That was really funny, Santana St. Cloud!

Glad you appreciated the humor, EbonyRose!

Today, Pres. Bush vetoed the legislation that would have funded the troops in Iraq. While actual funding has already been allocated through at least July, a failure to find a compromise by then could have very dire consequences.

This veto comes 4 years to the day that Bush declared that we had "won" and that major combat operations were over. What I can't quite understand is why after all this time with more people being killed over there than ever before, with only one our of eight of the major reconstruction projects (roads, schools, jobs, pipelines) working successfully, and a hand-picked government falling apart at the seems ... he still cannot anticipate "success" happening by the end of 2008??

Iraq legislation rare rebuke of ongoing war


Story Highlights
• The Iraq bill is an unusually swift challenge during wartime
• Congress held 94 votes on Vietnam between 1966 and 1972
• When funds were cut off in 1973, the U.S. military mission was already over
• In 1993 Sen. John McCain led efforts to cut off funds for operations in Somalia

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Anti-war legislation on the way to President Bush for his promised veto represents a rare rebuke by Congress of a large and ongoing ground conflict, even eclipsing challenges made during the Vietnam War.

While a bill ordering troops home from an ongoing military mission is not unprecedented -- legislation aimed at conflicts in Somalia and Haiti are other examples -- the Iraq bill is an unusually swift feat by a Congress forcefully challenging a war involving thousands of U.S. troops.

"Congress is not shy usually about attempting to create problems for a president when a war becomes unpopular," said Julian Zelizer, a congressional historian and professor at Boston University. "But I think the significance here is that in a big war, they were able to at least get the legislation to the president's desk pretty early from a historical perspective."

Congress' role in Iraq policy has dominated Capitol Hill since Democrats regained the majority in January, a change in party control due in large part to voter frustration with the war. The campaign is in its fifth year, with more than 3,300 troops dead and tens of thousands more wounded.

Last week, Democrats said they were acting on a mandate by voters when they passed the legislation, which calls for troops to begin leaving Iraq by October 1. Lawmakers are expected to fall short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a Bush veto.

Still, its passage in many ways surpasses congressional efforts to end the Vietnam War, a longer and far deadlier war for U.S. forces. Congress went years before it was able to agree on legislation significantly challenging presidential war policy, holding some 94 roll call votes on the war between 1966 and 1972, according to data provided by the Senate Historian office.

By the time legislation cutting off funds for the war went into effect in 1973, the U.S. military mission was already over.

Republicans have stood by Bush in denouncing a timetable on Iraq, although their opposition to setting an end date to an ongoing war hasn't always been the case. (New bill in the works)

In 1993, Sen. John McCain led an effort to cut off funds immediately for military operations in Somalia after a firefight in Mogadishu killed 18 U.S. troops. The former prisoner of war in Vietnam brought a hush to the chamber floor when he asked what would happen if Congress failed to act and more Americans died.

"On whose hands rest the blood of American troops? Ask yourself this question," said McCain, R-Arizona.

Congress ultimately agreed to back President Clinton's request to give him until March 1994 to get troops out, with funding denied after that date. In 1999, Congress passed similar legislation prohibiting money spent to keep U.S. troops in Haiti after May 2000.

"When Americans are imperiled, ultimately the president has to bear that responsibility," Clinton said at the time of the Somalia vote.

Now, McCain -- a GOP presidential contender for 2008 -- says setting a date certain on the war in Iraq is like sending a "memo to our enemies to let them know when they can operate again."

Matt David, McCain's campaign spokesman, said it is "intellectually dishonest" to compare Iraq to Haiti and Somalia because of the volatility now in the Middle East and terrorist threat.

"Haitians and Somalians do not want to follow us home and attack us on American soil," David said in a statement.

William Howell, a war powers expert and associate professor at the University of Chicago, said whatever the historical significance of last week's vote, Democrats have gained considerable traction in opposing a wartime president because of the war's unpopularity.

"It establishes this marker so that not now, but six months from now ... Democrats can have the momentum to (override) a presidential veto" if the war is still going badly, Howell said. "Just because it doesn't pass doesn't mean it's not of consequence."

Zelizer agreed, adding that an anti-war vote is no easy task when U.S. troops are fighting abroad.

"It's harder to extricate yourself from a big war, not just strategically but politically," Zelizer said. "It's that first vote that's sometimes the hardest."


