Stratfor: "Iraq Endgame is Near"

The article below is from Stratfor.com. (The above photo of an Iraqi soldier is from www.michaelyon-online.com):

* * * *

Iraq Endgame

by George Friedman
August 18, 2009

Though the Iraq war is certainly not over, it has reached a crossroads. During the course of the war, about 40 countries sent troops to fight in what was called “Multi-National Force-Iraq.” As of this summer, only one foreign country’s fighting forces remain in Iraq — those of the United States. A name change in January 2010 will reflect the new reality, when the term “Multi-National Force-Iraq” will be changed to “United States Forces-Iraq.” If there is an endgame in Iraq, we are now in it.

The plan that U.S. President Barack Obama inherited from former President George W. Bush called for coalition forces to help create a viable Iraqi national military and security force that would maintain the Baghdad government’s authority and Iraq’s territorial cohesion and integrity. In the meantime, the major factions in Iraq would devise a regime in which all factions would participate and be satisfied that their factional interests were protected. While this was going on, the United States would systematically reduce its presence in Iraq until around the summer of 2010, when the last U.S. forces would leave.

Two provisos qualified this plan. The first was that the plan depended on the reality on the ground for its timeline. The second was the possibility that some residual force would remain in Iraq to guarantee the agreements made between factions, until they matured and solidified into a self-sustaining regime. Aside from minor tinkering with the timeline, the Obama administration — guided by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, whom Bush appointed and Obama retained — has followed the Bush plan faithfully.

The moment of truth for the U.S. plan is now approaching. The United States still has substantial forces in Iraq. There is a coalition government in Baghdad dominated by Shia (a reasonable situation, since the Shia comprise the largest segment of the population of Iraq). Iraqi security forces are far from world-class, and will continue to struggle in asserting themselves in Iraq. As we move into the endgame, internal and external forces are re-examining power-sharing deals, with some trying to disrupt the entire process.

There are two foci for this disruption. The first concerns the Arab-Kurdish struggle over Kirkuk. The second concerns threats to Iran’s national security.

The Kurdish Question

Fighting continues in the Kirkuk region, where the Arabs and Kurds have a major issue to battle over: oil. The Kirkuk region is one of two major oil-producing regions in Iraq (the other is in the Shiite-dominated south). Whoever controls Kirkuk is in a position to extract a substantial amount of wealth from the surrounding region’s oil development. There are historical ethnic issues in play here, but the real issue is money. Iraqi central government laws on energy development remain unclear, precisely because there is no practical agreement on the degree to which the central government will control — and benefit — from oil development as opposed to the Kurdish Regional Government. Both Kurdish and Arab factions thus continue to jockey for control of the key city of Kirkuk.

Arab, particularly Sunni Arab, retention of control over Kirkuk opens the door for an expansion of Sunni Arab power into Iraqi Kurdistan. By contrast, Kurdish control of Kirkuk shuts down the Sunni threat to Iraqi Kurdish autonomy and cuts Sunni access to oil revenues from any route other than the Shiite-controlled central government. If the Sunnis get shut out of Kirkuk, they are on the road to marginalization by their bitter enemies — the Kurds and the Shia. Thus, from the Sunni point of view, the battle for Kirkuk is the battle for the Sunni place at the Iraqi table.

Turkey further complicates the situation in Iraq. Currently embedded in constitutional and political thinking in Iraq is the idea that the Kurds would not be independent, but could enjoy a high degree of autonomy. Couple autonomy with the financial benefits of heavy oil development, and the Kurdish autonomous region of Iraq becomes a powerful entity. Add to that the peshmerga, the Kurdish independent military forces that have had U.S. patronage since the 1990s, and an autonomous Kurdistan becomes a substantial regional force. And this is not something Turkey wants to see.

The broader Kurdish region is divided among four countries, Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. The Kurds have a substantial presence in southeastern Turkey, where Ankara is engaged in a low-intensity war with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), members of which have taken refuge in northern Iraq. Turkey’s current government has adopted a much more nuanced approach in dealing with the Kurdish question. This has involved coupling the traditional military threats with guarantees of political and economic security to the Iraqi Kurds as long as the Iraqi Kurdish leadership abides by Turkish demands not to press the Kirkuk issue.

Still, whatever the constitutional and political arrangements between Iraqi Kurds and Iraq’s central government, or between Iraqi Kurds and the Turkish government, the Iraqi Kurds have a nationalist imperative. The Turkish expectation is that over the long haul, a wealthy and powerful Iraqi Kurdish autonomous region could slip out of Baghdad’s control and become a center of Kurdish nationalism. Put another way, no matter what the Iraqi Kurds say now about cooperating with Turkey regarding the PKK, over the long run, they still have an interest in underwriting a broader Kurdish nationalism that will strike directly at Turkish national interests.

The degree to which Sunni activity in northern Iraq is coordinated with Turkish intelligence is unknown to us. The Sunnis are quite capable of waging this battle on their own. But the Turks are not disinterested bystanders, and already support local Turkmen in the Kirkuk region to counter the Iraqi Kurds. The Turks want to see Kurdish economic power and military power limited, and as such they are inherently in favor of the Shiite-dominated Baghdad government. The stronger Baghdad is, the weaker the Kurds will be.

Baghdad understands something critical: While the Kurds may be a significant fighting force in Iraq, they can’t possibly stand up to the Turkish army. More broadly, Iraq as a whole can’t stand up to the Turkish army. We are entering a period in which a significant strategic threat to Turkey from Iraq could potentially mean Turkish countermeasures. Iraqi memories of Turkish domination during the Ottoman Empire are not pleasant. Therefore, Iraq will be very careful not to cross any redline with the Turks.

This places the United States in a difficult position. Washington has supported the Kurds in Iraq ever since Operation Desert Storm. Through the last decade of the Saddam regime, U.S. special operations forces helped create a de facto autonomous region in Kurdistan. Washington and the Kurds have a long and bumpy history, now complicated by substantial private U.S. investment in Iraqi Kurdistan for the development of oil resources. Iraqi Kurdish and U.S. interests are strongly intertwined, and Washington would rather not see Iraqi Kurdistan swallowed up by arrangements in Baghdad that undermine current U.S. interests and past U.S. promises.

On the other hand, the U.S. relationship with Turkey is one of Washington’s most important. Whether the question at hand is Iran, the Caucasus, the Balkans, Central Asia, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Afghanistan, Russia or Iraq, the Turks have a role. Given the status of U.S. power in the region, alienating Turkey is not an option. And the United States must remember that for Turkey, Kurdish power in Iraq and Turkey’s desired role in developing Iraqi oil are issues of fundamental national importance.

Now left alone to play out this endgame, the United States must figure out a way to finesse the Kurdish issue. In one sense, it doesn’t matter. Turkey has the power ultimately to redefine whatever institutional relationships the United States leaves behind in Iraq. But for Turkey, the sooner Washington hands over this responsibility, the better. The longer the Turks wait, the stronger the Kurds might become and the more destabilizing their actions could be to Turkey. Best of all, if Turkey can assert its influence now, which it has already begun to do, it doesn’t have to be branded as the villain.

All Turkey needs to do is make sure that the United States doesn’t intervene decisively against the Iraqi Sunnis in the battle over Kirkuk in honor of Washington’s commitment to the Kurds.

In any case, the United States doesn’t want to intervene against Iraq’s Sunnis again. In protecting Sunni Arab interests, the Americans have already been sidestepping any measures to organize a census and follow through with a constitutional mandate to hold a referendum in Kirkuk. For the United States, a strong Sunni community is the necessary counterweight to the Iraqi Shia since, over the long haul, it is not clear how a Shiite-dominated government will relate to Iran.

The Shiite Question

The Shiite-dominated government led by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is no puppet of Iran, but at the same time, it is not Iran’s enemy. As matters develop in Iraq, Iran remains the ultimate guarantor of Shiite interests. And Iranian support might not flow directly to the current Iraqi government, but to al-Maliki’s opponents within the Shiite community who have closer ties to Tehran. It is not clear whether Iranian militant networks in Iraq have been broken, or are simply lying low. But it is clear that Iran still has levers in place with which it could destabilize the Shiite community or rivals of the Iraqi Shia if it so desired.

Therefore, the United States has a vested interest in building up the Iraqi Sunni community before it leaves. And from an economic point of view, that means giving the Sunnis access to oil revenue as well as a guarantee of control over that revenue after the United States leaves.

With the tempo of attacks picking up as U.S. forces draw down, Iraq’s Sunni community is evidently not satisfied with the current security and political arrangements in Iraq. Attacks are on the upswing in the northern areas — where remnants of al Qaeda in Iraq continue to operate in Mosul — as well as in central Iraq in and around Baghdad. The foreign jihadists in Iraq hope such attacks will trigger a massive response from the Shiite community, thus plunging Iraq back into civil war. But the foreign jihadists would not be able to operate without some level of support from the local Sunni community. This broader community wants to make sure that the Shia and Americans don’t forget what the Sunnis are capable of should their political, economic and security interests fall by the wayside as the Americans withdraw.

Neither the Iraqi Sunnis nor the Kurds really want the Americans to leave. Neither trust that the intentions or guarantees of the Shiite-dominated government. Iraq lacks a tradition of respect for government institutions and agreements; a piece of paper is just that. Instead, the Sunnis and Kurds see the United States as the only force that can guarantee their interests. Ironically, the United States is now seen as the only real honest broker in Iraq.

