Speaks for itself.

One of the Senate’s top Republicans has called on President Bush to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq by Christmas, telling reporters Thursday that a pullout was needed to spur Iraqi leaders to action.

Sen. John Warner, the influential former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he has recommended that Bush announce the beginning of a U.S. withdrawal in mid-September, after a report from the top U.S. officials in Iraq.

Story

May be we’ll have mini protests.

A day after George Bush compared the potential consequences of exiting Iraq to the aftermath of the Vietnam conflict, US intelligence will today warn that extremists could create a “mini-Tet” in the country, an official revealed.
The defence official said the national intelligence assessment, due to be released later today, warned extremists could attempt sensational attacks in an attempt to replicate the 1968 Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Tet offensive, which decisively undermined public support for the Vietnam war in the US.

Story

Speaks for itself.

Al Qaeda fighters kidnapped 15 Iraqi women and children after rival Sunni Arab militants repelled their attack on two villages in a fierce battle on Thursday in which 32 people were killed, police said.

The fighting, rare on such a large scale, underscored the growing split between Sunni Arab militant groups and al Qaeda that U.S. forces have sought to exploit as they try to quell sectarian violence that has killed tens of thousands.

U.S. President George W. Bush, under pressure to show progress in the war or start bringing troops home, on Wednesday compared Iraq to Vietnam in urging Americans to be patient. His administration had previously avoided such comparisons, saying there were few parallels.

Story

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
(Montebello, Canada)
___________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release August 21, 2007

STATEMENT BY THE COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT, EDWARD GILLESPIE, AND SPEECH EXCERPTS, AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY

In a few weeks General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will deliver their assessments of military and political progress in Iraq, and appropriately much debate and discussion will follow. The President will provide broader context for this long-term debate in two speeches beginning tomorrow at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City and continuing on August 28 at the American Legion convention in Reno, Nevada.

In his remarks tomorrow the President will talk about the challenges we face in Iraq against the historic background of our successes in Asia. He will describe how America’s presence and perseverance in Asia led to a freer, more stable, and more prosperous continent, transforming American enemies into American allies and making the world safer for our citizens. As we face challenges in Iraq today, we do so knowing we have done this kind of transformative work before and the benefits to America made the sacrifices worthwhile.

Next Tuesday, the President is expected to follow up with remarks to the American Legion in which he will put Iraq in the regional context of the Middle East, and discuss why the only realistic path to a more secure America is defeating the extremists in Iraq and allowing a free and stable government to take root.

Following are excerpts from tomorrow’s remarks, as prepared for delivery:

(more…)

Getting a little touchy are we?

DAMASCUS, Syria — Iraq’s prime minister lashed out Wednesday at U.S. criticism, saying no one has the right to impose timetables on his elected government and that his country “can find friends elsewhere.”

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki blamed the U.S. presidential campaign for the recent tough words about his government, from President Bush and from other U.S. politicians.

Bush on Tuesday said he was frustrated with Iraqi leaders’ inability to bridge political divisions. But he added that only the Iraqi people can decide whether to sideline al-Maliki.

“Clearly, the Iraqi government’s got to do more,” Bush said. “I think there’s a certain level of frustration with the leadership in general, inability to work _ come together to get, for example, an oil revenue law passed or provincial elections.”

Al-Maliki, on a trip to Syria, reacted harshly when asked about the recent comments from U.S. officials.

“No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people,” he said at a news conference in Damascus at the end of the three-day visit to Syria.

“Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere,” al-Maliki said.

Without naming any American official, al-Maliki said some of the criticism of him and his government had been “discourteous.”

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said Monday that al-Maliki, a Shiite, should be ousted and replaced with a less sectarian leader.

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said he was disappointed and frustrated by the lack of political progress by al-Maliki’s government. Crocker said the Iraqis themselves and Iraqi leaders were also frustrated.

The harsh exchanges erupted just a few weeks before Crocker and the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, are to report to Congress on military and political progress in Iraq.

The two are expected to point to some signs of military progress in Iraq. But the political situation in Iraq remains fractured, with wide distrust between Shiite and Sunni factions and no progress by al-Maliki’s government on key issues.

