Independent: Leaky UK Memo Shows Pull Out Plans
Almost two thirds of the 8,500 British troops in Iraq will have been pulled out by the end of next year, under plans drawn up in Whitehall to hand over two provinces to Iraqi control.I've been trying to wrap my mind around how it feels to now have family in danger in both Iraq and London. But lets be honest with one another...we knew full-well that Britain's involvement in Iraq increased the chances of an attack on London. So it's hardly a surprise. I'm just very thankful my sister and all my loved ones in London were not physically hurt. Anyway, it's been about as slippery a feeling as any I've had in recent years. I want the people who planned and staged the attacks in London behind bars as much as I want the people responsible for Abu Ghraib and the entire illegal Iraq war behind bars. Besides the now added complexities of having a sister who was extremely lucky, here are a few things that are clear to me. The Iraq war has made everybody less safe. And, still to many, it seems an Iraqi's life is not worth as much as a Brit's or American's life. With this leaked memo we have the first signs of a possible timeline for a draw-down of troops. The Brits could force the American hand by turning over the provinces currently under their control to Iraqis. I suggest the British government go through with this plan of a draw-down while insisting (even privately) for Bush Co. to issue a timetable of withdrawal. We need a light at the end of the tunnel. And we need it now.
The plan set out in a leaked memo written by the Defence Secretary John Reid, hints that the Government is keen to cut the heavy cost of patrolling southern Iraq.
The memo calculates that the current cost of the British presence in Iraq, around £1bn a year, could be halved if the number of troops were reduced to 3,000 during 2006. The memo implies that the British would formally hand over control to the Iraqis of the four provinces currently under British control by April 2006, but that it take another eight months before what the memo calls the "UK military drawdown" has been completed - and 18 months before the money comes through.
Revealingly, it hints at tension between the Pentagon and US Central Command, which want a rapid troop reduction, and commanders on the ground in Iraq.
The memo also warns that Japan may insist on pulling out the 550 Japanese engineers if they left with the only the Iraq army to protect them from insurgents. There will be a question mark, too, over the 1,400 Australian soldiers in Iraq.
The memo, entitled Options for future UK force posture in Iraq and headed "Secret - UK eyes only", was leaked to The Mail on Sunday, apparently by someone connected with the Defence department who suspected that Britain was preparing to get out quick as an economy measure, leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves.
The defence department said it that various options were being considered for reducing the British presence in Iraq, and stressed that nothing has been finally decided.
The memo, sent to Tony Blair, said that the US government is also trying to scale down its military commitment to Iraq. "Emerging US plans assume 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006, allowing a reduction from 176,000 (allied troops) down to 66,000.
Memo in Full
Options for future UK force posture in Iraq
Paper by Secretary of State SECRET - UK EYES ONLY
1. ISSUE
We will need to reach decisions later this year on likely future UK force structure and disposition in Iraq into 2006.
This paper sets out some of the key contextual considerations; identifies areas of uncertainty; sets out what we know of US planning and possible expectations on the UK contribution; and assesses the potential impact on UK decision making.
2. Decisions on coalition, and within that, UK force levels will be governed by four factors, all of which are subject to a greater or lesser degree of uncertainty:
* Internal Iraqi pressure for further force posture changes.
* Successful progress in the potential process and extension/renewal of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546. (Mail on Sunday footnote 1)
* The continued development of the capability of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF).
* The security situation.3. None of this, however, undermines the Multinational Force Iraq (MNF-I) (Mail on Sunday footnote 2)broad security strategy of:
a) Working with the Iraqis to contain and restrain the insurgency.
b) Assisting and encouraging the development of Iraqi security forces and structures which can progressively assume responsibility for all aspects of security including dealing with the insurgency, and thereby:
c) Enable MNF-I force reductions and eventual withdrawal.4. US POSITION
US political military thinking is still evolving. But there is a strong US military desire for significant force reductions to bring relief to overall US commitment levels.
Emerging US plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006, allowing a reduction in overall MNF-I from 176,000 down to 66,000.
There is, however, a debate between the Pentagon/Centcom (Mail on Sunday footnote 3) who favour a relatively bold reduction in force numbers, and MNF-I whose approach is more cautious.