But the United States is an honest broker with severe conflicts of interest. Satisfying both Sunni and Kurdish interests is possible only under three conditions. The first is that Washington exercise a substantial degree of control over the Shiite administration of the country — and particularly over energy laws — for a long period of time. The second is that the United States give significant guarantees to Turkey that the Kurds will not extend their nationalist campaign to Turkey, even if they are permitted to extend it to Iran in a bid to destabilize the Iranian regime. The third is that success in the first two conditions not force Iran into a position where it sees its own national security at risk, and so responds by destabilizing Baghdad — and with it, the entire foundation of the national settlement in Iraq negotiated by the United States.

The American strategy in this matter has been primarily tactical. Wanting to leave, it has promised everyone everything. That is not a bad strategy in the short run, but at a certain point, everyone adds up the promises and realizes that they can’t all be kept, either because they are contradictory or because there is no force to guarantee them. Boiled down, this leaves the United States with two strategic options.

First, the United States can leave a residual force of about 20,000 troops in Iraq to guarantee Sunni and Kurdish interests, to protect Turkish interests, etc. The price of pursuing this option is that it leaves Iran facing a nightmare scenario: e.g., the potential re-emergence of a powerful Iraq and the recurrence down the road of age-old conflict between Persia and Mesopotamia — with the added possibility of a division of American troops supporting their foes. This would pose an existential threat to Iran, forcing Tehran to use covert means to destabilize Iraq that would take advantage of a minimal, widely dispersed U.S. force vulnerable to local violence.

Second, the United States could withdraw and allow Iraq to become a cockpit for competition among neighboring countries: Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria — and ultimately major regional powers like Russia. While chaos in Iraq is not inherently inconsistent with U.S. interests, it is highly unpredictable, meaning the United States could be pulled back into Iraq at the least opportune time and place.

The first option is attractive, but its major weakness is the uncertainty created by Iran. With Iran in the picture, a residual force is as much a hostage as a guarantor of Sunni and Kurdish interests. With Iran out of the picture, the residual U.S. force could be smaller and would be more secure. Eliminate the Iran problem completely, and the picture for all players becomes safer and more secure. But eliminating Iran from the equation is not an option — Iran most assuredly gets a vote in this endgame.

Re-post this article with credit to www.Stratfor.com.

* * * *

Charles M. Grist
www.TheCobraTeam.com
www.AmericanRanger.blogspot.com

Iraqi Leader: Internal Strife Could Destroy Iraq

If anything can destroy the new Iraq, it will be the internal strife that has always plagued that country. (A prior Shiite demonstration is pictured above.) No matter how hard America and its Coalition partners tried or how heavy the loss we sustained, we can’t force the Iraqis to get along with each other. Only the different Iraqi factions can find the common ground that must hold their nation together:

* * * *

Arizona Daily Star (Tucson)
January 26, 2009

Sectarianism A 'Rotten Thing,' Iraqi Leader Says

By Associated Press

BAGHDAD — Iraq's prime minister on Sunday blamed sectarianism for destroying the country, as he tried to tap into a backlash against religious parties before next weekend's nationwide provincial elections.

Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, has been delivering numerous speeches in the days leading up to Saturday's provincial elections in a thinly veiled effort to rally support for the candidates running under the umbrella group that includes his Dawa party.

"Sectarianism is behind the destruction of the country," al-Maliki told academics and sportsmen at a forum in Baghdad. "It is natural that we have different views, but we are all representing a unified Iraq that is not ready for division."

He appeared to be distancing himself from the major religious parties, particularly his governmental ally the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, after years of violence between Shiites and Sunnis.

He told the forum that sectarianism is a "rotten thing" and that Iraqis must focus on rebuilding efforts.

Al-Maliki isn't running, but his pictures have been plastered on campaign posters throughout Iraq, and he has campaigned extensively as he seeks to solidify his power base before national parliamentary elections later this year.

For years, al-Maliki himself had a reputation as a hard- line Shiite nationalist. But there are signs the public, especially in Baghdad and other major cities, has grown weary of the religious parties that have dominated national politics since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Al-Maliki's criticism of sectarian politics appeared to be an effort to tap into public discontent against parties run by clerics, such as the Supreme Council.

The prime minister also favors centralized rule and opposes a bid by the council, the country's biggest Shiite party, to establish a self-ruled region in the Shiite south modeled on the autonomous Kurdish administration in the north.

Voters on Saturday will be choosing ruling councils in 14 of the country's 18 provinces. It will be the first nationwide balloting in three years. A strong showing by al-Maliki's Coalition of the State of Law would bolster him against political rivals.

(Above article from Associated Press.)

* * * *

Charles M. Grist
www.TheCobraTeam.com
www.AmericanRanger.blogspot.com

Improvements Continue in Iraq

Even the New York Times is forced to admit that things have substantially improved in Iraq. During the entire war, American soldiers have succeeded in making untold personal connections with the Iraqi people. Many of us still worry about the safety of our Iraqi friends. (Above photo is me with Kurdish children in northern Iraq in 2004.)

This article includes a discussion of the on-going status of forces agreement negotiations between Iraq and the United States and the pull-out of Australian forces:

* * * *

New York Times
June 2, 2008
Pg. 5

U.S. Deaths In Iraq Fell Sharply In May
By Andrew E. Kramer

BAGHDAD — American deaths in the Iraq war dropped to 19 in May, their lowest monthly level since the invasion in 2003, the United States military said Sunday, though officials said they were reluctant to highlight the number as a milestone.

There have been troughs in American casualty rates before, only to be followed by increases. Just on Sunday, an American soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad.

The military has instead focused on falling rates of enemy attacks, among other indicators, as a measure of improving security.

Even amid the news of declining deaths, there was a setback on Sunday to efforts to negotiate a long-term security pact that would set out how long American forces stay in Iraq. The Iraqi government criticized proposals from American negotiators and vowed to reject any deal that violated Iraqi sovereignty.

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has been under political pressure to resist some American demands. Street protesters loyal to the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr burned American flags on Friday to oppose the deal, and Mr. Sadr promised that his followers would stage regular protests through the summer.

The pact, called a status of forces agreement, would address the future of American bases in Iraq, immunity for American soldiers and security contractors, the power of American troops to detain Iraqis and conduct military operations, and control of Iraqi airspace.

A United Nations resolution that authorizes the presence of American troops in Iraq expires in December, and the world body is not expected to take the issue up again, leaving it to the United States and Iraq to work out for themselves.

Along with Mr. Sadr, the main Shiite political parties in Mr. Maliki’s government have come out against key elements of the proposed agreement sought by the Americans. But Kurds support a strong American military presence, and some Sunni Arab politicians support the pact because they see the United States military as a bulwark against the rising power of the Shiite majority in Iraq.

“The Iraqi side has a vision and a draft different from the American vision and American draft,” the Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a statement. “The Iraqi government is focusing on preserving the complete sovereignty of Iraqi land, Iraqi sky and Iraqi water.”

The foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, meeting with his French counterpart, Bernard Kouchner, in Iraq on Sunday, said the government would study agreements in Germany, Japan and Turkey allowing American bases there. “Negotiations will continue,” said Mr. Zebari, a Kurd.

Mr. Kouchner, who said earlier that France would cooperate with the Iraqi government in the future, though it had opposed the American-led invasion, used the visit to praise security gains in Iraq, saying he had noticed “huge improvements.”

Last week, the American military released statistics showing that overall attacks had dropped to their lowest level over a one-week period since March 2004, before the Sunni uprising flared in western Iraq.

The 19 American deaths in May were a steep drop from the 52 fatalities the previous month, when the American military was supporting an Iraqi Army operation to quell an uprising in the Sadr City district of Baghdad.

Of the 19 service members who died in May, 14 were listed as killed in action, four were noncombat deaths and one died in the United States after being wounded in combat in Iraq.

The United States lost the highest number of service members in a single month in November 2004, when 137 were killed, coinciding with the Marine assault of the western city of Falluja, according to icasualties.org, a group that tracks American deaths in the war.

May’s low death toll was not the first such dip during the war. In September 2003, 31 soldiers died; in March 2005, 35 died; and in March 2006, 31 soldiers died.
In total, 4,083 American service members have died during the war, and at least 29,000 others have been wounded.

Meanwhile, Australia, an early supporter of the war, announced that its combat operations in Iraq had ended on Sunday and that its troops were on the way home. The withdrawal fulfills an election pledge by the new prime minister, Kevin Rudd. Polls show that more than three-quarters of Australians oppose the war, Reuters reported. Australia will maintain its roughly 1,000-soldier force in Afghanistan.

The troops will return over several weeks. Australia will leave two surveillance planes, a ship to patrol oil platforms in the Persian Gulf and soldiers to guard diplomats, the government said.

Britain, the largest contributor of foreign troops to the Iraq war after the United States, retains about 4,000 soldiers in southern Iraq. This spring, it suspended a gradual drawdown during an Iraqi Army-led military operation against Shiite militias in Basra.

Qais Mizher and Suadad al-Salhy contributed reporting.

