The headlines from Iraq are once again of political acrimony and sectarian violence. The cause is the weak surface tension that binds together a notional Iraq nation, where sectarian loyalties and personal interest are more powerful motivators than nationality. The latest round of violence is driven by maneuverings attempting to further disenfranchise the Sunni minority. The decision as originally made caused anger, outrage and a wave of retaliatory bombings on Shia targets. In part, this situation was brought about by ill-conceived early US alignments.

In the run-up to a general election due on March 7th, Iraq’s authorities seem to be taking a page out of Iran’s illiberal electoral rule book by barring candidates they dislike. One of the competing parties, the Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmed Chalabi, a longtime Shia exile who helped persuade George Bush to invade Iraq in 2003, has persuaded the election’s overseers to ban some 500 candidates deemed too close in the past to Saddam Hussein’s Baath party. After the invasion the Americans put Mr Chalabi, then their closest Iraqi ally, in charge of “deBaathification”, but he later fell out with them, so he turned for succour to Iran. Now, with a view to winning more votes for himself, he is using his long-dormant post to accuse his foes of having supported the deposed dictator.

Iraq’s coming election: Reopening the old sectarian wounds | The Economist

Some opponents to the move used legal means to attempt to reverse these bans, and in fact were successful in overturning the decision. Of course, the mechanisms of democracy in Iraq are still nascent, but a temporary embargo seems to have been achieved.

Iraq has lifted a ban on nearly 500 candidates barred from the March election for alleged links to the late Saddam Hussein’s Baathist party.

The ban was lifted by an appeals panel on candidates listed last month by the post-Saddam Justice and Accountability Committee, election officials said.

Correspondents say the repeal of the ban has been welcomed by Sunni politicians who felt it targeted them.

Restrictions on former Baathists have been eased in recent years.

“The appeals panel decided to allow the banned candidates to participate in the next election and decided to postpone looking into the case until after the election,” said Hamdiya al-Husseini, a member of the Independent High Electoral Commission.

She said successful candidates on the list would not be able to assume office until the appeals panel had given a final ruling on their cases.

BBC News – Iraq lifts election ban on suspected Baathists

However, in the Wild West, hurly-burly of Iraqi politics, this is far from the end of the story. The government, or at least some factional members of it, are mulling whether such a reversal ruling is constitutional. Given that there is little to no case law history on these constitutional proceedings, everyone seems a little vague as to whether the initial ruling, reversal or challenge of same are valid. It seems the case may yet end up in the High Court for a ruling. There is also always the inherent suspicion in Iraq that the maneuverings smack of US interference, It is a Gordian Knot for the Iraqi legal mind and politicians to untangle.

It was unclear if the government could contest the panel’s decision — much of the process of banning the candidates has involved creative interpretations of the law and the legality of the commission that drew up the list is also in question.

Hamdiya al-Husseini, an official with the Independent High Electoral Commission, said the body had asked a high court to rule on whether it was required to abide by the panel’s decision, and that the start of campaigning would be delayed.

“The (start of) election campaigning has been postponed from February 7 to February 12 to give time to the federal court to look into our inquiry,” she told Reuters by telephone.

Officials said Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had called on lawmakers to discuss the dispute in parliament, which would meet on Sunday in an extraordinary session.

The appellate panel’s decision was rejected by Shi’ite parties, which along with minority Kurds bore the brunt of Baath party oppression under the rule of Sunni dictator Saddam.

“It is a betrayal of the people and the blood which poured in Saddam’s era and after the occupation,” cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said in a statement on his website.

“It will be a stigma to the forehead of the miserable government,” said Sadr, whose fiery anti-American message mobilized millions of poor Shi’ites after the invasion.

Some suspected U.S. interference. The panel’s decision mirrored a proposal by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.

Iraq condemns lifting candidate ban, MPs to meet | Reuters

The West hoisted its conviction on Iraq that democracy is the ultimate form of governance, but the Iraqis have a history of getting things done in their own way. Iraq is doing the best it can riddled as it is with factional infights and sectarian distrust.  The March 7 general election process is a fascinating study of whether an alien governmental system can effectively be overlaid instantaneously on a people used to more traditional tribal and sectarian structures. Marginalizing the Sunnis will not work in the longer term, and will just further inflame perceived grievances and old wounds. This is a case of where the laws may have to be challenged to test their limits, and a body of case law built up over time, but one wonders how many will die before the case is resolved.

