed at Beirut airport.

A suicide bombing destroyed the Marine base in October 1983, killing 241 American service personnel, and a U.S. Embassy building was destroyed by another suicide bomber during that period. U.S. warships also were involved in shelling anti-government Muslim militia positions.

Lebanese territorial waters are now patrolled by Lebanon's navy and a United Nations Naval Task Force that is assisting Lebanese authorities under the U.N. resolution that halted the summer 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah.

The last time U.S. ships came to Lebanon was during the 34-day conflict in 2006, with warships taking part in the evacuation of Americans.

Missile Strike in Pakistan Kills 10 At Suspected Taliban Safe House

By Imtiaz Ali and Candace Rondeaux
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, February 29, 2008; A14

PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Feb. 28 -- A missile strike on a suspected Taliban safe house in a remote tribal area of northwest Pakistan killed at least 10 people early Thursday, according to residents and local officials.

The attack targeted a home in the village of Kaloosha in volatile South Waziristan, near the Afghan border. There were conflicting reports on the number of casualties and the identities of those killed, but local residents and officials said the home belonged to a farm owner who had recently offered it as a guesthouse to several foreign fighters.

Accounts of how the attack unfolded were also mixed. Several residents said they heard three explosions at about 2 a.m. One of the missiles apparently missed its target, while two others destroyed the house. A tribal leader in South Waziristan, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said that women and children were among the dead, and that at least six others were injured.

The attack, less than 20 miles from the Afghan border, marked the second targeted missile strike in a month in the rugged mountainous region, a key battleground in Pakistan's fight with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Thirteen people, including top al-Qaeda lieutenant Abu Laith al-Libi, were killed Jan. 29 in an airstrike in the village of Khushali Torikhel in North Waziristan.

The United States is officially barred from conducting operations in Pakistan, but it has launched several aerial attacks in the country's tribal areas, including the one that killed Libi, according to U.S. intelligence sources.

In Washington, U.S. intelligence officials declined to comment on Thursday's attack.

A Pakistani army spokesman said he had no information about the incident, and officials with the Interior Ministry could not be reached for comment.

A local official in the Pakistani town of Wana, near the site of the strike, said 10 people were killed, but he could not confirm their identities or the number of injured. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter, said Pakistani security forces began monitoring the area recently after receiving reports that several foreign fighters had been sighted.

According to local residents, Sher Mohammed Malikkheil, the owner of the home, is a member of the Yargulkhel, a sub-tribe of the Wazir, the predominant tribe in South Waziristan. A farmer by profession, Malikkheil, also known as Sheroo, has been suspected of links to local and foreign fighters.

"Sheroo's house has been home to some outsiders and strange people for the last few months and he himself was living in another home," said Shah Nazar, a shop owner in the neighboring village of Azam Warsak.

Kaloosha has long been considered a stronghold of foreign and local fighters with ties to al-Qaeda. The village was home to Nek Mohammed, a commander who was killed in an apparent missile strike in June 2004 after sheltering hundreds of al-Qaeda fighters following the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. The Taliban, an extremist Islamic militia, ruled most of Afghanistan before the invasion and provided a haven to al-Qaeda.

Mufti Jan Amir, a Taliban commander with close ties to top Pakistani militants in Wana, said all those killed in Thursday's attack were Afghans who had lived in the area for years.

Rondeaux reported from Islamabad. Staff writer Joby Warrick in Washington contributed to this report.

Missile Attack, Possibly by NATO, Kills 8 in Pakistan

By ISMAIL KHAN

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — Eight suspected Islamic militants, including four men of Middle Eastern origin and two from Central Asia, were killed early Thursday in a triple missile attack on a house used as a training facility in Pakistan’s tribal areas, a security official and residents said.

The missiles appeared to have been launched from territory controlled by NATO forces across the border in Afghanistan, the second deadly aerial strike in a month. Residents said three other occupants of the house were wounded in the strike, in the village of Kalosha in South Waziristan, one of the most restive tribal regions.

The security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the nature of his job, said the dead had belonged to a little-known group affiliated with Al Qaeda, working under the name Abu Hamza.

Local residents said they had heard three loud explosions about 2 a.m. that destroyed the house. They said the three wounded occupants were from Turkmenistan.

They also said the house had belonged to Shero Wazir, an Ahmadzai Wazir tribesman who had rented it to an unidentified man of Arab nationality. They said they thought the launching site might have been an American NATO base in Machi Dat, just across the border in Afghanistan.

NATO officials in Afghanistan said they had no information about the attack. But this would not be the first time American-led NATO forces had launched missiles aimed at Qaeda and Taliban targets on the Pakistan side.

A senior Qaeda commander, Abu Laith al-Libi, was reportedly killed by a Predator missile in Mirali, North Waziristan, on Jan. 29. The Pakistan government has yet to officially confirm his death.

An official of the political administration of the tribal areas confirmed eight deaths in the Thursday attack, but did not identify any victims by name. He said four Arabs, two Turkmens and two Pakistani militants from Punjab Province had been killed, but others said it was difficult to know precisely who died.

The security official said the bodies were charred beyond recognition. They were buried at a graveyard in Kalosha. He said the destroyed house had been used as a training facility.

A spokesman for Maulvi Nazir, a local militant commander, denied that Arabs or Turkmens were killed in the attack, asserting instead that Afghans had died.

“They were common Afghans and have been living in the area for the last few years,” the spokesman said.

East: The 'Leader for Life' Governance Model

By Christopher Walker

Russia - First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev President Vladimir Putin (R) attend the all-Russian Congress of the Councils of Municipalities of the Constituent Territories in Moscow, 23Oct2007
Handing over the reins
(epa)
With Russia's presidential election on March 2, "Operation Successor," the Kremlin's finely orchestrated plan to hand power to a dependable ally of Vladimir Putin, is reaching its crowning moment.