* * * *

SFC Chuck Grist
www.AmericanRanger.blogspot.com

Read "The Advisor" from Iraq

I would encourage everyone to subscribe to "The Advisor", a PAO newsletter from Iraq. Go to this link to read the current issue:

https://webmail.us.army.mil/attach/The%20Advisor%201%20December%202007.pdf?sid=&mbox=INBOX&charset=escaped_unicode&uid=10907&number=2&filename=The%20Advisor%201%20December%202007.pdf

To subscribe yourself, here is the contact information:

The Advisor Staff
MNSTC-I Public Affairs
Baghdad, Iraq
http://www.mnstci.iraq.centcom.mil/
Email Address: pao@iraq.centcom.mil

Good information from "the horse's mouth", so-to-speak...

SFC Chuck Grist
www.AmericanRanger.blogspot.com

Can the Sunnis and Shiites Ever Reconcile?

America’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have done a magnificent job of removing Saddam Hussein and creating an atmosphere in which the new Iraqi government can take advantage of its freedom. With cooperation, decisive action and a spirit of reconciliation, Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds can build a prosperous nation of the kind never seen before in the Middle East.

The problem is that the Shiite-dominated government still won’t reach out to the Sunnis because they represent the party of Saddam Hussein. The Sunni minority ruled over Iraq – and the Shiites – with an iron hand. Now that the Shiite majority has the power, they fear sharing any of that power with the Sunnis. (Above picture shows me with some Shiite security guards in Baghdad's Green Zone in 2004.)

Unless the people of Iraq try to put their past behind them for the sake of all their people, there will be little the Americans or the Coalition can do to prevent a catastrophe. Our presence alone will not fix Iraq. Only Iraqis can ultimately build their own nation.

As the article below says, there is now a window of opportunity for the Iraqis to move ahead, to improve the daily lives of all their people, to create a rich future for an ancient land and to learn to live together in peace and brotherhood.

If thousand-year-old feuds and hatreds cannot be quelled, then America will soon face some hard decisions. We can’t do everything for the Iraqis. We’ve opened the door to freedom and prosperity, but they must accept the ultimate responsibility for the success or failure of the new Iraq.

* * * *

Washington Post
November 15, 2007
Pg. 1

Iraqis Wasting An Opportunity, U.S. Officers Say
Amid Relative Calm, Government Is Urged to Reach Out to Opponents

By Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Staff Writer

CAMP LIBERTY, Iraq -- Senior military commanders here now portray the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than al-Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias.

In more than a dozen interviews, U.S. military officials expressed growing concern over the Iraqi government's failure to capitalize on sharp declines in attacks against U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians. A window of opportunity has opened for the government to reach out to its former foes, said Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of day-to-day U.S. military operations in Iraq, but "it's unclear how long that window is going to be open."

The lack of political progress calls into question the core rationale behind the troop buildup President Bush announced in January, which was premised on the notion that improved security would create space for Iraqis to arrive at new power-sharing arrangements. And what if there is no such breakthrough by next summer? "If that doesn't happen," Odierno said, "we're going to have to review our strategy."

Brig. Gen. John F. Campbell, deputy commanding general of the 1st Cavalry Division, complained last week that Iraqi politicians appear out of touch with everyday citizens. "The ministers, they don't get out," he said. "They don't know what the hell is going on on the ground." Campbell noted approvingly that Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar, the top Iraqi commander in the Baghdad security offensive, lately has begun escorting cabinet officials involved in health, housing, oil and other issues out of the Green Zone to show them, as Campbell put it, "Hey, I got the security, bring in the [expletive] essential services."

Indeed, some U.S. Army officers now talk more sympathetically about former insurgents than they do about their ostensible allies in the Shiite-led central government. "It is painful, very painful," dealing with the obstructionism of Iraqi officials, said Army Lt. Col. Mark Fetter. As for the Sunni fighters who for years bombed and shot U.S. soldiers and now want to join the police, Fetter shrugged. "They have got to eat," he said over lunch in the 1st Cavalry Division's mess hall here. "There are so many we've detained and interrogated, they did what they did for money."

The best promise for breaking the deadlock would be holding provincial elections, officers said -- though they recognize that elections could turn bloody and turbulent, undercutting the fragile stability they now see developing in Iraq.

"The tipping point that I've been looking for as an intel officer, we are there," said one Army officer here who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of his position. "The GOI [government of Iraq] and ISF [Iraqi security forces] are at the point where they can make it or break it."

The latest news of declining violence comes as the U.S. troop contingent in Iraq has reached an all-time high. This week, the U.S. troop number will hit 175,000 -- the largest presence so far in the 4 1/2 -year war -- as units that are rotating in and out overlap briefly. But those numbers are scheduled to come down rapidly over the next several months, which will place an increasing burden on Iraqi security forces and an Iraqi government that has yet to demonstrate it is up to the challenge, senior military officials said.

Indeed, after years of seizing on every positive development and complaining that the good news wasn't being adequately conveyed, American military officials now warn against excessive optimism. "It's never as bad as it was, and it's not as good as it's being reported now," said Army Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, chief of strategic operations for U.S. forces in Iraq.

On the diplomatic side of the Iraq equation, U.S. officials said they realize time is short. "We've got six months because the military is leaving," said one official. But this official and others expressed irritation with the military's negativity toward the Iraqi government -- which they interpret as blaming the State Department for not speeding reconciliation.

"That's their out," the official said of the military. "It's convenient, and I know plenty of them have been helping that story around."

Diplomatic officials, none of whom were authorized to speak on the record, insisted that progress is being made, even if it lags behind military successes. They highlighted two key elements needed for political reconciliation in Iraq, one domestic and one external. Internally, sectarian politicians remain deadlocked on a range of issues. Shiite political groups are holding back as they vie for national power and control over resources, while the majority Shiite population fears that the Sunnis hope to recapture the dominance they held under Saddam Hussein.

In recent weeks, U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker has focused on external forces, hoping to persuade neighboring Sunni Arab governments to increase their official presence in Iraq -- no Arab government currently has an embassy in Baghdad -- to boost the confidence of Iraqi Sunnis.

Late last month, Crocker traveled to virtually every nearby Arab country except Syria and Saudi Arabia. His message, one official said, was "Look, you have got to get behind this because you've got to do everything you can to give all sides confidence."

The U.S. military approach in Iraq this year has focused on striking deals with Sunni insurgents, under which they stop fighting the Americans and instead protect their own neighborhoods. So far about 70,000 such volunteers have been enrolled -- a trend that makes the Shiite-led central government nervous, especially as the movement gets closer to Baghdad.

Indeed, all the U.S. military officials interviewed said their most pressing concern is that the Sunnis will sour if the Iraqi government doesn't begin to reciprocate their peace overtures. "The Sunnis have shown great patience," said Campbell. "You don't want the Sunnis that are working with you . . . to go back to the dark side."

The Army officer who requested anonymity said that if the Iraqi government doesn't reach out, then for former Sunni insurgents "it's game on -- they're back to attacking again."

The year-long progress in fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq could carry a downside: Maj. Mark Brady, who works on reconciliation issues, noted that a Sunni leader told him: "As soon as we finish with al-Qaeda, we start with the Shiite extremists." Talk like that is sharply discouraged, Brady noted as he walked across the dusty ground of Camp Liberty, on the western fringes of Baghdad.

But not all agreed that the Sunnis would take up arms. "I don't think going back to violence is in the cards," said Barbero. Rather, he predicted that if they give up on reaching an accommodation, they will resort to new political actions. One possibility mentioned by other officials is a symbolic Sunni move to secede from Iraq.

Also, some outside experts contend that U.S. officials still don't grasp how their empowerment of militias under the bottom-up model of reconciliation is helping tear apart Iraq. Marc Lynch, a George Washington University expert on the Middle East, argued recently on his blog, Abu Aardvark, that partly because of U.S. political tactics in Iraq, the country is drifting "towards a warlord state, along a Basra model, with power devolved to local militias, gangs, tribes, and power-brokers, with a purely nominal central state."

Officials identified other potential problems flowing from reductions in violence. Military planners already worry that if security continues to improve, many of the 2 million Iraqis who fled the country will return. Those who left are overwhelmingly Sunni, and many of their old houses are occupied by Shiites. How would the Shiite-dominated Iraqi army and police handle the likely friction? "Displaced people is a major flashpoint" to worry about in 2008, said Fetter.

The answer to many of Iraq's problems, several military officials said, would be to hold provincial elections, which they said would inject new blood into Iraq's political life and also better link the Baghdad government to the people. The question under debate is whether to hold them sooner, while the U.S. military still has available its five "surge" brigades, or hold them later and let Iraqis enjoy their growing sense of safety -- even though a smaller U.S. military would have less flexibility. "Some areas, you need them right now, to get people into the government," said Campbell. "But the other side of me says, let it settle in, let security develop, let people see some services." Later rather than sooner is especially appealing because the election campaigns are expected to turn violent.

But the longer the provincial balloting is put off, the more likely the current political stalemate will continue. Also, if the elections are postponed until, say, the fall of next year, they will be held on the eve of a U.S. presidential vote in which the Iraq war promises to be a major issue, military planners here note.

So, how to force political change in Iraq without destabilizing the country further? "I pity the guy who has to reconcile that tension," said Lt. Col. Douglas Ollivant, the chief of planning for U.S. military operations in Baghdad, whose tour of duty ends next month.

Staff writer Karen DeYoung in Washington contributed to this report.

