Reuters : U.S. and Iraq scale back security deal plans: W.Post

U.S. and Iraq scale back security deal plans: W.Post

By Dean Yates | July 13, 2008

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have ended efforts to reach a formal security pact before President George W. Bush leaves office in favor of an interim deal, the Washington Post said on Sunday, citing senior U.S. officials.

The two sides had been negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement that would provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to remain when a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

But in the past week Iraqi leaders have spoken of only agreeing what they call a memorandum of understanding. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has also raised for the first time the prospect of setting a timetable for U.S. troops to leave Iraq.

The Washington Post quoted one U.S. official close to the negotiations as saying "we are talking about dates", even though Bush has previously rebuffed calls for a timetable.

Iraq is a major issue in November's presidential election battle between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. McCain supports the Bush administration's current strategy, while Obama has called for a timetable for withdrawal.

The Post said the "bridge" security document would be limited in both time and scope and would allow basic U.S. military operations to continue once the U.N. mandate ended.

Iraq has rejected a number of Washington's demands, insisting they infringe on the country's sovereignty.

The document now under discussion with Iraq was likely to cover only 2009, the Post said.

Negotiators expected it to include a "time horizon", with specific goals for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Baghdad and other cities and installations, it added.

The fixed dates are likely to include caveats referring to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over security. Some Iraqi officials themselves have said any timetable would be determined by security conditions on the ground.

PRESSURE

There is strong domestic pressure in Iraq to set dates for a withdrawal of U.S. forces, especially with violence at a four-year low and with Iraqi security forces getting larger and taking the lead in more security operations.

Maliki's political opponents would also likely try to exploit the issue of an undefined U.S. troop presence in provincial elections later this year.

The most contentious unresolved issue was the legal immunity of U.S. troops in Iraq, the Post reported.

U.S. officials have said this is non-negotiable. But Iraq's deputy parliament speaker has said lawmakers would probably veto any deal that gave U.S. soldiers immunity from Iraqi law.

The Bush administration has always opposed setting any withdrawal timetable, saying to do so would allow militant groups to lie low and wait until U.S. troops in Iraq have left.

U.S. troop levels are already being cut, with the last of five additional combat brigades Bush deployed last year expected to pull out this month. That will leave 15 combat brigades in Iraq, or around 140,000 soldiers.

Washington was considering withdrawing additional troops beginning in September, The New York Times reported on Sunday, citing administration and military officials.

The withdrawal stemmed partly from the need for more U.S. troops in Afghanistan to fight the rising insurgency by the Taliban and other fighters.

No final decisions had been made, but up to three combat brigades in Iraq could be withdrawn, or slated for withdrawal, by the end of the administration in January, the Times said.

The White House declined to discuss the withdrawals, but spokesman Gordon Johndroe told the newspaper that while Bush hoped to bring more troops home, he would await recommendations in September from General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, the Times said.

(Additional reporting by Christopher Michaud in New York; Editing by Catherine Evans)

© Thomson Reuters 2008 All rights reserved

NYT : Iraqi Officials Still Insisting on Timetable to Withdraw

Iraqi Officials Still Insisting on Timetable to Withdraw

By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON | July 9, 2008

BAGHDAD — Iraqi officials continued to insist Tuesday that a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition troops must be included in any security agreement with the United States.

Meanwhile, in western Anbar Province, 22 bodies were found at a Ramadi elementary school that was undergoing construction, 20 of them buried in the playing fields, apparently over a lengthy period, the local police said.

Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser, said the government would reject any security agreement that did not include a schedule for the departure of foreign troops.

“We will not accept a memorandum of understanding without having timeline horizons for the cessation of combat operations as well as the departure of all the combat brigades,” Mr. Rubaie said in a telephone interview. However, he declined to offer specifics on a timeline, suggesting that the Iraqi government itself was not yet sure how quickly it wanted the United States to withdraw.