Bush’s statement on Tuesday was a marked change in tone from his endorsement of al-Maliki in November 2006 at a meeting in Jordan as “the right guy for Iraq.”

Story

Remember he is innocent until proven guilty but it sure isn’t looking good.

U.S. officials call it the largest bribery case to come out of the Iraq war. But where did the $9.6 million go?

Prosecutors say an Army major from Texas who worked as a contracting officer took bribes from military contractors, having his wife and sister collect money on his behalf. Investigators allege the three received $9.6 million and expected to get $5.4 million more from at least eight contractors for giving them favorable contracts.

Maj. John L. Cockerham, 41, of San Antonio, was charged with conspiracy, money-laundering and bribery. Cockerham’s wife, Melissa, 40, also of San Antonio, and his sister, Carolyn Blake, 44, of Sunnyvale, Tex., were charged with money-laundering and conspiracy. All three have pleaded not guilty.

With $44 billion spent so far on the reconstruction of Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, relatively few corruption cases have surfaced, and none rivals this one. The office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has found cases of fraud that led to 13 arrests. Eight cases await trial, and 26 others are under investigation by the Justice Department. Federal authorities said they expect to arrest more civilians and military personnel in similar schemes.

The Cockerhams and Blake were arrested in late July after investigators searched the Cockerhams’ house at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio and allegedly found evidence linking them to the bribery scheme. Aspects of the case read like a spy novel: a briefcase with $300,000 in cash in a Kuwaiti parking lot; handwritten ledgers that identify money sources with code names like Destiny Carter; and instructions telling co-conspirators to, in a pinch, toss safe-deposit keys out a window, stash key documents in the bosom and, lastly, destroy the instructions.

Story

This is a very interesting piece written in the Washington Times. May be the Democrats and Republicans can come together and find a solution that makes everyone happy.

Top Senate Democrats have started to acknowledge progress in Iraq, with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee yesterday saying the U.S. troop surge is producing “measurable results.”

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan highlighted improved security in Baghdad and al Qaeda losses in Anbar province as examples of success — a shift for Democrats who have mainly discounted or ignored advances on the battlefield for weeks.

“The military aspects of President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq … appear to have produced some credible and positive results,” Mr. Levin said in a joint statement with Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, after a two-day visit last week to Iraq.

Mr. Levin joins a growing chorus of Democrats — including 2008 presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin of Illinois — who say the troop surge has produced benefits, but who also bemoan failures of the fledgling Iraqi government they have repeatedly criticized for taking an August vacation.

Story

It couldn’t happen soon enough. Who knows? With a new leader peace might be possible.

Declaring the government of Iraq “non-functional,” the influential chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said yesterday that Iraq’s parliament should oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his cabinet if they are unable to forge a political compromise with rival factions in a matter of days.

“I hope the parliament will vote the Maliki government out of office and will have the wisdom to replace it with a less sectarian and more unifying prime minister and government,” Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said after a three-day trip to Iraq and Jordan.

Story

What is going on? I have been hearing that things are getting better. Are they? I would like to no one way or another.

BAGHDAD (AFP) - Iraq’s fractious leaders on Sunday agreed on the agenda for a political summit called by embattled Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in a bid to salvage his crumbling unity government.

The breakthrough came on the second day of preparatory talks involving the country’s most senior political leaders, Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi said in a statement.

“We reached agreement on a number of issues,” the statement said. “The most important is the agenda for the summit and who will attend the meeting.”

Talks involving Maliki, Kurdish President Jalal Talabani, Hashemi, who is a Sunni, Shiite Vice President Adel Abdel Mahdi, and Masud Barzani, president of the northern Kurdish region, began on Saturday and continued into Sunday, an official from Talabani’s office said.

No date has yet been set for the summit but the official said it would probably take place “in a couple of days.”

He described the weekend talks as “preparatory” for the summit of political leaders across the spectrum, which was called by Maliki on August 12 after a number of political blocs, including the main Sunni grouping, the National Concord Front, walked out of his unity cabinet.

