Sunday, July 01, 2007

The Least Among Us

By NIALL FERGUSON
THE BOTTOM BILLION
Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done About It.

By Paul Collier.

205 pp. Oxford University Press. $28.

It is perhaps a sign of how far sub-Saharan Africa still has to go that the most vigorous — and certainly the best publicized — debate about its economic future in recent years has been between two American economists based in New York. On one side of the argument is Jeffrey D. Sachs, the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and the author of “The End of Poverty.” On the other is William Easterly of New York University, whose ironically titled “White Man’s Burden” lampoons Sachs as a modern version of a 19th-century utopian.

There is indeed something faintly Victorian about Sachs’s messianic yet parsimonious conviction that Africa can be saved with $75 billion a year in Western aid. Having spent so much of his energies in the 1990s extolling the virtues of the free market to any Eastern European government that would listen, Sachs now argues — with equally unshakable conviction — that the elimination of African poverty can be achieved through state planning. All governments need do is improve agricultural technology, provide antimalaria bed nets, treat diseases like hookworm and distribute antiretroviral treatments to the H.I.V.-infected.

At times, he is rather reminiscent of Dickens’s Mrs. Jellyby in “Bleak House,” “a lady of very remarkable strength of character, who ... has devoted herself to an extensive variety of public subjects, at various times, and is at present (until something else attracts her) devoted to the subject of Africa; with a view to the general cultivation of the coffee berry — and the natives.” In Easterly’s opinion, the present generation of white philanthropists is no more likely than earlier ones to succeed in a self-appointed (and at times unwittingly imperial) mission of enlightening the Dark Continent.

Now comes another white man, ready to shoulder the burden of saving Africa: Paul Collier, the director of the Center for the Study of African Economies at Oxford University. A former World Bank economist like Easterly, Collier shares his onetime colleague’s aversion to what he calls the “headless heart” syndrome — meaning the tendency of people in rich countries to approach Africa’s problems with more emotion than empirical evidence. It was Collier who pointed out that nearly two-fifths of Africa’s private wealth is held abroad, much of it in Swiss bank accounts. It was he who exposed the British charity Christian Aid for commissioning dubious Marxist research on free trade. And it was he who pioneered a new and unsentimental approach to the study of civil wars, demonstrating that most rebels in sub-Saharan Africa are not heroic freedom fighters but self-interested brigands.

Collier is certainly much closer to Easterly on the question of aid. (He cites a recent survey that tracked money released by the Chad Ministry of Finance to help rural health clinics. Less than 1 percent reached the clinics.) Yet “The Bottom Billion” proves to be a far more constructive work than “The White Man’s Burden.” Like Sachs, Collier believes rich countries really can do something for Africa. But it involves more — much more — than handouts.

Collier’s title refers to the 980 million people living in what he calls “trapped countries,” those that are “clearly heading toward what might be described as a black hole.” Not all these people are Africans. Some live in Bolivia, Myanmar, Cambodia, Haiti, Laos, North Korea and Yemen. But 70 percent of the bottom billion live in Africa, and there is good reason to expect that proportion to rise.

The notion of the bottom billion matters because most of today’s development strategies (for example, the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals) focus much less discriminatingly on all developing economies — what used to be called “the third world.” But the world is no longer (as it used to be) one-sixth rich and five-sixths poor. Thanks to explosive growth in Asia, it will soon be more like one-sixth rich, two-thirds O.K. and one-sixth poor. It is this last group, according to Collier, that we need to worry about. Average life expectancy for the bottom billion is just 50 years. Around one in seven children dies before the age of 5.

Collier’s is a better book than either Sachs’s or Easterly’s for two reasons. First, its analysis of the causes of poverty is more convincing. Second, its remedies are more plausible.

There are, he suggests, four traps into which really poor countries tend to fall. The first is civil war. Nearly three-quarters of the people in the bottom billion, Collier points out, have recently been through, or are still in the midst of, a civil war. Such wars usually drag on for years and have economically disastrous consequences. Congo (formerly Zaire, formerly the Belgian Congo) would need 50 years of peace at its present growth rate to get back to the income level it had in 1960. Unfortunately, there is a vicious circle, because the poorer a country becomes, the more likely it is to succumb to civil war (“halve the ... income of the country and you double the risk of civil war” is a characteristic Collier formulation). And once you’ve had one civil war, you’re likely to have more: “Half of all civil wars are postconflict relapses.”

Why, aside from their poverty, have so many sub-Saharan countries become mired in internal conflict? Collier has spent years trying to answer this question, and his conclusions are central to this book. Civil war, it turns out, has nothing much to do with the legacy of colonialism, or income inequality, or the political repression of minorities. Three things turn out to increase the risk of conflict: a relatively high proportion of young, uneducated men; an imbalance between ethnic groups, with one tending to outnumber the rest; and a supply of natural resources like diamonds or oil, which simultaneously encourages and helps to finance rebellion.

It was in fact Collier who first came up with the line “diamonds are a guerrilla’s best friend,” and a substantial part of this book concerns itself with what economists like to call the “resource curse,” his No. 2 trap. As he sees it, the real problem about being a poor country with mineral wealth, like Nigeria, is that “resource rents make democracy malfunction”; they give rise to “a new law of the jungle of electoral competition ... the survival of the fattest.” Resource-rich countries don’t need to levy taxes, so there is little pressure for government accountability, and hence fewer checks and balances.

Countries don’t get to choose their resource endowment, of course; nor do they get to choose their location. Trap No. 3 is that landlocked countries are economically handicapped, because they are dependent on their neighbors’ transportation systems if they want to trade. Yet this is a minor handicap compared with Trap No. 4: bad governance. Collier has no time for those who still seek to blame Africa’s problems on European imperialists. As he puts it bluntly: “President Robert Mugabe must take responsibility for the economic collapse in Zimbabwe since 1998, culminating in inflation of over 1,000 percent a year.”

If these four things are the main causes of extreme poverty in Africa and elsewhere, what can the rich countries do? Clearly we can’t relocate Chad or rid Nigeria of its oil fields. Nor, Collier argues, can we rely on our standard remedies of aid or trade, without significant modifications. As a general rule, aid tends to retard the growth of the labor-intensive export industries that are a poor country’s most effective engine of growth. And much aid gets diverted into military spending. As for emergency relief, all too often it arrives in the wrong quantity at the wrong time, flooding into postconflict zones when no adequate channels exist to allocate it.

Trade, too, is not a sufficient answer. The problem is that Asia has eaten Africa’s lunch when it comes to exploiting low wage costs. Once manufacturing activity started to relocate to Asia, African economies simply got left behind. Now, to stand any chance of survival, African manufacturers need some temporary protection from Asian competition. So long as rich countries retain tariffs to shelter their own manufacturers from cut-price Asian imports, they should exempt products from bottom billion countries.

This, however, is not the most heretical of Collier’s prescriptions. Reflecting on the tendency of postconflict countries to lapse back into civil war, he argues trenchantly for occasional foreign interventions in failed states. What postconflict countries need, he says, is 10 years of peace enforced by an external military force. If that means infringing national sovereignty, so be it.

At a time when the idea of humanitarian intervention is selling at a considerable discount, this is a vital insight. (One recent finding by Collier and his associates, not reproduced here, is that until recently, former French colonies in Africa were less likely than other comparably poor countries to experience civil war. That was because the French effectively gave informal security guarantees to postindependence governments.) Collier concedes that his argument is bound to elicit accusations of neocolonialism from the usual suspects (not least Mugabe). Yet the case he makes for more rather than less intervention in chronically misgoverned poor countries is a powerful one. It is easy to forget, amid the ruins of Operation Iraqi Freedom, that effective intervention ended Sierra Leone’s civil war, while nonintervention condemned Rwanda to genocide.

Still, it would be wrong to portray Collier as a proponent of gunboat development. In the end, he pins more hope on the growth of international law than on global policing. Perhaps the best help we can offer the bottom billion, he suggests, comes in the form of laws and charters: laws requiring Western banks to report deposits by kleptocrats, for example, or charters to regulate the exploitation of natural resources, to uphold media freedom and to prevent fiscal fraud. We may not be able to force corrupt governments to sign such conventions. But simply by creating them we give reformers in Africa some extra leverage.

Although it stands on a foundation of painstaking quantitative research, “The Bottom Billion” is an elegant edifice: admirably succinct and pithily written. Few economists today can match Collier when it comes to one-liners. “A flagrant grievance is to a rebel movement what an image is to a business.” Calling the present trade negotiations a “development round” is like calling “tomorrow’s trading on eBay a ‘development round.’ ” And “If Iraq is allowed to become another Somalia, with the cry ‘Never intervene,’ the consequences will be as bad as Rwanda.”

If Sachs seems too saintly and Easterly too cynical, then Collier is the authentic old Africa hand: he knows the terrain and has a keen ear. They know it’s garbage, one aid official told him when he queried Christian Aid’s research, “but it sells the T-shirts.”

As Collier rightly says, it is time to dispense with the false dichotomies that bedevil the current debate on Africa: “ ‘Globalization will fix it’ versus ‘They need more protection,’ ‘They need more money’ versus ‘Aid feeds corruption,’ ‘They need democracy’ versus ‘They’re locked in ethnic hatreds,’ ‘Go back to empire’ versus ‘Respect their sovereignty,’ ‘Support their armed struggles’ versus ‘Prop up our allies.’ ” If you’ve ever found yourself on one side or the other of those arguments — and who hasn’t? — then you simply must read this book.

Niall Ferguson is the Laurence A. Tisch professor of history at Harvard University and the author of “Empire: The Rise and Fall of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power.”

Anbar province bombings kill seven Iraqi police officers

Despite the deaths, the U.S. military says the uneasy area is 'better' than in the past. Fifteen others die in other parts of Iraq.
By Molly Hennessy-Fiske
Times Staff Writer

July 2, 2007

BAGHDAD — Explosions at police checkpoints in Iraq's western Anbar province killed at least seven Iraqi police today, with scattered violence elsewhere in Iraq resulting in the deaths of at least 15 others, several of them in the capital.

In Fallouja, a suicide bomber detonated a truck packed with explosives while a group of men fired three rocket-propelled grenades at a checkpoint at the entrance of the city, killing at least two police officers and injuring four others, witnesses said.

In nearby Ramadi, a suicide bomber rushed a police checkpoint north of the city, killing five officers and injuring 11, including six police, according to a Ramadi police officer.Earlier in the day, masked men shot three people sitting in front of shops in downtown Ramadi, police said. One of the three suspects in the shooting was arrested, but the others escaped, according to police.

