A closer look at our coverage on Iraq.

BAGHDAD — Did he or didn’t he? Did the presumptive Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama, “refine” his position on timetables, to allow for some wiggle room by pledging to adjust his schedule for withdrawal of troops in accordance with the recommendations of commanders on the ground? He claims he has been saying that all along, but his Iraq policy as described on his Web site makes no mention of commanders, much less following their advice. But, then again, this all sounds so last week.

That’s because the idea of a well defined timetable has gained support from what might seem a surprising source: Iraq. And not just from a few fringe characters but just about everybody, from Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki on down. At this point, the only people still supporting an open-ended commitment are President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, and Tehran.

Tehran? That’s right. As has happened so often in recent years (driving the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, Iran’s greatest foes, from power), Mr. Bush finds himself pushing a policy that coincides with Iranian interests. From the start, Tehran has wanted to frustrate American goals in Iraq but not defeat them. So long as the United States is bogged down there, the clerics reason, it won’t have the desire, domestic political support and wherewithal to attack them.

How did we reach this point? The Iraqi about face on timetables came to light in news reports about talks between the U.S. and Iraq on security agreements. U.S. troops are currently operating under a United Nations mandate that will expire in December and needs to be replaced if the American military is to continue to operate legally inside the country. It quickly became clear that any deal was likely to be short-term, and unlikely to openly sanction the long-term presence of American forces. But details of that future agreement are under dispute. Here is a run-down of what we know so far:

The Elections Complicate Everything

Iraqi leaders fear that they could be punished in provincial elections planned for later this year if they agree to a deal that spells out a long-term presence for American forces. Some clerics have pushed the Iraqi government to reject any kind of deal with the Americans. It’s possible that any deal may have to be postponed until after the provincial elections.

Of course, the American elections have not made anything clearer, as the bickering about Senator Obama’s timetable underscored. There is some support for a short-term deal that could be renegotiated later, with the eventual winner of the presidential campaign.

Any Deal May Be a Short-Term Deal

The New York Times’s Alissa J. Rubin reported that American officials are no longer confident that a complete security agreement can be reached this year. Iraq’s foreign minister has raised the possibility that even if an agreement was reached, it would be a short-term pact.

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Malaki, has also said that he favors a short-term deal over a longer four-year agreement.

Timetables and Troop Withdrawals

One commentator asks: “Why hasn’t the NY Times reported the Iraqi government’s demand for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops? The Washington Post, the LA Times reported it today. So did NPR and probably (obviously I can’t check them all) every major news source. But not the NYT. Doesn’t it think it worthy of its attention?”

Yes and no.

As The New York Times’s Campbell Robertson reported this week, Iraqi officials have continued to insist “that a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition troops must be included in any security agreement with the United States.”

But will such a timetable actually be implemented? The Bush administration has been unwavering in their opposition to any mandated troop withdrawals. It is unlikely they would ever agree to such a deal.

Military Operations and Suspects

The American military is now free to conduct operations and detain suspects, but the Iraqis want to be notified of operations ahead of time and authorize any arrests. It’s unknown how this dispute will be resolved. Allisa Rubin and Richard Oppel discussed the issue in their podcast.

Once concession that the Americans have agreed to is “to hand over to the Iraqis people captured by American soldiers and accused of crimes.” Despite the reputation the Americans earned at Abu Ghraib prison, the U.S.-run detention centers appear far safer than Iraq’s prisons.

Immunity for Private Security Contractors May Be Ending …

Another concession that it appears Americans are willing to make is to lift immunity for large private security contractors operating in Iraq. The New York Times’s Sabrina Tavernise reported that “the private security companies, like Blackwater Worldwide, have reputations of using excessive force in protecting diplomatic and other foreign clients.”

… But Immunity for the American Military Is Not

While Iraq has criticized American troops for killing civilians, there is almost unanimous agreement in the U.S. military that soldier only be tried by American military law.

Kyle Crichton contributed reporting from New York and Eric Owles from Baghdad.

Iraqi cities hit by bomb attacks

map

At least seven people have been killed and some 19 injured in a suicide car bombing in Iraq's northern city of Mosul, Iraqi officials say.

They say the attacker targeted a convoy carrying an Iraqi general, who escaped unharmed. The victims were his bodyguards and civilians in the area.

Earlier, bombs exploded in the western city of Falluja, killing four policemen and two civilians, police say.

Eighteen people were injured in the two blasts outside a bank in the city.

The bomber in Mosul targeted the convoy of Gen Riyadh Jalal Tawfiq, army commander of the Nineveh province, Iraqi officials say.

"The bomber drove his car into my convoy," Gen Tawfiq told the AFP news agency.

"When my guards tried to arrest him, he detonated his car," he added.

Security handover

Earlier on Wednesday, six people were killed in two blasts in quick succession in Falluja, Iraqi police say.

They say the first blast targeted a police unit guarding a bank. The second bomb went off when a police convoy arrived to help the victims.

Falluja was at the centre of the Sunni Muslim insurgency following the US-led invasion of Iraq, until local tribes turned against al-Qaeda militants.

Officials did not say who was behind the attacks in Mosul and Falluja, but al-Qaeda remnants in Anbar and Nineveh are often blamed for such bombings.

The US military is said to be on the verge of handing security control of Anbar to Iraqi forces.

A scheduled handover ceremony was postponed late last month. Bad weather was blamed for the delay.

Monday, 7 July 2008

Female bomber kills nine in Iraq

The aftermath of the suicide attack on the market

A female suicide bomber has killed nine people and wounded 12 others in an attack on an Iraqi market, police said.

The attack took place in the al-Mafraq area west of Baquba in Diyala province, about 50 km (30 miles) north-east of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.

The use of women to carry out suicide bombings has become a regular tactic of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The US military says there have been more than 20 suicide bombings by women this year in Iraq.

A BBC reporter in Baquba says women and children were among the casualties in Monday's attack.

Women recruits

Baquba is the capital of the restive Diyala province - one of the most dangerous parts of Iraq.

Seven people were killed in the province on Sunday in an attack on a Kurdish politician.

It has seen a series of suicide bombings by women over the past year.

Last month, 15 people were killed and 39 wounded by a female suicide bomber in an attack near the local government complex in Baquba.

Security officials say al-Qaeda has recruited women bombers because they are often subjected to lighter security checks than men.