Two months ago, on December 10, Putin endorsed soft-spoken and uncharismatic First Deputy Prime Minster Dmitry Medvedev as his chosen successor. The next day, Medvedev made it known that he would support Putin becoming Russia's prime minister. Then, a week later, Putin completed the circle by agreeing to become prime minister if the 42-year-old Medvedev were elected president, an outcome that is effectively guaranteed in Russia's tightly controlled political system.

Putin had for some time coyly hinted that he would retain an influential role for himself, indicating on November 13 -- before December's parliamentary elections -- that a strong performance by the pro-Kremlin Unified Russia party would give him the "moral right" to keep a grip on power after he reached his constitutionally mandated two-term limit in 2008. Unified Russia unsurprisingly won a crushing victory on December 2 in what observers deemed to be patently unfair elections. This elaborate political choreography seems designed to craft a new and enduring role for Putin at the pinnacle of Russia's politics.

In his presidential news conference on February 14, 2008, Putin indicated his view on the matter, saying, "The premiership is not a transitional post." Speaking of the goals he set for Russia's development through the year 2020, Putin added, "If I can see that in this capacity [of prime minister] I can fulfill these goals, I will work as long as possible."

The Kremlin's succession rollout is noteworthy for its meticulousness, but Putin's project to retain political dominance represents part of a broader pattern in which the leaders of a regionally diverse and strategically relevant set of states are attempting to secure unchecked power. By pushing opposing voices to the sidelines and undercutting independent institutions, these rulers are doggedly pursuing a deeply illiberal model of governance: the leader for life.

Dodgy Referendums

A critical mass of "leaders for life" is entrenched in the former Soviet Union, where the prevailing method for retaining power has been the orchestration of referendums to lift constitutionally prescribed term limits.

For instance, Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbaev, who has ruled that country since 1990, pushed through constitutional changes last August that exempt him from term limits. He had already extended his term through a referendum in 1995. On August 18, 2007, Nazarbaev's party won nearly 90 percent of the vote in parliamentary elections, sweeping all remaining opposition forces from the country's legislature. The constitutional changes in 2007 paved the way for Nazarbaev to remain in power indefinitely.

In Belarus, President Alyaksandr Lukashenka, who first came to power in 1994, engineered a vote in October 2004 that removed presidential term limits. Lukashenka went on to receive 83 percent of the vote in April 2006 elections that the OSCE's Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights deemed neither free nor fair. With restraints no longer in place, the Belarusian leader has signaled his intention to run again in 2011.

In Tajikistan, President Emomali Rahmon in 2003 pushed through a referendum that amended the constitution and opened the door for him to remain in power until 2020. Rahmon was head of state from 1992 to 1994, when he was elected president. A constitutional change in 1999, when he was reelected, increased presidential terms from five to seven years. In the 2006 presidential election, he was credited with 80 percent of the vote.

Uzbekistan's constitution currently states that the president is permitted to serve only two seven-year terms. President Islam Karimov, who assumed power as first secretary of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic's Communist Party in 1989, was elected president of independent Uzbekistan in 1992. In 1995, Karimov extended his presidential term until 2000. He was reelected in 2000 for another five-year term, but prolonged it to seven years through a national referendum in January 2002.

While his peers in post-Soviet states have at least made the effort to hold managed referendums that would extend their terms, Karimov dispensed with such legal niceties and in December 2007 stood again for reelection, ignoring the constitutional prohibition. The Uzbek leader, whose regime has expunged independent news media and civil society, faced no genuine opposition in the poll (in fact, all three "challengers" endorsed his candidacy). In the end, he was credited with 90 percent of the vote.

Keeping It In The Family

Other leader-for-life systems feature a dynastic twist. Former Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev cleared the path for his son, Ilham, to carry on his legacy once the aging president proved too ill to rule himself. A 2002 referendum altered the presidential succession process so that the prime minister, rather than the speaker of parliament, would become acting president if the president resigned or became incapacitated. Ilham Aliyev was named prime minister soon thereafter. As Heydar Aliyev's health declined further in 2003, he withdrew his candidacy for reelection, allowing his son to coast to victory with 76 percent of the vote.

This phenomenon can be found beyond the former Soviet Union. In Syria, family rule has apparently been institutionalized. In Egypt and Libya, where the sitting leaders' tenures are measured in decades rather than years, conditions are also ripe for handing the presidency from father to son. In Cuba, a fraternal handoff of power is being completed.

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, in power for nearly three decades, has presided over one of the most catastrophic societal implosions in recent history, and is now dragging what remains of his country into an economic, political, and social morass. According to government reports, Zimbabwe's annual inflation rate reached a mind-boggling 66,000 percent in December 2007, although some observers believe that this figure may understate the true magnitude of the problem. Mugabe, who turns 84 on February 21, is looking to secure a sixth term in office in elections to be held on March 29.

In December, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez sought to push through a referendum on a new constitution that would have dramatically expanded his powers and done away with presidential term limits. This initiative was narrowly defeated. Chavez said after the vote, however, that his plans were only derailed "for now" and that his proposals to reform the constitution remained "alive." Despite growing public dissatisfaction with his rule, Chavez has stated his ambition to remain in power until 2050, when he will be 95 years old.

In Russia, the Kremlin's current succession gambit has largely adhered to the letter of the constitution, but the document's spirit is certainly being tested. Dmitry Medvedev is poised to assume the presidency, while Vladimir Putin will swap his current post for that of prime minister. The net result of this managed transfer of power is that there has been no meaningful debate of policy issues among a diverse range of political forces. The Russian public remains disconnected from the small elite that determines who holds and uses power.