Earlier in the day, Mr. Rubaie was in the holy city of Najaf meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most senior Shiite religious leader. The ayatollah has not expressed an opinion on the specifics of the negotiations, emphasizing only that Iraq must protect its sovereignty.

Mr. Rubaie’s remarks came a day after Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki confirmed that his government was considering a short-term pact with the United States that would extend the presence of American troops but also include a timetable for withdrawal.

The insistence on withdrawal is a popular position for many Shiites, and has been championed by one of Mr. Maliki’s chief rivals, the rebel Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr. With provincial elections expected before the end of the year, Mr. Maliki is said to be eager to demonstrate his independence from the United States while undercutting Mr. Sadr.

The Bush administration has consistently opposed a timetable, arguing that it would only embolden insurgents. Gordon D. Johndroe, a White House spokesman, reiterated that argument on Tuesday in Japan, where President Bush was attending the Group of 8 summit meeting.

“Negotiations and discussions are ongoing every day,” Mr. Johndroe said. “It is important to understand that these are not talks on a hard date for a withdrawal, but are discussions on a security horizon that reflect the Iraqis’ increasing capacity, as well as improved conditions on the ground that should allow for a further reduction of U.S. forces.”

In Ramadi, at an elementary school that was being renovated, an excavator uncovered 20 corpses buried in the volleyball and soccer fields, said Tariq Yousif, a provincial police commander. Two bodies were also discovered in cisterns at the school.

Local mosques are asking families with missing relatives to come to the school to try to identify the bodies. One woman recognized the body of her husband, who was an imam at the nearby Gailani Mosque and a professor at a local Islamic college.

At noon on Sunday, a senior adviser at the Ministry of Justice was shot as he was driving on a Baghdad highway, and a woman who worked for Iraqi Airways was killed by a gunman on a city bridge, according to the Ministry of the Interior.

Riyadh Muhammad and Abeer Mohammed contributed reporting from Baghdad, and an Iraqi employee of The New York Times from Ramadi.

The Times : Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki demands US withdrawal timetable

Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki demands US withdrawal timetable

Iraqis want an end to the immunity that US troops have from prosecution

James Hider in Baghdad | From The Times | July 8, 2008

Iraq said for the first time yesterday that it wanted to set a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from its territory.

President Bush has long resisted a schedule for pulling his 145,000 soldiers out, arguing that it would play into the hands of insurgents. Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia Prime Minister, who boasted last week that he had crushed terrorism in the country, suggested that it was time to start setting time-lines.

“The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to put a timetable on their withdrawal,” Mr al-Maliki said during a visit to the United Arab Emirates. He rejected efforts by Mr Bush to hurry through an agreement on vital issues such as the immunity of US troops in Iraq and use of the country’s airspace. Mr Bush had hoped to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by the end of July to establish the basis for a long-term presence of US troops in the country.

The Iraqi parliament has bridled at pushing through such a binding deal with the outgoing and unpopular Bush Administration, saying that the negotiations have been secretive and could undermine Iraq’s sovereignty. “I don’t know anything about this agreement and neither does parliament,” said Ezzedine Dawla, a Sunni MP. “We’re going to pass something we don’t know anything about.”

Mr al-Maliki’s announcement showed a growing self-confidence that Iraqi leaders can stand up to their powerful ally. His oil minister said last week that leading Western oil companies would not be allowed to set conditions for future deals over Iraq’s main natural resource. The tough stance also comes before Iraqi provincial elections later this year, and may mark the start of the Prime Minister’s campaign to be reelected. His popularity was bolstered by military operations to take back the southern oil city of Basra and the town of al-Amarah from Iranian-backed Shia militias.

His comments may also hint at future cooperation with Barak Obama, the Democratic candidate, who has promised to pull US troops out of Iraq within 16 months, although Mr Obama has since appeared to waver on the commitment.