In recent months, the U.S. military has touted its advances in securing long-restive Anbar province, once a stronghold of foreign Islamist militants. American military leaders increasingly rely on partnerships with local tribal leaders, Sunni sheiks who say they want to rid the area of fighters with ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq.

A military spokesman said today's attacks in Ramadi underscored the need for military offensives to root out bomb-making facilities elsewhere in Iraq. Lt. Col. Christopher Garver said the killings don't indicate that Anbar is slipping back into chaos or that the military should change its approach to securing the area.

"It doesn't particularly indict the security situation in Anbar," said spokesman Garver in Baghdad. "It is better. It's not safe. It's not incident-free."

In Baghdad, there were explosions and shootings in several neighborhoods, the most deadly attacks striking a crowded market area in a southern area of the capital.

Gunmen traded fire with Iraqi police commandos in a Saidiya vegetable market, killing two people and injuring one.

Later, Iraqi police at a checkpoint near the market found an abandoned car with a kidnap victim tied to the wheel who told them the car was rigged with explosives. Police rescued the man before the car exploded, killing one person and injuring three others.

Another car-bomb explosion, at nearby Jadriya bridge, resulted in five deaths, police said.

Elsewhere in south Baghdad, gunmen opened fire in the Dora neighborhood, killing two people and injuring one.

Two Iraqi police were killed and six people injured, including three police officers, in a roadside bomb explosion followed by a drive-by shooting in eastern Baghdad.

Roadside bomb explosions in western and eastern Baghdad neighborhoods injured seven people.

In the northern city of Kirkuk, an Iraqi soldier assigned to guard local oil facilities and a local lawyer were fatally shot by unknown attackers, according to Kirkuk police.

In the nearby city of Hawija, a man attempting to plant a roadside bomb at a market was killed when the bomb exploded prematurely, without injuring anyone else, police said.

Argentine Pres. Taps Wife for Nomination

By Associated Press

5:00 PM PDT, July 1, 2007

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina — President Nestor Kirchner has tapped his wife take his place as the ruling coalition candidate in October presidential elections and will not immediately seek a second term, the government news agency said Sunday.

Telam, the official news agency, quoted the president's Cabinet chief as saying Kirchner's powerful wife, Sen. Cristina Fernandez, would be the leftist ruling coalition's candidate for the Oct. 28 vote.

Nestor Kirchner, who took office in May 2003, had for months said either he or his wife would run on behalf of the ruling Peronist coalition in the election.

Cabinet chief Alberto Fernandez told Telam that Cristina Fernandez would formally announce her candidacy July 19 in her home city of La Plata, the capital of Buenos Aires province and home to a quarter of the country's electorate.

Either Kirchner is seen in opinion polls as the heavy favorite for the balloting against a divided opposition.

Kirchner has overseen a recovery from a deep 2002 economic crisis as Argentina's economy began growing again -- by more than 8 percent annually for the past four years.

But Kirchner's support has dipped somewhat in recent months following an energy crisis, double-digit inflation, a public works corruption scandal and a Buenos Aires mayoral race in which an ally was roundly defeated.

Iran to Join Latin American Trade Deal

By NASSER KARIMI
Associated Press Writer

5:08 PM PDT, July 1, 2007

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran plans to join a Latin American initiative designed to counter U.S.-led efforts for free trade in the region, the Web site of the Iranian president's office reported Sunday as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez visited the country.

The report said Chavez welcomed Iran's observer membership in the Cuban-Venezuelan alternative to the Free Trade Area of the Americas. It did not specify exactly what observer membership would entail, but illustrated the growing relationship between Venezuela and Iran, whose leaders have strongly condemned U.S. policies.

"The pillars of world arrogance have been shaky. Victory will be realized by resistance and steadiness," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said while meeting with Chavez, according to the Web site.

Chavez and Cuban President Fidel Castro, another U.S. enemy, signed the deal -- known by its Spanish acronym ALBA -- in 2005 to counter Washington's efforts to expand free trade with Latin American countries. It contains much leftist rhetoric and few specifics, but was followed by closer economic ties between the two leaders.

Although the FTAA stalled in 2005, Washington since has signed nine free trade agreements with Latin American countries.

"Cooperation between independent countries such as Iran and Venezuela will have an effective role in defeating imperialism," the Web site quoted Chavez as saying.

Ties between Iran and Venezuela have been growing stronger. Chavez has defended Iran's disputed nuclear program, dismissing U.S. concerns that Tehran is secretly trying to develop atomic weapons.

"Political interests and close regional and international stances are among the important factors that help to continue this close cooperation," Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters Sunday during his weekly press conference.

Chavez arrived in Iran on Saturday for a two-day visit, as part of a three-nation tour after stops in Russia and Belarus. His visit is the third to Iran in the past two years.

Europe skeptical on missile shield

Support is fading in the Czech Republic and Poland, where the U.S. system is planned. And Congress is opposed.
By Peter Spiegel and Kim Murphy
Times Staff Writers

5:14 PM PDT, July 1, 2007

WASHINGTON — For months, the Bush administration has courted Russian President Vladimir V. Putin to gain assent for its plans to build a long-range missile defense system in Eastern Europe.

But the focus on Moscow may be misplaced. In the three capitals where legislatures must approve the system before ground is broken — Washington, Prague and Warsaw — support is thin and fading.

This growing opposition, detailed in interviews with current and former officials in the three countries, reflects what politicians and analysts view as the administration's mishandling of the issue and President Bush's rapidly declining influence both on Capitol Hill and among once-stalwart allies in what his administration has called "new Europe."

"The U.S. clearly mismanaged this rollout," said Bruce P. Jackson, a former Pentagon official and administration ally who has worked closely with the new democracies of Eastern Europe. "There weren't clear talking points, there was no interagency discussion about this, and we blindsided ourselves and also blindsided the governments in question. It's embarrassing."

Bush's meeting with Putin today at the Bush family compound in Maine is his latest chance to seek the Russian leader's blessing. Over the last three months, Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates each have traveled to Moscow or met with Putin on the issue.

But problems with Bush's missile defense plans exist elsewhere. In Washington, the House has approved legislation that strips funding for the tracking radar in the Czech Republic and silos for 10 interceptor missiles in Poland, meant to defend against a possible Iranian missile attack. Senate approval of a plan to cut funding could come within weeks, a reflection of both chambers' concern that allies have not been properly consulted and that the Pentagon has yet to prove the system actually works.

In Poland and the Czech Republic, governments publicly back the proposal but hold shaky parliamentary majorities and are facing growing opposition.

Senior Bush administration officials argue that there is still time to regain momentum. They note that the legislative fight in Congress for next year's defense budget is not over and that, despite surveys showing that 60% of both Poles and Czechs disapprove of the program, advocates in those countries have yet to make a concerted effort to sell the system.

"I don't think there's been a lot of informed public discussion about this, which gives me, as someone trying to make this work, a lot of hope," said one administration official involved in the negotiations who spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing U.S. strategy. "We do think we have good arguments."

Time is not on the administration's side, however. Officials at the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said they would need to break ground within the next year to ensure the system was ready by 2013. Iran may be capable of deploying long-range missiles by 2015, based on U.S. intelligence estimates.

More important, the Bush administration has just over a year and a half left in office, meaning delays could be fatal.

Russia regards the proposed system as a potentially hostile move, prompting the U.S. efforts to reassure Putin. But Gates and Bush also have visited Eastern Europe over the last two months.

There, the most heated debate has come in Poland, where many believe Warsaw has done a series of favors for the U.S., including sending troops to Iraq, without reciprocation.

"There is this general idea that Poland has supported the United States in Iraq in 2003 and we got very little in return — or we got nothing in return — and we should not repeat the same mistakes we made then," said Piotr Maciej Kaczynski, an analyst at the Institute for Public Affairs in Warsaw.

One powerful opponent is former Polish Defense Minister Radoslaw "Radek" Sikorski, an Oxford-educated senator from the governing Law and Justice Party who resigned his Cabinet post in February.

Sikorski, who also has close ties to U.S. policymakers, has argued that the system actually could endanger Poland. Russia has threatened to aim short-range missiles at Poland if the U.S. base is allowed. Sikorski has insisted on sweeteners, including increased American protection against any Russian aggression.

"This will be the first pro-American decision that I believe the Polish public will simply not take," Sikorski said during a recent visit to Washington, noting that Iran was not seen as a threat to most Poles. "If we get nothing at all ... the public and the Parliament will not forgive us."

The Law and Justice Party's two junior governing coalition partners, the far-right League of Polish Families and the populist Self Defense party, both are skeptical of the missile shield, Kaczynski said.

Many U.S. and European observers consider Sikorski the key to the outcome in Poland.

"It's Radek who could be the guy in Warsaw who really makes it hard for Polish politicians," said James J. Townsend Jr., who handled European relations at the Pentagon before joining the Atlantic Council of the United States think tank this year.

Opposition has been less vocal in the Czech Republic, where the system's proposed radar site has the backing of the governing coalition. Despite a June poll showing that 61% of Czechs oppose the site, U.S. and Czech officials believe they can overcome the opposition, which has focused on the project's environmental impact and the lack of formal NATO endorsement for it.

In an effort to win over Czech public opinion, Pentagon officials recently reversed course and made overtures to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a move long opposed by Gates' predecessor, Donald H. Rumsfeld. Last month, Gates presented the plans to a gathering of defense ministers in Brussels. NATO responded by agreeing to shape its own missile defenses around the U.S. plans.

The administration has sought to portray the agreement as a sign that NATO backs its proposal.

"That's about as much of an imprimatur as I think you're going to see," said the senior administration official. "It's a recognition by NATO that this project makes sense."

But NATO officials said it was more a sign of European anger over perceived recent Russian belligerence than an embrace of the missile system.

"However they try to present it, it's not a formal endorsement," said one official with the alliance, who spoke on condition of anonymity when addressing the dispute. "There is a general acceptance ... but that should not be read as any great enthusiasm for the system itself."

There are signs that the Czech public is becoming more active in its opposition. Officials in towns near the planned radar site have banded together to oppose construction. More than 25 towns and villages have voted against it in referendums, said Jan Tamas, president of the Humanist Party, which opposes the system and is represented in local councils but not the Parliament.

"There's almost a civil society springing up in order to deal with this," said Victoria Samson, an analyst with the Washington-based Center for Defense Information, who recently met with Czech provincial officials in Brussels.

Any intensification of public opposition could spell trouble for the government in Prague, whose allies have a razor-thin majority in Parliament.

"As the pressure will continue to increase on the government, I think it will reach a point where they will realize that they cannot go against the will of the majority," Tamas said.