The US justified the invasion of Iraq, after the highly embarrassing absence of weapons of mass destruction came to light, by claiming that it bettered the lot of the Iraqi people. While the objective may have been admirable, the way it was approached, and the absence of a post-conflict strategy has had disastrous and perhaps terminal results.

In waging an ironically-termed ‘smart war’ the US used weapons of great killing efficiency. This included such charming little things as a depleted uranium bombs and missiles. A sad, but not widely reported legacy of this weaponry is a rapid spike in the occurrence of cancer among Iraqi newborns. The Iraqi war in some many ways is a tragic blunder that keeps on giving. It helps run up the US deficit, helps Iran with a docile and compliant neighbor and far from helping the Iraqi populace has perhaps left them with generations of cancer and congenital anomalies. That is quite the Presidential legacy for George W Bush, 43^rd President, but not quite the one he was hoping for we suspect.

Forget about oil, occupation, terrorism or even Al Qaeda. The real hazard for Iraqis these days is cancer. Cancer is spreading like wildfire in Iraq. Thousands of infants are being born with deformities. Doctors say they are struggling to cope with the rise of cancer and birth defects, especially in cities subjected to heavy American and British bombardment. Here are a few examples. In Falluja, which was heavily bombarded by the US in 2004, as many as 25% of newborn infants have serious abnormalities, including congenital anomalies, brain tumors, and neural tube defects in the spinal cord. The cancer rate in the province of Babil, south of Baghdad, has risen from 500 diagnosed cases in 2004 to 9,082 in 2009, according to Al Jazeera English. In Basra there were 1885 diagnosed cases of cancer in 2005. According to Dr. Jawad al Ali, director of the Oncology Center, the number increased to 2,302 in 2006 and 3,071 in 2007. Dr. Ali told Al Jazeera English that about 1,250-1,500 patients visit the Oncology Center every month now. Not everyone is ready to draw a direct correlation between allied bombing of these areas and tumors, and the Pentagon has been skeptical of any attempts to link the two. But Iraqi doctors and some Western scholars say the massive quantities of depleted uranium used in U.S. and British bombs and the sharp increase in cancer rates are not unconnected. Dr Ahmad Hardan, who served as a special scientific adviser to the World Health Organization, the United Nations and the Iraqi Ministry of Health, says that there is scientific evidence linking depleted uranium to cancer and birth defects. He told Al Jazeera English, “Children with congenital anomalies are subjected to karyotyping and chromosomal studies with complete genetic back-grounding and clinical assessment. Family and obstetrical histories are taken too. These international studies have produced ample evidence to show that depleted uranium has disastrous consequences.”

Iraq: Depleted Uranium Babies | Link TV

The recent decision by a US judge to kick out charges against Blackwater contractors didn’t sit well with Baghdad. While there is little directly they can do, the nascent Iraqi democracy knows well how payback works.  Baghdad immediately begun a crackdown of its own raiding contractors there and seizing their weapons. There is no subtlety in the approach, but Baghdad it letting its anger vent, and sending a clear message to the Pentagon and Washington.

Police raided three locations in Baghdad on Friday, a week after Iraqi authorities were incensed by a U.S. judge’s decision to throw out charges against five Blackwater Worldwide security guards accused of killing over a dozen Iraqi civilians in 2007.

Officials said they are targeting private security companies that are no longer legally licensed to operate in Iraq.

“All those companies with their work permits expired are not allowed to move one meter inside Baghdad, or own one piece of weaponry,” Baghdad security spokesman Qassim al-Moussawi said.

He would not reveal how many unlicensed contractors were on the target list, or their names.

Authorities raided the headquarters of a foreign security contractor, whose name could not be immediately confirmed, on Friday night and confiscated 20,000 rounds of ammunition and more than 300 armored shields.

In another location they found 400 rifles, helmets, radio devices and more than 35 vehicles believed to belong to the same company, officials said. No one was arrested.

Private foreign security contractors played a major role in Iraq following the U.S. invasion in 2003, in many cases hired by the United States to guard diplomats and other officials. Iraqis accused them of running roughshod over locals.

For a time, the foreign guards enjoyed immunity from prosecution. That ended with a bilateral agreement that took effect in 2009.