“The negotiations are continuing with the American side,” Mr al-Maliki said, reflecting the desire of many MPs to wait until a new administration is in the White House, and Iraq’s provincial elections are over, before making any deal. The agreement would govern such issues as immunity for US troops from prosecution, the use of Iraqi airspace, and which side takes operational control for military missions against insurgents.

Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish MP, said that the issue of immunity for US forces had become a particularly sensitive subject for Iraqis. “We have suffered so much from immunity. Immunity equals committing crimes. In the name of immunity they have killed people, they have their own prisons, they captured Iraqis. We can’t continue like this,” he said.

Haidar al-Abadi, a close aide to the Prime Minister, said that the US had wanted complete control of Iraqi airspace, since Iraq still had no air force. Mr al-Abadi said that the Government had rejected the demand. “Air-space will be decided by the Iraqi Government,” he said.

In a rebuff to the Mr al-Maliki the Pentagon said any timetable would be [artificial] and withdrawal would depend on conditions on the ground.

WaPo : McCain Responds to Maliki's Call for an Iraq Withdrawal Timetable

McCain Responds to Maliki's Call for an Iraq Withdrawal Timetable

By Michael D. Shear | July 8, 2008

Sen. John McCain, who has repeatedly derided anyone who advocated a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, now suddenly finds himself in a political box as the American-backed Iraqi leadership yesterday raised the prospect of exactly that.

For the first time on Monday, Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki said in a statement from his office that the two countries should consider deciding the future of American troops with "a memorandum of understanding to put a timetable on their withdrawal."

McCain was silent on the comments Monday. But today, his top foreign policy adviser declined to criticize Maliki or distance McCain from him. And they sought to portray Maliki's comments as consistent with the Republican nominee's long-standing position.

"Senator McCain has always said that conditions on the ground -- including the security threats posed by extremists and terrorists, and the ability of Iraqi forces to meet those threats -- would be key determinants in U.S. force levels," said adviser Randy Scheunemann, who criticized Sen. Barack Obama's "constantly shifting positions" on Iraq.

But McCain's position on the question of a specific timetable for withdrawal has been shifting as the candidate moved from the Republican primary into the general election.

In speeches, town hall meetings, interviews and campaign commercials, McCain has said a timetable would provide terrorists the knowledge of how long they have to wait until American troops are gone. He has repeatedly said that setting a date for withdrawal would lead to "chaos, genocide and we will be back with greater sacrifice."

His rhetoric has been withering and aimed at both Democrats and Republicans. During the waning days of the GOP primary, he eviscerated former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for a comment that McCain said amounted to support for a timetable.

Romney disputed that, but the damage to his candidacy was unmistakable. Later, McCain turned his fire on Democrats, including Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton, accusing them of endangering Americans by advocating a specific timetable for withdrawal.

"It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible and premature withdrawal," he said in a California speech.

In that speech, McCain offered his "vision" for 2013, by which time he said most of the troops would be gone from Iraq. That was quickly seen by many observers as a timetable for withdrawal by that date.

But immediately after the speech, McCain disputed the idea that he was setting a firm date for withdrawal of troops from Iraq, telling reporters that he is "promising that we will succeed in Iraq" but not promising that troops will come home if that success has not materialized.

"I'm not putting a date on it. It could be next month. It could be next year," he told reporters on the Straight Talk Express bus. "I said by the end of my first term we will have succeeded in Iraq.... This is what I want to achieve. This is what I believe is achievable."

McCain fought Democratic attempts in Congress to legislate the withdrawal of troops. And he famously said troops might be in Iraq for as long as 100 years, though he says that referred to a Korea-like presence, not active fighting like that occurring now.

On Tuesday, McCain's campaign declined to respond directly to the question of whether he now supports the idea of setting a date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country.

Speaking on MSNBC Tuesday morning, McCain said that "The fact is that we and the Iraqis will deal in what is in the national security interests of both countries. And there is no reason to assume that the Iraqis aren't going to act in what they perceive as their national
interest. I believe we will enact ours and I believe we will all come home."

