U.N. Extends Iraq Mandate

(CBS/AP)  The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Tuesday to extend the mandate of the 160,000-member multinational force in Iraq.

The council acted quickly in response to a request from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who said a top government priority is to assume full responsibility for security and stability in the country — but that it needs more time.

The resolution, drafted by the United States, extends the mandate of the multinational force for one year starting on Dec. 31 and authorizes a review at the request of the Iraqi government or by June 15.

The resolution contains the same provision as past resolutions — a commitment that the council "will terminate this mandate earlier if requested by the government of Iraq."

Al-Maliki's request for the one-year extension with a termination clause came as the Bush administration stepped up diplomatic efforts to stabilize the country.

In other developments:

U.S. troops fought with suspected insurgents in Ramadi on Tuesday, and the battle left six Iraqis dead, including five girls ranging in age from an infant to teenagers, the U.S. military said. The fighting began after a coalition patrol discovered a roadside bomb in the Hamaniyah section of Ramadi, and two men fled to a house, where they took up positions on the roof, the military said. As coalition forces removed the bomb, the suspected insurgents opened fire on the U.S. troops, who fought back with machine guns and tanks, the statement said. One of the gunmen may have been wounded and removed from the scene by other militants, the statement said, adding that there were no coalition casualties.

Iraq's Shiite militia has received training from the Iranian-sponsored group Hezbollah, a senior U.S. intelligence official told The New York Times. Between 1,000 and 2,000 members of the Mahdi army, composed of Iraqi Shiites led by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, were trained by Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon, the official said. Iran, along with Syria, has fostered the link between Iraqi Shiites and Hezbollah, the official said. The U.S. official's claim bolsters an observation made by a mid-level Mahdi commander, who said his militia sent 300 fighters to Lebanon. "They are the best-trained fighters in the Mahdi army," he told the Times this summer. Both the U.S. official and the Mahdi commander spoke on condition of anonymity.

Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused the United States of destabilizing Iraq through hired terrorists and former members of Saddam Hussein's regime. In a meeting with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Khamenei pledged that Iran would do all it can to use its influence among Iraq's Muslim Shiites to quell the violence in the country, according to a state television report. "The main reason for the current situation in Iraq is America's policies," the television quoted Khamenei as telling Talabani, who is on the final day of a two-day visit to Iran. Both Iran and Iraq are Shiite majority countries.

President Bush said Tuesday that sectarian violence rocking Iraq is not civil war but part of an al Qaeda plot using violence to goad Iraqi factions into attacking each other. "No question it's tough, no question about it," Mr. Bush said. "There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented in my opinion because of the attacks by al Qaeda causing people to seek reprisal."

The Washington Post reports that the U.S. military is no longer able to defeat insurgents in western Iraq or match al Qaeda's rising popularity, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report about the military's mission in Anbar province.

Iraq's Parliament voted unanimously Tuesday to extend Iraq's state of emergency for 30 more days, and suspected Sunni insurgents set off bombs that killed eight people and wounded 40 across the country. Lawmakers decided to continue the state of emergency that allows for a nighttime curfew and gives the government extra powers to make arrests without warrants and launch police and military operations. The measures have been renewed every month since they were first authorized in November 2004.

Two car bombs exploded Tuesday near a hospital morgue in Baghdad, killing three civilians and one policeman and wounding 19 civilians, a police officer said on condition of anonymity to protect his security. Insurgents kill many of the Iraqi security forces working with the U.S.-led coalition.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[diverinnl]

Sunshine_2, only time will tell if he is an effective leader. Currently, he is in a political posturing game, trying to find a middle ground between the west and the middle east. I'm not trying to take his side on this but I can understand that his is a difficult position to be in. The militias from either side are not going to settle down until they feel empowered in some way. I too would live for it to happen overnight but I don't expect anyone over there to hold hands and sing "Kum Ba Ya" for some time yet. Perhaps years.

[sunshine_2]

diverinnl ...
"I can't say that I blame him and UN presence does add a sense of legitimacy to the war. By talking with Iran, he showed a cold shoulder to Bush that probably went a long way for him politically. "

As The Leader Of His Country what has he "Done" to protect the citizens who elected him? How many more innocent civilians will die, while he debates when or if the Militias will lay down their arms and discuss a Peaceful Solution?
With recent news that England, Poland and Canada planning to Remove their troops next year, Does This Elected Leader think he has till next Christmas to think about it? Maybe he does, since Bush does not believe in setting any dead lines or time tables.

[getcentered]

"bushrocks1" and "janem4" is as out of touch as the complete idiots that put us in the war in Iraq.

"An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East"
Bushrocks1, what is Israel? It is in the Middle East, is it not a democracy?

"They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one."

First of all the Bush Administration new plenty about what was going to happen if we went to war with Iraq, and with that knowledge what did they do? They sent way to few troops to begin with. When the majority of US war planners said it would take 300,000 to 400,000 troops, we sent only 140,000. Also, when it was time for diplomacy to get support from the world, our President and the most cursory and secretive administration in history took a bullies stance and ignored the opinions of many of our allies.

See, the fools wanting this war in Iraq needed it to begin quickly for POLITICAL REASONS ONLY. If we did not rush into going to war then the dissent in America (which is about half of us, "traitors") would have actually had a voice, and the war in Iraq might have never come to pass.

I WANT FAMILY OF MINE TO COME HOME ALIVE FROM IRAQ. I NEVER WANT CURSORY LEADERS PUTTING MY FAMILIY IN HARMS WAY, WHEN I DON'T KNOW WHY OR FOR DISPUTED REASONS.

Shame on Republicans for their lack of imagination, their poor performance as leaders and their willful ignorance when adapting policies that effect the lives of every American.

[diverinnl]

It's hard to predict how much direct influence Iran will have, specifically because of the war you mentioned (an awesome point by the way). I'm sure there are still strong feelings between the veterans, many of whom hold political positions in both Governments now. If Iraq ties to closely with Iran, they could be held up in the west as supporting terrorism. If they stand too far back, their Government looks like western puppets. It will be interesting to watch it unfold.

[pakaal]

Interesting thoughts, diverinnl. Granted the Iraqi govt. is not in a position to defend themselves against neighboring countries without us being involved at this point. I wonder how much involvement Iran could have in Iraqi politics right now though - they have a lot in common, but they also fought a bitter war only a couple decades ago.

[diverinnl]

Correction:

This, in my opinion, is due to al-Maliki directly with Iran.

Should read - This, in my opinion, is due to al-Maliki talking directly with Iran.

[diverinnl]

al-Maliki does need the US presence at this point. Without us, the pressure from the Shiite majority governments in Syria and Iran would undoubtedly force an extreme secular government takeover in Iraq, just like in Iran. He does need to buck US policy from time to time to keep face however.
I'm going to make a prediction. Over the next 5 -7 days, you will see a substantial decrease in the amount of Shiite violence in Iraq. If you do see an increase, it will be by Sunni extremists. This, in my opinion, is due to al-Maliki directly with Iran.

[pakaal]

diverinnl, if that's true, you're saying al-Maliki thinks Iraq needs the US presence. I really wonder if we're helping over there, and a lot of Iraqis think we aren't. Not to say majority rules or anything, but it seems like his people would know best, since they have to deal with the problems on the ground daily.

I do think he's done well by looking for dialogue with Iran and Syria, though. Bush should have seen this coming. Push a few people into a corner, of course they're going to get together.

[pakaal]

If you're tired of seeing the same comment for the past ten days from bushrocks1 (and now under an alias VEMECEGR), please do what I do and click on "report this comment" under the message and report him. After the first day, it isn't commenting any more, it's spamming....