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/congress.antiwar.ap/index.html

Oil is not the only reason for the invasion of Iraq. It is an important item but not the only item for the invasion. Look at a map and you will see the main reason. It's about CONTROL and insuring that Israel is secure. Through Israel, ameri-kkk-a and the european world (called the NATO Alliance) want to bring under their control an important link not only to the oil rich area but also also the entire 'middle eastern region'. This would put the squeeze on the whole of not only Afrika but the entire middle east, southern europe and western asia. This is a part of the 'NEW WORLD ORDER'. The reason ameri-kkk-a is so stubborn about staying in and taking over Iraq is for oil and the gateway to southern Afrika where the world richest minerals and natural wealth lie. Thats why bush is putting military post in the whole of Afrika, both north and south.

Another way to look at it is this way. Why would you destroy a country and then rebuild it? MONEY!!! The big construction companies, manufacturing companies, and finalcial inistutitions stand to make a killing from the government for the reconstruction of Iraq. Death and destruction via wars are money making ventures. And you can rest assured that the companies involved are big time supporters of the war effort. Why would someone destroy a historical and beautiful country ilke Iraq? MONEY!!! And also because the ex-cave dwellers are barbic in nature. They could care less about Iraq or its people. If you believe this insurgency crap, I got some dry land at the bottom of the Atlantic I want to sell ya. Freedom fighter are what they are, not insurgents. Funny how this country can come up with different names to describe freedom fighters. Israel, ameri-kkk-a's only true mediterranian or middle eastern ally, is going to get caught up in a war one of these days and ameri-kkk-a will be in another war trying to save it.

Iran will be next. Make no mistake about it.It may not happen soon but it will happen. Only europeans can have the 'BIG BOMB'. When Nelson Mendella took over South Africa, they had to dismattle their arsanal of 'BIG BOMBS'. No country, other than the europeans, can have the 'BIG BOMB'. Non-europeans need not apply. Iran, though stead fast in its resolve, is entering into a dangerous situation because their Arab (not Islamic) brothern will not come to their defense nor assist them in any way (perhaps lip service only). They (the other Arab countries) will go with the flow. They are as divided as ever and ameri-kkk-a will kept it that way. Guns over your head has a way of making you think before act especially when the hand that is on the trigger is a no-nonsence killer. And ameri-kkk-a is full of killers, make no mistake about. Remember, they kill for sport.

The situation in Iraq is that one group is riding rough shot over the other. Democracy doe's not exist in this country, how can it work in Iraq? Most of our so-called freedoms are slowly drying up as it is. The only thing free in this so-called- democracy is air, and once you attain a certain height, you have to pay for 'air rights'. Water is now being sold and water fountains (free water) are gone. There are places where you have to pay to take a dump or find some bushes. So, where is this freedom that bush is forever talking about. I want to puke when he says these- words: freedom, decomcray and peace. Notice how he speaks out of the side of his mouth. What do the native americans say about the 'white man'? Remember? "White man speak with forked tongue".

I wish some one would tell us the names of the politicians who's sons and daughters died in this war. Especially those who want to maintain this unprovoked and brutal war. Anyone out there who has this information please share it with us. Inquiring minds want to and need to know.

HOTEP my Beautiful Black Brothers and Sisters. Listen to www.wblr. com and learn the truth which will make you free. See ya. OLU

The Pentagon treats this as if it's some newsflash or something. Did these idiots really think they could put youngsters in a war zone and there not be mental repercussions? The deaths and severe injuries aren't enough to let them know that those who are surviving and still out there aren't suffering the trauma associated with being the target of murder and having to kill themselves? This is what happens when you elect a person who did his best to dodge military duty into the presidency.

Deployments strain troops' mental health
Pentagon panel warns overburdened system could fail to meet needs
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:34 p.m. CT May 4, 2007

WASHINGTON - The military is putting already-strained troops at greater risk of mental health problems because of repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, a Pentagon panel said Thursday in warning of an overburdened health system.

Issuing an urgent warning, the Defense Department’s Task Force on Mental Health chaired by Navy Surgeon General Donald Arthur said more than one-third of troops and veterans currently suffer from problems such as traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder.

With an escalating Iraq war, those numbers are expected to worsen, and current staffing and money for military health care won’t be able to meet the need, the group said in a preliminary report released Thursday.

“The system of care for psychological health that has evolved in recent decades is not sufficient to meet the needs of today’s forces and their beneficiaries, and will not be sufficient to meet the needs in the future,” the 14-member group says.

Facing ridicule, damaged careers
Branding Pentagon policies overly conservative and out-of-date, the task force called for more money and a fundamental shift in treatment to focus on prevention and screening — rather than simply relying on soldiers to come forward on their own.