Such controlled and insular politics clearly have profound drawbacks. The leader-for-life system creates a zero-sum, winner-takes-all approach to governing. And with unchecked power comes unchecked corruption. In fact, "hyper-corruption" is the soft underbelly of this model, in which accountability and transparency are all but nonexistent. It is no surprise that all of the countries in question are trapped at the bottom of Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. For example, despite Putin's ambition to create a "dictatorship of law" and the prominence of anticorruption initiatives on the Kremlin's policy agenda, the scourge of corruption in Russia has grown in recent years. INDEM, a policy institute in Moscow, estimates that bribery and graft in Russia are now at the level of some $300 billion per year.

The oppressive dominance of the leaders for life smothers the institutions -- an independent judiciary, free media, and political opposition, among others -- that are essential not only for tackling massive corruption but also for improving the quality of public policy, thus preventing meaningful reform in the spheres of education, health, and public infrastructure.

For all of its obvious flaws, however, the leader-for-life phenomenon may have some staying power, especially in resource-rich states such as Russia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan, where otherwise brittle regimes are cushioned by oil prices hovering around $100 per barrel. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the wave of democratization that washed across much of the globe in the last generation seemed to signal that life-presidencies had been cast onto the ash heap of history. Their survival suggests that this retrograde form of governance is more resilient than previously imagined.

(Christopher Walker is director of studies at Freedom House.)

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

U.S. Struggles to Find Envoy, Hindering Effort to Stabilize Afghanistan

By Michael Abramowitz and Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 26, 2008; A13

The White House has been pushing since early fall to install a powerful new foreign envoy to oversee international reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. Last month it looked as though it had finally found its man: After a meeting in Kuwait, Hamid Karzai indicated he was ready to accept prominent British politician Paddy Ashdown for the assignment.

Less than two weeks later, the appointment collapsed after Karzai changed his mind -- the latest sign of tensions between the courtly Afghan president and the Western powers that have been seeking for nearly seven years to stabilize a country that was the breeding ground for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

U.S. officials have done little to disguise their displeasure with the recent turn of events, which has not only left them without a candidate but also imperiled their strategy of giving a single international envoy a robust mandate for Afghanistan. Over weeks of negotiations, the job has been whittled down from a statesman of stature who would influence decisions by NATO, the European Union and the United Nations to a more traditional role as envoy of the U.N. secretary general, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

"There's no ready, obvious replacement," said one senior U.S. official who is not authorized to speak publicly. "We thought [Ashdown] was best qualified, given his credentials and his experience and his ability to command attention, especially in European capitals."

Talking with reporters last week, Richard Boucher, assistant secretary of state for South Asia, disputed the suggestion that the rejection of Ashdown meant that Karzai was obstructing progress.

"That is our partner and that's who we will work with, because that's who the people of Afghanistan chose," he said. "I think it's very clear that from our discussions with the Afghan government, even since Paddy Ashdown felt he had to withdraw his candidacy, that they, too, want to see better coordination, want to see strong international coordination."

U.S. and U.N. officials said they are still looking for an envoy. Among those said to be under consideration are Kai Eide, a senior Norwegian official with experience in the U.N. bureaucracy; Jan Kubis, the Slovak foreign minister; Hikmat Chetin, a senior Turkish diplomat with experience in Afghanistan; and Joschka Fischer, a former German foreign minister. President Bush discussed the search recently with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who will make the final appointment.

Still, Bush administration officials acknowledge that the episode has highlighted the inability of the United States and its allies to organize civilian reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, the focus of recent criticism by diplomats and a flurry of new reports.

Since the Taliban fell in 2001, the international community has provided about $15 billion to rebuild Afghanistan. But U.S. officials and outside experts say that there has been little coordination among the dozens of countries and international organizations helping to build roads and bridges, create a new police and justice system, and deal with narcotics production.

"There is a very clear need for a joining of the international military strategy with the international civilian strategy," said Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, who helped recruit Ashdown. "Countries that are extending assistance to Afghanistan are not extending assistance in a central, organized way right now."

The troubles with reconstruction are a companion to the more publicized military difficulties NATO is having in Afghanistan, where U.S. officials -- most prominently Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates -- have complained that some allies are unwilling to participate in the most violent fight against the Taliban. But many officials regard the civilian effort as perhaps even more critical to controlling Afghanistan's insurgency.

Asked recently to assess U.S. progress, a top U.S. official handling Afghanistan said: "Tactically on the security front, I would say we are winning."

"The challenge with Afghanistan is that's not good enough," added the official, who insisted on anonymity to speak more freely. "And it is on some of the other dimensions of the mission where we are not doing as well as we need to be. And mostly those have to do with the non-military . . . having to do with governance, economic development, reconstruction."

Norway first suggested a super-envoy in the fall of 2006, but it was not until last summer, as reports mounted of problems in Afghanistan, that U.S. officials began warming to the idea.

U.S. officials focused on Ashdown, a former leader of the Liberal Democrats in Britain who impressed them with his service as the U.N. high representative in Bosnia from 2002 to 2006. The British quickly agreed.

But early on, U.N., U.S. and Afghan officials argued about how powerful the job should be. Sources said Zalmay Khalilzad, who is the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and is close to Karzai, detected reservations among Afghan senior officials -- but those reservations appeared to dissipate after the Afghan president met with Ashdown in Kuwait in January.

Ban then met with Ashdown in Madrid to seal the deal. But when Karzai returned to Kabul, he received criticism from members of his cabinet, while the media portrayed Ashdown as a potential pro-consul, akin to past British colonial rulers. Karzai, meanwhile, believed that Ashdown had planted newspaper stories in Britain suggesting that Karzai was a weak Pashtun leader atop a Tajik government, a remark Karzai viewed as "fanning ethnic tensions," said a senior U.S. official.

Said T. Jawad, Afghanistan's ambassador to the United States, suggested that there were worries about the powerful role Ashdown had played in the Balkans. "Based on his past experience in the Balkans, the Afghan cabinet and other officials raised some concerns," Jawad said. "President Karzai decided his role wouldn't be constructive."