The next MNF-I review of campaign progress due in late June may help clarify thinking and provide an agreed framework for the way ahead.
5. (Technical details)
6. UK POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The current ministerially endorsed policy position is that the UK should not:
a) Agree to any changes to the UK area of responsibility.
b) Agree to any specific deployments outside Multinational Division South East. (Mail on Sunday footnote 4)
c) Agree to any specific increases in the roughly 8,500 UK service personnel currently deployed in Iraq.7. Looking further ahead, we have a clear UK military aspiration to hand over to Iraqi control in Al Muthanna and Maysan provinces (Mail on Sunday footnote 5) in October 2005 and in the other two Multinational Division South East provinces, Dhi Qar and Basra (Mail on Sunday footnote 6) in April 2006.
This in turn should lead to a reduction in the total level of UK commitment in Iraq to around 3,000 personnel, ie small scale, by mid 2006.
This should lead to an estimated halving in the costs which fall to the reserve, (Mail on Sunday footnote 7) around £1 billion per annum currently. Though it is not clear exactly when this reduction might manifest itself, it would not be before around the end of 2006.
8. None of this however, represents a ministerially endorsed plan. There is a good deal more military analysis to do which is under way. We will need to consider handling of other MND SE allies.
The Japanese reconstruction battalion (Mail on Sunday footnote 8)will for example be reluctant to stay in Al Muthanna if force protection is solely provided by the Iraqis. The Australian position, which is highly influenced by the Japanese presence, may also be uncertain. (Mail on Sunday footnote 9)
NOTE
I will bring further and more specific proposals to DOP-I (Mail on Sunday footnote 10) for the future UK force posture in Iraq, including handover to Iraqi control and subsequent UK military drawdown.
John Reid.
Mail on Sunday footnotes
Footnote 1:(UN resolution authorising allied troops presence in Iraq)
Footnote 2: (The Multinational Force of Allied troops in Iraq)
Footnote 3: (Centcom is the US military command centre in the US)
Footnote 4: (Not get involved in operations outside area around Basra under UK control)
Footnote 5: (two of the four provinces around Basra in UK control)
Footnote 6: (the other two UK run provinces)
Footnote 7: (The UK Treasury Reserve)
Footnote 8: (Japan has 550 engineers in UK area of Iraq)
Footnote 9: (Australia has 1,400 troops in Iraq ,whose main job is to protect the Japanese)
Footnote 10: (The Defence and Overseas Policy, Iraq sub committee of the Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister)
Robert Fisk: The reality of this barbaric bombing
If we are fighting insurgency in Iraq, what makes us think insurgency won't come to us?
"If you bomb our cities," Osama bin Laden said in one of his recent video tapes, "we will bomb yours." There you go, as they say. It was crystal clear Britain would be a target ever since Tony Blair decided to join George Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned. The G8 summit was obviously chosen, well in advance, as Attack Day.
And it's no use Mr Blair telling us yesterday that "they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear". "They" are not trying to destroy "what we hold dear". They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East. The Spanish paid the price for their support for Bush - and Spain's subsequent retreat from Iraq proved that the Madrid bombings achieved their objectives - while the Australians were made to suffer in Bali.
It is easy for Tony Blair to call yesterday's bombings "barbaric" - of course they were - but what were the civilian deaths of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the children torn apart by cluster bombs, the countless innocent Iraqis gunned down at American military checkpoints? When they die, it is "collateral damage"; when "we" die, it is "barbaric terrorism".
If we are fighting insurgency in Iraq, what makes us believe insurgency won't come to us? One thing is certain: if Tony Blair really believes that by "fighting terrorism" in Iraq we could more efficiently protect Britain - fight them there rather than let them come here, as Bush constantly says - this argument is no longer valid.
To time these bombs with the G8 summit, when the world was concentrating on Britain, was not a stroke of genius. You don't need a PhD to choose another Bush-Blair handshake to close down a capital city with explosives and massacre more than 30 of its citizens. The G8 summit was announced so far in advance as to give the bombers all the time they needed to prepare.