AFP : Iraq to reject US deal without pullout timetable

Iraq to reject US deal without pullout timetable

July 8, 2008

NAJAF, Iraq (AFP) — Iraq said on Tuesday it will not reach any security pact with Washington unless it sets a date for the pullout of US-led foreign troops, a proposal turned down by US President George W. Bush.

The Shiite-led government's demand -- which was swiftly rejected by Washington -- underlines Iraq's new tougher stand in complex negotiations aimed at striking a security deal more than five years after the US-led invasion.

"We will not accept any memorandum of understanding if it does not give a specific date for a complete withdrawal of foreign troops," national security advisor Muwaffaq al-Rubaie told reporters in the holy city of Najaf.

Baghdad and Washington are negotiating a deal that would see the presence of US-led forces beyond 2008 when the UN mandate which provides the legal basis for a foreign troop presence in Iraq expires.

The security pact, also known as Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), has to be signed by July 31 according to a previous agreement between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, but it has provoked strong opposition in Iraq.

And the US State Department rejected the Iraqi demand for a specific timetable.

"The US government and the government of Iraq are in agreement that we, the US government, we want to withdraw, we will withdraw. However, that decision will be conditions-based," State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said.

On Monday, Maliki told Arab ambassadors in Abu Dhabi that he was seeking a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops as part of the security agreement.

"The direction we are taking is to have a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to have a timetable for their withdrawal," Maliki was quoted as saying.

But Rubaie said it was proving "very difficult" to set a date.

"The Iraqi government has spoken about its date, while the foreign party has spoken about its date," he said. "Until now we have not arrived at an agreement on this issue."

On Monday, the White House reacted to Maliki's comments by saying it was not negotiating a "hard date" for a US withdrawal from Iraq but it did not rule out discussions on "time-frames" with Baghdad.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said the talks were aimed at reaching agreement on a framework for future US-Iraqi relations and on the arrangements to govern the US military presence.

"It is important to understand that these are not talks on a hard date for a withdrawal," he said. "When you make an agreement," he added, however, "that doesn't mean that there won't be some understanding of time-frames."

The negotiations have been more difficult than expected, and the prospect of an agreement in the final months of the Bush administration has aroused controversy in political circles in both Iraq and the United States.

Shiite and Sunni politicians have raised objections, and Democrats in the US Congress have expressed fears that any agreement would tie the hands of the next president.

The sticking points have been the duration of a defence pact, how many bases Washington should retain, what powers the US military should continue to hold to detain Iraqis, and what immunity US troops should have.

The negotiations come amid a marked improvement in the security situation in Iraq that has allowed a drawdown of US forces, which now number 146,000, down from over 160,000.

On Tuesday, Republican White House candidate John McCain warned that security conditions must dictate troop withdrawals.

But his Democratic foe Barack Obama, an early opponent of the war who wants to pull out most combat troops within 16 months, said it was encouraging that Iraq now wanted to work out a timetable for withdrawal.

"We will withdraw, but... the victory we have achieved so far is fragile and (the redeployment) has to be dictated by events and on the ground," McCain said in an interview with MSNBC.

Obama said Maliki's remarks were in line with his own policy.

"I think it's encouraging... that the prime minister himself now acknowledges that in cooperation with Iraq, it's time for American forces to start sending out a timeframe for the withdrawal."

WaPo : Iraq Wants U.S. to Compromise More on Security Deals

Iraq Wants U.S. to Compromise More on Security Deals

By Karen DeYoung | Washington Post Staff Writer | April 22, 2008

KUWAIT CITY, April 21 -- Iraq is resisting U.S. proposals for a pair of new bilateral security agreements, saying it expects Washington to compromise on "sensitive issues," including the right to imprison Iraqi citizens unilaterally, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Monday.