By far the most concrete legislative move against the system has come from Washington. In May, with little fanfare, the House cut the administration's $310-million funding request by half and barred the Pentagon from starting construction. In June, the Senate's Armed Services Committee passed a similar bill, which could clear the full Senate early this month.

Congressional critics note that the Bush administration has already spent more than four years and tens of billions of dollars building a similar system based in Alaska and Central California aimed at shooting down North Korean missiles, a system that has proved highly erratic in testing so far. The most recent test, in late May, was scrubbed at the last minute when a target missile the shield was supposed to shoot down failed to fly into the systems' range.

Administration officials are quick to note that both bills allow the White House to return for funding later. But Democratic leaders contend that there is enough bipartisan support to force the White House to rethink its plans.

"I think what we've done is also make it very clear they've run too far ahead of us," said Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Alamo), a House armed services subcommittee chairwoman and a leading congressional voice on missile defense.

She added: "They have not only not made the case here, but they haven't made the case over there." peter.spiegel@latimes.com kim.murphy@latimes.com Spiegel reported from Washington and Murphy from London.

Can a Law Change a Society?

By JEFFREY ROSEN

Washington

SINCE 1954, liberal and conservative justices have disagreed about the central meaning of Brown v. Board of Education. Was the purpose of Brown to achieve a colorblind society or an integrated one? Last week, in its 5-to-4 decision declaring that public schools in Louisville and Seattle can’t take explicit account of race to achieve integration, the Supreme Court came down firmly on the side of colorblindness. Despite some important qualifications by Justice Anthony Kennedy, at least four conservative justices made clear that they believe that nearly all racial classifications are unconstitutional.

The lawyers who won the Supreme Court case predicted that it would have as dramatic an effect on American society as the original Brown case did. “These are the most important decisions on the use of race since Brown v. Board of Education,” Sharon Browne, the principal lawyer for the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, declared in a press release. “With these decisions, an estimated 1,000 school districts around the country that are sending the wrong message about race to kids will have to stop.”

But some legal scholars on both sides of the political spectrum, and of the affirmative action debate, question this assessment. They doubt that this case will transform society as dramatically as Brown did. And some of them question whether even Brown was as singularly influential in transforming society as many have claimed during the last half-century.

The conventional wisdom about Brown holds that it was more responsible than anything else for the integration of schools. “Brown really did transform society by stopping de jure segregation, and without Brown, schools would look very different,” says David J. Armor, a conservative scholar at George Mason University.

But some liberal scholars have challenged that heroic assessment. In “From Jim Crow to Civil Rights,” Michael J. Klarman argues that it was a political commitment to integration in the 1960s, not the Brown decision in the 1950s, that led to meaningful integration.

“Brown didn’t transform society very much, and to the extent that it did it was indirect,” says Mr. Klarman, who is a law professor at the University of Virginia. “Brown brought out the worst in White Supremacy, and Northerners were appalled by the police dogs they saw on television, and that advanced the civil rights movement.” He argues that meaningful desegregation didn’t occur until the Johnson administration’s Justice Department became committed to enforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare threatened to cut off financing to school districts that refused to integrate.

Professor Klarman said he believed that just as the court couldn’t bring about integration on its own in 1954, so it won’t be able to mandate colorblindness on its own today. “Just as Brown produced massive resistance in the South and therefore had little impact on desegregation for a decade, this decision is going to be similarly inconsequential,” he says. “This affects only the tiny percentage of school districts that use race to assign students, and even in those districts, like Louisville and Seattle, it won’t be consequential because there are so many opportunities for committed school boards to circumvent it.”

In his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy invited school districts to explore “narrowly tailored” ways of pursuing their compelling interest in “avoiding racial isolation.” Some critics of government-sponsored affirmative action believe that this may allow school districts to pursue racial diversity by indirect means.

“School districts are going to continue to do indirectly what they tried to do directly,” says Peter H. Schuck of Yale Law School. “They will feel the same pressures to reduce racial isolation, and they will look for proxies for race.”

Some scholars who support affirmative action also agree that public schools will use proxies for race — like neighborhoods, socioeconomic status, or single-parent households to achieve their goals. “I think what you’ll see is schools avoiding talking in racial terms, and talking in more vague terms about a diversity of backgrounds,” says David A. Strauss of the University of Chicago. “There will be another layer of bureaucracy, but I wouldn’t expect a large-scale retreat from what public schools have tried.”

After Texas and California banned affirmative action in the 1990s, officials in both states guaranteed admission at the top public universities to a certain percentage of the class at every public high school, regardless of the school’s quality. Because of segregated housing patterns, this somewhat reduced the fall in the numbers of enrolled African-American and Hispanic students.

“If you judge by what happened in California, you’ll see some drop in minority enrollment but not as huge a change as some people expected,” says John Yoo, a former Bush Justice Department official who teaches law at the University of California at Berkeley. “School administrators and bureaucrats are so heavily invested in the idea of diversity that they will try an amazing array of policies to get around the ban of the use of race.”

Although it will be harder for public schools to resort to similar race-neutral alternatives, many legal scholars believe they will try. “It’s tougher in a public school setting, where generally applicants aren’t competing against each other on an individual basis, but that’s clearly what Justice Kennedy is inviting,” says Samuel Issacharoff, a law professor at New York University who supports affirmative action. To enforce its vision of colorblindness, Professor Klarman suggests, the Supreme Court would need to be backed by the president and Congress. But so far, that political commitment to colorblindness has not materialized.

“It’s not enough for the court to announce this; to really make it stick, the president would have to cut off funding for school districts that circumvent the decision, just like the 1960s,” Professor Klarman says. “If you start threatening to throw school board members in jail, that might have an effect, but the strongest evidence that there’s not that kind of political support for colorblindness is that the military and Fortune 500 companies have said we need affirmative action to survive.”

More broadly, the effects of last week’s decision may be limited by the fact that American society is divided on just how colorblind or integrated society should be. When Brown was decided, 54 percent of the country supported the result. Today, the public appears similarly divided about the appropriate balance between colorblindness and diversity, and there are backlashes in both directions.

After a Texas court banned affirmative action in 1996, the Texas Legislature tried to preserve racial diversity in the state’s public universities with race-neutral alternatives, but after the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action at the University of Michigan law school in 2003, the voters of Michigan passed an initiative banning it.

“I think that there will be a King Canute quality to the decision,” Professor Strauss said, referring to the Anglo-Saxon king who ordered the sea’s waves to stop.

In the end, the Supreme Court throughout its history has rarely precipitated social transformation on its own; instead it has been most effective when it acts in conjunction with the president, Congress and ultimately a majority of the country.

“Brown pushed the country in a direction it was already going, and in the same sense, the large forces today are going to continue to operate regardless of what the Supreme Court just decided,” Professor Klarman said. “We’re headed toward an ambiguous place where we’re committed both to colorblindness and to diversity in public life. We might have a black president, but we’ll still have a society with very segregated neighborhoods and public schools. I don’t think the court decision will make much difference either way.”

Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, is the author of “The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America.”

Wrapped in the Star-Spangled Toga

By ADAM GOODHEART

THIS Fourth of July, millions of ordinary citizens across the land are planning to celebrate our nation’s birthday with that most distinctively American tradition: the backyard toga party.

Well, O.K., not really. But the idea might not be so farfetched. Recently, it has seemed that ancient Rome is everywhere — and especially comparisons of modern America to the ancient empire. Moreover, it is one of the few things on which all segments of the political spectrum — left and right, Christian fundamentalists and Islamic radicals, Ivy League professors and renegade bloggers — seem to agree.

Most recently, a book by Cullen Murphy, titled, plainly enough, “Are We Rome?” begins with an extended comparison of President Bush to the emperor Diocletian from the third century A.D. Everything from their respective foreign policies to their retinues of courtiers comes under scrutiny. (It’s a bit of puckish humor that the author, whose sympathies are decidedly of the liberal sort, chooses that particular Roman ruler, who was famous for feeding Christians to the lions.)

Mr. Murphy, especially, draws parallels between Rome’s imperial predicament and what he sees as ours: the problems of a vast, multiethnic nation with a messianic view of itself and an often simplistic view of the rest of the world, stretched too thin beyond its borders and facing mounting challenges within them.

He finds echoes of the emperors’ reliance on legions of Visigothic mercenaries in the country’s outsourcing of security contracts to Halliburton and Wackenhut.

He describes corrupt imperial bureaucrats as the moral forebears of K Street lobbyists:

“I don’t know how it would be phrased in Latin, but one of Jack Abramoff’s e-mails (‘Da man! You iz da man! Do you hear me?! You da man!! How much $$ coming tomorrow? Did we get some more $$ in?’) captures the spirit of public service in the late empire.”

Meanwhile, other commentators have their own comparisons. Conservative bloggers thunder about illegal Mexican immigrants as latter-day versions of the Vandals and Ostrogoths. Fundamentalist pastors like Pat Robertson warn of Neronian moral decay — pornography, abortion, gay marriage — that, they say, is hollowing out our society from within. And it seems as if everyone who watched the HBO series “Rome” has a pet theory on which ancient warlord resembles which modern pol (Pompey as Al Gore, anyone?).

Even Middle Eastern jihadists have joined in. Last November, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, released an audiotape in which he vowed: “We will not rest from our jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have destroyed the dirty black house — which is called the White House.” The reference to “Rumieh” puzzled translators at first. It is Arabic for the Roman Empire.

What few remember is that America has always been compared to Rome. It’s only the nature of the comparisons that are constantly changing. Nearly a half-century ago, in the aftermath of the McCarthy era, Stanley Kubrick’s “Spartacus” was a thinly veiled attack on the Hollywood blacklist. In 1979, Tinto Brass’s notorious “Caligula” gave us ancient Rome as a Saturday night at Studio 54, with togas.

But it all started long before that, and the comparisons began as positive ones. America’s early leaders thought about Rome quite a lot, comparing themselves to statesmen whose names, unlike those of Nero and Caligula, are all but forgotten today: the noble freedom fighters like the Gracchus brothers, or the virtuous legislators like Cato the Younger. Their emphasis was usually not on the Roman Empire, but rather on the republic that preceded it.

In fact, George Washington’s favorite literary work was a play about Cato by the 18th-century English author Joseph Addison. So fond was he of Addison’s “Cato” that one of the first things he did at the end of the winter of 1778, when his men had scarcely recovered from the frozen misery of Valley Forge, was to arrange a performance by his troops. In the 19th century, an immense marble statue of Washington in the guise of a Roman god — naked except for some strategically placed drapery — actually stood in the rotunda of the United States Capitol. Thomas Jefferson, meanwhile, was painted in a Roman laurel crown by his friend and fellow Revolutionary hero Thaddeus Kosciuszko.

