Conflicted Iraqis face future without US troops (AP)

By REBECCA SANTANA and LARA JAKES, Associated Press Rebecca Santana And Lara Jakes, Associated Press – 1?hr?3?mins?ago

BAGHDAD – For the first time in decades, Iraqis face a future on their own, with neither Saddam Hussein's iron fist nor the United States' military might to hold them together. This has been both their dream and nightmare: They wanted American troops (the occupiers) to go, but they wanted American troops (the protectors) to stay.

Now many fear an increase in violence, growing Iranian influence and political turmoil after President Barack Obama's definitive announcement that all U.S. forces will leave by the end of the year.

In conversations with The Associated Press, Iraqis across the political, religious and geographic spectrum on Saturday questioned what more than eight years of war and tens of thousands of Iraqi and U.S. lives lost had wrought on their country. They wondered how their still struggling democracy could face the challenges ahead.

"Neither the Iraqis nor the Americans have won here," said Adnan Omar, a Sunni from the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk.

Rifaat Khazim, a Shiite from the southern city of Basra, said, "I do not think that this withdrawal will bring anything better to Iraq or that Iraqi leaders will be able to achieve stability and security in this country. Most of the Iraqis yearn now for Saddam's time. Now, Iraq is defenseless in the face of the threats by the neighboring countries."

Across the country there was a strong sense of disbelief. The Americans, having spent hundreds of billions of dollars, lost nearly 4,500 troops' lives and built up sprawling bases as big as many Iraqi cities, would never really leave, many Iraqis thought. Some celebrated the exit of foreign occupiers and the emergence of real sovereignty. But there was also an apprehension, almost a sense of resignation, that things will get worse.

Though greatly reduced from the depths of near civil war from 2006 to 2008, shooting and bombings rattle Iraqis daily. Significantly all the elements from those darkest days remain: al-Qaida militants, Shiite militias, Sunni insurgents. Resentment still simmers among the Sunni Muslim minority over domination by the Shiite majority, Kurds in the north still hold aspirations of breaking away. Despite years of promises of better government services, most of the country gets by on a few hours of electricity a day.

In the eyes of Iraqis, the Americans were both the cause of those woes and the bulwark against them exploding. Many blame the 2003 U.S.-led invasion for unleashing all the demons kept bottled up by Saddam's dictatorship, and allowing new ones — like al-Qaida — to slip in.

Yet at the same time, U.S. troop reinforcements helped rein them in by 2008. Many feel the powerful American presence prevents Iraqi politicians from dragging the country into the worst of sectarian reprisals and hatreds. Few believe Iraqi forces are up to keeping security or can avoid falling into the same sectarian splits.

"After the American withdrawal, the security in Iraq will definitely deteriorate. More attacks by al-Qaida are likely to happen," said Dhia Abdullah, a Shiite from eastern Baghdad. "The security elements are not loyal to Iraq but to parties and militias therefore the security situation will be very bad after the withdrawal."

Nearly 40,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, all of whom will withdraw by Dec. 31, a deadline set in a 2008 security agreement between Baghdad and the administration of then-President George W. Bush.

The Obama administration, concerned over continued violence and growing Iranian influence, for much of this year pushed to keep thousands of U.S. troops here in a significant-sized training mission. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other Iraqi officials expressed support of the idea, and they negotiated for months.

It was politically delicate for both Obama and al-Maliki, who each faced widespread opposition from their respective publics to continue a war that was never popular in either nation.

But talks ran aground over Iraqi opposition to giving American troops legal immunity that would shield them from Iraqi prosecution. Legal protection for U.S. troops has always angered everyday Iraqis who saw it as simply a way for the Americans to run roughshod over the country. Many Iraqi lawmakers were hesitant to grant immunity for fear of a backlash from constituents.

"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki told a news conference Saturday. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."

When Obama announced Friday that all American forces would leave Iraq by the end of the year, he did not mention the immunity issue, portraying the decision as the fulfillment of one of his main campaign promises to end the conflict.