Other problematic areas now being negotiated, Zebari said in an interview, are provisions in U.S. drafts to give American contractors immunity from Iraqi law and allow the United States to conduct military operations without Iraqi government coordination. "These are the main ones, but there could be others," he said, among them "issues of sites, of locations, of access" by U.S. troops.

The Iraqi people "expect to see a change in the relationship on internment, and on some sovereignty issues," Zebari said. About 23,000 Iraqis are currently held in U.S. military prisons there.

Zebari spoke in Bahrain, where he was attending a meeting with Egypt, Jordan and the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who also attended the meeting and had pressed the Arabs to invite Zebari, called the session a "good step toward reintegrating" Iraq into the Arab world.

The United States has been trying to persuade the leaders of predominantly Sunni Arab states to increase diplomatic and economic support for the Shiite-led government in Baghdad. One goal is to counter the influence of Iran, whose government is overseen by Shiite clerics.

Many of those who attended the Bahrain gathering -- including Rice and Zebari -- then traveled to Kuwait for a regional meeting Tuesday on Iraq that is also to include representatives of the Group of Eight highly industrialized nations.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki met here with Rice on Monday night, one day after she visited him in Baghdad.

The United States and Iraq are negotiating a status of forces agreement and a separate "strategic framework" to replace the existing U.N. mandate governing the U.S. troop presence. The mandate expires at the end of this year. A growing and bipartisan number of U.S. lawmakers have demanded that the Bush administration submit the agreements for congressional approval.

Democrats have charged that the Bush administration is attempting to tie the next administration to its military policy in Iraq. Republicans fear that President Bush's refusal to seek congressional ratification will compound public dissatisfaction with the war and become a negative campaign issue.

The White House has said that Bush can use his executive authority to sign the agreements and that they do not require congressional approval. He has pledged they will not include authorization for specific U.S. troop numbers or "permanent" military bases.

Zebari agreed that the accords would be nonbinding and said Iraq would also retain the ability to review and change them at any time. He said he expected the negotiations to be concluded by a July 31 deadline. "It's not going to be easy," Zebari said. "If you want to reach a final agreement, there has to be compromise."

Maliki's government, which has its own internal discord, has said that both accords will have to be ratified by the Iraqi parliament.

Zebari made clear that the Iraqi government is closely monitoring the U.S. election campaign and noted that none of the candidates is calling for "immediate disengagement." The campaign, he said, has also affected Arab willingness to increase involvement in Iraq.

Rice sent Assistant Secretary of State C. David Welch to each of the Gulf Cooperation Council states in recent weeks -- Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar -- to persuade them to invite Iraq to the Monday meeting. His argument was that the recent Basra offensive targeting Shiite militias proved that Maliki's government was without sectarian bias.

During Monday's closed-door meeting of Arab foreign ministers, according to a U.S. official traveling with Rice, Zebari was asked why Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the only regional head of state to have visited Baghdad since the 2003 U.S. invasion. Zebari, the official said, replied that he was "embarrassed" by that fact, but that Arab governments had not accepted any invitations.

The U.S. official expressed satisfaction that Zebari was physically embraced by Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal upon entering the conference room and invited to remain in the meeting for discussions on Lebanon and the Palestinian-Israeli situation. "If they thought he was an Iranian agent, he would never have been allowed," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Bahraini Foreign Minister Khalid bin Khalifa acknowledged after the session that "we had questions about the ambiguity about the situation in Iraq."

Khalifa called Iraq's inclusion at the meeting an "important development" and said that Baghdad would continue to be invited as "an anchor of this group."

In the interview, Zebari said that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have expressed interest in opening embassies but that none had made a definitive move.

"Really, we've removed all the excuses in terms of security and logistics," he said. "We've given them options outside the IZ," the International Zone, or Green Zone, where the U.S. Embassy and much of the Iraqi government is located. "Or, if they prefer inside the IZ, we have evacuated a number of villas for them."