By the time Karzai met with Ban and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in late January, the Afghan leader had soured on the choice. Ban had gone into the meeting expecting to announce Ashdown's appointment; instead, Ashdown soon issued a statement withdrawing from consideration.

It was not the first time in recent months that Karzai has clashed with his Western patrons. He has battled the United States over opium-reduction strategies, and in December he expelled two senior European officials for holding unauthorized talks with the Taliban.

Some analysts saw the Bush administration's inability to secure Ashdown's appointment as a serious setback. "The rejection of Ashdown by Karzai undermines the ability of the Afghan government to be moving more forcefully in the right direction," said Mark Schneider, senior vice president of the International Crisis Group, which has been critical of the reconstruction efforts. "When Karzai said he didn't want it, the U.S. didn't stick to its guns."

Senior administration officials say that there is no major rift and that Karzai, who has a monthly videoconference with Bush, is entitled to veto power over a position that could vastly influence his country.

Seth Jones, an Afghanistan expert with the Rand Corp., said Karzai, who is up for reelection next year, is reluctant to be identified too closely with the United States. "I don't think over the long term it's a significant blow," he said. But the failure to install Ashdown, he added, shows Karzai's sensitivity "to not be seen as being pushed around by the international community."

NATO Confronts Surprisingly Fierce Taliban

Militia Undermines Rebuilding Efforts in Southern Province of Uruzgan

By Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, February 26, 2008; A01

TARIN KOT, Afghanistan -- Lt. Col. Wilfred Rietdijk, a 6-foot-7 blond Dutchman, took command of his military's reconstruction team in the southern Afghan district of Deh Rawood in September. Tranquil and welcoming, it seemed like the perfect place for the Netherlands' mission to help rebuild this country.

Intelligence reports indicated that the district was free of the Taliban, allowing the soldiers greater freedom of movement than elsewhere in Uruzgan province.

"We could go out on foot," Rietdijk said.

Reconstruction teams, escorted by a platoon of soldiers, fanned across the fertile countryside, building bridges over streams and canals, repairing irrigation systems, and distributing books and pens to local schools.

But the day after Rietdijk arrived in Afghanistan, his field officers reported hundreds of villagers suddenly fleeing parts of Deh Rawood. "Within a few weeks, everybody was gone," Rietdijk said. "We didn't understand why."

Now the Dutch say they realize what happened. Even as the soldiers believed they had won the support of the local population, the Taliban had secretly returned to reclaim Deh Rawood, home district of the group's revered leader, Mohammad Omar. It took only a few months for the Taliban to undermine nearly six years of intelligence work by U.S. forces and almost two years of goodwill efforts by Dutch soldiers.

In the year and a half since NATO took over southern Afghanistan from U.S. forces, its mission has changed dramatically. Dispatched to the region to maintain newly restored order and help local Afghans reconstruct their shattered communities, Dutch and other troops from the alliance now find themselves on the front lines of a renewed fight with a more cunning and aggressive Taliban.

More foreign soldiers and Afghan civilians died in Taliban-related fighting last year than in any year since U.S. and coalition forces ousted the extremist Islamic militia, which ruled most of the country, in 2001. Military officials here expect the coming year to be just as deadly, if not more so, as the Taliban becomes more adept militarily and more formidable in its deployment of suicide bombers and roadside explosives.

The Taliban's growing strength, which surprised Dutch forces here, helps explain why NATO members are reluctant to send more troops to an increasingly dangerous battlefield and have instead adopted a strategy based less on military force.

In his recent criticism of NATO's refusal to deploy more forces, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates accused the alliance of being ill-prepared for counterinsurgency operations. NATO countries, however, while not opposed to the war effort in Afghanistan, have always viewed the key to success as one that relied on giving Afghans new schools, health clinics and other elements of a sturdy civil society.

Taliban fighters began arriving in the heart of Deh Rawood -- a triangle-shaped district about seven miles long and seven miles wide -- late last summer. They came one by one, or in groups of twos and threes. They rented mud houses, befriended neighbors with gifts of cellphones and motorcycles and appealed to villagers on the grounds that the Taliban was fighting for the cause of Islam.

By autumn, for reasons even some villagers didn't understand, the Taliban turned on them, driving them out of their houses and ripping up the new NATO-built bridges. The Dutch have since pushed Taliban fighters out of the district, but have decided not to push them beyond the surrounding territory.

They have learned difficult lessons already.

"Nobody saw it coming," Rietdijk said, referring to the Taliban offensive. "They were there before anybody knew it. I keep asking myself: 'Did we miss something? Was there someone to blame it on?' "

'Intelligence Was Wrong'

In late November, a new commander arrived in Uruzgan to take charge of Dutch combat forces in the region. Lt. Col. Tjerk Hogeveen had a grip of steel and a passion for paragliding off mountaintops.

Just as his reconstruction counterpart, Rietdijk, had been briefed on his arrival, Hogeveen had been told to expect little or no trouble from the Taliban in his sector of Deh Rawood.

Although Taliban fighters had routed villagers from their homes, they had made no major effort to attack coalition forces. Rietdijk's troops halted most of their reconstruction work and concentrated on providing food, blankets and other humanitarian aid to the hundreds of refugees who had descended on impoverished friends and relatives south of the Tarin River.

"The Americans told us there were no Taliban on the east bank," Hogeveen said. "Everyone told us it was safe -- no Taliban."

But the Taliban had good reason to want to reclaim Deh Rawood. As the district surrounding Omar's home town of the same name, it held symbolic importance to the Islamic militia. It held strategic importance, too: The district sits at the confluence of the Helmand and Tarin rivers on the most important drug- and arms-trafficking route in rugged Uruzgan province, connecting it to Iran to the west and Pakistan to the south.