The impression of the U.S. as all-powerful has always permeated Iraqi society, leaving many Iraqis assuming that the decision was purely an American one instead of an Iraqi choice.

Many, both Sunnis and Shiites, were sure the departure of American forces inevitably will lead to a rise in Iranian influence.

"The withdrawal announcement is a message to the Iranians to come and take over Iraq. The Iraqis are the real losers here because they have replaced the U.S. occupation with Iranian occupation," said Adel al-Dulaimi, a Sunni from northern Baghdad.

In an interview released Saturday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Tehran has "a very good relationship" with Iraq's government that will continue to grow.

"We have deepened our ties day by day," Ahmadinejad said in an interview Saturday with CNN.

To be sure, many Iraqis were happy. Iraqis resented years of having to pull to the side of the road when American troops drove by or putting up with raids of their homes in the middle of the night.

"The Iraqi people are the winner because a few months from now, we will walk in the streets without seeing U.S. troops and this is a source of joy to us because Iraq has restored its full sovereignty," said Saif Qassim, a Sunni from the northern city of Mosul.

Others suspicious of the U.S. questioned whether the American military would ever give up its toehold here.

"I believe that the full withdrawal will be only in the media but there must be secret deals with the Americans to keep some American forces or members of the American intelligence," said Raja Haidr, a Shiite from eastern Baghdad. "They won't leave."

Al-Maliki told reporters he still wants American help in training Iraqi forces to use billions of dollars worth of military equipment that Baghdad is buying from the United States. About 160 U.S. troops will remain at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to help oversee training plans — a duty that is common at most American diplomatic posts worldwide.

U.S. officials, from Obama to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, stressed that Washington will continue to have a strong diplomatic relationship with Baghdad.

Michael O'Hanlon, an expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington said continued violence in Iraq was a threat whether or not U.S. troops remain.

"But it's true that their frequency may increase absent U.S. help in areas of intelligence and special operations," said O'Hanlon, who had been lobbying for a larger U.S. force to remain behind. "In addition, I do fear the residual risk of civil war goes up with this decision."

__

Rebecca Santana can be reached at http://twitter.com/@ruskygal

Lara Jakes can be reached at http://twitter.com/@larajakesAP

View the original article here

Obama: seniors could be hurt without debt deal (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama raised the stakes in the third straight day of budget talks on Tuesday by warning that senior citizens and veterans may suffer first if the debt ceiling is not raised by August 2.

The comments came as top Republicans toughened their stance in the deficit reduction talks. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said a "real solution" to the U.S. debt problem was unlikely while Obama was in office.

U.S. business leaders pressed Obama and congressional leaders to act swiftly to raise the $14.3 trillion U.S. debt ceiling -- which caps how much the United States can borrow -- or risk derailing a sputtering economic recovery and endangering the global financial system.

Obama and top lawmakers from both parties were due to meet at the White House at 3:45 p.m. ET.

The president said in an interview with U.S. television network CBS that checks to recipients of the Social Security retirement program may not go out in early August if he and congressional leaders do not agree on a debt deal.

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue," Obama said, according to excerpts of the interview released in advance of its broadcast.

"Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Obama said. He said veterans checks and disability benefits could also be affected without a deal.

After months of talks, Republican and Democratic leaders are still at an impasse over a deficit reduction deal that would clear the way for Congress to raise the debt ceiling.

While they agree on the need to raise the debt limit before the United States defaults on August 2, both sides have engaged in a furious blame game over the failure to advance the deficit reduction package.

Republicans on Tuesday ratcheted up pressure on Obama and his fellow Democrats, who have accused Republicans of refusing to compromise.

"I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office a real solution is probably unattainable," McConnell said.

But he said Republicans will "do the responsible thing" and make sure the government does not default on its obligations on August 2, when the Treasury Department has warned it will run out of money to pay the country's bills.

White House spokesman Jay Carney called McConnell's comments "unfortunate."

UNCERTAINTY SEEPING INTO MARKETS

Failure to seal a deal by August 2 could spook investors, causing U.S. interest rates to surge and stock prices to plummet, and could put the United States at risk of another recession, Treasury officials and private economists have warned.