* * * *

SFC Chuck Grist
www.AmericanRanger.blogspot.com

Remembering My Journey to Kurdistan

"I was born in the shadow of the Kurdish flag in Mahabad and I am ready to serve and die for the same flag." Massoud Barzani, President of Kurdistan

As Turkish troops mass on the border of Kurdistan, it seems appropriate to remember my own journey to northern Iraq in July, 2004. My team, the C.O.B.R.A. Team, was the personal security detachment for then-Brigadier General Charles “Sandy” Davidson. We escorted the general during his visit to his civil affairs troops.

I wrote much of the following article as an op-ed piece that was published in the Orlando Sentinel that same month. It is included in a book I have written and hope to get published at some point.

Although I came to respect the Kurds and their unique culture, I still believe they should curtail the activities of the guerrillas who are conducting attacks into Turkey. The existing Kurdistan is a beautiful country with a great future. I would hate to see the peaceful nature of this wonderful land degenerate into war with Turkey.

The above photo shows me in a Kurdish village with members of the legendary Peshmerga, the militia that has protected the Kurds for over sixty years.

* * * *

July, 2004 - Kurdistan in northern Iraq:

The heat on the dusty hill overlooking the northern Iraqi border was unpleasant, but it was better than melting in Baghdad. Along with the general and the rest of the C.O.B.R.A. Team, I looked out on a river junction that twisted like some wild blue snake through the desert. I could glance north across one river and barely see a Turkish army guard tower in the distance. When I turned to face the other river, the barren desert hills of Syria rose before me.

The trip from Mosul in a Blackhawk helicopter took us over a giant blue lake, over dry open desert, and through remote hills and valleys. Finally, we reached an isolated border outpost, the northern-most Iraqi military position in what the people there knew as Kurdistan. Protecting us from that point on would be the Peshmerga (which means “those ready to die”), the Kurdish warriors who had protected their own people for almost sixty years.

General Davidson wanted to visit some of his soldiers, but he also wanted to meet some of the Kurdish people with whom those soldiers worked and view some of the civil affairs projects created by the members of his command. The soldiers on the small civil affairs teams were making friends and making a difference as they tried to improve the quality of life for a courageous and unique group of Iraq’s citizens.

Our tour of the outpost ended with a convoy of NTVs headed east because this part of our journey was overland. Though we were still guarding the general, the Peshmerga were guarding all of us.

Driving over paved roads and mountain trails, we stopped briefly at a Kurdish village where General Davidson and his officers shared refreshments with the leaders of the small community. We continued on to Dohuk where we spent the night in a “safe house” protected all the while by the Peshmerga.

I found great comfort in standing on the roof of this house and surveying the beauty of the mountains that surrounded us. In such a peaceful place, filled with an overwhelming sense of tranquility, it was hard to believe there was a war going on. Some of the Peshmerga soldiers said the Arab insurgents had a difficult time making inroads in Kurdistan because they were easily recognized by the Kurds.

Traveling with the soldiers of the Peshmerga was a young man whose name still can’t be revealed without putting his life in danger. At the age of only 19, he had already spent over a year working as an interpreter for the Americans. Born in Kurdistan, but raised in California, he was proud to be both an American and a Kurd. When the United States invaded Iraq, destiny called and he returned to his first home to help defeat the regime of Saddam Hussein.

The young man liked to repeat a saying we heard frequently in Kurdistan: “Ten Kurds will die before one American dies”. The Kurdish people loved Americans and they were happy to treat soldiers, as the interpreter said, like “rock stars”. They would die for their American friends and they did everything they could to keep our soldiers out of harm’s way. There was still resentment reserved for Britain, however, for failing to give the Kurds their own nation when the British Empire carved up the Arab lands early in the twentieth century.

With the help of the young interpreter, the C.O.B.R.A. Team shared conversation and food with the men of the Peshmerga. We came to know and respect them as fellow soldiers and as just plain regular guys. We all spoke of our families, our homes and our children. Just as I discovered with the Shiite and Sunni Arabs I came to know, the Kurdish people also wanted peace, a safe place to raise their families, a decent way to make a living and a good future for their children.

The Kurds endured a life of prejudice, discrimination and violence under the regime of Saddam Hussein. March 16, 1988, is referred to as “Bloody Friday” because this was the day that Hussein’s forces dropped poisonous gas on the Kurdish city of Halabja. According to our Kurdish friends, some five thousand citizens, mostly women and children, were killed in mere minutes and thousands more perished after days of attacks.

The American policy was that separate “militias”, such as the Peshmerga and al Sadr’s Mahdi Army, must be disbanded. Although the Kurdish leadership supposedly agreed in principal, the Peshmerga soldiers laughed. There was certainly no indication that the Mahdi Army or the other militias in the southern part of the country would disappear any time soon. The Peshmerga warriors also didn’t believe their own fabled army would cease to exist either.

Many of them had been in the Kurdish army since they were twelve years old, it was the only life they knew and the Peshmerga diligently served as the protection for their fellow citizens. The Kurds were a friendly, gentle people, but upon entering the towns and villages of northern Iraq, one thing was plainly missing.

The Iraqi flag wasn’t flown anywhere. The Kurds proudly displayed their own banner, the Kurdistan tri-color of red, white and green with a bright sun glowing in the center. In the new Iraq, the Kurdish people lived with a wait and see attitude for the time being.

As we traveled across the top of Iraq through the towns, villages and cities of Kurdistan, I was amazed by the extraordinary beauty of it all. We saw picturesque mountains and valleys, gently flowing rivers and a waterfall recreation area that seemed out of place in a country at war.

Both adults and children waved and smiled at us and we were greeted everywhere like long-lost relatives. I was never treated this way by the citizens of any foreign country and it helped me to imagine how American soldiers in World War II felt when they were welcomed into liberated European countries.

On our second night, we stayed at the guest house of Kurdish President Massoud Barzani of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP). His late father, Mustafa Barzani, was the most prominent Kurdish national leader in their recent history and, according to the Peshmerga, he was considered the father of modern Kurdistan and an inspiration to all the Kurdish people. As we traveled throughout northern Iraq, Mustafa Barzani’s picture was hanging everywhere.

The next day we escorted the general to what the Americans considered the Peshmerga “Pentagon” or the headquarters of their military forces. General Davidson met with one of their generals, we were all served refreshments and the two generals exchanged gifts. Davidson gave his counterpart one of his commanding general’s coins; the Peshmerga general gave Davidson a Kurdistan flag.

As we reached the final city of our visit, Erbil, we drove through the six thousand year old massive stone citadel that overlooks the city from a giant hill. The Peshmerga took care of us right up to the time we boarded our Blackhawk helicopters for the long and arduous flight back to the Green Zone. I was sad to be leaving such a peaceful and beautiful place.

Before we climbed onto the helicopters, the young interpreter reached up to his shoulder and pulled off his Kurdistan flag patch and gave it to me. I was grateful to receive such a special gift from one of America’s and Kurdistan’s bravest citizens.

When we returned from our trip to northern Iraq, I brought back a small piece of paper I found on a table in the waiting area of Mosul’s Civil Military Operations Center. That building was filled with Iraqi civilians who were working with the Americans. The spelling and grammar are the way it was written, apparently from the heart:

“To day the CPA has handover the sovereignty to the Iraqis. As an Iraqi I feel so happy, but I have to say that all Iraqis owe much for the brave, the Americans, who have shed bloods for free, peaceful and democratic Iraq. Salute for all the brave Americans and all that cooperate with them to achieve this Noble goal,
Long live freedom, Long live freedom fighters,
Long live the USA The leader of liberty in the world.”

It was signed simply: “Iraqi”

At least one Iraqi thought enough of America’s sacrifices to write it down. If there was one Iraqi that felt this way, then there were ten; if there were ten, then there were a hundreds and surely thousands.

We were indeed appreciated by some of the citizens of Iraq and it made me feel damn good.

* * * *

SFC Chuck Grist
www.AmericanRanger.blogspot.com

How Will Things Change in Iraq in 2008?

"These are the times that try men’s souls."

Thomas Paine, 1775

No matter how well our service men and women in Iraq are waging that war, there is little doubt that changes will begin to take shape over the next few months.

We cannot abandon Iraq to the terrorists and/or the fundamentalist forces, but our military can only do so much. The Iraqis themselves must resolve the differences between their various factions.

If the citizens of Iraq fail to figure out how to get along, then it will difficult for the Coalition to prevent the catastrophe that may follow.

The following article from the Baltimore Sun's David Wood shows the uncertainty facing the decision-makers, including the politicians and the generals.

* * * *

Baltimore Sun
July 22, 2007

How Many U.S. Forces Required For Iraq?
The number depends on who sets timetable and role for Americans

By David Wood, Sun Reporter

WASHINGTON--For all the fierce debate over withdrawing troops from Iraq, no one has been able to shed light on the main question: How many troops are we talking about?

Virtually everyone, from the White House to the Democratic presidential candidates, agrees that some of the 156,247 men and women in Iraq, as of July 15, eventually must be withdrawn.

"Bringing our troops home," President Bush said last week, "is a goal shared by all Americans."

Pulling out all combat units, as some have demanded, would reduce the force by less than half, leaving more than 80,000 support troops in Iraq without protection and allowing the insurgency to run rampant.