Iraq confiscates arms in private security crackdown | Reuters

This is nothing illicit in the relationship of Odierno and Sky. If you like historical comparisons, she is more akin to Gertrude Bell and her strategic relationship with Lawrence of Arabia. She is a co-conspirator in the future direction of US involvement. She is the adviser, confidante, cultural attaché and mentor to Americans who are confused in the face of Arabic society. American culture is popular, but it ill prepares an American commander for engaging with ancient and nuanced societies. We have reported on this culture clash in relation to the Afghanistan strategy. Iraq is no different and America takes advise from where it can. It turned to Australian strategist, David Kilcullen to design the surge that changed the direction of the US campaign, and now it relies on the subtle guidance of a British regional expert, Emma Sky, for how best to engage with Iraqis. That is the best of American pluralism at work and is a silver lining  in what has long been a deep cloud over the region.

Emma was able to give me a completely different perspective: it was from an Iraqi viewpoint,” General Odierno said.

“We didn’t have a lot of experience in doing these things, so someone with her background and knowledge was able to assist us as to how we could best help civilians.”

One senior foreign diplomat said that the very presence of a civilian political adviser at the right hand of a senior American military commander was a sign of the extent to which military strategy now strives to take into account the political and cultural landscape of conflict.

Outsiders’ points of view on Iraq began to be aggressively sought about three years ago, when counterinsurgency strategy began to permeate every aspect of military thinking. According to the new doctrine, operating successfully in hostile places required understanding how local people saw the situation and whom they viewed as friends or enemies.

Ms. Sky sees herself as part aid worker, part political operator, part cultural translator.

“I’m experienced in working in different cultures. The most alien culture I’ve ever worked in is the U.S. military,” she said with characteristic candor. “I was used to working in the humanitarian space, the diplomatic space. I came to Iraq and that space, the military, is all over it.”

Rather than remaining an outsider, however, she decided to try to effect change from within. Initially she worked as a British Foreign Ministry employee detailed to the American command; more recently, she has become an American contractor.

DESPITE her insider’s post, she prides herself on retaining an outsider’s view of the military, saying things to top brass that others will not. During the troop buildup in 2007 known as the surge, she said that attacks on insurgents that also resulted in civilian casualties were tantamount to “mass murder.”

“When you drop a bomb from the air and it lands on a village and kills all those people and you turn around and say, ‘Oh we didn’t mean to kill the civilians,’ well, who did you think was living in the village?” she said.

That is now conventional wisdom.

Saturday Profile – Emma Sky, a Civilian Voice at Odierno’s Side in Iraq – NYTimes.com

In a move that has surprised some, the Iraqi Vice President, Tariq al-Hashemi, has used his veto to kill new election laws putting the planned January elections at risk. The concern is that the new law would limit the opportunity for many Iraqis who fled the country during the troubles to lodge their absentee vote. Of course, the vast majority of these now ex-pats are Sunni who feared reprisal for Shia militia.

The Kurds are also up in arms about the new legislation. After originally voting to support its passage, the Kurds have flip-flopped after further review.  They realized belatedly that the legislation gave less representation than they thought. Under this new law, the parliament has been expanded by 48 seats, but only 3 of these are allocated to Kurdish regions. This would leave the Kurdish regions with only 38 possible seats total, which they believe leaves them severely disadvantaged. It finally appears that ‘warts and all’ democracy has arrived in Iraq complete with horse-trading, lobbying, compromises and secret deals.  Welcome to a brave new world of governance!

Iraq’s vice-president has vetoed part of the country’s new election law, placing plans for holding general elections in January in jeopardy.

Tariq al-Hashemi said on Wednesday he objected to Article I of the law because it did not give a voice to Iraqis abroad, many of whom are Sunni Muslims who fled the country during sectarian fighting after the US-led invasion in 2003.

“On November 15, I sent a letter to parliament asking for the law to be amended. Parliament said I could veto the contested first article [of the law], which is what I have done today,” al-Hashemi said.

“My objection is not to the whole law, but it is about being fair to the people displaced outside of Iraq.”

Parliament must now reopen debate on the proposed law, passed earlier this morning, meaning that there could be a delay to the election.

Al Jazeera English – Middle East – Iraq VP vetoes new election law

The British newspaper the Guardian has just been fined $95,000 for running an article critical of Prime Minister Maliki. The Iraqi court deemed the article defamatory, though in reality that seems highly questionable. The decision was made despite testimony by three expert witnesses from the Iraqi journalists’ union. They all testified that the article was neither defamatory nor insulting, and no damages were warranted. A high cost paid to earn that liberty is at risk it appears, and a measly sum demanded for recompense . Press freedom is an integral arch of a sustainable democracy and any attack on it should be severely resisted. This is something Maliki may yet have to learn.