A co-ordinated system of attacks of the kind we saw yesterday would have taken months to plan - to choose safe houses, prepare explosives, identify targets, ensure security, choose the bombers, the hour, the minute, to plan the communications (mobile phones are giveaways). Co-ordination and sophisticated planning - and the usual utter ruthlessness with regard to the lives of the innocent- are characteristic of al-Qa'ida. And let us not use - as our television colleagues did yesterday - "hallmarks", a word identified with quality silver rather than base metal.
And now let us reflect on the fact that yesterday, the opening of the G8, so critical a day, so bloody a day, represented a total failure of our security services - the same intelligence "experts"who claim there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when there were none, but who utterly failed to uncover a months-long plot to kill Londoners.
Trains, planes, buses, cars, metros. Transportation appears to be the science of al-Qa'ida's dark arts. No one can search three million London commuters every day. No one can stop every tourist. Some thought the Eurostar might have been an al-Qa'ida target - be sure they have studied it - but why go for prestige when your common or garden bus and Tube train are there for the taking.
And then come the Muslims of Britain, who have long been awaiting this nightmare. Now every one of our Muslims becomes the "usual suspect", the man or woman with brown eyes, the man with the beard, the woman in the scarf, the boy with the worry beads, the girl who says she's been racially abused.
I remember, crossing the Atlantic on 11 September 2001 - my plane turned round off Ireland when the US closed its airspace - how the aircraft purser and I toured the cabins to see if we could identify any suspicious passengers. I found about a dozen, of course, totally innocent men who had brown eyes or long beards or who looked at me with "hostility". And sure enough, in just a few seconds, Osama bin Laden turned nice, liberal, friendly Robert into an anti-Arab racist.
And this is part of the point of yesterday's bombings: to divide British Muslims from British non-Muslims (let us not mention the name Christians), to encourage the very kind of racism that Tony Blair claims to resent.
But here's the problem. To go on pretending that Britain's enemies want to destroy "what we hold dear" encourages racism; what we are confronting here is a specific, direct, centralised attack on London as a result of a "war on terror" which Lord Blair of Kutal-Amara has locked us into. Just before the US presidential elections, Bin Laden asked: "Why do we not attack Sweden?"
Lucky Sweden. No Osama bin Laden there. And no Tony Blair.
Hot Asian BBC World Reporters: The Future of Journalism
You expect me to slump into depression, to lash out in some fit of rage, to crush you with the density of mercurial verbosity...yet no, I am held back by the poetry of piping hot Asian BBC World reporters. Forget Nancy Ajram and Haifa Wehbe. I'm talking class and intelligence...I'm talking almost 75% as fine as female Al Jazeera reporters.
Due to the marvels of satellite technology I have been indulging in BBC World trying to keep up to speed on all developments of the insanity by which my Londoner sister has confronted along with many many others. Once some more details emerge, I will respond more seriously. In the meantime, I want to speak of the hot asian BBC reporters that have calmed my nerves while the pressure has risen. Only if you watch BBC World would you actually understand what I'm speaking of here.
Michelle Hussein: Perhaps the kindest on the eyes. Yes, she has the same name as the tyrant...but she's oh so fine. My lord! What could I possibly say about Michelle Hussein? You can't find photographs of Michelle H. on the net because she's too hot for photographs. Get a satellite and get BBC World.
Zeinab Badawi: She's Sudanese. And while not technically Asian, I say close enough. Need I say more? [relevant mp3]
And just so you don't think I'm racist, do you remember the Annie Lennox/Sinead O'Connor of BBC McBabes? Anita McNaught-y! Rawwwrrrr beby rawwwr!
So here's to London and all their hot BBC reporters doing overtime by looking sexy on satellite. Am I out of line? Good.
more later...
London Bombings: RAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I chatted with her just now and we came to the conclusion that bush and blair are frickin' bastards and have made the world less safe because of their idiocy. ...that almost goes without saying, along with the fact that whatever bastards did this deserve to meet a painful death.
AND ANOTHER THING: When it happens in IRAQ, it's NO DIFFERENT! Grrrrrr...