To avoid that, nearly everyone also agrees that some combat forces should remain in Iraq to fight foreign insurgents, to train the Iraqi army and police, and to protect remaining American troops, diplomats and contractors.

How many soldiers and Marines will that take?

"I think in the tens of thousands," said Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that recommended in December that the U.S. begin scaling back its military operations in Iraq.

"Only military professionals can determine those numbers," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said on the Senate floor.

"We have not asked [the Pentagon] for an estimate," said Sen. Jack Reed, a Democrat of Rhode Island. And, in any event, "I think it would be difficult to get," Reed admitted.

The commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, said he hadn't been asked.

"What do they want me to achieve? Once I'm given that, I'll be able to give you an assessment of what's needed," he told a recent Pentagon briefing, adding that it could take until November to make such an assessment.

Yet the question could become more pressing long before then.

While Senate Democrats have set aside, for now, their drive to force Bush to begin a troop withdrawal, that effort will likely intensify in September, when Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, is due to report with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker on progress under the 28,000-man "surge" that the president ordered in January.

At the same time, the Pentagon is running out of fresh troops to maintain the current force of almost 160,000.

In March, many of those troops are scheduled to rotate home after 15 months in combat. The Army says it will have "a very difficult time" finding enough troops to replace them, a staff officer said.

By April, the military's ability to sustain current troop levels in Iraq "vanishes," Reed, a former Army paratrooper, said July 13 on CSPAN.

For these political and military reasons, "it is likely that there will be changes in military missions and force levels as the year proceeds," said Republican Sen. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana.

Already, the 74,600 combat soldiers and Marines in Iraq are far too few to carry out the counter-insurgency strategy developed last fall by Petraeus. That strategy, enshrined in U.S. Army Field Manual FM100-34, calls for 20 troops for every 1,000 persons in the local population, a formula which would put 120,000 soldiers just in Baghdad.

For those advocating even further reductions, matching troop numbers to a specific military mission has been difficult.

For example, a plan championed by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the Democratic chairman of the Armed Services Committee, would require that a much smaller U.S. combat force be authorized to fight only those insurgents associated with al-Qaida, but not other insurgents, a distinction that could be difficult to make in a firefight.

A plan advanced by Illinois Sen. Barrack Obama, a Democratic presidential candidate, would remove "all United States combat brigades" from Iraq - except those needed to fight terrorists, train Iraqis, protect Americans "and other purposes" the president may decide. No numbers were specified.

Republican Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia and Lugar urge that U.S. forces be refocused on these same missions, which would require "some level" of troops, their proposal said.

Outside the military, a lively chorus of civilian analysts and academics has been at work figuring out how small the U.S. combat force should become.

Shrinking the total number is difficult because of the enormous support community needed to maintain combat troops in the field: headquarters staffs, intelligence, medical, communications and logistics specialists, civil and combat engineers, civil affairs and explosive ordnance detachments, technicians, mechanics and others.

At present, roughly 80,000 American troops provide these services, including about 6,000 military personnel working as advisers and trainers with Iraqi police or Army units, and about 3,000 Special Forces soldiers, sailors and airmen. In addition, at least 20,000 American civilians work in Iraq as contractors.

All of them need bases in which to operate, and the bases must be supplied. At present, 2,000 trucks are on Iraq's roads every day in normal supply operations.

That support should be sharply reduced to a leaner force, some analysts said. "I'm saying take the force down to 100,000 immediately, and then to 50,000 to 60,000," said Frank Hoffman, a retired Marine officer and well-known strategic analyst in Washington. "Of course, that means you have to do without your dentists and chaplains, and go without ice cream every night."

The Center for a New American Strategy, a centrist think-tank in Washington, proposed a gradual reduction to 60,000 troops by 2009, a force that would include a substantial expansion of American advisers to 20,000 soldiers, more than triple the current number.

"That's back-of-the-envelope planning," said James Miller, a senior vice president of the center and former Pentagon war planner. "Our real recommendation is that the military should do this."

But a smaller combat force may itself be problematical.

For a force that is half of today's size, "it's very hard to find something for them to do that is simultaneously safe and useful," said Steven Biddle, senior analyst on defense issues for the Council on Foreign Relations.

"So you end up with a kind of worst-of-both-worlds situation," Biddle said in an e-mail interview. "You have too few troops to do anything useful, but too many to reduce casualties to an acceptable level."

* * * *

The next twelve months will be dangerous indeed.

SFC Chuck Grist
www.AmericanRanger.blogspot.com

“Never, never, never, never, never give up.” Sir Winston Churchill

“We regard Iraq’s success to be our success.
And, God forbid, Iraq’s failure will also be ours.”

Zalmay Khalilzad, then U.S. Ambassador to Iraq on February 20, 2005

I still remember the faces and the voices of the Iraqi men, women and children I met in 2004. When my team and I left to come home, some of those Iraqis who became our friends cried real tears. I was going home to my family and to safety. They were remaining in a life filled with uncertainty and fear. (Above photo of me and some Iraqi school kids courtesy of Captain Matt Pedersen.)

Needless to say, some of that survivor’s guilt remains and it probably always will. Now that I’m close to entering my last year in the Army, it’s unlikely I’ll go back to Iraq. Because just knowing an American can be deadly, I can’t even try to contact these friends who may or may not be alive.

In the modern world of instant gratification and self-absorption, we sometimes can’t see the forest for the trees. There is an inherent goodness in the vast majority of the Iraqi people and it’s sad that our political leaders and even our military leaders seem to be moving toward an end-game in this war. The need of many of our people to “get past” the war or “move on” to more “pleasant” subjects means that we may very well leave Iraq before the job is done.

During the American Revolution, only a few million people lived in the colonies. I once read a history book that said the largest the Continental Army ever became was only about 30,000 soldiers. The vast majority of the patriot warriors’ fellow citizens either supported them quietly or remained publicly neutral because of fear. Some continued to support the enemy.

The people in Iraq have a history much longer than ours, so we can imagine how hard it must be for them. It’s not surprising that they are constantly terrified of the brutal insurgent enemy even as they try to squeeze a living out of that war-torn country.

Yes, the various political factions should try harder to work together – the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds. Yet the citizens themselves don’t always find that there’s such a great difference. There are Sunnis married to Shiites and a great many Iraqis would be very happy to live in a secular country where everyone could just get along, raise their families and enjoy life.

The Iraqis will hopefully get that chance – if we don’t leave that nation to fall into a protracted civil war from which another dictator will surely arise. The leading candidates for such a dictatorship are probably among the Shiite religious leaders. That’s right – Iran, Jr.

Our service men and women have done a remarkable job in Iraq. They have sown the American spirit among the Iraqi people and they have spread good will everywhere they went. Sadly, many have given their lives in the process.

It could only be “intellectual arrogance” that led some of our leaders to believe we could conquer a nation of 25 million people, remove their government, their soldiers and their cops, and then solve all the problems with only 140,000 troops. Our own soldiers always knew there was a better way. Although the politicians have admitted their errors, it may or may not be too late.

As I help send more soldiers to the war zones, I am filled with confidence in their capabilities, their determination and their sense of duty. They believe in their missions and they are patriots as great as those who won our freedom over two hundred years ago.

Unfortunately, their ultimate success will depend in large part on a bunch of political animals in the halls of Congress. This is where the Vietnam analogy might play out and our warriors could be withdrawn before the job is done. I hope this is not the case.

General Douglas MacArthur may have said it best: “It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.”

SFC Chuck Grist
www.AmericanRanger.blogspot.com

From My War Journal: Flight to Kurdistan

"I was born in the shadow of the Kurdish flag in Mahabad and I am ready to serve and die for the same flag."

Massoud Barzani, President of Kurdistan

It was July of 2004 when my team traveled to northern Iraq from Baghdad’s Green Zone. Our mission was to escort our “principal”, Brigadier General Charles “Sandy” Davidson, to Kurdistan. Here is what I wrote about the experience:

"The heat on the dusty hill overlooking the northern Iraqi border was unpleasant, but it was better than melting in Baghdad. Along with the general and the rest of the C.O.B.R.A. Team, I looked out on a river junction that twisted like some wild blue snake through the desert. I could glance north across one river and barely see a Turkish army guard tower in the distance. When I turned to face the other river, the barren desert hills of Syria rose before me.

The trip from Mosul in a Blackhawk helicopter took us over a giant blue lake, over dry open desert, and through remote hills and valleys. Finally, we reached an isolated border outpost, the northern-most Iraqi military position in what the people there knew as Kurdistan.

Protecting us from that point on would be the Peshmerga (which means 'those ready to die'), the Kurdish warriors who had protected their own people for almost sixty years. (Above photo is me with two of the Peshmerga soldiers.)

General Davidson wanted to visit some of his soldiers, but he also wanted to meet some of the Kurdish people those soldiers worked with and view some of the civil affairs projects created by the members of his command. The soldiers on the small civil affairs teams were making friends and making a difference as they tried to improve the quality of life for a courageous and unique group of Iraq’s citizens.

Our tour of the outpost ended with a convoy of NTVs headed east because this part of our journey was overland. Though we were still guarding the general, the Peshmerga were guarding all of us.

Driving over paved roads and mountain trails, we stopped briefly at a Kurdish village where General Davidson and his officers shared refreshments with the leaders of the small community. We continued on to Dohuk where we spent the night in a 'safe house' protected all the while by the Peshmerga.