With few modern examples of successful republics to inspire America’s founders, ancient Rome provided an indispensable role model. Overlooked, however, is that the generation that fought the Revolution was not simply interested in creating a republic. From the beginning, many American patriots were out to build an empire.

In the summer of 1776, an edition of Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” referred to “the rising empire of America” on its title page. In the same year, William Henry Drayton of South Carolina gave a speech in which he recalled that the once-mighty Roman Empire, which had lasted a millennium, had been supplanted by the British Empire — which, in his estimation, had lasted a mere decade or so. Now, he continued, “the Almighty ... has made choice of the present generation to erect the American Empire.”

The question was: could America’s republican aspirations flourish in harmony with its imperial ambitions? The two were not necessarily wholly incompatible. After all, Rome’s dominions had spanned the Mediterranean even while it was still ruled by a senate. And the United States did not need to look overseas for territories to conquer: an entire continent stretched westward.

So the founders decided they could have it both ways. Benjamin Franklin himself, during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, would refer to the nation he was helping create as both a “republic” and an “empire.” Franklin’s strongest endorsement of America’s God-given imperial destiny appears today on many conservative Web sites: “And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” As Mr. Murphy notes, that quotation also appeared on Dick and Lynne Cheney’s 2003 Christmas card.

Franklin and his contemporaries were all too aware, however, that in setting up their nation as a latter-day Rome, they were also all but ensuring centuries of paranoia to come about whether America was destined to go the way of its imperial predecessor. The eventful year 1776, after all, had seen the appearance not just of the new United States but of the first volume of Edward Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.”

Indeed, the fretting began almost immediately. In the early 19th century, one Maryland politician, lamenting his countrymen’s increasing love of “public shows and spectacles,” warned: “History records that the declining days of the Roman republic, upon which the throne of the Caesars was erected, was attended by banquets and revels, and marked by the exhibition of rhetoricians and gladiators.” The occasion of debauchery and depravity that inspired this outburst was, naturally, the 1817 inauguration of President James Monroe.

There’s one warning sign from ancient Rome’s history, though, that everybody, past and present, seems to have ignored. The juggernaut of Roman conquest stalled in only two places. One, of course, was along the Rhine, where warlike German tribes held the course of empire in check. The other place was the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates, or ancient Mesopotamia — roughly, modern Iraq.

For centuries, one would-be conqueror after another marched his legions into the east, only to return in disgrace, or not at all. A few decades before Diocletian, there lived a Roman emperor named Valerian, a man from a fine old senatorial family. His army was annihilated not far east of the Euphrates.

Valerian was taken as a captive back to the enemy capital, where the Persian king, according to one ancient historian, amused himself by using the Roman emperor as a footstool for mounting his horse. When the erstwhile master of the known world finally died, his skin was stuffed with straw as a trophy.

Adam Goodheart is director of Washington College’s C. V. Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience.

Obama Campaign Raises $32.5 Million

By JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON, July 1 — Senator Barack Obama raised at least $32.5 million from April through June, he announced Sunday on his campaign Web site, attracting more than 258,000 contributors since entering the Democratic presidential race nearly six months ago.

As candidates tabulated how much money they raised in the year’s second quarter, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, appeared to be sitting atop contenders from either party, raising at least $31 million for the primary campaign alone. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, raised about $21 million for the primary, a spokesman confirmed Sunday, and about $27 million over all.

“Together, we have built the largest grass-roots campaign in history for this stage of a presidential race,” Mr. Obama said, adding that 154,000 new donors had signed on in the last three months. “That’s the kind of movement that can change the special-interest-driven politics in Washington and transform our country. And it’s just the beginning.”

Mr. Obama waited barely 12 hours after the fund-raising period closed to trumpet his success, a quarterly record for a Democratic candidate, hoping to depict widespread support for his campaign and to rebut suggestions that his candidacy is falling behind Mrs. Clinton’s. If her estimate last week that she had raised “in the range of $27 million” proves true, Mr. Obama will have outpaced Mrs. Clinton for a second consecutive quarter in money that can be spent in primaries.

John Edwards’s campaign said Sunday that it had raised more than $9 million, while Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico reported raising $7 million and Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut reported raising $3.25 million.

Republican candidates did not provide fund-raising figures Sunday, but are expected to do so well in advance of the July 15 deadline for filing reports with the Federal Election Commission.

While candidates are allowed to simultaneously raise money for the primary and the general election, Mr. Obama has focused almost exclusively on primary money. The Clinton campaign has solicited both, and a spokesman, Phil Singer, estimated on Sunday evening that about $6 million of its second-quarter money was intended for the general election, meaning it could be spent only if Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination.

So far this year, the Obama campaign has raised $55.7 million to be spent on winning the party’s nominating fight. In the last three months, an average of 1,500 donors a day contributed to the Obama campaign, many through the Web site or in response to more unusual appeals, including a contest to have dinner with the candidate.

David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, said in an interview Sunday that more than 90 percent of the contributors to Mr. Obama could contribute again. In addition to courting major Democratic donors, the campaign has had fund-raisers across the country for donors making small contributions, focusing particularly on early-voting states, and has built a database of supporters and volunteers from events that cost as little as $5 per person.

“This gives us a deep financial base that will continue to allow us to perform strongly throughout the course of the campaign,” Mr. Plouffe said. “It also gives us a huge foundation of volunteers and organizational support.”

After spending significant money on the opening contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, the campaign will rely on a grass-roots operation in the states where primaries or caucuses are scheduled Feb. 5, Mr. Plouffe said. While the campaign focused intently on raising money in those states, he said, almost no effort was directed toward raising money beyond the primary campaign.

“The general election money,” Mr. Plouffe said, “is funny money.”

For weeks, the Clinton campaign had been seeking to lower expectations for the second fund-raising period. A memorandum sent last week by Howard Wolfson, a top strategist for the senator, estimated that she would raise “in the range of $27 million.” The campaign on Sunday had no comment on Mr. Obama’s fund-raising numbers.

While a spokesman for the Clinton campaign said a more precise figure was not available yet on Sunday, advisers to Mr. Edwards held a conference call to discuss their second quarter contributions of $9 million. After raising $14 million in the first quarter, campaign officials said they were on track to reach their goal of $40 million this year and said they were not troubled by falling behind two leading rivals.

Jonathan Prince, deputy manager of the Edwards campaign, said that slightly more than half of the $9 million — $4.7 million — came from small donations. In the first quarter, more than 80 percent of donations to the Edwards campaign were $100 and under; this quarter, more than 80 percent were $50 and under.

This reflects the campaign’s effort to expand its grass-roots base and to rely more heavily on Internet donations. Mr. Prince said the number of contributors had increased by 70,000 in this quarter to reach a total of 100,000 donors.

“This isn’t a money race, it’s a race to win the nomination,” he said. “That’s what we intend to do.”

Leslie Wayne contributed reporting from New York.

The British Are Watching, Very Closely

The British Are Watching, Very Closely
By GRAHAM BOWLEY

The instinct for keeping one’s eyes peeled, for watching for the unattended bag or abandoned car, was inculcated in the British beginning in the 1970s as the Irish Republican Army terrorized London with bombings.

“We are quite a polite nation, so it’s hard, but, yes, we are on the lookout and actually it’s not new,” said Peter York, a columnist for The Independent on Sunday. “It comes from our grandparents’ generation from the war and was kept alive by the I.R.A. and is with us now, a belief that we can’t expect the world to be a lovely, kind place, and that we need to be vigilant.”

The discovery of two bomb-laden cars around Piccadilly Circus on Friday underscored the point once again. It follows the 2005 Islamist terrorist attacks that killed 52 in London, and the disruption last year of what the police said was a plot to blow up airplanes flying out of Britain.

Vigilance underpins quite a lot of behavior in Britain these days. How so?

On average about 250,000 unattended items are reported to the police each year on Britain’s subways and trains, according to Jake Trees, a spokesperson for the British transport police.

In New York, the police received 37,614 calls about suspicious packages in 2006, up from 21,500 calls in 2005. As of 6:36 p.m. on Friday, there had been 17,422 calls this year.

In Britain, guns, which were rarely visible on police officers 10 or 15 years ago, are now often in full view on their belts or in their arms. Security around significant government buildings is particularly tight. Trains and stations are often flooded by brightly jacketed police officers, made possible by a 50 percent increase in the number of transport police officers since 2005. Constant announcements in the trains and on station platforms urge people to watch out for anything suspicious. Stickers and posters display hotline numbers to call.

“Do people speak out?” Mr. Trees asked. “It’s one of the tenets of our policy that they do, and they do that. Passengers are becoming very, very aware of things that are out of the ordinary.”

British cities have also been arrayed with closed-circuit television cameras focused on lobbies, sidewalks, roads and public spaces. There are more than 6,000 of the cameras on the London subway network alone. (One side benefit: there are only about 15 crimes per million passengers on British trains and subways.)

Britain’s most senior counterterrorism official, Peter Clarke, said on Friday that the police expect those cameras to yield clues to the identity of the drivers of those two cars abandoned in the heart of London’s West End.

“Life must go on,” he said, “but we must all stay alert to the threat we face as we go about our daily lives.”

Al Baker contributed reporting.

Generally Speaking

As a retired four-star general and former presidential candidate, you’re about to publish a memoir whose title, “A Time to Lead,” might seem to suggest you’re personally eager to lead this country. Is that an accurate reading? “A Time to Lead” is a time for America to lead. That is the intention of the title. Certainly we are having a leadership crisis. We have an administration that has lost all sense of strategic purpose in the Mideast. I am very concerned that we have lost the foundation of America’s worldwide power and influence. It has been squandered.

Are you referring to our military strength? The most important element of power is not the military. After World War II and through the end of the 20th century, we had a legitimacy that magnified our military strength and economic strength. We weren’t like other powers. We weren’t after an empire. We didn’t torture. What we’ve lost is our legitimacy. It’s time for every American to be a leader.

Is that practical? If every American were a leader, there would be no one left for them to boss around. Leaders don’t boss. Not if they’re any good. They persuade. And I think America needs a whole lot more persuading and a lot less bossing.

It sounds as if you’re running for president again as a Democrat. I haven’t said I won’t. I think about it every day.

The field is already overcrowded with aspiring presidents. Do you think we’ve become a country where everyone wants to be in charge and no one can tolerate being second? Every American should strive to be all they can be. And that striving will make them better even if they end up in second place.