My words'll expose George Bush and Bin Laden
As two separate parts of the same seven headed dragon
Remember this song? Download it here and the other, The Cause of Death, here.
UPDATE:
I'm going to collate some links here soon.
Guardian: So, Mr. Bremer, where did all the money go?
Extremists vs Liberals
Foreign Policy
Al Qaida/Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
American Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
Liberals: Peace and international cooperation
Executing Minors
Al Qaida/Taliban: Executing Minors OK
American Taliban: Executing Minors OK
Liberals: Find this to be a barbaric and embarrassing practice
Pop Culture
Al Qaida/Taliban: Hate it... kill it
American Taliban: Hate it... ban it
Liberals: Laugh at it... boycott it
Self-image
Al Qaida/Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
American Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
Liberals: Willingness to consider other viewpoints
God
Al Qaida/Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
American Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
Liberals: God may or may not exist and will not help us kill anyone
Stem Cell Research
Al Qaida/Taliban: No Stem cell research
American Taliban: No Stem cell research
Liberals: Stem cell research
Leaders
Al Qaida/Taliban: God choose Osama Bin Laden to defeat the Great Satan
American Taliban: God choose George W. Bush to lead us
Liberals: God didn't choose anyone
Use of Force
Al Qaida/Taliban: As a means of propagating a world view
American Taliban: As a means of propagating a world view
Liberals: As a last resort
Bush's War in Iraq
Al Qaida/Taliban: Love it!
American Taliban: Love it!
Liberals: It's a disaster
Press
Al Qaida/Taliban: Control of the Press
American Taliban: Manipulation of the Press
Liberals: Freedom of the Press
Free Speech
Al Qaida/Taliban: Anyone who disagrees with us is an infidel and must be silenced
American Taliban: Anyone who disagrees with us is a traitor and must be silenced
Liberals: Anyone who disagrees with us is in for a spirited discussion
Individuals
Al Qaida/Taliban: Conform or else
American Taliban: Conform or else
Liberals: Embrace diversity
Cooperation
Al Qaida/Taliban: You're either with us or against us
American Taliban: You're either with us or against us
Liberals: We're all in this together
Tolerance
Al Qaida/Taliban: Death to the infidels
American Taliban: Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity
Liberals: Live and let live
Conscience
Al Qaida/Taliban: Obedience to authority
American Taliban: Obedience to authority
Liberals: Critical reflection
Origins
Al Qaida/Taliban: Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God
American Taliban: Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God
Liberals: The Universe began as we know it at least 14 billion years ago, maybe more
Leaders
Al Qaida/Taliban: Subservient to will of its leaders
American Taliban: Subservient to will of its leaders
Liberals: Will served by Representative government
Fear
Al Qaida/Taliban: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in moral absolutes and scorn those that threaten those absolutes
American Taliban: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in moral absolutes and scorn those that threaten those absolutes
Liberals: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in accepting that respect for our fellow man and the individual choices he/she makes is eminently moral
Women
Al Qaida/Taliban: A woman's place is in the home
American Taliban: A woman's place is in the home
Liberals: A woman's place is wherever she wants it to be
Marriage
Al Qaida/Taliban: Marriage is only between a man and a woman
American Taliban: Marriage is only between a man and a woman
Liberals: Marriage is between any two people who love each other
via dKos
China & Russia: Set Timetable to Withdraw from Central Asia
CS reports,
Meeting in the Kazakh capital of Astana, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) - which includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, China, and Russia - issued a joint statement saying the active military phase of the Afghan operation was coming to an end and calling on the US-led coalition to agree to a deadline for ending the temporary use of bases and air space in member countries. |
We shall see what comes of this in the following days and weeks. Make no mistake, this is heavy-hitting geopolitics.
Billmon on Wing Nut Radio: Assets to Extremism
It looks like the Cheney administration is finally getting serious about losing the war in Iraq -- it's sending in the radio talk show hosts:
A contingent of conservatives talk radio hosts is headed to Iraq this month on a mission to report "the truth" about the war: American troops are winning, despite headlines to the contrary.The "Truth Tour" has been pulled together by the conservative Web cast radio group Rightalk.com and Move America Forward, a non-profit conservative group backed by a Republican-linked public relations firm in California.