But the real reason for their reluctance, he said, was "not technical, not logistical, not security . . . it is political." Some of the countries, he said, harbor unhappiness over the U.S. invasion, although "they didn't shed any tears over Saddam's departure." More recently, "they always complain that there is extended Iranian influence."

"Our argument with them is that you have to blame yourselves," Zebari said. "They [the Iranians] are there and you're not there. A majority of the Iraqi people want to see you standing with them, beside them."

Asked about U.S. accusations that Iran supplies weapons and training for Shiite militias, Zebari said his government had raised the subject privately with Iranian leaders. "There hasn't been any public statement," he acknowledged, "but in discussions, in face-to-face bilaterals with the Iranians, yes, we do raise it . . . very seriously.

"They don't deny it, to be honest with you," he said. Unlike the Syrians, the Iranians respond that "there could be violations, here and there."

Reuters : Rice won't discuss Maliki corruption probe

Rice won't discuss Maliki corruption probe

By Susan Cornwell | October 25, 2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice vowed on Thursday to examine corruption allegations against Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, but refused to discuss publicly what she said could be rumor.

In an edgy three-hour hearing led by one of Congress' most tenacious interrogators, Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California, Rice said her office would look into allegations against Maliki as well as "hundreds of reports of corruption" among Iraqi officials.

A former Iraqi judge told Waxman's committee earlier this month that Maliki had shielded top Iraqi officials, including one of the prime minister's own relatives, from investigation.

"I am not personally following every allegation of corruption in Iraq, but I am certain that we are tracking these allegations of corruption because no one is more concerned about allegations of corruption in Iraq, no one is more concerned about what is, in fact, a pervasive problem of corruption than we are," Rice told the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

"But to assault the prime minister of Iraq or anyone else in Iraq with here-to-date unsubstantiated allegations or lack of corroboration, in a setting that would simply fuel those allegations, I think, would be deeply damaging," she said.

"And frankly, I think it would be wrong," Rice said.

Waxman is one of the President George W. Bush's strongest critics. He has led probes into the State Department over the Iraq corruption issue, the conduct of private security contractors in Iraq and the construction of a massive new U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

At Waxman's urging, the entire House voted last week to rebuke the State Department for withholding information from the public on corruption among Iraqi officials.

Rice was enduring a second day of congressional grilling, following a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday at which an anti-war protester waved blood-colored hands in her face.

There were more policemen than protesters in the hearing room on Thursday and no disruptions from anti-war demonstrators.

But the atmosphere was tense as Rice repeatedly refused to discuss allegations against Maliki, despite questioning from Waxman. She did repeat an earlier offer to provide information in a session closed to the public.

"We investigate every allegation of this kind," Rice told Waxman.

"When will your investigation be complete?" he demanded.

Rice replied that she was overseeing a large organization and there were many documents to examine.

"Well, this is a big deal. This is the prime minister of the country," Waxman declared.

"I agree with you it's a big deal," Rice retorted. "Precisely because it's not a minor allegation, I think it is worth giving the time to it to fully investigate it before discussing it."

Later, Waxman told Rice he was concerned about Iraqi corruption because "Americans are there fighting to keep Prime Minister Maliki in office."

"We're not fighting to keep Prime Minister Maliki in office," Rice shot back. "We are fighting to help the Iraqis to develop a democratic government that can provide for its people."

A few Republicans on the panel apologized to Rice for the "prosecutorial" nature of the hearing and praised her composure. She was "hectored but not harried," said Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah.

© Reuters 2007 All rights reserved

Reuters : Iraqi tells U.S. lawmakers of unchecked corruption

Iraqi tells U.S. lawmakers of unchecked corruption

By Susan Cornwell | October 4, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct 4 (Reuters) - Widespread corruption in Iraq stretches into the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, an Iraqi investigating judge told U.S. lawmakers on Thursday, and an American official said U.S. efforts to combat the problem are inadequate.

Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, who was named by the United States in 2004 to head the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity, said his agency estimated corruption had cost the Iraqi government up to $18 billion.

Maliki has shielded relatives from investigation and allowed government ministers to protect implicated employees, said the judge, who left Iraq in August after threats against him. He told a Capitol Hill hearing that 31 employees of his agency had been killed.

Radhi said he did not have evidence against Maliki personally, but the prime minister had "protected some of his relatives that were involved in corruption."

One of these was a former minister of transportation, Radhi told the House of Representatives' Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The U.S. official who testified, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, said he also saw a "rising tide of corruption in Iraq." He said U.S. efforts to combat it were "disappointing," lacking funding and focus.

Rep. Henry Waxman, the California Democrat who chairs the panel, questioned whether the Maliki government was "too corrupt to succeed" and charged that U.S. efforts to address the problem were in "complete disarray."

He criticized what he said was State Department resistance to the panel's investigation, saying the U.S. government apparently was afraid the corruption revelations "might embarrass or hurt our relations with the Maliki government."

Larry Butler, the deputy assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs, declined to publicly answer questions about whether Maliki had obstructed corruption investigations, saying he could only respond in a closed session.

Waxman called the request "absurd," but the State Department defended Butler's position. Spokesman Sean McCormack said in corruption investigations it was best to handle matters privately at first to protect the rights of those under suspicion.

Radhi said he did not return to Iraq because of threats to his security, but he also suggested Maliki was behind efforts to prosecute him if he went back.

In his statement, he said 31 of his co-workers and 12 of their relatives had been killed because of their work.

"This includes my staff member Mohammed Abd Salif who was gunned down with his seven-month pregnant wife," he said. The body of the father of another worker was found on a meat hook, he said.

Radhi also said it had been impossible for the commission to adequately investigate oil corruption because Sunni and Shi'ite militias had control of the distribution of Iraqi oil.

(Additional reporting by Arshad Mohammed)

© Reuters 2007 All rights reserved

Reuters : Iraq PM Maliki questions future of Blackwater

Iraq PM Maliki questions future of Blackwater

By Aseel Kami | October 3, 2007

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki questioned on Wednesday whether U.S. private security firm Blackwater had any future role in Iraq because of the high number of shooting incidents in which it had been involved.

Maliki appeared to toughen his stand again against Blackwater over a September 16 shooting in Baghdad in which 11 Iraqis died, an incident that sparked outrage among Iraqis who see the firm as a private army which acts with impunity.

In Washington, a House of Representatives committee heard in testy hearings on Tuesday that Blackwater guards had been involved in 195 shooting incidents in Iraq from the start of 2005 until September 12 this year, an average of 1.4 a week.

In those shootings there were 16 Iraqi casualties and 162 cases of property damage. Blackwater fired first in 84 percent of the incidents, said a report given to the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

"I believe the big numbers of accusations directed against (Blackwater) do not make it valid to stay in Iraq," Maliki told a news conference in Baghdad.

Blackwater, which has received U.S. government contracts worth more than a billion dollars, is one of the biggest security contractors in Iraq. It employs about 1,000 people in Iraq, where it guards the U.S. embassy and its staff.

The North Carolina-based company has said its guards reacted lawfully to an attack on a convoy they were protecting during the September 16 incident in western Baghdad.

Maliki's government was harshly critical of Blackwater immediately after the incident, which it called a crime, and vowed to freeze its work and prosecute those involved.

But Maliki's government later appeared to soften its stand, saying no action would be taken against it until after a joint investigation of the incident with U.S. officials.

Its comments came after U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice promised a full review of how U.S. security details are conducted in Iraq. At least four separate investigations into the incident are under way.

Estimates of the number of private security contractors working in Iraq vary between 25,000 and 48,000. They are immune from prosecution under an order drafted after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.

© Reuters 2007 All rights reserved