What do you make of all the how-to books and seminars on leadership? What true leader would ever take a leadership seminar? I’ve never met an effective leader who wasn’t aware of his talents and working to sharpen them.

As a decorated leader yourself who served as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander during the war in Kosovo, how would you assess the threat that Al Qaeda poses to this country? Al Qaeda is not an existential threat to the United States the way the Soviet Union was. You have to understand that the Soviet Union was a country of more than 200 million people. Al Qaeda is maybe 50,000 angry and destructive individuals.

You make Al Qaeda sound as unthreatening as a schoolyard gang. Al Qaeda is unpredictable and dangerous and has an unknown number of sympathizers. But the Soviets had thousands of nuclear warheads, nuclear bombs, biological and chemical warheads and specially trained assassination teams aimed at us, and all of it was on a hair-trigger status that could have been set off by accident or miscalculation.

Neoconservatives generally argue just the opposite, claiming that the fight against terrorism is no less daunting than the cold war and in fact constitutes “World War IV,” to borrow the title of Norman Podhoretz’s forthcoming book. Thus far, we don’t have an opposing superpower against us, no matter how much the neoconservatives long for this. Perhaps the neoconservatives believe that we can only be defined by having an enemy.

You just left your gig as a foreign-affairs analyst on Fox News. Whom will they replace you with? I’m sure they are going to find some good Democrat. I’m really looking forward to being with MSNBC. They have great people, like Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews.

Do you have any plans for this Wednesday, Independence Day? I’m going to be in Little Rock,Ark., celebrating the birth of our nation with family and friends.

Why do Americans eat hot dogs on July 4? Because they’re easier to cook than hamburgers.

Do you think the Founding Fathers ate hot dogs? They say an army travels on its stomach, but I think most of the armies in those days ate something far worse than hot dogs.

Bush Applauds U.K. Response to Terror

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 7:23 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Sunday he appreciates the new British government's ''strong response'' to terrorist threats in London and Scotland that prompted the United States to tighten airport security and add air marshals to overseas flights.

''It just goes to show the war against these extremists goes on,'' Bush said as he waited for Russian President Vladimir Putin to arrive at the Bush family seaside home at Kennebunkport, Maine. ''You never know where they may try to strike, and I appreciate the very strong response that the Gordon Brown government's given to the attempts by these people.''

Bush remarked hours after his homeland security chief said the administration was satisfied with its current terrorism alert level following an attack at a Scottish airport and two foiled car bombs in London.

''I think given what we know now, we're comfortable that we're at the right posture,'' Michael Chertoff said during a round of talk show appearances.

U.S. airports and mass transit systems are tightening security ahead of the Fourth of July holiday and more air marshals will travel on overseas flights.

''We will be doing operations at various rail locations and other mass transit locations in cooperation with local authorities. Again, not because of a specific piece of credible threat information, but because we are going into a holiday season. There will be a larger number of people traveling,'' Chertoff said.

A U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity while the investigations were ongoing, said American authorities are running the names of the suspects in Britain through their databases to look for links to the United States.

Those checks would include watch lists such as the no-fly list; any clue that the suspects had shared an address with people in the U.S.; intelligence indicating the suspects made calls into the U.S.; and other similar types of investigative work.

It was not immediately clear if counterterrorism agencies had any hits or connections.

Airports are at the second of five security threat levels -- orange -- indicating a high risk of terrorist attacks. The current national threat level is yellow, or the third highest, indicating an elevated threat.

Chertoff said he does not plan to change those levels. ''At this moment we don't have a specific credible threat against the United States,'' he said.

Britain has raised its security alert level to the highest possible level, indicating terror attacks may be imminent.

Chertoff said he has spoken out for some time about U.S. worries involving potential terrorist threats originating in Britain and Europe.

''I think one of the issues we're increasingly concerned about is the movement of Europeans, including people with European citizenship, into areas of South Asia to get trained and get experience and then the prospect of these people coming back to carry out operations in Europe or in the United States using Europe as a departure point,'' Chertoff said.

''It's one of the reasons we've been very focused on increasing our security for people incoming from Europe. And that's something we're going to be looking at for the rest of the summer,'' he said.

Chertoff said officials are also concerned about the possibility of a copycat attack in the U.S., saying it is ''another reason why we have put some additional security measures in place.''

The U.S. increased the number of air marshals on flights between the United States and Europe last August and stepped up the pace over the past few months, Chertoff said. Last August, British police foiled an alleged plot by Muslim extremists to use liquid explosives to blow up as many as 10 flights between the United States and Britain.

''We haven't singled out Glasgow until a couple of days ago as a particular location for focus, but there has been a strategy of mixing up the deployment of these air marshals, sometimes more in one destination, sometimes more in another destination,'' he said.

''Going forward, we will be doing some enhanced air marshal work and similar types of activities with respect to U.K. travel.''

Britain's new prime minister, Gordon Brown, said his country was dealing with terrorists associated with al-Qaida. Chertoff said, ''If they are comfortable in confirming that, then that's fine. I have no reason to disagree.''

A burning Jeep Cherokee rammed into Glasgow's airport terminal on Saturday. The day before, police in London found two cars packed with explosives.

One of the men in the airport attack was in critical condition at a hospital with severe burns, while the other was in police custody. Kenny MacAskill, the nation's justice secretary, said the two men were not born and raised in Scotland.

''Any suggestion to be made that they are homegrown terrorists is not true,'' MacAskill said.

Chertoff mentioned Iraq as a place where would-be terrorists can hone their skills in preparation for possible attacks around the world.

''What I do think we see in Iraq is a laboratory for techniques where people experiment with sophisticated forms of explosive devices, and we do get concerned that that will ultimately lead to importing those kinds of techniques to the West.''

Chertoff appeared on NBC's ''Meet the Press,'' ABC's ''This Week,'' ''Fox News Sunday'' and ''Late Edition'' on CNN.

Israel Resumes Transfer of Taxes to Palestinians

By STEVEN ERLANGER

JERUSALEM, July 1 — The Israeli government agreed today to restore full financial ties with the Palestinian Authority now that it has ousted Hamas.

Israel will resume monthly transfers of taxes to the Palestinian Authority, as well as return, in installments, the $600 million or so withheld from the Palestinians since early 2006.

The decision marks an end to an Israeli policy of fiscal isolation of the Palestinians that began with the installation of a Hamas-run Palestinian Authority in March 2006, after Hamas won a legislative majority that January, beating the Fatah faction. The policy, together with a Western ban on aid to the Hamas government, was designed to undermine Hamas and bring the government down, officials conceded at the time.

Now, with Hamas having taken over the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, has fired a Hamas-dominated “unity” government and installed an emergency cabinet led by an independent economist close to Fatah, Salam Fayyad.

Mr. Fayyad, educated in Texas and a former economist with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, is prime minister, finance minister and foreign minister. As finance minister, he will be receiving direct transfers from the Israeli treasury and from the West. It remains to be seen whether the European Union, which has been paying part of the salaries of up to 80,000 Palestinians through direct transfers to their bank accounts, will now revert to channeling its money — $900 million in 2006 — solely through Mr. Fayyad.

Mr. Fayyad has said that he intends as prime minister of the new government to pay Palestinian civil servants in Gaza as well, even though Hamas hold effective power there.

Israeli government officials said today that they could have no objection if Mr. Fayyad did that. “Whether he pays Gaza salaries is not our business,” said Miri Eisin, spokeswoman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. “This is a Palestinian government that has already outlawed all armed groups outside the official security services, and we want to cooperate with them to give a clear-cut chance for Palestinians to be ruled in a different and effective way.”

Some of the money will inevitably go to support Hamas members and groups, but Ms. Eisin said Israel was trying to ensure that it will not be passed to any “nongovernmental groups linked to terrorism.” Israel, the United States and the European Union classify Hamas as a terrorist organization and have legal bans on contact with it.

Israel collects taxes and import duties for all goods coming into Israel and the Palestinian territories under a customs agreement. It is then supposed to pass the part belonging to the Palestinians — roughly $45 million to $50 million a month after deductions for Israeli-supplied water and electricity — to the Palestinian Authority.

But since March 2006, Israel has provided only $100 million to Mr. Abbas for health and human services, leaving about $600 million untransferred. That money will now be paid in five or six installments to Mr. Fayyad, although some $200 million of it is subject to legal appeals by private Israeli companies like Dor Alon, which sells gasoline and fuel oil to the Palestinian Authority, to settle unpaid debts.

The Israelis will also now, beginning with July, pay the taxes owed monthly, so there will be no further withholding. The Israelis are also holding regular meetings with senior officials of the new Palestinian government and those close to Mr. Abbas on more extensive security cooperation, partly to ensure that the Hamas rout of Fatah will not be duplicated over time in the West Bank.

Many Israelis and their newspapers, however, remained focused on the case of Moshe Katsav, the Israeli president who resigned today following allegations of rape and sexual misconduct. The Israeli attorney general, Menachem Mazuz, has agreed to a plea bargain that will spare Mr. Katsav rape charges and any jail time at all, even though the accusations against him, if proven in court, would bring a jail term of up to 20 years.

Mr. Mazuz is said by officials to have been concerned by the impact on the state of a rape trial and jail term for Mr. Katsav. He said that some charges were too old given the statute of limitations and that rape might be difficult to prove conclusively. But many Israelis are outraged, and some 20,000 people demonstrated in Tel Aviv on Saturday night against the plea bargain.

The Israeli Supreme Court agreed today to hear a petition that seeks to overthrow the plea bargain. . Mr. Katsav insists he is innocent, but he will have to plead guilty under the deal to lesser counts of indecent acts, sexual harassment and obstruction of justice and pay compensation to two of his four accusers, all women who worked for him.

Shimon Peres has been elected the new president, a largely ceremonial post, and will take over in mid-July.

Hong Kong Marks a Decade Since Handover

By KEITH BRADSHER

HONG KONG, July 1 — With helicopters pumping out streams of red smoke and boats carrying giant red Chinese characters — and with demonstrators calling once again for the elusive goal of full democracy — Hong Kong marked on Sunday the 10th anniversary of its return by Britain to Chinese rule.

Many of the events underlined how Hong Kong has become a far more Chinese city over the past decade, even though individual liberties have been preserved.

President Hu Jintao of China personally swore in Donald Tsang, the chief executive, and his ministers Sunday morning, a reminder to residents that Beijing reserves the final power to appoint the leaders of Hong Kong.

Mr. Hu also opened a new bridge Sunday to neighboring Shenzhen, in mainland China, another sign of how the economy, culture and people of Hong Kong are becoming ever more closely connected to the mainland. On Saturday, Mr. Hu reviewed nearly 2,000 soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army at a military base in Hong Kong where the Chinese flag was flying but the Hong Kong flag was conspicuously absent.