If the Iraqi insurgents are smart -- and most of them are fucking geniuses compared to your average right-wing talk show host -- they'll spread the word: Leave these particular dumb ass infidels alone. (Not that any of them are likely to poke their porcine snouts outside the green zone without a brigade-strength escort. But you never know where the odd mortar round is going to land.)
Why? Because collectively, these guys are an enormously valuable asset to America's enemies -- both because of their utterly brainless support for Al Qaeda's strategy of turning the war against terrorism into a crusade against Islam, and because they've done such a splendid job of setting up the American people to be demoralized and disillusioned by the truth.
Obfuscating the truth for more delusional visions of victory won't be helpful. And I'm sure extremists in the region will welcome the wing nuts to town with open arms. Another sick twist...
Cousin: 90% Gangs, 10% Fighting Occupation Legitimately
All I can say is that it seems from my cousin's estimate that the criminals are operating at an endemic level. He later on went to say, "maybe we can all go back and live in Iraq in 10 or 20 years." Other comments I recall include, "There is no light at the end of the tunnel. Because the tunnel is so long and dark." and "We would like to see hope, but there is none." and "Each day is worse than the day before."
When you hear this, it gets very depressing. In the end he said, "We still have hope. We lived like this during the war and we live like this now. We always have hope."
Sure he contradicts what he says about there being no hope, but I think that shows a lot about the general Iraqi feeling these days. Teetering between hope and hopelessness. It's certainly how I've felt, though now I have less hope than ever before...exactly because each day the situation gets worse.
About the 90/10 split...of course it's hard to say what this estimate really is, but there must be truth to this feeling he has. Still, what can be done about it when it benefits them to keep things as unstable as possible? Why would these bastards mind if some foreign jihadi went and blew up a bunch of innocent Iraqis or if American troops made more grave errors by putting more innocent Iraqis in graves. It only helps these criminal thugs. Of course, these are the Iraqis involved that we spoke of...my cousin also was saying that each and every day the amount of foreign "single-wash brainwashed fanatics" (as he calls them) and other fighters coming into Iraq is more and more. This was his feeling at least. And, it sure does look like that from afar. If this was America's strategy for fighting the so-called war on terror...to make Iraq into a training center similar as how Afghanistan was when America was sponsoring Bin Laden to fight the Soviets, well doesn't that sound the alarm bell that such a place only makes the world less safe?
Just because the new sponsors are rich Saudis, doesn't make the situation any different today. In fact, I'd argue it is worse because we know less and less about how these sort of terror groups operate now. Of course, in the case of Afghanistan in the 80s, America created those groups to fight the Soviet Union. So now, essentially, America has helped created another incubator for terrorism...and that was a part of the strategy?
They couldn't tie Iraq and Al Qaeda together then, but they sure can now. Imagine, then...that was a goal of the Cheney administration. How sick and twisted can a foreign policy get?
I want to be completely clear about my position regarding American troops in Iraq. There absolutely needs to be a timetable for withdrawal. The notion the insurgents need some sort of reason to "wait it out" is absurd. Let's be serious, the insurgency doesn't need a reason to be encouraged to fight. They are only getting stronger and more sophisticated as time passes, while American forces continue to kill and alienate innocent Iraqis. These Iraqis are the lot made to suffer most. They are stuck between the insurgency and the occupation. This favors the insurgency in the long run of course. And I believe more and more honest Iraqis are dreaming to be rid of the occupation. And that spells a nightmare for the American wish to have a strategic foothold in the region. In short, it will be impossible for America to have bases in Iraq and for Iraqis to live in peace simultaneously. bases/occupation = chaos - Simple as that. Anyway, at this rate, I believe in one to two years such a timetable will be presented. Now it doesn't seem to be in the cards for whatever reason, but believe me it will.