The Guardian said it would appeal against the verdict. The judgment was heavily criticised as a further blow against the freedom of Iraq’s already embattled news media.

The British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, said: “I was very concerned to hear reports of the court ruling. Media freedom is vital in any democracy. If the case goes to appeal, I ask the Iraqi authorities to ensure that their courts, which are independent, follow due process in accordance with the Iraqi constitution”.

Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian, said: “This is a dismaying development. Prime Minister Maliki is trying to construct a new, free Iraq. Freedom means little without free speech – and means even less if a head of state tries to use the law of libel to punish criticism or dissent. We will vigorously contest this judgment.”

The article in question, by Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, an award-winning staff correspondent for The Guardian, quoted three unnamed members of the Iraqi national intelligence service as saying Mr Maliki was beginning to run Iraqi affairs with an authoritarian hand.

Mr Maliki has repeatedly portrayed press freedoms as essential to nation-building efforts in Iraq’s young democracy.

Paper fined for criticising Maliki.

With Iraq becoming very chummy with Iran, much to the chagrin of the US, who unbelievably seem genuinely surprised by this outcome, more jets may not be what the West (or Israel) wanted. Regardless, it gives the newly fledged democracy of Iraq at least the semblance of its own air force. Now, they just have to find the pilots, support infrastructure and facilities to keep the air force running. We are sure there is more than one foreign power that will offer Baghdad assistance with this.

An Iraqi delegation went to Serbia as part of an effort by the government to locate assets stashed abroad by Saddam Hussein to evade sanctions. Serbia had had friendly relations with Mr. Hussein’s government.

During that visit, Serbian defense officials told the Iraqis that Mr. Hussein had sent 19 fighter jets to Serbia for repairs in the late 1980s, during the Iran-Iraq war, but was unable to bring them back after sanctions were imposed on his country.

Iraq immediately sent a technical delegation, led by the air force chief, Gen. Anwar Mohammed Amin.

The Web site of the Iraqi Supreme Islamic Council, the leading Shiite political party, quoted the Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari as saying that the aircraft had been sent in 1989 “for maintenance, and everything was paid for by Iraq’s money.” Mr. Askari said the discovery was important because Iraq had no jet aircraft with defensive or offensive capabilities. “Our air force only has helicopters,” he said.

“Everyone knows how much we need fighter aircraft,” the ministry statement said. “We have reached a tentative agreement with the Serbian side to rehabilitate the aircraft and deliver them to Iraq in the shortest possible time, in recognition of Iraq’s need for such aircraft.”

Remnants of Iraq Air Force Are Found – NYTimes.com

To the majority of the populace, there was  never a conscious acceptance of national identity, it was a just a matter of survival. Iraq has never been a ‘natural’ country. Its borders have been drawn and redrawn many times by occupiers. Sunni, Shia, Christian, Kurd and Turkmen are told they are now one people and one country. This is not a natural state of affairs.  Iraq is  facing a brief and probable transient period of self-determination. It  is normal at this stage in a country’s early existence as a new political state for the people to ask themselves fundamental existential questions; can I be a Sunni, Shia, Kurd and an Iraqi all at the same time. Do I consider the interests of my tribe, faction or religion, or do I consider what is best for the country as a whole? Do I trust a central Baghdad government to act in my best interest, or is local governance where I will find justice? Will I get my fair share of the spoils? However, in actuality these are all sub-sets of the same question, what does it mean to be an Iraqi?

The Western conviction that democracy is the ultimate form of governance. Democracy has somewhat of a checkered history, however, in the region. It is something that the Iraqis have not had any great experience with, and this makes them naturally nervous of the future. There is also the influence of their neighbors. Some of these are at best nominal democracies, and other formulated under absolute allegiance to a spiritual or tribal leader. This is a much more familiar experience for an Iraqi that the concept of self-determination.

Signs are already emerging that the Iraq as singular entity, may not survive the transformation process. Kurds wants autonomy of government, and are acting independently in terms of granting oil exploration contracts. Shias in the Basra region, appear to want the same consideration. Will Iraq splinter into multiple regions?  Democracy in Iraq may not be sustainable at a central level, or in fact, at all. The West can attempt to influence, but cannot control the outcome. You can’t grant a ‘conditional’ freedom in that way. Iraq is in virgin territory and the country it becomes can only be decided by its people and in their own selected way. While the bonds that link Iran and Iraq may be religion, the objectives are secular.  A strong Shia coalition changes the strategic balance of power in region, and weakens the position of several US key allies. It also leads to a greater instability for Israeli interests, making second guessing their responses much more difficult. While the Iraqis ponder their questions of national identity, Jerusalem and Washington also are mulling alliance questions. The consequences of the deliberations on both sides are of major relevance to all.