The boycotts have left Maliki, a Shiite, with just 23 ministers in his 40-member cabinet, leading to delays in the passage of crucial laws aimed at rebuilding the country.

In a bid to shore up his government, Maliki on Thursday announced the formation of an alliance grouping his Shiite Dawa party and Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council and the Kurdish factions of Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and Kurdish Democratic Party (PDK).

But the National Concord Front slammed the new tie-up as a “futile” exercise.

Story

On the night of June 30 some of our soldiers were on patrol in Ramadi. Some of them had never experienced combat and didn’t expect to that night, but they ran upon some Al Qaeda in the midst of planning a major offensive.

This Washington Post story explains what happened.

Yes, there were American dead that night, and yes, there were Al Qaeda dead that night, along with some civilians who were killed in their tents while sleeping.

I think the following sums it up pretty well. Please read the rest to see what happened that night.

In the end, the battle of Donkey Island left 11 U.S. troops wounded and two dead, while an estimated 32 insurgents were killed. The heavy fighting between the Americans and the al-Qaeda-affiliated insurgents had deep repercussions across Ramadi.

Iraqi police officers close to Buchan “lost it” when they heard of his death, Rosa said.

“I love Sergeant Buchan. When he died, all of the police cried,” Col. Jabbar Hamid Ajaj said in his Ramadi office, plastered with posters he had made featuring Buchan.

At his mansion near the main U.S. base in Ramadi, Sattar, the tribal leader, was alarmed to learn that he had been the insurgents’ prime target but took comfort in the U.S. tank stationed outside his home.

“If al-Qaeda gets away from the Awakening, they won’t get away from the American forces,” Sattar said. “We are allies,” he added as he shared a tiny cup of bitter coffee with Lt. Col. Miciotto Johnson, commander of the 1-77. “I defend Col. Johnson, and Col. Johnson defends me.”

U.S. commanders said the battle was a major defeat for al-Qaeda-affiliated insurgents, showing how hard it is for them to operate in Anbar, where they face an increased U.S. troop presence and rejection by the Sunni population.

“Al-Qaeda is on its back foot,” said Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. “They have largely lost Anbar province.”

But U.S. officers in Ramadi say it is only a matter of time before al-Qaeda in Iraq strikes again.

“We’re still expecting attacks similar to this one,” said Maj. Andrew Wortham, the 1st Brigade Combat Team’s intelligence officer in Ramadi.

Soldiers who fought in the battle say they feel extremely lucky to have happened upon the insurgents — and to have survived. They’re concerned that if U.S. forces leave, the insurgents will return and easily kill local police and officials. “I worry about pulling out of this area early. If we do, these guys are dead meat,” Lauer said.

Spannagel, the scout leader, said the fighting revealed “a false sense of security that we’d won the battle in Ramadi.”

In fact, he said, “this shows the enemy is patient. This is his land. He’s got all the time in the world. . . . They’re going to continue to fight in Anbar.”

Lt. General Ray Odierno, second in command in Iraq, has said before the U.S. pulls back in Iraq we will conduct quick strike raids mainly in Al Qaeda strongholds.

The U.S. military is planning “quick-strike raids” aimed at smashing al Qaeda strongholds in the country before bringing some of the forces from the troop buildup home, the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq said yesterday.

Faced with increasing violence from insurgents in the less-guarded northern outskirts of the country, U.S. forces will assist Iraqi forces in weeding out insurgents — mainly al Qaeda operatives — bent on destabilizing the region.

“Due to the constant pressure and depletion of their leadership, extremists have been pushed out of many population centers and are on the move, seeking other places to operate within the country,” Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno said at a Pentagon press conference via video from Baghdad.

“As a result, we are now in pursuit of al Qaeda and other extremist elements, and we’ll continue to aggressively target their shrinking areas of influence,” he said. “Over the coming weeks, we plan to conduct quick-strike raids against remaining extremist sanctuaries and staging areas.”

From what Gen. Petraeus is already quoted as saying, we can pretty much assume by this time next year the surge will be over and troops will begin drawing down.

Hopefully, the Iraqi army and police will be well-enough trained to maintain a semblance of peace in their country.