Is this a solution? Of course not. I'm describing not prescribing. If somebody tells you they have a solution, they'd be lying through their teeth. Let's just say we know what is not a solution. It is not a solution to continue the occupation indefinitely. It is not a solution to not hold people accountable and operate above international law. It is not a solution for people to treat Iraqis like they don't matter in all this. Iraq is for Iraqis, not for America. I'm sick of how people don't ask Iraqis living inside Iraq how they feel about being occupied, how they feel about being humiliated daily, how they feel about being treated like strangers in their own land, how they feel about not being able to go for a walk down the street, how they feel about not having drinking water, how they feel about not having petrol for their cars while having the world's second largest reserves of the stuff, how they feel about being the real victim in all this chaos.
Who gives anybody the right to not include Iraqis in the reconstruction process...to be suspicious of them getting involved in such projects just by the virtue that they are Iraqis? I mean, isn't that completely insane? Exiles going back to help is wonderful, but when they are the only ones running the ship from an isolated cocoon, the ship is bound to go down.
Exiles should be serving a support role, not as the Emperor's servants. When the Iraqi that has lived through all the wars and sanctions is put under the thumb of exiles coming from their plush lives (and able to leave whenever they like, mind you) from Australia, Europe, and N. America...it just sets up the entire situation for animosity to incubate.
Sure, Iraqis need to learn about certain things...and exiles will offer that help. But by no means should they patronize the Iraqi who has lived and suffered through the past hell to be presented with a new and even worse hell that they don't even have ownership of now. Talk about adding insult to injury. If the "injury" was a gaping flesh wound...it's more like adding urine, spit, and a little doo doo to that injury...rubbing it all in, then adding a little salt and terpintine to the wound. And then saying, "you don't live here, it's my house now, get out and pay for the doo doo too."
Whether or not that makes sense, I could hardly care less. I'm so exhausted as today felt over 40 degrees until the sun went down. My body aches and I'd like to shower, but I can't because my towels are washing.
That's all for now. Blaaa.
RETARD ALERT
Some things to take note of...
Rove needs to be visited by the FBI Ferry and locked up.
Screw democrats and let them give birth to gremlins for being so weak in the knees on a woman's right to choose.
The current Iraqi "government" learned a lot from Saddam and then they upgraded their torture chambers to "torture camps" thanks to America's help at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq.
Remember to get your war on every once and a while.
And Tom Tomorrow cuts through the crap as usual. Check this one:
The Emperor's Servers
The Bush administration has decided to retain control over the principal computers which control internet traffic in a move likely to prompt global opposition, it was claimed yesterday.Can anybody say, unilateral take-over of the internet? I mean, they didn't even go to the UN for this one.The US had pledged to turn control of the 13 computers known as root servers - which inform web browsers and email programs how to direct internet traffic - over to a private, international body.
But on Thursday the US reversed its position, announcing that it will maintain control of the computers because of growing security threats and the increased reliance on the internet for global communications. A Japanese government official yesterday criticised the move, claiming it will lend momentum to the debate about who controls the information flow online.
The Big Lie
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th attacks."
George W. Bush -- September 17, 2003
To the extend that George Bush had retained the slightest shred of dignity through the whole ugly Iraq imbroglio, it was found in his refusal to fully embrace the biggest of the Big Lies told by his aides: The claim that the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein had played a role in the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
...
The point here is not to defend Hussein. The point is to recognize reality: The invasion and occupation of Iraq did not control the spread of terrorist activity in the Middle East. It handed the terrorists new opportunities for recruitment, and it gave them new territory in which to operate. Until the president acknowledges these fundamental realities -- and his own responsibility for making things worse -- it will be impossible to undo the damage.
George Bush set out to deceive to the American people Tuesday. That was morally wrong, and tactically foolish.
But George Bush also deceived himself, by engaging in the fantasy that some new spin will allow him to avoid taking responsibility for making the world a more dangerous place. Ultimately, that is the bigger, and far more dangerous lie.
Complete piece here.
More Subterfuge
President Jalal Talabani denied that Iraq had a role in US talks with insurgent leaders, insisting they were strictly a US affair despite Washington's claims it was acting only as a facilitator.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld confirmed Sunday that US officials had held talks with insurgent groups, but insisted Washington's role was limited to that of broker for the Iraqi government.
"The Iraqis have a sovereign government," Rumsfeld said. "They will decide what their relationships with various elements of insurgents will be. We facilitate those from time to time."