Of course, these existential ponderings may be a moot point. Tehran appears to be increasing its influence daily.  Iraq’s Prime Minister Maliki has a perosnal guard that is Iranian, many members of government received their political education  from groups birthed in Iran, and Iraq has already shown several times that it will follow directions from  Iran. In strategic terms,  the Iraq War was an abject failure. It birthed a subject state for Iran, allowed Tehran to take its eye off a Sunni competitor on its border, and facilitate pursuit of  hegomingistc agendas in Afghanistan and beyond. Iraq has become an Iranian proxy, and as a result another complex problem for the new US Administration to address.

Mick Ware is the epitome of a war correspondent. He is a throwback to the rough and tumble reporters of old, before they got neatly packaged and presented for prime time. He is not afraid to shock or confront, which makes him a refreshing rarity. He also has quite a life story. After a period as a lawyer, professional rugby player, a journalist for a regional Australian newspaper, and assignments in Jakarta, East Timor, and Papua New Guinea, he wangled his way into Afghanistan as a correspondent for Time magazine shortly after the onset of hostilities. As local legend has it, he walked across the Kurdish regions deep into Iraq, bluffing his way through checkpoints with only basic Pashtu, and there hooked up as an embedded reporter with an American Special Forces team.

Since 2003, initially for Time and later for CNN, he has been a Baghdad correspondent. He is also a constant thorn in the side of  any spinmeister  attempts to  present conditions in Iraq as more rosy than the reality. Mick also found time to report on the Lebanese War, and will next report on the Mexican drug cartels. Wherever there are bullets, blood and adrenalin, that is where Mick Ware wants to be. He is man with a low threshold for boredom or a death wish, depending on who you ask.

Mick is the only Westerner known to have survived an Al Qaeda kidnapping in Iraq. His experiences in the conflicts have been up close and personal. In 2006, in a magazine article he told of the dangers of reporting from Iraq. He wrote a deeply painful piece about one of his “fixers,” who was abducted and tortured by Al Qaeda in an attempt to get him to name Mick as a spy. The man was finally released with a message to deliver: “Tell Mick we’re watching him”. In an already deadly game, the stakes rose yet again for him.

He moved to CNN later that year, and  took up residence at their compound in Baghdad. Prior to that, he built and paid for his own defensive arrangements, protected not by Western contractors like many other journalists,  but by two families of Iraqis who had been with him for years. He lived close to the action, not in the safe and secure zone. His blast protective windows did their job, and blew in without fragmenting when the Australian Embassy across the road was bombed. He called the report in live, overcoming initial skepticism from reporters at home that he was actually close enough to see what was going on. Mick Ware knows Iraq, probably better than any other journalist. The locals trust him, as do the US troops, as he has earned their respect time and time again reporting on real conditions on the ground.

Last week, in hearing him talk and meeting him, through his memories I got to play a guilty voyeur to the hell on earth he has witnessed. He  gave an address to a small, intimate audience at an  Advance Los Angeles,  ex-pat Australian, function. The environment was so small and personal that he sometimes seemed uncomfortable with the close proximity. However, in this environment,   he could perhaps be more candid than under the eyes of the watchful editors and glaring lights of a CNN studio. Many of his observations were graphic. The grisly stories designed to shock, confront, and convey the reality of war. He retold the famous tale of his kidnapping by Al Qaeda, one of several kidnappings he has endured. He told stories that made the audience decry the depths of inhumanity man can visit upon each other.

However, it was in the less obvious sidebars that the painful choices and the muddled morals of a war correspondent came to light. He told the harrowing story of traveling with US Marines under the command of a new young officer. Approaching a crossroads, Mick realized that it was a well-known ambush point,  and that the Marine convoy was likely to be attacked. He voiced the conundrum that he faced as a journalist in a war zone;  should he warn the young officer or should he film events as they unfolded? In essence the age old question, was he reporting or participating in the war? The pain in his voice was evident, though he attempted to cover it with a laugh,  as he told us he reached for the camera. This obviously troubled decision revealed something of the toll such decisions take in such a morally-murky environment.