As Hogeveen was settling into his armor-plated metal bunker at the main Dutch base, Camp Holland, near the provincial capital of Tarin Kot, Taliban fighters were evicting local police from three of Deh Rawood's most strategic checkpoints. They bribed officers to abandon one post, kidnapped the son of a policeman at a second checkpoint and attacked the third, sending officers fleeing. They turned a local school into their headquarters and stocked it with weapons and ammunition, Hogeveen said he learned later.

Then they lay in wait and ambushed the first unsuspecting Dutch convoy they spotted.

"They were better prepared than anyone led us to believe," Hogeveen said.

Hogeveen's troops and the Taliban skirmished almost daily.

In mid-December, fighters yanked a 60-year-old woman and her 7-year-old grandson off a bus in Deh Rawood. They interrogated the pair and, after finding a U.S. dollar bill in the boy's pocket, accused the two of spying and executed them in front of the other passengers and bystanders, according to accounts by Afghan human rights groups, news services and Dutch officers.

Meanwhile, on the advice of U.S. and Dutch intelligence officers, Hogeveen prepared a battle plan for routing the Taliban: "The intelligence guys said, 'If you go in with large forces, they will leave,' " Hogeveen recalled in an interview.

He sent larger contingents of heavily armored troops into the heart of the Taliban stronghold in northern Deh Rawood, a jumble of mud houses connected by mazes of narrow lanes.

"Everyone thought the Taliban would not fight," Hogeveen said. "The intelligence was wrong."

Taking up defensive positions in the warrens of mud compounds, the Taliban fighters didn't need large numbers to put up a strong fight against Hogeveen's men. In the darkness and chaos of the unexpectedly strong Taliban defenses, Hogeveen lost two soldiers. Two Afghan army troops also died in the fighting. The Dutch military is now investigating whether all four may have been killed by "friendly fire."

Today, after 2 1/2 months of often intense combat, Dutch troops have reclaimed some of the villages of Deh Rawood and are helping villagers repair the damage caused by weeks of fighting between NATO forces and the Taliban. They have also started many new projects and are working more closely with tribal leaders, the Afghan army and local police to provide better security for the residents.

Even so, the Dutch say, the Taliban forces have merely relocated to the fringes of the district, and thousands of villagers remain too frightened to return to their homes.

The resilience of the Taliban, a shortage of NATO forces and the Dutch philosophy that the Afghan people need to take charge of their own lives have prompted the Dutch to adopt a precarious strategy for Uruzgan: evict the Taliban from small enclaves while ceding the surrounding territory to them in hopes that neighboring communities will oust them on their own.

"We still don't have the full view of what happened below the radar in Deh Rawood," said Col. Richard van Harskamp, commander of all Dutch forces in Uruzgan.

"There are no quick wins in Afghanistan," he added. "People who want to have quick wins better know how to deal with disappointments."

'He Is Afraid'

The Dutch have confronted obstacles off the battlefield as well.

On one of the coldest days yet in an usually brutal winter, Rietdijk, the Dutch reconstruction chief, met with Uruzgan Gov. Assadullah Hamdam in his ramshackle compound in Tarin Kot. The men responsible for the security of Uruzgan sat around a wood stove: the police chief, the general of the local contingent of the Afghan army, the chief of the highway patrol.

Rietdijk asked the governor to help him find an influential tribal leader to help coordinate new construction projects in his district.

"I have met with him twice," Hamdam said quietly. "He will not help you. He is afraid."

Rietdijk persisted, taking a sip of steaming green tea the governor had poured into a glass mug.

"He is not the man," Hamdam said more firmly. "He is afraid."

The subject turned to the three new police substations and four new police checkpoints planned for Deh Rawood. The police chief urged the Dutch to provide supplies and better accommodations while the new facilities are being built.

"We don't have tents, we don't have food, we don't have transportation," complained the chief, Juma Gul, a hefty man with the jowls of a bulldog.

"We need to get out there with police and make sure the region is safe," Rietdijk said. "We can't wait for a checkpoint. We have to go out. I don't think we can wait."

"A checkpoint is important," pressed the police chief.

"I can't give birth to a checkpoint tomorrow," Rietdijk said, a bit testily.

Gul later turned to another problem with his officers. "Some of my men don't want to go back to Deh Rawood," the chief warned. "They're possibly going to leave without permission."

Half a dozen times during the meeting, Gul pleaded with Dutch representatives for more money to run his department.

"I need money for food for my men, this is not for my own pocket," the police chief said. "Do you know the price of bread in Tarin Kot these days?"

"I know all the problems," an exasperated Rietdijk said. "I've heard them 30 times."

Rietdijk said that despite the constant nagging, he respects Gul.

But after about five months on the job, Gul is ready to quit, according to Uruzgan's governor.

"He wanted to quit. The job is too much," said Hamdam, whose wife and children live in London. "I told him, 'It's going to take patience.' "

Gul complained that he was sending recruits with only two weeks' training to the front lines to fight the Taliban. Their salaries were weeks late because the money had to be hand-carried from Kabul to Tarin Kot and winter snows had canceled many flights. There is no functioning bank in all of Uruzgan. The Interior Ministry in Kabul will not even tell the governor or the police chief how much money they have to run their department, Hamdam said.

Hamdam paused, then sighed. On this day, the heater was not working in his ice-cold office. He has heard the Dutch say dozens of times that it is up to him and his security team to provide security for his people.

He shook his head. He knows the Dutch are committed to remain in Afghanistan only another 2 1/2 years. He now has just over 1,300 police officers; his police chief says they need 3,000.

"There's not enough force," Hamdam said. "The police are not strong enough, and we can't depend on the Afghan army. The police can't go alone without the coalition forces.

"If they were not here," he said, "who knows what would happen."