For a different take on the draw down strategy go here.

Senior congressional aides are saying the White House wants to limit the Petraeus report to a private congressional briefing, while the White House says that has been considered but they will not shield Gen. Petraeus from public testimony to the Congress and will abide by the legislation passed in May.

The congressional aides say the White House wanted the Secretaries of State and Defense to deliver the public testimony, but since the White House acknowledged making the proposal and still says Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will make the public testimony, it seems like much ado about nothing at this point. In other words, it seems settled it will be public testimony by the General and the Ambassador in addition to a private briefing, so why go public with the argument when it was already decided?

Senior congressional aides said yesterday that the White House has proposed limiting the much-anticipated appearance on Capitol Hill next month of Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to a private congressional briefing, suggesting instead that the Bush administration’s progress report on the Iraq war should be delivered to Congress by the secretaries of state and defense.

White House officials did not deny making the proposal in informal talks with Congress, but they said yesterday that they will not shield the commanding general in Iraq and the senior U.S. diplomat there from public congressional testimony required by the war-funding legislation President Bush signed in May. “The administration plans to follow the requirements of the legislation,” National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in response to questions yesterday.

Gen. Petreaus is quoted by the AP in the same article as stating that by about a year or so from now we will have a smaller troop presence in Iraq.

Speaking to reporters traveling with him in Iraq yesterday, Petraeus said he is preparing recommendations on troop levels while getting ready to go to Washington next month. He declined to give specifics.

“We know that the surge has to come to an end,” Petraeus said, according to the Associated Press. “I think everyone understands that, by about a year or so from now, we’ve got to be a good bit smaller than we are right now. The question is how do you do that . . . so that you can retain the gains we have fought so hard to achieve and so you can keep going.”

The United States has decided to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country’s 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a “specially designated global terrorist,” according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group’s business operations and finances.

The Bush administration has chosen to move against the Revolutionary Guard Corps because of what U.S. officials have described as its growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East, the sources said. The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran, as well as U.S. frustration with the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions against Iran’s nuclear program, officials said.

The designation of the Revolutionary Guard will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding. It authorizes the United States to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities. The Revolutionary Guard would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said — a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization.

The order allows the United States to block the assets of terrorists and to disrupt operations by foreign businesses that “provide support, services or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists.”

The situation between the United States and Iran can’t get much worse and we know the Revolutionary Guard is supplying, training and acting as terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The main goal of the new designation is to clamp down on the Revolutionary Guard’s vast business network, as well as on foreign companies conducting business linked to the military unit and its personnel. The administration plans to list many of the Revolutionary Guard’s financial operations.

“Anyone doing business with these people will have to reevaluate their actions immediately,” said a U.S. official familiar with the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the decision has not been announced. “It increases the risks of people who have until now ignored the growing list of sanctions against the Iranians. It makes clear to everyone who the IRGC and their related businesses really are. It removes the excuses for doing business with these people.”

Read the rest of the story here.

Speaks for itself.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki met with officials in Iran on Wednesday to seek help in reining in violence in his country, reaching out to a nation the U.S. accuses of fueling Iraq’s turmoil by backing Shiite militants.

It was al-Maliki’s second visit to Tehran in less than a year, coming days after U.S. and Iranian experts held talks in Baghdad on improving Iraq’s security.

Al-Maliki and the Shiite and Kurdish parties that dominate his government are closely linked to predominantly Shiite Iran, and he has struggled to balance those ties with the United States, Tehran’s top rival in the region.

The U.S. has recently stepped up its allegations that Iran is arming Shiite militiamen, but the Iraqi government has taken a low-key stance without outright backing the American claims, which Tehran denies. One al-Maliki adviser, Sami al-Askari, said last month that the government “doesn’t rule out” Iranian arming of militants.

In Baghdad, meanwhile, U.S. troops and warplanes struck suspected militants in the Shiite district of Sadr City, killing 32 of them and detaining 12 others. The U.S. military said the militants were involved in smuggling weapons from Iran and sending militiamen to Iran for training.