Carrying small flags that bore the slogan “One Person, One Vote,” protesters marched through the heart of the city Sunday afternoon in sweltering heat to demand greater democracy. The police put the crowd at 20,000, but organizers said that 68,000 people had marched.

By comparison, a half million people marched the same route on July 1, 2003, when Mr. Tsang’s predecessor as chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, was trying to impose stringent internal security legislation. Mr. Tung backed down and Beijing replaced him in March 2005 with Mr. Tsang, who has paid more attention to public opinion on day-to-day issues.

Mr. Tsang, selected in March by the 795 members of a mostly pro-Beijing committee, repeated his recent promises Sunday to propose later this year several possible routes to greater democracy.

“We will develop a system that is more democratic,” he said, adding that, “we can all work together to identify the most acceptable mode of universal suffrage to best serve the interests of Hong Kong.”

Democracy advocates are wary. They defeated Mr. Tsang’s last initiative in this regard, a proposal in late 2005 to broaden the legislature, after concluding that the complex plan involved gerrymandering which would have increased the influence of pro-Beijing political parties.

But Martin Lee, the founding chairman of the Democratic Party, said that it was easier several years ago to draw big crowds for democracy protests.

“Donald Tsang is not Tung Chee-hwa — Tung Chee-hwa says the wrong things, does the wrong things," Mr. Lee said. “Donald Tsang is very PR-conscious and defuses problems, and the economy is good.”

One of the marchers, Fu Chun-lan, a 62-year-old retired art teacher, said that she had seldom attended previous marches but came this year because it was the 10th anniversary of the return to Chinese control. " “I expected there'd be more democracy after 10 years,” she said.

The protest took place without interference from the police, however: the latest sign that the Hong Kong government continues to protect many individual liberties. While relations between Taiwan and mainland China remain tense, for example, at least four Taiwanese flags were prominently waved near the front of the protest Sunday, with no sign of interference by anyone.

Media freedom has been a persistent issue here, with many media outlets owned by pro-Beijing proprietors. RTHK, a government department operating radio and television channels in competition with the private sector, was under tight British control in its early days but has evolved into a sophisticated news-gathering operation that frequently irritates pro-Beijing groups and the government with its aggressive reporting.

A recent government commission suggested that a reorganization of RTHK include dispersing the staff to other government agencies and hiring a new, presumably more pliant, staff. Many of the demonstrators Sunday were carrying pennants from a group called SaveRTHK.org that read, “One Person, One Vote.”

The biggest surprise Sunday came when Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, the Roman Catholic bishop of Hong Kong, chose for the first time to participate in such a march, and even helped carry a large protest flag in the front row of marchers. Mr. Zen participated in prayer meetings before each of the four previous democracy marches on July 1, and did so again on Sunday, but always refused to march before, saying that this would be disruptive.

Pope Benedict XVI issued a letter to the Chinese people Saturday that mentioned the suffering that many believers have endured, but also took a somewhat conciliatory tone toward the Chinese government, with which the Vatican does not have diplomatic relations. The papal letter mentioned Saturday that, “the Catholic Church which is in China does not have a mission to change the structure or administration of the State.”

Cardinal Zen declined to take questions about why he joined the march Sunday, or whether he planned to remain bishop of Hong Kong. He has consistently favored a tough stance toward the Beijing government on religious freedom. During an interview in May, he also expressed worries that the papal letter would be too conciliatory.

Cardinal Zen may have little to lose by becoming more visible about democracy issues in Hong Kong. He turned 75 in January and has repeatedly sought permission to retire from his post as bishop of Hong Kong, so as to have more time to use his position as a cardinal to address religious issues in mainland China.

In the same interview, Mr. Zen said that his critics within the Church might want to keep him busy with administrative tasks as the bishop of Hong Kong to prevent him from spending more time in Rome arguing the case for a tough line toward China.

“I suspect the big bosses don't want me there, they want to keep me in Hong Kong — I am a troublemaker,” he said.

Reached on his cellphone, Liu Bainian, the vice president of the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association in Beijing, which oversees the government-sanctioned church on the mainland, strongly criticized Mr. Zen’s decision to march.

“Right in the midst of all the citizens of China — including the Hong Kong people — celebrating the 10th year anniversary of the handover, he is doing something totally opposite to the celebrations, something that is counterproductive to the Catholic Church’s preachings,” Mr. Liu said. “His actions will be rejected by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. His actions will hurt the current efforts to improve relations between China and the Vatican.”

Bush to Urge Putin to Aid in Pressuring Iran

By JIM RUTENBERG and DAVID E. SANGER

KENNEBUNKPORT, Me., June 30 — President Bush, seeking to change the tone of an increasingly caustic, fraught relationship with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, will urge him on Sunday to support a major escalation of pressure on Iran, administration officials said.

On Friday, just 48 hours before Mr. Putin was to arrive at the Bush family compound on the edge of this historic seaside town swelled with summer residents, the administration discussed for the first time with Russia and other members of the United Nations Security Council a proposal to require all nations to inspect cargo to or from Iran for illicit nuclear-related material or arms.

The meeting took place by telephone, and the United States was represented by R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs. The proposal was cast as preventive, but American officials know that, like a proposed asset freeze on some Iranian banks, the effect could be to slow Iran’s economy.

Two successive resolutions have resulted in less punitive actions against Iran, with modest economic effect. None has achieved the goal of forcing the country to suspend its enrichment of uranium.

While Mr. Bush is not expected to discuss the specifics of the American plan with Mr. Putin, a senior official, who would not speak for attribution because the conversations with Mr. Putin have yet to take place and will be surrounded in secrecy, said Mr. Bush was increasingly intent on stopping the Iranian nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency says it is progressing.

“He will make the point that this is the third set of sanctions against Iran, and now we have to make them really count,” the official said.

For the Americans, the effort to squeeze Iran is the most immediate issue on the table with Mr. Putin. Washington needs Russia’s support as it presses the Security Council to pass new sanctions, the third round this year, by mid-July.

But it is uncertain how Mr. Putin will react. He has sharply criticized the proposed new American missile defense system, which would include installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, former Soviet satellites, and made inflammatory characterizations of the United States as an unrestrained power.

American officials say he may be aiming those comments at a domestic audience and seeking to cement an influential role in Russian affairs after he leaves office in the spring.

Some proposals by Britain, which leaked out before Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair as prime minister on Wednesday, would deny Iranian airlines and ships permission to take off from, land in, or fly over the territory of other nations. A measure that harsh bears little chance of passage.

Mr. Bush has told aides he has doubts about how willing Mr. Putin would be to put his country’s trade with Iran at risk. Russia supplies much of the equipment and expertise for Iran’s main civilian nuclear reactor, and has other ties with Iran, including in the oil sector.

“We imagine that the Russians and the Chinese are going to play slowball here,” said a senior official involved in the sanctions talks. “They don’t want Iran to get nukes, but they worry what happens if the diplomacy here does not work.”

White House officials have portrayed Mr. Putin’s visit with Mr. Bush as a chance to rebuild their relationship. It now holds little of the warmth displayed after their first meeting in early 2001, when Mr. Bush said he had “looked the man in the eye” and gained “a sense of his soul.”

In fact, it may be the last chance for Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin to cement a common legacy, with Mr. Bush entering the last 19 months of his term and Russia preparing to choose Mr. Putin’s successor.

The agenda for the visit includes social encounters with the former president George H. W. Bush, including a dinner and possibly some fishing. American officials said that Mr. Putin would probably seek to avoid any public disagreements.

The American plan for a missile defense plan in Europe, which it says is largely to deter Iran’s growing missile forces, will certainly be under discussion here.

Speaking with reporters on Friday, Dmitri Peskov, a Putin spokesman, said the Russians were dissatisfied with the United States’ continued interest in building the system.

Mr. Peskov said a surprise Russian proposal to cooperate on a similar system in Azerbaijan two weeks ago was meant as an alternative to American plan, not, as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has suggested, a potential complement to it.

He portrayed the Russian plan as polite acquiescence with the overheated and questionable fears the United States has expressed over Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

But American officials dismissed that, and said there was in fact a coming together of American and Russian views on Iran.

A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity before the meetings, said Russia was coming to agree with the United States’ assessment of Iran.

“I do think we see the threat very much the same,” the official said. “It’s why we’ve been able to cooperate very well in terms of the nuclear issue, why we’ve had their support for two U.N. Security Council resolutions. I think when the time comes we’ll have their support for a third.”

Technical experts for both sides have quietly moved forward in seeking a compromise on the defense system, according to senior Defense Department officials.

Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, and senior aides held an unannounced meeting on Friday with Russian counterparts to begin preliminary technical discussions that included the Azerbaijani radar, according to an agency official.

Officials at the White House and at the Kremlin played down expectations of any breakthrough agreements on Iran or the defense system during Mr. Putin’s stay. Both sides said they considered it an unofficial visit, not a summit meeting.

Administration officials said it was Mr. Putin who had initially suggested the timing to meet in the United States, since he was heading to an Olympics committee meeting set in Guatemala. Mr. Bush decided upon his family compound here. Both sides portrayed that as a show of respect for Mr. Putin.

Thom Shanker contributed reporting from Washington.

Iraqi Civilian Casualties Declined in June, Officials Say

BAGHDAD, July 1 — American and Iraqi officials said Sunday that they saw a decline in the monthly civilian casualty count in June, a development that occurred as the American troop increase reached full strength.

However, the size of the decline was hard to gauge because death counts in Iraq are highly inaccurate. Some bombing victims’ bodies are never recovered, families often collect their dead before they can be counted by officials, and the dead bodies found around Baghdad, while generally taken to the city morgue, are sometimes taken to hospitals where they may not be counted.

An American military spokesman, Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, said there had been only “a slight decrease in the month of June.” He added that it was “a potential downward trend” and that the military would be closely watching the numbers in the coming weeks. The Americans do not make specific figures public.

He added that American and Iraqi troops were just two weeks into a major operation against Sunni insurgents in the belts around Baghdad. “We can’t tell yet the effect we’re having,” he said. “But reducing deaths in the civilian population is why we’re doing what we’re doing.”

Iraqi officials estimated that civilian deaths nationwide had dropped 36 percent in June, down to about 1,200. Civilian casualties in May had topped 1,900, they said. The Web site icasualties.org, which tabulates news reports of civilian deaths, put the number of deaths in June at about 1,342, down from 1,980 in May.