Iraq Sounds Alarm on Clashes in North

Turkey Warned Not to Expand Offensive Against Kurdish Rebels

By Sudarsan Raghavan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, February 26, 2008; A12

BAGHDAD, Feb. 25 -- Turkish troops and Kurdish guerrillas clashed Monday for the fifth consecutive day in two areas of northern Iraq, the Turkish military said, as senior Iraqi officials warned that a widened and prolonged incursion could lead to serious repercussions for the region.

In a statement, Turkey's general staff said its forces killed 41 Kurdish guerrillas in fighting Monday, bringing the total killed to 153 since the launch of the biggest Turkish offensive into Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. The military also reported two more Turkish troops killed Monday, bringing the total to 17.

"Close combat with the terrorists is continuing in two separate zones," the Turkish military said, referring to the Kurdistan Workers' Party or PKK. "The troops in the critical zones of the operation were reinforced and some of the troops were replaced by fresh forces."

PKK leaders in northern Iraq reported casualty numbers that diverged sharply from the Turkish figures. Mizgin Ahmed, of the party's 31-member governing council, said that a total of four guerrillas had been killed and two wounded since the incursion began and that PKK forces had killed 81 Turkish soldiers.

Ahmed said Turkish forces had not been able to advance into Iraq beyond their initial push of about three miles. "We have enough numbers to be able to fight their forces," she said in an interview in PKK-controlled territory near the town of Raniyah in northern Iraq. "We have a right to defend ourselves and we will defend ourselves to the end."

The guerrillas have long used Iraq's forbidding mountains to stage attacks in Turkey, first in an attempt to carve a Kurdish state out of Turkey but now largely in the pursuit of Kurdish autonomy. Turkish forces launched the incursion last Thursday following a series of PKK attacks on Turkish soldiers and civilians. For years, Turkey's government has complained that Iraq's government was unwilling to contain the PKK, considered a terrorist group by Turkey and the United States.

In Baghdad, national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie declared at a news conference Monday that the fighting could have "very serious consequences."

Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani warned Turkey against any expansion.

"The operations are still limited operations, and the government has expressed its concern," Bolani said. "If the operation is widened, definitely Iraq will defend its sovereignty and territory."

He said the United States should do more to encourage the Turks to withdraw. U.S. troops "are the greatest force on the ground. They have certain obligations," Bolani said. "They could do more."

Contradicting statements by other Iraqi officials, he said Turkey did not consult with Iraq before launching the operation. "No Iraqi official would agree to an incursion across his borders," Bolani said.

When asked whether he was concerned that forces of the Kurdish regional government would ignore Iraq's central government and take unilateral action against the Turkish troops, Bolani replied that Iraq's constitution would not allow such a confrontation. "But if the targeting was expanded, definitely no one can keep silent," he added.

In Ankara, the Turkish capital, Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Cicek stressed that the operation was against only PKK guerrillas, not Iraqi civilians or Iraq's government.

"When this operation has hit its targets, our units will return home," he said, without elaborating.

Funerals for three Turkish soldiers drew thousands in Ankara on Monday, bringing traffic in the center of the city to a standstill. Some Turkish soldiers wore puffy white winter camouflage uniforms to show solidarity with their comrades fighting in Iraq. Meanwhile, Turkish forces in Diyarbakir, the largest city in Turkey's eastern Kurdish region, broke up a fiery protest against the offensive in northern Iraq. It was the largest opposition protest since the incursion began.

In Baghdad, a roadside bomb killed four Shiite pilgrims and injured 15, the third incident to target thousands of worshipers traveling to the southern holy city of Karbala to commemorate one of Shiite Islam's most sacred days -- the end of the 40th day of mourning after the anniversary of the death of Imam Hussein, the grandson of the prophet Muhammad who was killed in a 7th-century battle.

Meanwhile, the death toll from a suicide bombing near the southern city of Iskandariyah targeting pilgrims on Sunday rose to 56, making it one of the deadliest assaults this year.

In the town of Samarra on Monday, a man in a wheelchair detonated explosives he was carrying, killing deputy police commander Abdul Jabbar Rabei Salih al-Jubori in his office, police said. In the city of Buhriz, in Diyala province, gunmen ambushed and killed eight Iraqi soldiers, police said.

Correspondents Joshua Partlow in northern Iraq and Ellen Knickmeyer in Ankara and special correspondent Saad al-Izzi in Baghdad contributed to this report.

Iraq calls on U.S. to intervene in Turkish incursion

The fighting between its ally and a Kurdish separatist group it considers a terrorist organization puts the Bush administration in a bind. 'They could do more,' an Iraqi official says.
By Asso Ahmed and Tina Susman
Special to The Times

February 26, 2008

SHILADEZAH, IRAQ — Artillery and gunfire echoed through the mountains of northern Iraq on Monday during continued clashes between invading Turkish troops and Kurdish rebels, with Turkey saying that 153 guerrillas had been killed in four days.

Iraqi Interior Minister Jawad Bolani suggested that the United States should do more to stop the fighting, which has left villagers stranded by bombed-out bridges.

"They are the greatest force on the ground. They have certain obligations," Bolani said Monday of the U.S. military, which has neither intervened in nor commented on the Turkish incursion. "They could do more."

The conflict between Turkey and the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, has put American officials in an uncomfortable position. Turkey is a NATO ally, and the U.S. government considers the PKK to be a terrorist organization. The rebels are seeking a separate Kurdish state.

The White House has confirmed that it knew in advance of Turkey's latest military operation, which began Thursday night. American officials have said Turkey has the right to defend itself against the PKK, which has bases in northern Iraq.

But the U.S. also has an allegiance to Iraq's government, which has protested the Turkish incursion.

"Iraq has requested that the Turkish troops go back to Turkey and respect Iraq's sovereignty," Bolani said at a meeting with foreign journalists.

In Washington, Nabi Sensoy, Turkey's ambassador to the U.S., said in an interview that he could not say how long the military operation would last but promised it would be "limited in size, scope and duration."