Al-Maliki’s visit came as officials from Iraq and its neighbors, including Iran, held a conference in Damascus, Syria, on improving Iraq’s security. At the gathering, Iraq’s Deputy Foreign Minister Labib Abbawi pressed countries to do more to stop infiltration of fighters and weapons over their borders into Iraq.

Story

He should be brought up on charges and dealt with severely. Our soldiers go through enough without having someone libeling them in a most disgusting way.

Army investigators have concluded that the private whose dispatches for the New Republic accused his fellow soldiers of petty cruelties in Iraq was not telling the truth.

The finding, disclosed yesterday, came days after the Washington-based magazine announced that it had corroborated the claims of the private, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, except for one significant error.

An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by Pvt. Beauchamp were found to be false,” an Army statement said. “His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.”

But New Republic Editor Franklin Foer is standing his ground. “We’ve talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account,” Foer said. The magazine granted anonymity to the other soldiers it cited.

A military official, who asked not to be identified because the probe is confidential, said no charges were filed against Beauchamp. Instead, the official said, the matter is being handled administratively, with Beauchamp punished by having his cellphone and laptop confiscated for an undetermined period.

The Army probe provides ammunition to conservative critics who have accused the liberal magazine of publishing Beauchamp’s “Baghdad Diarist” essays without adequate checking and being too quick to believe that American soldiers would engage in questionable conduct. It also revives fading memories of the magazine’s 1998 fabrication scandal involving writer Stephen Glass.

Story

Speaks for itself.

The Bush administration is becoming increasingly concerned about the impact of an imminent British withdrawal from southern Iraq and would prefer UK troops to remain for another year or two.
British officials believe that Washington will signal its intention to reduce US troop numbers after a much-anticipated report next month by its top commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, clearing the way for Gordon Brown to announce a British withdrawal in parliament the following month. An official said: “We do believe we are nearly there.”

It is not known whether George Bush expressed concern about the withdrawal of the remaining 5,000 British troops when he met Mr Brown in Washington last week. But sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the administration was worried about the political consequences of losing British troops.

One source said: “If the difference is between the British leaving at the end of the year or staying through to next year or the year after, it is a safe assumption that President Bush would prefer them to stay as long as the Americans are there.”

The Bush administration - focused on the north, west and central Iraq and the “surge” strategy that has seen 30,000 extra US troops deployed - has until recently ignored the south, content to leave it to the British. Now, however, it is beginning to pay attention to the region, amid the realisation that what has been portrayed as a success story is turning sour.

The UK government no longer claims Basra is a success but denies it is a failure, with British troops forced to abandon Basra city for the shelter of the airport.

Story

Michael J. Totten blogs from Iraq. Today he has a post up that is an interview with an Iraqi interpreter.

There are many eye-opening comments made by this interpreter, but the following is the one I chose to quote:

MJT: What’s it like out there now for the average Iraqi?

Hammer: If you give average Iraqis electricity right now it will be enough. This is the most important thing. Give them power for seven days in a row and there will be no fights.

After the US came and Saddam fell they earned 3 dollars a month. Now they earn between 100 and 700 dollars a month.

Giving them electricity would reduce violence. If you don’t believe me, ask yourself what would happen to this Army base if the power was cut off forever and the soldiers had to spend the rest of their lives in Iraq. Do think think these soldiers would still behave normally?

Iraqis are paid to set up IEDs. They do it so they can buy gas for their generator and cool off their house or leave the country. Their hands do this, not their minds.

TV is the most interesting thing to Iraqis. They learn everything from the TV. Right now they only have one hour of electricity every day. Do you know what they watch? Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera pushes them to fight. If they got TV the whole day they would watch many things. Their minds would be influenced by something other than terrorist propaganda.

Right now they have no electricity. They have no dreams. Nothing. And Saddam messed with their minds. For more than 30 years he poisoned their minds.

You can’t understand Iraq because you can’t get inside their mind. When you get inside their mind…it is a crazy mind.

MJT: Why is Iraq such a mess? Is it the Americans’ fault?