I found great comfort in standing on the roof of this house and surveying the beauty of the mountains that surrounded us. In such a peaceful place, filled with an overwhelming sense of tranquility, it was hard to believe there was a war going on. Some of the Peshmerga soldiers said the Arab insurgents had a difficult time making inroads in Kurdistan because they were easily recognized by the Kurds.

Traveling with the soldiers of the Peshmerga was a young man whose name still cannot be revealed without putting his life in danger. At the age of only 19, he had already spent over a year working as an interpreter for the Americans. Born in Kurdistan, but raised in California, he was proud to be both an American and a Kurd. When the United States invaded Iraq, destiny called and he returned to his first home to help defeat the regime of Saddam Hussein.

The young man liked to repeat a saying we heard frequently in Kurdistan: 'Ten Kurds will die before one American dies'. The Kurdish people loved Americans and they were happy to treat soldiers, as the interpreter said, like 'rock stars'. They would die for their American friends and they did everything they could to keep our soldiers out of harm’s way.

There was still resentment reserved for Britain, however, for failing to give the Kurds their own nation when the British Empire carved up the Arab lands early in the twentieth century.

With the help of the young interpreter, the C.O.B.R.A. Team shared conversation and food with the men of the Peshmerga. We came to know and respect them as fellow soldiers and as just plain regular guys. All of us spoke of our families, our homes and our children. Just as I discovered with the Shiite and Sunni Arabs I came to know, the Kurdish people also wanted peace, a safe place to raise their families, a decent way to make a living and a good future for their children.

The Kurds endured a life of prejudice, discrimination and violence under the regime of Saddam Hussein. March 16, 1988, is referred to as 'Bloody Friday' because this was the day that Hussein’s forces dropped poisonous gas on the Kurdish city of Halabja. According to our Kurdish friends, some five thousand citizens, mostly women and children, were killed within only minutes and tens of thousands more perished after days of attacks.

The American policy was that separate 'militias', such as the Peshmerga and al Sadr’s Mahdi Army, must be disbanded. Although the Kurdish leadership supposedly agreed in principal, the Peshmerga soldiers laughed. There was certainly no indication that the Mahdi Army or the other militias in the southern part of the country would disappear any time soon. The Peshmerga warriors also didn’t believe their own fabled army would cease to exist either.

Many of them had been in the Kurdish army since they were twelve years old, it was the only life they knew and the Peshmerga diligently served as the protection for their fellow citizens. The Kurds were a friendly, gentle people, but upon entering the towns and villages of northern Iraq, one thing was plainly missing.

The Iraqi flag wasn’t flown anywhere. The Kurds proudly displayed their own banner, the Kurdistan tri-color of red, white and green with a bright sun glowing in the center. In the new Iraq, the Kurdish people lived with a wait and see attitude for the time being.

As we traveled across the top of Iraq through the towns, villages and cities of Kurdistan, I was amazed by the extraordinary beauty of it all. We saw picturesque mountains and valleys, gently flowing rivers and a waterfall recreation area that seemed out of place in a country at war.

Both adults and children waved and smiled at us and we were greeted everywhere like long-lost relatives. I was never treated this way by the citizens of any foreign country and it helped me to imagine how American soldiers in World War II felt when they were welcomed into liberated European countries.

On our second night, we stayed at the guest house of Kurdish President Massoud Barzani of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP). His late father, Mustafa Barzani, was the most prominent Kurdish national leader in their recent history and, according to the Peshmerga, he was considered the father of modern Kurdistan and an inspiration to all the Kurdish people. As we traveled throughout northern Iraq, Mustafa Barzani’s picture was hanging everywhere.

The next day we escorted the general to what the Americans considered the Peshmerga 'Pentagon' or the headquarters of their military forces. General Davidson met with one of their generals, we were all served refreshments and the two generals exchanged gifts. Davidson gave his counterpart one of his commanding general’s coins; the Peshmerga general gave Davidson a Kurdistan flag.

As we reached the final city of our visit, Erbil, we drove through the six thousand year old massive stone citadel that overlooks the city from a giant hill. The Peshmerga took care of us right up to the time we boarded our Blackhawk helicopters for the long and arduous flight back to the Green Zone. I was sad to be leaving such a peaceful and beautiful place.

Before we climbed onto the helicopters, the young interpreter reached up to his shoulder and pulled off his Kurdistan flag patch and gave it to me. I was grateful to receive such a special gift from one of America’s - and Kurdistan’s - bravest citizens.

When we returned from our trip to northern Iraq, I brought back a small piece of paper I found on a table in the waiting area of Mosul’s Civil Military Operations Center. That building was filled with Iraqi civilians who were working with the Americans.

The spelling and grammar are the way the note was written, apparently from the heart, as it referred to the American turn-over of authority to the new Iraqi government:

'To day the CPA has handover the sovereignty to the Iraqis. As an Iraqi I feel so happy, but I have to say that all Iraqis owe much for the brave, the Americans, who have shed bloods for free, peaceful and democratic Iraq. Salute for all the brave Americans and all that cooperate with them to achieve this Noble goal,

Long live freedom, Long live freedom fighters,
Long live the USA The leader of liberty in the world.'

It was signed simply: 'Iraqi'

At least one Iraqi thought enough of America’s sacrifices to write it down. If there was one Iraqi that felt this way, then there were ten; if there were ten, then there were a hundred and perhaps thousands.

We were indeed appreciated by some of the citizens of Iraq and it made me feel damn good."

SFC Chuck Grist
www.AmericanRanger.blogspot.com

Al-Maliki's Speech Shows Courage & Determination

There has been much criticism of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Most of it revolves around how long it seems to be taking to get some of the laws passed that the American government considers “benchmarks”.

On the other side of the coin, we should remember that al-Maliki is a courageous man to take the mantle of a country that is torn from within. He must walk a daily tightrope between political and religious factions while facing the possibility of assassination each day.

One of my Baghdad friends sent me the following which is the text of a speech made by Al-Maliki on the first anniversary of Iraq’s new government. This speech was on Baghdad’s Al-Iraqiyah Television in Arabic. It is a positive statement from someone who clearly loves his people.

Not surprisingly, I have heard nothing about this speech from our own mainstream media. It is a little long, but so is the task the Iraqis must accomplish:

Iraq's Al-Maliki Reviews Government's Accomplishments on First Anniversary
GMP20070522617001 Baghdad Al-Iraqiyah Television in Arabic 1458 GMT 22 May 07

[Speech by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki 'on the occasion of the first anniversary of the formation of the national unity government;' in Baghdad; recorded]

"In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate, dear Iraqi people -- people of the two rivers -- brothers and sisters: God's peace and blessings be upon you. A year has passed since the formation of the first elected government in Iraq's modern history, a government which has won the support of the parliamentary blocs taking part in the political process, which unanimously supported the national plan and granted confidence to the government.

Based on this unanimity, we depended on God and the people's confidence to implement the government's program. This is a task you undoubtedly know is difficult and complicated and is facing huge challenges.

The year 2006 was a real test of the will of the government and people. We were at a crossroads -- either Iraq will remain united and its social fabric cohesive and strong or it will slip into a sectarian war, which is the dirtiest of wars throughout history.

Praise be to God, we have succeeded in avoiding the danger of sectarian war after the holy shrine of the two Al-Askari imams in Samarra was blown up. That ugly crime was committed by the takfiris and their allies the henchmen of the dictatorial regime. The sectarian war which threatened our national unity is now behind us.

The year 2006 also witnessed the end of the dictator and his abominable rule, which dragged the country to wars and reckless adventures. That was a dark era during which we suffered the worst of tragedies and pains and offered hundreds of thousands of martyrs in prisons, detention centers, and mass graves, and in Al-Anfal and Halabjah. The rule of the one party, one faction, and the indispensable leader, and the policy of discrimination, exclusion, and marginalization have ended for ever.

Our success in avoiding a sectarian war and putting an end to the dictator was not without great sacrifices. We have sacrificed blood, shed tears, and faced difficulties. This is a heavy price we are paying today in our fight against terrorism. It is the same price we paid in 35 years. The road to freedom, justice, democracy, and equality cannot but be difficult and tough.

Brothers and sisters: Since the first day of the formation of the national unity government, which I had the honor of heading, I launched an initiative for national reconciliation and dialogue. The initiative was not launched on the basis of political, party, or sectarian considerations, but on a strategic vision to rebuild the state and consecrate the culture of dialogue and tolerance, renounce secondary differences, and close the past chapter.

We have placed the issue of national reconciliation at the top of the government priorities and devoted all resources to it. We said on more than one occasion that national reconciliation is a lifeboat for all Iraqis and it is the only way to overcome the ordeal and cross to the shore of safety. Regrettably, some have rebelled against dialogue and reconciliation. We will deal with them firmly and in accordance with the law.

The national reconciliation initiative led to conferences held by tribes, civil society organizations, political forces, officers, and intellectuals all over Iraq. It also provided the appropriate background to introduce constitutional amendments in which the authority of law has the final word. We did so by presenting the draft law of Accountability and Justice to the Council of Representatives. This draft law guarantees the rights of martyrs and distinguishes between those whose hands were stained with the blood of innocent people and those who were forced to join the dissolved Ba'th Party.