In Baghdad, 730 civilians were reported killed in June from assassinations, bombs or small-arms fire. That was down from 1,070 in May, a decline of almost 32 percent, an Interior Ministry official told The New York Times.

However, the number of dead bodies found in Baghdad, a measure of sectarian killings, while lower in June than in May, still was higher than in April, according to the Interior Ministry official. In April, there were 411 dead bodies found in Baghdad; in May, there were 726; in June, the number dropped to 540.

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government no longer reports civilian mortality statistics and has refused to provide figures to the United Nations. Some officials, however, sometimes make reports available to the news media on a not-for-attribution basis.

The influx of American soldiers in the capital has been accompanied by increased raids on insurgent groups and, recently, by a broader offensive in the belts around Baghdad in order to curb the car- and roadside-bomb factories widely believed to supply many of the weapons used by insurgents in the capital.

American soldiers have discovered a number of bomb-making facilities, some quite sophisticated, underscoring the difficulties the military faces in trying to rid the country of lethal explosive devices.

On June 23, American troops in Mosul found one of the largest bomb factories uncovered to date: an elaborate complex spread over three buildings — one used to manufacture car bombs, one to make roadside bombs and one to manufacture homemade explosives. The raid found several vehicles, including a truck, being prepared for use as car bombs. A number of other factories have been found closer to Baghdad.

With the increase in American troops, there has also been a rise in soldiers’ deaths, although somewhat fewer American troops died in June than in April, when there were 112 troop deaths, or May, when deaths reached 126.

However, even as civilian deaths apparently dropped in Baghdad, violence in the surrounding areas, particularly Diyala Province, remained high, and there were reports of violence in Kirkuk and Salahuddin, which has been one of the quieter areas in Iraq for some time.

In Diyala, a powerful roadside bomb exploded Sunday in Baladroz, east of Baquba, the capital, wounding 20 people. Elsewhere in the province, two civilians were kidnapped and killed in an area north of Baquba, and a truck driver was hijacked near Khalis, where two dead bodies were also found.

On Sunday, a truck bomb in Ramadi killed five people and wounded seven. It struck an Iraqi police checkpoint attended by members of the Abu Esha tribe, which has been working with American troops to halt attacks by extremists linked to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

Two car bombs struck Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Baghdad, killing three in Dora and one in Saydia. Also, the police found 14 dead bodies in the capital.

On the political front, Parliament appeared unlikely to make progress in the next few days because the main Sunni Arab coalition, known as Tawafiq, has been boycotting sessions as a protest against the government’s handing of a murder accusation against the culture minister, who is a Sunni Arab. There is also tension among lawmakers over how to handle a demand by many in Parliament that the speaker, Mahmoud Mashhadani, step down.

In what appeared to be an effort to reach out to Sunni Arabs, Mr. Maliki said he wanted to hold provincial elections by the end of the year. Because Sunni Arabs for the most part did not vote in the last round of elections, they sometimes do not control even those provinces in which they represent the majority of the population. The hope is that elections would make government at the provincial level better reflect the sectarian distribution in those areas.

Wissam A. Habeeb contributed reporting from Baghdad, and Iraqi employees of The New York Times from Diyala, Ramadi and Hilla.

Bomber’s End: Flash of Terror, Humble Grave

By BARRY BEARAK

KABUL, Afghanistan, June 30 — The two men had come to the common end of all human journeys. Their bodies, swathed in bloody white sheets, lay on a rocky hillside. Awaiting them were two thin rectangles of shallow graves. The city of Kabul was responsible for the burial. No mullah had been asked to preside over this earthly farewell.

“One of these guys needs a smaller hole,” one gravedigger said, laughing.

The bigger of the bodies belonged to an old man, Khan Mir. His body had gone unclaimed, and the obligations of an Islamic funeral were forgone because he was a pauper. The identity of the other man was unknown. He was only half a body really, a headless torso with but a right arm and a right leg. His interment was meant to be ignominious because he was a suicide bomber, or yak enteher kunenda.

“Cover them with rocks and throw on the dirt,” the chief gravedigger called out.

In Kabul, the burial of a suicide bomber occurs at a secret time in a secret place, the forgettable end to what most here consider an unforgivable act. Of course, it is easier to bury the remains of a bomber than the fearsome consequences of the bombing. At least 193 suicide attacks have been reported in Afghanistan during the past 18 months, enough to contaminate much of the nation with the persisting malady of terror.

The Taliban and other insurgents may control only a fraction of this country, but their campaign of fear — reiterated with suicide bombings, roadside explosions, rocket attacks and assassinations — has proved an effective menace. These tactics inhibit travel. They slow development. They shake confidence in the government. In a nation that has known war for nearly 30 straight years, they leave the future as unpredictable as the past.

The supply of suicide bombers appears to be unending, and countermeasures are hard to conceive. The Ministry of Defense sponsors a television advertisement intended to denounce such attacks. In the spot, a mullah arrives at graveside to oversee a burial. When he is told the deceased is a suicide bomber, he waves his hand derisively, proclaiming as he stalks off: “We do not say funeral prayers for someone who kills himself. We are Muslims, and Islam does not allow anyone to shed either his own blood or that of his brothers.”

This is hardly a unanimous interpretation, however. On this topic, the vocabulary itself is hotly contested, for there are those who believe suicide bombers are martyrs whose sacrificial deaths are lavishly rewarded by God in paradise. “Suicide is condemned in Islam, but it is not for me to judge whether a man blows himself up as a matter of suicide or in the righteousness of jihad,” said Noor ul-Haq, a mullah in Kabul.

His tiny mosque, Masjid-e-Fazilbeg, sits along Company Road, where on June 16 a man driving a taxi blew himself up near a military convoy. Five people died. Four were passers-by; the other was the bomber, left with only a right arm and a right leg.

Tracing the worldly disposition of his remains required an endeavor. Afghanistan’s government, not known for efficiency, is accomplished with red tape. Permissions to attend the burial were needed from the Ministry of Public Health, the Ministry of the Interior, the National Security Directorate and the municipality of Kabul.

“Yes, we do have a procedure for suicide bombers,” Mahtabuddin Ahmadi, director of the city’s Culture Department, said confidently of the burials, which are conducted by his agency. “The body is washed according to Islamic custom and then when we bury it, there is a mullah who says the appropriate prayers.”

But as he described the practice, one of his assistants shook his head no and politely corrected his boss. Finally, the director confessed, “I don’t know what we do.”

Actually, the body is first given a medical examination. Dr. Muhammad Mohsin Sherzai did the autopsy, which took less than 30 minutes. “We have limited staff and equipment,” he said apologetically. “The police would like to know the man’s identity. But we have no facilities for DNA testing. What we discover is very little.”

An assistant opened a refrigerated locker and rolled the body out on a sliding tray. The discolored remains were loosely encased in plastic. Dr. Sherzai pointed to the midsection: “It’s a male, as you see. We know his blood group. He was probably 30 or 35.”

Then he shrugged.

The body remained at the autopsy center for 11 days, allowing time for someone to claim it. Permission for burial was then sent to the Culture Department, which in turn notified the police and the national intelligence agency.

Finally, the body was loaded into an ambulance to be taken to a clandestine cemetery. The white vehicle had black lettering on both sides, which said that it had been “donated by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” Dr. Sherzai found this an amusing coincidence. Many Afghans believe the suicide bombers come from that same place.

This is certainly the view at the intelligence agency, where officials routinely tie much of the Taliban insurgency to the government of its distrusted neighbor. Pakistan emphatically denies such broad allegations, but there is no doubt that many suicide attackers originate from its midst.

Intelligence officials here on occasion open their detention center to a journalist, allowing interviews with prisoners. The lockup is a busy place with small, crowded cells. On Thursday, officials said, the inmates included 11 Pakistanis and 14 Afghans who were thwarted suicide bombers. Two who were arrested on June 18 were Pakistanis.

“My target was Gul Agha Sherzai, the governor of Nangarhar Province,” said a 17-year-old who uses the single name Farmanullah. Though the interview was unmonitored, the teenager nevertheless made exaggerated efforts to sound contrite. He presented himself as little more than a specimen of cannon fodder.

Pakistani members of the Taliban “came to my high school to recruit volunteers and told us if you didn’t join the jihad, you would go to hell and never see the brides in paradise,” he said. So he underwent suicide training in the Pakistani tribal areas.

But now hindsight, as well as capture, had made Farmanullah realize he was being used as a political plaything, he said. “We were told that everyone in Afghanistan was an infidel,” he said. “Now I know this is not so.”

Farmanullah’s accomplice in the planned attack was another 17-year-old, Abdul Quddus, who was spoken to separately. Suicide bombers are often disdainfully described here as impoverished, uneducated and physically or mentally handicapped. But Mr. Quddus said he was the son of a businessman in Peshawar and the graduate of a good private high school. His diction displayed refinement. His bearing was calm and prideful.

He said he had been attending a madrasa, or religious school, near the border and later agreed to take a blindfolded journey to a far-off camp for suicide bombers. He spent 40 days there with 20 other young men, he said. “There are two types of bombs,” he said. “One has a button, the other a fuse like a hand grenade. Explosives are packed in waistcoats that look completely normal. The maximum is 11 kilos, the minimum is 6,” a range of 13 to 24 pounds.

He was carrying such a coat in a bag when stopped by policemen in Jalalabad. His arrest had not entirely doused his jihadi enthusiasms.

At first, he said he was sorry he had not completed his suicidal mission. Then he expressed ambivalence. “At the training camp I had allowed myself to become too emotional,” he said, mentioning that movies he had been shown were probably one-sided and had overstoked his zealotry. But while he was now glad he had not killed the Afghan governor, some of his suicidal resolve remained. “U.S. soldiers are still killing Muslims,” he said. “I still believe in jihad against America, and some things are worth death.”

Many others before him have paid that price. The ambulance moved through central Kabul, where in wealthier enclaves the fear of suicide bombers is evident in antiblast walls, massive twists of barbed wire and guards wielding machine guns at gated checkpoints. The vehicle then bumped along dirt roads toward the city’s outskirts. A dust storm was kicking up, and the gravediggers were impatient.

“Why isn’t everything ready?” demanded Ghulam Sarwar, the leader of the crew.

These were coarse men, accustomed to off-color banter. Routine had conquered any reverence they might have felt for the dead, though they did interrupt their raunchy humor when it was time to put the bodies in the graves.

As the old pauper was lowered into the ground, Khwaja Nuruddin, representing the city’s Culture Department, swiftly mumbled: “God is great. There is only one God but God, and Muhammad is his prophet.” But when the suicide bomber was laid to rest, only the insistent wind broke the silence.