"This is only targeted at the PKK," he said. "We have no other agenda."

Sensoy said that Turkish media reports that 10,000 troops were involved in the operation were "greatly exaggerated," but he would not say how large a force was taking part.

Turkey said 15 of its soldiers had been killed so far. However, PKK spokesman Ahmed Denis said the Turkish death toll was far higher.

There was no way to independently confirm the number of casualties on either side, but the frustration and anger of locals in the rugged region was clear.

"Why are the Turks doing this, in our land, our country?" said Aska Shazeen, who said she was unable to reach her home in the village of Rashya because the bridge she had to cross was destroyed. "Who is responsible?" she cried.

At a cafe in Shiladezah, about 20 miles south of the Turkish border in Iraq's Dahuk province, Nijrvan Khalil expressed the sentiments of many locals as he vowed to fight the Turks if the clashes caused any civilian casualties or targeted regions outside of PKK areas of operation.

"I'll be the first to take up arms against them," he said of the Turks.

Most Iraqi Kurds sympathize with the demands of Turkey's minority Kurds for their own homeland.

"They are Kurds like us," said Khalifa Qadir, another customer in the cafe, where a TV was showing news coverage of some Kurds in Turkey demonstrating for independence.

"This is a nation that won't vanish easily," said Qadir. "Their demands should be answered."

The latest fighting has raised concerns that the peshmerga, the fighting forces of Iraq's semiautonomous Kurdistan regional government, could become entangled in the clashes if the Turks are seen as violating their vow to hit only the PKK.

An official with the Kurdistan regional government, Mohammed Muhsin, said the local administration did not want to become part of the conflict but that there was a line over which Turkey must not cross.

"From our side, we have a red line: when our safe villages and the citizens are being attacked by the Turkish army," he said. "We will strike with all that we've got, and the people will participate with the peshmerga."

At the site of a bridge that once connected people from dozens of villages in the Amadiya district, about 15 miles from the Turkish border, the sounds of gunfire and artillery shells were clear. Jets flew over without opening fire, but a peshmerga soldier quickly ushered visiting journalists from the area.

"We must get back," he said. "It is possible the area will be bombarded."

tina.susman@latimes.com

Special correspondent Ahmed reported from Shiladezah and Times staff writer Susman from Baghdad. Staff writers Julian E. Barnes and Paul Richter in Washington contributed to this report.

Serb protesters try to storm U.S. consulate

From the Associated Press

5:57 AM PST, February 26, 2008

BANJA LUKA, Bosnia-Herzegovina — Police are firing tear gas at Bosnian Serb rioters to prevent them from storming the U.S. consulate after protests against Kosovo's independence.

A small group split from almost 10,000 peaceful protesters and was trying to reach the consulate, breaking windows of shops and throwing stones at police who have blocked streets leading to the building with armored vehicles.

Putin's Likely Successor, Pledging Support for Serbia, Signs Pipeline Deal

By Danica Kirka
Associated Press
Tuesday, February 26, 2008; A11

BELGRADE, Serbia, Feb. 25 -- Russia's likely next president, visiting the Serbian capital, pledged Monday to support Serbia in its showdown with the West over Kosovo's declaration of independence.

Dmitry Medvedev, chairman of Russia's state-controlled energy giant Gazprom, presided over the signing of a deal potentially worth $1.5 billion to route a 550-mile natural gas pipeline through Serbia.

Although that agreement was at the center of his visit, he also criticized Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia as well as Western support for the move. Kosovo's breaking away "absolutely" violates international rules, he said.

"Serbia needs support now," Medvedev said.

Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica on Monday demanded that the United States rescind its recognition of Kosovo and warned that "there will be no stability" until the "fake state" is annulled.

With Serbia as a political and economic partner in the Balkans, Russia has a loyal ally in the heart of Europe, reaffirming its position as a key global player. The pipeline deal also may boost Russia's influence as energy supplier to the continent.

Moscow's control of key energy routes has raised fears that it could use supply as political leverage -- rewarding countries that support its policies and threatening hardship for those that do not.

Medvedev, however, said the project, known as South Stream, and others pending with Serbia "form the foundation of energy stability for all of Europe in the future."

Medvedev is President Vladimir Putin's chosen successor. Opinion polls show him the overwhelming favorite to win Russia's presidential election March 2.

Few details about the pipeline deal were released. Analysts suggest that Serbia is giving away some of its most valuable assets to Russia at bargain-basement prices.

Medvedev also toured Serbia's oil refinery in Pancevo, just outside Belgrade, where he said that a deal to buy Serbia's state oil company, NIS, will be signed soon.

Russia has offered $600 million for a controlling stake in NIS and $730 million to modernize the run-down company. The offering price for a controlling stake, analysts say, is about one-fifth the company's market value.

Some Serbians do not welcome closer ties with Moscow, however, citing Putin's autocratic style and the refugee status that Russia granted to the widow of former president Slobodan Milosevic. Mirjana Markovic and the couple's son, Marko, are both wanted in Serbia for embezzling millions of dollars. Milosevic died in 2005.

But ties among the two countries' Orthodox churches remain strong, a point Medvedev highlighted when he joined President Boris Tadic for a visit to St. Sava Temple, the largest Orthodox Christian church in the Balkans.

The two lit candles in the Christian Orthodox tradition and were greeted by a local priest, the Rev. Luka Novakovic. "We see your arrival here as support to the Serbian nation and Serbian Orthodox Church at the time when there aren't many states and nations who support us and stand by us," Novakovic said.

Chiarelli Likely to Command Iraq Forces

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 26, 2008; A03

Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli appears to be the most likely officer to succeed Gen. David H. Petraeus as top commander of U.S. forces in Iraq by the end of this year, as the other two leading candidates have recently been named to senior positions in the U.S. military establishment.