The draft law provides a legal framework and just accountability, and closes the bloody chapter of the past. The law which we want to be an arbiter and ruler does not mean leniency with criminal Ba'thists or ignoring the rights of martyrs and prisoners. It seeks to administer justice and rehabilitate all those who were exposed to injustice, despotism, and oppression.

O honorable Iraqi people, we consider the national reconciliation plan the strongest weapon in fighting terrorism. We were fully confident that this plan would succeed in defeating the takfiris and their allies despite the claims of some political forces, which wagered on turning national reconciliation into a bridge for the return of killers and criminals. It is impossible for this delusion to materialize.

In the new Iraq there is no place for the Ba'th Party, whose history is replete with coups, plots, and leaders of crime and mass annihilation. I will not miss the occasion here to invite the faithful Iraqi tribes and civil society organizations to form national salvation councils in all Iraqi governorates and to stand by the side of our armed forces in order to destroy the epidemic of terrorism, which is targeting Iraq -- land, people, and heritage.

The terrorists are destroying the infrastructure and killing teachers, physicians, engineers, builders, journalists, sportsmen, and artists, in addition to women and children. They are also attacking mosques, churches, and universities. Their blind grudge has reached the historical, civil, and cultural landmarks of Baghdad.

Brothers and sisters: Our war against terrorism is an open and long one. None should think that this war will end today or tomorrow. The security challenges facing dear Iraq are extremely serious. What makes the situation even more difficult is foreign interference, which is no longer a secret to anyone. Some political forces' acceptance of and submission to the influence of a number of countries has led to complicating the security file, which is no longer an internal challenge. This calls for greater vigilance and caution.

The day will come when we reveal the involvement of political groups and personalities in stirring up terrorist acts. We will not hesitate to expose the subversive role some regional and international parties are playing. These parties are not pleased to see Iraq strong and living a democratic experience and determined to establish the state of institutions. These quarters, which we know well, will pay a heavy price from their security and stability if they do not stop the policy of undermining security in Iraq so that the country will remain weak. A strong democratic and pluralistic Iraq is the only guarantee against the return of dictatorship. It is a safety valve for stability and prosperity in the region.

Any Iraqi entity that seeks support from abroad will be making a terrible mistake because this will lead to regional and international forces' conflict in the Iraqi arena. We also call on all those who care for the unity, safety, and sovereignty of Iraq to stop interfering in our internal affairs because the Iraqis alone can protect their country and defend their dignity. Our people, who recorded electoral epics in a record and critical time and established constitutional institutions on the debris of dictatorship, reject the logic of trusteeship and the logic of having others think on their behalf.

Brothers and sisters: Completing the establishment of our armed forces is a central national task we are trying to accomplish at the earliest possible time. This is a process which daily brings us closer to assuming full responsibility for security in the whole country. We have made a large stride in this regard and we are racing time in training, rehabilitating, and equipping our forces with modern weapons and military equipment so that our security services can take the initiative and assume responsibility for protecting the country and citizens, and thus pave the way for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from the country. This task will remain a top priority in our program for 2007.

On this occasion, I call on all honorable Iraqis to shoulder their responsibility and help our armed forces so that these can perform their duty under the sovereignty of the law and respect for human rights. The Law Enforcement Plan, which has entered its fourth month, is an integrated professional plan implemented in stages. We said right from the first day that the plan does not target any entity or sect, but seeks to protect the citizens.

It is an open war against the terrorists. We are determined to strike with an iron fist all outlaws -- terrorist organizations, militias, armed groups, and crime gangs which tamper with the security of the country. We cannot build a state in the presence of militias which have various allegiances, affiliations, and interests. We will give a full chance for those who voluntarily lay down their weapons and return to the national rank. We will exhaust all political solutions before we begin taking military measures, which we hope we will not be forced to take, to impose the authority of law.

Praised by God, we have succeeded in largely reducing the rate of sectarian killings and managed to restore normal life to a number of areas in Baghdad which were under the control of the terrorists. In view of the deliberate confusion some known parties and personalities are making and in view of attempts to undermine the reputation of our armed forces and security services, we call on the judicial authority to pursue these parties and refer their files to justice in order to call them to account for encouraging terrorism and inciting hatred and sectarian strife.

Brothers and sisters: He who thinks that building the state and its institutions and various departments is the job of only the government will be mistaken. We are all responsible for Iraq's recovery, security, stability, and prosperity. There is no doubt that this long and tough mission cannot be accomplished in a short time. It is a gradual historic task requiring solidarity and sacrifice by all.

It is inadmissible for the political forces participating in the political process to take a neutral position or act as bystanders or ones looking for mistakes. We have very regrettably seen this done by some people who placed themselves in the position of observers from a distance instead of putting their hands in our hands to build the new Iraq.

Cooperation among the three authorities takes place in an integral manner without interference by any authority in the affairs of the other authorities. We, together with our partners in the political process, raised the slogan of cooperation, integration, and revision in order to reach the largest possible understanding that is based on constitutional controls with the aim of reviewing programs and laws in a manner that serves the country's higher interests.

In 2006, we established balanced regional and international relations with many countries and succeeded in developing Iraq's relations with these countries in the various domains. Iraq, together with 60 countries and international organizations, signed the International Compact Document in Sharm al-Shaykh.

This document stands for mutual commitments between Iraq and the international community. We expect Iraq to reap good results from this document. This will reflect on the economy and its infrastructure and on the building and reconstruction drive in the country. It will also encourage foreign investments and lead to security and stability.

The government, in cooperation with the Council of Representatives, ratified the investment law, which is considered an extremely important step to promote the economy, rebuild the destroyed infrastructure, and provide job opportunities. The government also approved the largest budget in the history of Iraq. Part of it was allocated to reconstruction. The government also presented an oil draft law. The parliament's approval of this law was a qualitative step in the field of reconstruction, development of the oil industry, just distribution of wealth, and consecration of the unity and sovereignty of Iraq.

Brothers and sisters: Fulfilling your aspirations and hopes is the core of our program and the center of our attention. We have made a pledge to God and to you that we will continue to fulfill them and we will spare no effort to reach that goal. We are aware of your daily life concerns. We follow them up every moment and work hard and perseveringly to improve services and raise the living standards.

Our efforts will continue and the subversive trend of the terrorist gangs will not prevent us from serving you or hearing your concerns and knowing about your suffering. What helps us continue to shoulder our responsibility is our feeling that you are aware of the size of internal and external challenges and dangers facing our beloved Iraq. This increases our insistence on continuing our efforts to build a free, democratic, pluralistic, and federal Iraq.

God's peace and blessings be upon you."

* * * *

Note Al-Maliki's use of the term "takfiri". According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Takfiri (from the Arabic word تكفيري) is the person who professes the disbelief of certain individuals or groups within the Muslim society or Islam. They are viewed as "extremists" by some of their opponents, arguing that "no one Muslim can call another Muslim a 'kafir' (infidel)".

Takfiris, on the other hand, exist in every Muslim sect, large or small, and often their fingers point not only to those who supposedly belong to a 'rival' sect, but also to those within their own; an example to that is the clear enmity between the Sufis and Salafi (both groups of which go under the umbrella of Sunni Islam.) Another example of internal 'takfir' is that occuring between pro-Saudi Salafis and the Jihadi Salafis (like Bin Ladin's group, al-Qaeda). Among Shia groups, takfir occurs as is the case toward the followers of the major Shia ayatllah Fadlullah of Lebanon (whose latest published opinions that review many beliefs deeply characteristic of Shia Islam have caused uproar and fierce opposition on the part of other Arab and Iranian clerics). There also exists the example of Twelver Shia declaring the takfir of the Shaykhi Shia small sect (found mainly in Basra, Iraq).

* * * *

Seeing the words of the Iraq prime minister helps us to understand the difficult tasks he must deal with each day.

We removed the dictator Saddam Hussein, but we also dismantled every aspect of Iraqi society from the governmental infrastructure to the army and police. We owe them a chance to work through their internal issues in order to make their government work for all of them.

SFC Chuck Grist
www.AmericanRanger.blogspot.com

The Ancient Struggle of Arabs & Persians

The following article appeared today in the Orlando Sentinel. It is interesting from a cultural point of view because it points out how much we DON’T know about the people of Iraq and Iran. Centuries-old religious and ethnic divisions continue to breed hatred, mistrust and murder.

Our soldiers are doing a magnificent job as they try to help the Iraqis bridge their differences, but there is only so much the Coalition can do.

In the end, only the Iraqis themselves will be able to solve this problem:

Orlando Sentinel (May 16, 2007): Post-Saddam Iraq embraces ancient Persian heritage

By Borzou Daragahi
Los Angeles Times

Najaf, Iraq – Persian script flows across the walls of Najaf’s seminaries.

Shiite religious scholars in the ancient city’s turquoise-tiled edifices pore over texts illustrated with Persian calligraphy in scenes that evoke Mesopotamia’s history.

For centuries, Najaf has been a key shrine city and center of worship for many of Iraq’s people. But for centuries, Iraq’s Ottoman and Arab rulers rarely considered Najaf part of their own history. It was considered an outpost of the enemy: Iran.

They were right, for the most part. Historically and culturally, Najaf has long been under Persia’s sway.

But so has much of Iraq.