Hammer: No. You can’t blame it on the Americans. Iraqis are number one at fault for this mess. They are greedy and will do anything for money. They are like people who were in jail for 30 years, were suddenly set free, were given money, then had their money taken away. What will they do next? They will kill for money. They are selfish.

They got selfish from Saddam. Iraqi people used to be different. I am the same person I always was, but most Iraqi people are different now. They feel that no one will help them so they help themselves.

MJT: Is there a solution to the problem in this country?

Hammer: Nuke Iraq.

MJT: Be serious.

Hammer: I am serious. If you screen all Iraqis, 5 million of them would be good people. Clear them out, then kill everyone else. Syria and Iran would surrender. [Laughs.]

Right now they see 100 corpses every day in the streets. It’s not okay to kill the bad people who do that?

Ok, if you want a serious solution try this:

Charge money to the families of insurgents. Fine them huge amounts of money if anyone in their family is captured or killed and identified as an insurgent. Make them pay. You can put it into law. Within one week they won’t do anything wrong because they want money. Their familes will make them stop.

The militias pay them 100 dollars to set up IEDs. Fine them thousands of dollars if they are caught and their families will make them stop. Give them that law. Go ahead. Try it.

Sounds pretty reasonable. Give the people electricity so they can be comfortable and watch their TVs and they might stop working for the insurgents to buy the gas to run their generators.

Fine the families of the insurgents and soon the insurgents will quit.

Will it happen? I don’t know, but it seems it’s worth a try.

Read the whole thing.

My opinion on this is that if they want to kill each other let them.

As British forces pull back from Basra in southern Iraq, Shiite militias there have escalated a violent battle against each other for political supremacy and control over oil resources, deepening concerns among some U.S. officials in Baghdad that elements of Iraq’s Shiite-dominated national government will turn on one another once U.S. troops begin to draw down.

Three major Shiite political groups are locked in a bloody conflict that has left the city in the hands of militias and criminal gangs, whose control extends to municipal offices and neighborhood streets. The city is plagued by “the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighborhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias that increasingly intermingle with political actors,” a recent report by the International Crisis Group said.

Story

Speaks for itself.

Iraq’s political crisis worsened Monday as five more ministers announced a boycott of Cabinet meetings _ leaving the embattled prime minister’s unity government with no members affiliated with Sunni political factions.

Meanwhile, a suicide bomber killed at least 28 people in a northern city, including 19 children, some playing hopscotch and marbles in front of their homes. And the American military reported five new U.S. deaths: Four soldiers were killed in a combat explosion in restive Diyala province north of the capital Monday, and a soldier was killed and two were wounded during fighting in eastern Baghdad on Sunday.

The new cracks in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government appeared even as U.S. military officials sounded cautious notes of progress on security, citing strides against insurgents linked to al-Qaida in Iraq but also new threats from Iranian-backed Shiite militias.

Despite the new U.S. accusations of Iranian meddling, the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors met Monday for their third round of talks in just over two months. A U.S. embassy spokesman called the talks between U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and his counterpart, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, “frank and serious.”

Story

This story pretty much speaks for itself.

U.S., Iranian and Iraqi officials held the first meeting in Baghdad on Monday of a sub-committee intended to improve cooperation on Iraqi security among the three countries, officials said.

“It’s the sub-committee they’ve been talking about for some time now. They’re meeting today at the expert level. It’s hosted and organised by the Iraqis,” U.S. embassy spokesman Philip Reeker said.

The U.S. delegation was headed by Marcie Ries, minister-councilor for political-military affairs at the U.S. embassy, Reeker said.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said Tehran’s delegation was being led by the deputy head of its mission, Amir Abdollahian.

Setting up the security sub-committee was one of the main achievements of a July 24 meeting in Baghdad between the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors in Iraq.

Washington accuses Tehran of fomenting instability in Iraq, supporting militias and providing weapons, such as armor-penetrating bombs, used to kill U.S. troops.

Tehran denies the charge and blames Iraq’s unrelenting sectarian violence on the 2003 U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.

The talks between the United States and Iran, which have not had diplomatic relations for almost 30 years, had their first round in May and are seen as groundbreaking.

Story