Since taking over in Iraq in February 2007, Petraeus has become the face of the war effort, receiving unusual deference from the White House and using high-profile testimony last September to stave off Democratic efforts to sharply curtail the U.S. presence in Iraq. Widely credited with the success of the "surge" -- the counteroffensive that sharply reduced violence in Iraq last year -- Petraeus has indicated interest in moving sometime this year to the top U.S. military slot in Europe, where he could attempt to revitalize the flagging NATO alliance.

Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, a veteran Special Operations officer whom top Bush administration officials have considered as a possible replacement for Petraeus in Iraq, has been nominated to become director of the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon announced yesterday. That is a key position within the Pentagon, though not as prominent as the top U.S. officer in the war in Iraq.

Another possible candidate discussed by administration officials, Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, was nominated earlier this month to be the top U.S. Army commander in Europe. Dempsey is currently the deputy chief of the Central Command, the U.S. military headquarters for the Middle East.

Chiarelli, currently the senior military assistant to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, commanded the 1st Cavalry Division in Iraq in 2004 and early 2005, and then was the No. 2 officer in Iraq in 2006, preceding Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno. Opinions inside the Army are mixed, with some officers noting that Chiarelli was one of the first advocates of shifting course in Iraq and adopting classic counterinsurgency techniques, while others say that in his second tour, he presided over a failing strategy as violence skyrocketed. Some influential insiders are still advocating that Odierno, who was recently nominated to become the Army's vice chief of staff, replace Petraeus later this year.

McChrystal's nomination is likely to make the Joint Staff increase its focus on Iraq. McChrystal has spent most of the past several years in Iraq, although he ostensibly was assigned to Fort Bragg, N.C. He has a sharp intellect and a good feel for the interagency process, according to retired Army Lt. Col. Roger D. Carstens, a former Special Forces officer who advised the Iraqi National Counter-Terror Force in Baghdad.

Separately, the Defense Department said yesterday that its controversial general counsel, William J. Haynes II, is stepping down. "I have valued his legal advice and enjoyed working with him," Gates said in a statement. Haynes had been in the job since May 2001.

Senior military lawyers have clashed with Haynes frequently since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, especially regarding the handling of terrorism suspects at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Most recently, Air Force Col. Morris D. Davis, the former chief prosecutor at Guantanamo, said that he would testify as a defense witness in the trial of the former driver for Osama bin Laden and that Haynes had stated that acquittals of suspects held at Guantanamo would make the United States look bad. Through a spokesman, Haynes denied making such a comment.

Haynes had been nominated twice by President Bush for a federal judgeship, but the White House withdrew his name in January 2007 in the face of Senate opposition. Haynes was seen as an ally of Vice President Cheney, having worked as the Army's top lawyer when Cheney was defense secretary during the George H.W. Bush administration.

As talks break down, army is Kenya's best hope

  • Fears of more violence as extremists regroup

  • Annan is forced to put negotiations on standby

Julian Borger, diplomatic editor

Britain yesterday said that the Kenyan army is now "by far the best option" to stop a sectarian bloodbath as peace talks in Nairobi between the government and opposition were suspended.

The foreign office minister for Africa, Asia and the UN, Mark Malloch-Brown, said that there was a serious risk of renewed bloodshed if talks broke down irrevocably. About a thousand Kenyans have been killed since disputed elections in December and 600,000 have fled their homes after rival gangs, organised largely on ethnic lines, went on the rampage.

The violence has died down recently as the former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan has brokered negotiations, but he called a pause to the talks yesterday after several fruitless weeks. He said he would now hold direct talks with President Mwai Kibaki and the opposition leader Raila Odinga.

However, western observers believe that extremists on both sides have used the lull to regroup and prepare for another, and potentially bloodier, bout of violence in Kenya.

"We're going to have to stop the violence," Malloch-Brown said. "The Kenyan military is by far the best option. The question is, can the army be brought in in a non-divisive way?"

He argued that the army is still respected by the Kenyan public as a genuinely national and multi-ethnic institution, unlike the police, but that its generals are reluctant to get involved because they want to maintain its status and unity.

Annan is believed to have issued an ultimatum to Kibaki and Odinga yesterday, telling them they were facing their last chance to contain the conflict before it tore their country apart.

"The talks have not broken down," Annan told reporters later. "But I am taking steps to make sure we accelerate the process and give peace to the people as soon as possible."

He was backed by coordinated statements from the US and European Union threatening sanctions against leaders on both sides if they did not agree to share power.

"I want to emphasise that the future of our relationship with both sides and their legitimacy hinges on their cooperation to achieve this political solution," said Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state. "In that regard, we are exploring a wide range of possible actions. We will draw our own conclusions about who is responsible for lack of progress and take necessary steps."

The EU statement emphasised "that a means of effective power-sharing in Kenya must be found and that individuals who obstruct the dialogue process will have to face the consequences".

Potential sanctions include travel bans aimed at the political elite on both sides, who holiday and send their children to school in Europe and America.

Annan suspended talks between the government and the opposition negotiating teams after it became clear they were going nowhere.

"It was bad on Friday, and it just got worse," said a diplomat familiar with the talks.

Annan has attempted to broker a solution in which the president maintained control of foreign affairs and defence but devolved control over domestic affairs to an opposition prime minister. One of the reasons for the breakdown has been Kibaki's insistence on keeping a grip on the finance ministry.

Richard Dowden, the director of the Royal African Society, said the deployment of the Kenyan army could be extremely risky.

"The army has always been non-political. It's very professional, it does a lot of peacekeeping, it's trained by the Brits, it's a regular contingent in UN forces," Dowden said. "The last thing they would want to do is step in. But the bigger danger to them is that as this gets more ethnic and tribal, a middle ranking officer finds his grandmother has been killed and takes off, and once bits break off, the whole army unravels. The whole army holding together as a non-ethnic entity is the last barrier between Kenya and complete meltdown."