The reading of the Quran in this country differs from the rest of the Muslim world: The rhythm and cadence of Sunnis are unique to Iraq, and the Shiites’ are unique to Iran. Persian dishes such as pomegranate stew are a standard part of Mesopotamian fare. Iraq’s capital carries a Persian name, Baghdad.

The sectarian nature of the war between Shiite and Sunni Arabs in Iraq reflects a centuries-old battle between Persia and the Arab world.

It is a point often misunderstood by U.S. policymakers and ground commanders, who perceive the re-emergence of Persian influence among Iraq’s newly powerful Shiite majority as proof of meddling by the regime in Tehran.

Rising Persian influence is a sign of Iraq’s ascendance, not Iran’s.

“Iraq has been part of the Persian sphere of influence for more than 400 years,” said Karar Dastour, an Iraqi Shiite intellectual who lives in southern Tehran and travels to Iraq. “But governments have always tried to crush anything that had the scent of Shiism or Iran. They were never accepted.”

Violent Sunni Arab rejection of Iraq’s Persian roots plays out daily on the streets of the capital with bombings.

In their Internet postings, Sunni Arab insurgents, many of them officers during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, describe their attacks on Shiites as settling accounts with “Safavids,” a reference to the 16th- century dynasty that embraced Shiite Islam as the official religion of Persia. Shiite Safavids and Sunni Ottomans fought for decades in a conflict that infused sectarianism into what had been a centuries-old ethnic and political conflict between Arabs and Persians.

“There has always been conflict between Arabs and Iranians, and they always tried to involve Iraq,” Humam Hammoudi, an Iraqi Shiite politician and cleric who lived in Tehran during Saddam Hussein’s rule, said in an interview last year. “Both have wanted to use Iraq as the trench for their battles.”

Iraq’s 20th-century leaders tried to graft a Sunni-dominated Arab identity onto a country that was majority Shiite. Even during the relatively benign years before Saddam’s rise in the late 1960s, Shiites visiting Sunni Arab towns feared for their lives.

Saddam’s downfall after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 ended the enforced separation between Iran and Iraq, much to the frustration and rage of Iraq’s long-dominant Sunni Arabs.

Persian cultural influences, long suppressed, have re-emerged in the past four years.

* * * *

It is important to remember that the majority of Iraqis are not radicals, whether they are Shiite, Sunni or Kurd. In fact, there are quite a few Sunnis who are married to Shiites.

For the most part, Iraqis are gentle people who want to live normal lives in peace. They want safe homes for their families, a decent way to make a living and a chance to raise their children in happiness.

That kind of sounds like us, doesn’t it?

SFC Chuck Grist
www.AmericanRanger.blogspot.com

Tolerance: A Long Journey Ahead

As I wait for my mobilization orders, I am re-publishing the op-ed pieces that I wrote during and after my 2004 tour in Iraq. I began the “American Ranger” blog on December 17, 2006. If you did not see the entries from last month, please check them out.

This is the latest:

TOLERANCE: A LONG JOURNEY AHEAD
Special to the Orlando Sentinel
August 8, 2005

As wars go, World War II was an easy war. I don’t mean it was easy to fight, but it was easy to understand why we were fighting. When one nation attacks another the solution is obvious: Our military forces must defeat their military forces, we must invade their country and we must remove their leaders from power.

With such a crystal-clear goal in mind, it was easy to sell war bonds, ration food and gasoline and instill in the minds of all Americans that each person was a critical component in the struggle for victory. The nation pulled together, civilians and soldiers, and the spirit of America prevailed over ruthless and evil enemies.

After Sept. 11, America seemed reborn in a 1940s brand of patriotism, with a common national goal of bringing to justice those who had slaughtered so many of our fellow citizens. It was clear to virtually all Americans that the “holy warriors” of al-Qaeda and their Taliban protectors in Afghanistan would have to be decisively defeated.

Then came Iraq. Confusing issues like weapons of mass destruction made some Americans question how the war in Iraq became a part of the war on terror. As the initial reasons for invading Iraq became clouded, Americans began to have doubts. As in other post-World War II conflicts, public support has become tenuous as the toll of dead and wounded Americans continues to rise.

The brutal homicides of civilians in the United States, Baghdad, London, Spain, Egypt and other parts of the world have only confirmed that this new war is truly a world war between the civilized nations of good and decent people and an uncivilized, perverted group of killers who believe only in hatred and chaos.

This is a war that must be fought and won on all fronts though real victory will probably only come over decades. Unfortunately, with no nation to conquer, no standing armies to defeat and no front lines to move forward on a map, this epic battle is the ultimate guerrilla war.

The Islamic world is filled with millions of peace-loving citizens. Still, in dark corners of that world, hatred and ignorance have spawned men and women willing to kill themselves as they murder innocent people. Understanding why these terrorists continue to pervert their own religion is the daunting task of both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

The fact remains that it must be Muslims who refuse to tolerate this evil in their own ranks and who educate their next generation that it is wrong to commit such horrible deeds in the name of God. They must also teach tolerance, a democratic ideal not overly prevalent in the Muslim world.

I once told a story to a young Muslim in Iraq. Three men – a Muslim, a Jew and a Christian – were walking down a path to a common destination. They reached a forest and, when they could not agree on the same path, each took a separate way. When the forest ended, the paths converged once again and the three walked together to the end.

I tried to explain to my Muslim friend that those of us who believe in God all want to go to heaven but that we have chosen different paths on which to journey through the forest of life. In the end, we should respect the right of each person to choose their own path to that ultimate destination.

Before I left Iraq, the young Muslim and I embraced shook hands. With tears in his eyes, he said he hoped he would be able to see me again. Being a big strong soldier, I did not shed tears but I told him that, if it were God’s will, we would indeed meet again.

Different races, different faiths, different paths in life, but friends nonetheless. It all seems so simple.

SFC Chuck Grist

Tribal Loyalties: Iraq must bridge divide

As the sectarian violence in Iraq continues to plaque that new democracy, we are reminded that not all cultures are like ours. During my tour in Iraq in 2004, I had a great opportunity to meet Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Although I found the average Iraqi to be extremely kind and even gentle, the cultural divide between these three main groups was apparent in most of the Iraqi citizens with whom I dealt.

I wrote the following op-ed piece for the Orlando Sentinel:


TRIBAL LOYALTIES: IRAQ MUST BRIDGE DIVIDE
Special to the Orlando Sentinel
April 24, 2005

The Sunni Muslim barber was cutting my hair with a long pair of sharp scissors. He was the only one working in the barbershop of the al-Rasheed Hotel in Baghdad’s Green Zone. Unfortunately, he wouldn’t stop talking about how all Sunnis were good and all Shiites were bad. I wanted to ask him a question, but until he finished and put away the scissors, I thought silence was the way to go.

When he was done, I stood up, handed him his money and asked, “If all Sunnis are good, what about Saddam Hussein?”

His eyes got big and he said, “Well, maybe Saddam was not so good.”

I’ve been a cop long enough to spot a bad liar, so I just laughed.

Last year I got to know Iraqis of all types, including Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and Christians. Like other Westerners, I learned that Iraqis are more “tribal” than they are nationalistic. Other than foreign terrorists, loyalties to tribe, region and religious sect are the biggest internal obstacles the newborn nation will face. Much of the insurgency arises from the loyalty that some Sunnis felt toward the old regime and the blood oaths made in the past to the imprisoned dictator.

Fortunately, the new Iraqi leaders see the importance of including all segments of society in their fledgling government. Shiites are working with Kurds and both groups are trying to lure the Sunnis into the democratic system. This progress gives us hope that all of the Iraqi people will eventually learn the benefits of working together.

In America, our Irish, Italian, German, African, Spanish, English or Chinese heritage is an important part of what makes each of us unique. There have been times in our own history when these differences have spilled over into conflict. For the most part, we have learned our lesson and we have been fairly successful in balancing individual needs with the common good. We may have our differences, but we settle them in the halls of Congress or in the city council chambers of our hometowns. We don’t kill our opponents with bullets and bombs; we defeat them with words and ballots. Iraqis are still learning this lesson.

During my tour I met Salem Chalabi, the man in charge of creating the tribunal to try Saddam Hussein. I was honored when Chalabi, the nephew of Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi, asked for my advice on some of his personal security issues.

One evening I sat sharing tea with about 10 of his Shiite guards. Only a couple of them spoke English, but I listened as one said, “All Shiites are good, but all Sunnis are bad.” I remembered the Sunni barber with the opposite opinion.

“If all Shiites are good,” I asked, “then what about Muqtada al-Sadr?” At the time, al-Sadr’s Mahdi Militia was killing both Iraqis and Americans. One of the guards rolled his eyes, shook his finger in the air and said, “Muqtada no good.”

Another guard sitting next to me said nothing, but continued to look at me. I’ve seen that look before after I handcuffed someone.

Looking into the man’s eyes I asked him, “Do you like Muqtada?”

He shrugged his shoulders and looked away, giving me his silent answer. His fellow guards laughed and pointed at him. They told me later that he lived in Sadr City, the Baghdad neighborhood of Muqtada al-Sadr.

Before we left Iraq, some of those guards came up to us. They put their arms around us and said farewell. I was glad to be going home, but I couldn’t help feeling a little guilty at leaving the job unfinished. Then I thought to myself that the job wasn’t ours to finish.

It will be up to the Iraqi people to create the happy ending.

SFC Chuck Grist