He told how it feels to be in battle with munitions flying around indiscriminately, and how that feeling changes to a much more intense and personal experience when the opposition target you directly. He explained how one sense and taste the malevolence of such intent. He described how who is the bad and who the good guy becomes unclear, dependent on circumstance. He revealed the personal and moral consequences of being with a US troops as they allowed a wounded Iraqi insurgent to die, offering no aid, instead just covering his face to stifle the moans. It is a truly personal cost that he paid to report a war, allowing us to dissect and second guess from the safe environs at home.

What he told us that night, and what one saw in his pain and anguish at the memories, is but a microcosm of the damage done to every serviceman and every Iraqi fighter. Each give up part of their humanity for the perceived greater good of their country. In the US perspective, it is to bring freedom and democracy. For the Iraqis an existential desire to repel a foreign invader. The price Mick Ware has paid is apparent in his eyes. He is a man pained by, but perhaps almost sinfully attracted to the brutal, real, and bare essence of war. For him, perhaps war is now his mistress, and civilian life just lights and superficiality where he no longer can survive. He is at war by choice, however, and so one has to mitigate sympathy accordingly. Others are not there through self-determination, and are returning to their societies damaged, creating a legacy for generations to come.

The audience questions following his speech were telling, almost impotent in impact after such raw emotion. One could speculate that Mick was perhaps frustrated  that the gruesome realities he was trying to convey were difficult to comprehend in totality by an audience unfamiliar with the harrowing reality of conflict, used to debating the war only at a conceptual level. Several of the questions thrown at him may have seemed trite from his perspective. One asked whether he was scared while on assignment and how he coped. He paused, seemingly shocked that anyone could think he wasn’t terrified. He seemed to be somewhere else in his memories when he replied that ‘of course he was’ and swigged his wine to demonstrate how he managed to cope on a daily basis.

Mick is also a  brilliant strategist, who understands how the complex  dynamics in the region really work. His insights are food for thought, and contain wisdoms that challenge conventional thinking. He is an honest reporter who has called the American Administration to task when required. For example, when McCain said that the surge had made the streets of Baghdad safe, it was Mick, though he denies it with his tongue firmly in his cheek , who pointed out that when McCain filmed there to ‘prove his point’  that off camera were hundreds of troops and attack helicopters keeping him safe.

It was however later, in a brief discussion with Mick that I saw a glimmer of his journalistic angst. He is trying to write a book, but is blocked, the most self-doubt inducing feeling for any writer. I told him I believed he excelled in print, that his written work was far superior to that he was allowed to show on camera. He looked me in the eye, clear and present for that moment, and I sensed  his internal conflict. He may be more widely known by many as an on-air talent, but at his core, he is a journalist of old. He  replied to the effect , “…you think so, that makes me happy, because I am really at heart a  print man”. In that brief, candid moment, he was the Michael Ware before Baghdad and Afghanistan, prior to paying the price to bring us the stories of war. Michael Ware  is a true war correspondent of our age.  I am proud to have met the man, and shook his hand. God speed, Michael Ware, thank you for your honest reporting, and stay safe.

This would seem an unsolvable conundrum for most, akin to the Gordian Knot. There is a way out though,  if one agrees to redefine what areas are deemed within the city borders and which are not. Where the definition doesn’t fit but the contract is inked, it is often easier to change the understanding of the definition rather than the contract terms themselves. While US high command and the Maliki government might think they can fool the public with this sleight of hand, in reality, this is a magician’s trick that everyone can see right through. When is Rasheed not a district in Baghdad? When the Iraqi government and the US State Department say so, of course:

On a map of Baghdad, the US Army’s Forward Operating Base Falcon is clearly within city limits.

Except that Iraqi and American military officials have decided it’s not. As the June 30 deadline for US soldiers to be out of Iraqi cities approaches, there are no plans to relocate the roughly 3,000 American troops who help maintain security in south Baghdad along what were the fault lines in the sectarian war.

“We and the Iraqis decided it wasn’t in the city,” says a US military official. The base on the southern outskirts of Baghdad’s Rasheed district is an example of the fluidity of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) agreed to late last year, which orders all US combat forces out of Iraqi cities, towns, and villages by June 30.

“We consider the security agreement a living document,” says a senior US commander. With six weeks to go, US and Iraqi commanders are sitting down in joint security committees to determine how they can comply with the decree that all US combat forces withdraw from populated areas by the end of June and still maintain the requirement to assist Iraq in fighting the insurgency and maintaining security and stability – To meet June deadline, US and Iraqis redraw city borders | csmonitor.com.