Iraqi forces ready for security transfer; Pakistan complicates regional efforts

Iraq ready for transition, Mullen says

Insurgent activity in Iraq linked to al-Qaida has declined, paving the way for the withdrawal of American forces by the end of June, Adm. Mike Mullen said.

U.S. combat forces are obligated under the terms of a bilateral Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq to pull back to their military bases by the end of June.

Top military commanders had expressed a reluctance to pull out completely, pointing to lingering instability in Mosul, thought to be the remaining holdout for al-Qaida in Iraq.

In an interview with the pan-Arab al-Arabiya television network, Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that Iraqi security forces are able to cope with any al-Qaida remnants in Mosul and other parts of the country.

His comments follow statements from U.S. forces in Iraq that command outposts in Mosul were set for security transfers as American forces prepare to leave.

Iraq has experienced a rise in violence in recent months as the June deadline approaches, though Mullen said that is typical given the increased exposure of American forces.

"The index of violence in Iraq tends to be low overall, despite the recent incidents of violence," he said. "What is happening now is expected and we are keeping an eye on recent developments."

Mosul prepares for transfer

U.S. military forces are working to transfer security responsibility to their Iraqi counterparts as a June 30 withdrawal deadline approaches.

U.S. forces under the terms of a bilateral Status of Forces Agreement signed in 2008 are required to pull out of Iraqi cities by the end of the month.

As the deadline approaches, several U.S. military officials said they would consider extending their military presence in some of the more volatile areas of Iraq, notably Mosul, parts of Baghdad and Diyala province, if requested to do so by the Iraqi government.

But in a sign of the approaching deadline, U.S. military forces are transferring some of their command outposts over to Iraqi authority, even in Mosul.

First Lt. John Peterson, who commands a U.S. Army battalion in Mosul, said Iraqi authorities were ready to take over from their American counterparts, the U.S.-led Multinational Division-North reports.

"This will mark the end of a U.S. presence (in eastern Mosul) with all these buildings being turned back over to the Iraqi army," he said. "A lot of Iraqi army soldiers feel that they are ready to step up for this new challenge, but many of them think they will still need help from us."

The level of violence, however, has increased as American forces prepare to pull back to their bases. May was a deadly month for U.S. troops in Iraq, while June brought several more casualties in the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and in Diyala province.

Kurds hope for Kirkuk vote

Lingering issues over the status of Kirkuk province should not prevent elections from taking place, Kurdish lawmakers contend.

Iraq held provincial elections in 14 of the 18 provinces in January. The three Kurdish province -- Dahuk, Sulaimaniya and Erbil -- hold provincial elections in 2010, with parliamentary elections scheduled for July.

Elections in Kirkuk were postponed indefinitely while Iraqi and international officials hammer out power-sharing arrangements between the ethnic communities there.

Mahud Osman, a Kurdish lawmaker in the Iraqi Parliament, told the Kurdish Globe his community supported elections in Kirkuk despite lingering issues.

"From the beginning, we wished for (holding) the elections in Kirkuk like the other provinces," he said. "And now, we don't oppose holding the election and never asked for its delay."

A parliamentary committee tasked with settling the Kirkuk issue came away from a March 31 resolution deadline with nothing to show in terms of political settlements.

Two constitutional provisions deal with the issue. Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution considers whether enough Kurds have returned to the area to consider it Kurdish, while Article 23 calls for a power-sharing arrangement between Kurds, Turkomen and Arabs at the local level.

Kurdish lawmakers have presented informal census numbers to the Iraqi Parliament, while the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq considers its own slate of reconciliation options.

Pakistan center of AFPAK

Top U.S. military and diplomatic strategists say a destabilized Pakistan creates complex problems for tackling the growing insurgency in neighboring Afghanistan.

U.S. President Barack Obama unveiled a new strategy for Afghanistan that draws on lessons learned from the counterinsurgency doctrine employed in Iraq. In the new Afghan strategy, Washington couples an increased troop presence with non-military aid.

Richard Holbrooke, the top U.S. diplomat on the AFPAK strategy, and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, lobbied for that strategy before so-called moderates in the region. Most of those expressed solidarity with the Taliban and its offshoots in Pakistan, creating an added layer of difficulty for regional issues.

Meanwhile, part of the AFPAK strategy calls for increased unmanned aerial strikes against militant targets inside Pakistan, a move sure to upset top officials in Islamabad. Holbrooke acknowledges the U.S. strategy walks a fine line between supporting the Pakistani government and tolerating internal corruption as U.S. allies in Pakistan often play both sides.

"Pakistan is at the center of our strategic concerns," Holbrooke told The Wall Street Journal. "If Afghanistan had the best government on Earth, a drug-free culture and no corruption it would still be unstable if the situation in Pakistan remained as today."

Taliban attacks rise as U.S. surge begins

With American and international forces headed to combat the growing insurgency in Afghanistan, attacks by Taliban-linked militants are on the rise.

Provincial leaders in the eastern Paktika province in Afghanistan said Taliban insurgents attacked a convoy escorting provincial leaders, killing several top officials.

Hamidullah Zuwak, a provincial spokesman, told the Xinhua news agency that armed insurgents attacked a convoy carrying the provincial police chief, killing him and several others.

A similar attack in May killed a district governor and his sons in the province, which borders Pakistan.

Meanwhile, a series of blasts struck the southern province of Kandahar during the weekend, killing five civilians and wounding another 10. No security personnel were wounded in that attack.

The attacks come as Taliban leaders promised to step up their pressure on international forces as American and NATO troops prepare to increase their numbers in Afghanistan.

U.S. President Barack Obama in a message to the Muslim world last week said U.S. forces would leave Afghanistan following the defeat of al-Qaida and the Taliban insurgency. That message was greeted by Taliban messages of determination.

"If Obama wants peace in Afghanistan and in the region, he should pull out his troops and give an end to occupation," a Taliban statement said.

Iran has AFPAK role

Washington should work to engage Iran as a partner in the strategy for Afghanistan as Tehran may have more to offer than Islamabad, an analyst says.

Washington has coupled non-military aid to Pakistan with the counterinsurgency doctrine envisioned for Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Iran has moved, unilaterally at times, to tackle instability along its border with Afghanistan while making its own investments in the Afghan infrastructure.

To the praise of regional leaders, Tehran hosted Pakistani and Afghan leaders recently to discuss regional issues while U.N. officials heap praise on Iran for its work in controlling cross-border opium trafficking and for police training efforts.

U.S. and Iranian officials worked side-by-side in the early stages of the Afghan conflict, creating a new government and new rules for the embattled Asian nation in 2001.

George Gavrilis, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a U.S.-based think tank, said cooperation between Tehran and Washington is long overdue as common regional interests override historic acrimony.

"An AF-IR strategy that formally recognizes these common interests may expand Tehran's contribution to Afghanistan's security and development," he argues. "It may also trigger a much-needed thaw in Tehran-Washington relations."

Gavrilis calls on Washington to establish consulates and economic zones along the western Afghan border with Iran as well as embrace joint cooperation on counter-narcotics efforts and infrastructure development.

Obama has lobbied hard for a policy of engagement. Embracing Iran, at least tacitly, could bring sweeping reform to the region, Gavrilis argues.

"It's high time for the United States to engage Iran over Afghanistan in a way that is public, decisive, and comprehensive," he urges.

--

(dgraeber@upi.com)