Republicans have balked at raising the debt limit without steep spending cuts, while Democrats also want to increase revenue by eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations in some sectors such as the oil and gas industry.

Republicans oppose any tax increases, which they argue would hurt the anemic economic recovery.

After briefing Republican members of the House of Representatives on the debt talks, House Speaker John Boehner said he was optimistic a deal could be reached. But he called the debt limit increase Obama's problem, a statement that drew immediate criticism from Democrats.

Despite the heated rhetoric, investors assume that Washington will ultimately avert a crisis. Yields fell to seven-month lows on the benchmark 10 year Treasury bond on Tuesday morning, fueled by debt worries in Europe.

But the impasse has investors' attention, and as the clock ticks toward August 2 with no deal in sight, it is contributing to a broadly negative sentiment on Wall Street.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who has warned of catastrophic consequences if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling, held firm on Tuesday to vows that the United States would not default. "Failure is not an option," he said.

Business leaders showed their growing concern by sending Obama and congressional leaders a letter on Tuesday that warned of the consequences if lawmakers did not reach a deal.

(Additional reporting by Andy Sullivan, Thomas Ferraro, Donna Smith, David Morgan, David Lawder, Laura MacInnis and Matt Spetalnick; Writing by Deborah Charles; Editing by Ross Colvin and Vicki Allen)

View the original article here

Strauss-Kahn released without bail, case in doubt (Reuters)

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn was released without bail on Friday after a dramatic court hearing where the sexual assault case against him appeared to shift in his favor.

Strauss-Kahn, who smiled as he walked out of court, still faces felony charges of attempted rape and sexually assault over the alleged attack on a hotel maid in New York. His lawyers said they will seek to have the charges dismissed but the judge said prosecutors were continuing to investigate.

The turnabout could upend French politics. Strauss-Kahn, 62, was a strong candidate for the 2012 French presidential election until his May 14 arrest.

At a hearing to seek changes to his bail conditions, prosecutors said the credibility of the woman at the center of the case had been thrown into question.

As a result, the court agreed to let Strauss-Kahn be freed and his bail and bond returned. He agreed to return to court as needed, including for a July 18 hearing.

"I understand that the circumstances of this case have changed substantially and I agree the risk that he would not be here has receded quite a bit. I release Mr. Strauss-Kahn at his own recognizance," Justice Michael Obus told the court.

Strauss-Kahn's arrest forced his resignation from the International Monetary Fund and appeared to end his presidential hopes, weeks before he had planned to declare his candidacy.

His supporters in the French Socialist party voiced delight at the apparent reversal and some said they hoped he might re-enter the 2012 presidential race.

'EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION'

The case has hinged on the accuser, a 32-year-old Guinean immigrant who cleaned the $3,000-a-night suite at the Sofitel hotel in Manhattan where Strauss-Kahn was staying.

Prosecutors said at the hearing their change of view on the maid's credibility followed "an extensive investigation" but they gave no details.

The New York Times quoted two well-placed law enforcement officials as saying prosecutors found issues with the accuser's asylum application and possible links to criminal activities, including drug dealing and money laundering.

They also discovered the woman made a phone call to an incarcerated man within a day of her encounter with Strauss-Kahn in which she discussed the possible benefits of pursuing the charges against him, the paper said.

The conversation was recorded. The man was among a number of people who had made multiple cash deposits, totaling around $100,000, into the woman's bank account over the last two years, The New York Times said.

The woman's brother told Reuters in Guinea that she was the victim of a smear campaign.

Her lawyer said after the hearing that his client's story had never wavered and Strauss-Kahn's assertion that she had consensual sex with him was a lie.

(Additional reporting by Mark Hosenball, Marie Maitre, Catherine Bremer and Geert De Clercq in Paris and Saliou Samb in Guinea; Writing by Paul Taylor and Mark Egan; Editing by Mark Trevelyan and John O'Callaghan)

View the original article here