Pieces of slate were positioned to cover the rectangular plots, with small rocks used to fill any gaps. Then the graves were sealed with mud that had been made by emptying a 10-gallon jug of water into a small pile of excavated soil.

With the work finally finished, Mr. Nuruddin brushed the dust from his gray business suit. He then paused to consider the situation and opted to recite a few Koranic verses, standing first by the suicide attacker’s grave, then by the pauper’s.

He wondered aloud if even this was too much Islamic ceremony for a man who had converted himself into a bomb. But he declared that he was not sorry he had gone ahead.

“After all,” he said, “the man was a human being.”

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Leading Indicators of Surge Success

Deaths among Iraqi security forces:


At least 751 Iraqi security personnel have been killed since the U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown began Feb 13.

During a similar period immediately preceding the so-called surge, at least 593 Iraqi security personnel were killed, according to figures compiled by the Associated Press.

Turkish Forces Shelling Iraqi Kurdistan

Whether or not you believe that Turkish forces raided Iraqi Kurdistan last week to attack the PKK, Turkey has in fact attacked in Iraq.

The Iraqi Foreign Ministry sent a letter the Turkish charge' d'affaires in Baghdad, complaining that Turkish forces have shelled in at least two Iraqi Kurdish provinces, disturbed Iraqi Kurds there, and set "huge fires."

Iraqi Kurds are sheltering PKK guerrillas in PKK-only zones across the border from Turkey, so the claims that locals are being disturbed by this shelling are somewhat disingenuous.

Saturday, June 09, 2007

Dealing With the Devil

"The principal task of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists," he said. "And that is why we are on the offense. And as we pursue the terrorists, our military is helping to train Iraqi security forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

President George W. Bush

But what if the only Iraqis that stand up against Al Qaeda are anti-American fighters themselves?

For U.S. Unit in Baghdad, An Alliance of Last Resort

By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, June 9, 2007; A01


BAGHDAD, June 8 -- The worst month of Lt. Col. Dale Kuehl's deployment in western Baghdad was finally drawing to a close. The insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq had unleashed bombings that killed 14 of his soldiers in May, a shocking escalation of violence for a battalion that had lost three soldiers in the previous six months while patrolling the Sunni enclave of Amiriyah. On top of that, the 41-year-old battalion commander was doubled up with a stomach flu when, late on May 29, he received a cellphone call that would change everything.

"We're going after al-Qaeda," a leading local imam said, Kuehl recalled. "What we want you to do is stay out of the way."

"Sheik, I can't do that. I can't just leave Amiriyah and let you go at it."

"Well, we're going to go."

The week that followed revolutionized Kuehl's approach to fighting the insurgency and serves as a vivid example of a risky, and expanding, new American strategy of looking beyond the Iraqi police and army for help in controlling violent neighborhoods. The American soldiers in Amiriyah have allied themselves with dozens of Sunni militiamen who call themselves the Baghdad Patriots -- a group that American soldiers believe includes insurgents who have attacked them in the past -- in an attempt to drive out al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Americans have granted these gunmen the power of arrest, allowed the Iraqi army to supply them with ammunition, and fought alongside them in chaotic street battles.

To many American soldiers in Amiriyah, this nascent allegiance stands out as an encouraging development after months of grinding struggle. They liken the fighters to the minutemen of the American Revolution, painting them as neighbors taking the initiative to protect their families in the vacuum left by a failing Iraqi security force. In their first week of collaboration, the Baghdad Patriots and the Americans killed roughly 10 suspected al-Qaeda in Iraq members and captured 15, according to Kuehl, who said those numbers rivaled totals for the previous six months combined. He is now working to fashion the group into the beginnings of an Amiriyah police force, since the mainly Shiite police force refuses to work in the area.

"This is a defining moment for us," said Kuehl, who commands the 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, attached to the 1st Infantry Division.

But aligning Americans with fighters whose long-term agenda remains unclear -- with regard to either Americans or the Shiite-led government -- is also a strategy born of desperation. It contradicts repeated declarations by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that no groups besides the Iraqi and American security forces are allowed to bear arms. And some American soldiers worry that standing up a Sunni militia could have dire consequences if the group turns on its U.S. partners.

"We have made a deal with the devil," said an intelligence officer in the battalion.

The U.S. effort to recruit indigenous forces to defend local communities has been taken furthest in Anbar province, where tribal leaders have encouraged thousands of their kinsmen to join the police. In the Abu Ghraib area, west of Baghdad, about 2,000 people unaffiliated with security forces are now working with Americans at village checkpoints and gun positions.

Kuehl said he recognizes the risks in dealing with an unofficial force but decided the intelligence that the gunmen provided on al-Qaeda in Iraq was too valuable to pass up.

"Hell, nothing else has worked in Amiriyah," he said.

It was about 2 a.m. on May 30 when Capt. Andy Wilbraham, a 33-year-old company commander, first heard military chatter on his tank radio about rumors that local gunmen would take on al-Qaeda. Later that morning, a noncommissioned officer turned to him with the news: "They're uprising."

"It was just a shock it happened so fast," Wilbraham said.

By noon, loudspeakers in mosques throughout Amiriyah were broadcasting a call to war: "It is time to stand up and fight" al-Qaeda. Groups of men, some in black ski masks carrying AK-47 assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, descended on the area around the Maluki mosque, a suspected al-Qaeda in Iraq base of operations, and launched an attack. For the most part, Kuehl's soldiers stood back, trying to contain the violence and secure other mosques, and let the gunmen do their work.

The next day, a Thursday, al-Qaeda counterattacked. Using machine guns and grenades, its fighters drove the militiamen south across several city blocks until they were holed up in the Firdas mosque, soldiers said. "I was getting reports every 10 minutes from one of the imams: 'They're at this point. We're surrounded. We're getting attacked. They're at the mosque,' " Kuehl recalled. He dispatched Stryker attack vehicles to protect the militiamen.

"We basically pushed that one back just by force," said Capt. Kevin Salge, 31, who led the Stryker team of about 60 men to the mosque. "We got in there. Our guns are much bigger guns. Then freedom fighters, Baghdad Patriot guys, started firing."

Spec. Chadrick Domino, 23, was with a Stryker unit that drove north of the mosque to set up a perimeter to prevent others from joining the fight. About noon, he was the first member of his team to walk into a residential courtyard. He may not have had time to see the machine gunner who killed him.

To the Americans, the fighters on both sides appeared nearly identical. They wore similar sweat suits and carried the same kind of machine guns. "Now we've got kind of a mess on our hands," Salge remembered thinking. "Because we've got a lot of armed guys running all over the place, and it's making it very hard for us to identify which side is which."

By afternoon, the Americans had secured the Firdas mosque and were helping treat the wounded who lay in the courtyard. Kuehl drove out from his headquarters to meet with the leaders of the militiamen and work out the terms that would guide their collaboration in coming days. Kuehl agreed to help if the militiamen did not torture their captives or kill people who were not affiliated with al-Qaeda in Iraq. The militiamen agreed to hold prisoners for no more than 24 hours before releasing them or handing them over to the Americans. They in turn wanted the Americans not to interfere and to provide weapons.

"We need them and they need us," Kuehl said. "Al-Qaeda's stronger than them. We provide capabilities that they don't have. And the locals know who belongs and who doesn't. It doesn't matter how long we're here, I'll never know. And we'll never fit in."

The militiamen, who call themselves freedom fighters, are led by a 35-year-old former Iraqi army captain and used-car salesman who goes by Saif or Abu Abed. In an interview, he said he had devoted the past five months to collecting intelligence on al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters in Amiriyah, whose ranks have grown as they have fled to Baghdad and away from the new tribal policemen in Anbar province. He has said his own group numbers over 100 people, but American soldiers estimate it has closer to 40. At least six were killed and more than 10 wounded in the first week of collaboration with Americans.

"These guys looked like a military unit, the way they moved," Wilbraham said. "Hand and arm signals. Stop. Take a knee. Weapons up."

Ali Hatem Ali Suleiman, a leader of the Sunni Dulaimi tribe who works in Anbar and Baghdad, said many of the fighters in Amiriyah belong to the Islamic Army, which includes former officers from Saddam Hussein's military and is more secular than other insurgent groups. The fighters have been organized and encouraged by local imams.

"Let's be honest, the enemy now is not the Americans, for the time being," Suleiman said. "It's al-Qaeda and the [Shiite] militias. Those are our enemies."

The American soldiers initially asked their new allies to wear white headbands and ride around in the Strykers to point out al-Qaeda households. But the joint patrols didn't work because the local fighters were disoriented after riding in the enclosed Strykers and couldn't find the right houses, Salge said.

Before long, he added, "people everywhere were wearing headbands, and I'm pretty sure that a lot of them were al-Qaeda."

The Americans then supplied reflective armbands that could be seen from their vehicle scopes, and had the fighters ride in Iraqi army Humvees instead of Strykers. They also gave the fighters plastic flex cuffs, to subdue captives, and flares -- red to use if they are in trouble and green to signal when a raid is over.

On June 1, a Friday, the fighters directed the soldiers to a large weapons cache. Sniper rifles, Russian machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and thousands of rounds of ammunition were stashed in a secret room, accessible only by removing a circuit-breaker box and crawling through a hole. While the Americans were tallying the haul, an explosive detonated outside, wounding several soldiers, including one whose feet were blown off.

In return for their services, the militiamen had one request: Give us the weapons in the cache.

"Who are these guys really?" Salge remembered worrying. He told them to talk to the battalion commander.

Kuehl said later that he would probably supply weapons to the militiamen, but in limited amounts. The fighters have given the Americans identification, including fingerprints, addresses and retinal scans, so the soldiers believe they could track down anyone who betrayed them. "What I don't want them to do is wither on the vine," Kuehl said.

On Wednesday, a week after the fighting broke out, the Islamic Army issued a statement declaring a cease-fire with al-Qaeda in Iraq because the groups did not want to spill more Muslim blood or impede "the project of jihad." American soldiers played down the statement and suggested it did not reflect the sentiments of the men they are working with in Amiriyah.

Later that night, Wilbraham led his tank unit on an overnight mission to allow the militiamen to arrest seven al-Qaeda in Iraq members. The raids were to begin at 1 a.m., but two hours later the tanks were waiting on deserted streets, with no sign of the group. Then Wilbraham was told the militiamen had called off the raids.

The tank driver, Spec. Estevan Altamirano, 25, expressed skepticism about his new partners.

"Pretty soon they run out of al-Qaeda, and then they're going to turn on us," he said. "I don't want to get used to them and then I have an AK behind my back. I'm not going to trust them at all."