It cited a significant stigma in which soldiers believe they would be ridiculed or their careers damaged if they were to acknowledge having problems.

The four-page summary of findings, which will be incorporated in a final report to Defense Secretary Robert Gates in June, comes amid renewed attention on troop and veterans care following recent disclosures of shoddy outpatient treatment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

The task force found 38 percent of soldiers and 31 percent of Marines report psychological concerns such as traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder after returning from deployment.

Among members of the National Guard, the figure is much higher — 49 percent — with numbers expected to grow because of repeated deployments.

In recent weeks, several U.S. senators have pointed to problems in the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs’ mental health care, citing the Army’s Fort Carson in Colorado where some troops have said their pleas for mental health care went unanswered or were met with ridicule.

In its report, the task force — which visited 38 military bases in the four armed services within the past year — underscored many of the lawmakers’ fears. Without citing specific examples, it said soldiers too often don’t seek the care they need.

Care for family members also needed improvement, the report said.

1,000 suicides a year
Many base mental health programs have had to limit their practices to active-duty military, shutting family members out or forcing them to try to access civilian providers through the cooperative program known as Tricare. But in many places, the list of Tricare providers is small, inadequate or even incorrect.

Both the VA and the Pentagon in recent weeks have acknowledged a need to improve mental health treatment. Jan Kemp, a VA associate director for education who works on mental health, has estimated there are up to 1,000 suicides a year among veterans within the VA system, and as many as 5,000 a year among all living veterans.

A recent investigation by the Government Accountability Office found that just 22 percent of U.S. troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who showed signs of PTSD were being referred by Pentagon health care providers for mental health evaluation, citing inconsistent and subjective standards in determining when treatment was needed.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18488585/

My own personal definition of war is: a military conflict between two (or more) evenly matched or nearly evenly matched forces. That is: airplane for airplane, tank for tank, bomb for bomb, gun for gun and troops for troops. Get the picture. When you have every type of military weapon at your disposal and your opponent has far less, you should have a cake walk. Ameri-kkk-a has every type of weapon known to man yet they are still trying to win a conventional war against gorilla forces. These fighters (called insurgents) have to resort to whatever type of weapon or homemade device they can come up with. They do not have the capacity to manufacturer weapons so they have to resort to what ever they can get their hands on to fight with. Ameri-kkk-an leaders have challanged them to come out and fight 'like men'. This is such a cowardedly demand. This is also a bullying tatic. Ameri-kkk-a has everything yet they are struggling to win. There is a good reason for that. The reason is 'the resistenance of the people to relinquish their land to a christian theological country' and, in effect, become slaves to this country.

The people of Iraq know that if they allow the ameri-kkk-ans to occupy their land, they will not only lose their land but also lose control of their natural resources and islamic freedoms. Also, their way of life would then become european and corrupt as is this system (capitalism). Their oil,( already devied up by the capitalist on paper), would become under the control of an outside force and they would have little or nothing to say. Such is the case with the Panama Canal. 'Also Ameri-kkk-a would, in effect, eliminate their army just like they did in Costa Rica, Panama, and other countries that have come under the control of Ameri-kkk-a and it allies (NATO).

Some of you might think that my comments are treasonous. I don't. In ameri-kkk-a you supposedly have the right of 'free speech'. Therefore, I am expressing my right of 'free speech'. I have the right (according to the constitution) to disagree with the government so long as I do not participate in the over throw of the government. I am no more of a threat than my little grandaughter. I just dissent on certain issues involving this government. This is one.

Some day the war (if you want to call a war) will come to an end. After the dust settles, and should ammeri-kkk-a prevail, you will see the right-wing businesses, that supported the war, make extremely hugh profits from the spoils of this war. They are making a killing as it is. Thats what this war is all about, people. M-O-N-E-Y. Many businesses in ameri-kkk-a will make more money than they normally would have made had there been for the war. After all, when you make weapons for war, you have to sell them to someone some where. Where better than the government of the U.S. of A. The government of this country has big money to spend. Ameri-kkk-a is the war merchant of the world. Most wars being fought all over the world are fought mostly with weapons made in the U.S. of A.

When you continuelly spread the fear of another 9/11 attach, the people of this country could care less about the spending of their tax dollars for weapons of war. And, they could care less who is being bombed so long as they are not being dropped on them. This administration has used fear as a weapon for spreading wars all over the world and spending money. What the people don't realize is that the rest of world might someday turn on the U.S. of A. This could insure that ameri-kk-ans residing or traveling outside of this country are extremely vunerable to violence just because they are from this country. The U.S. of A is becoming the most hated country in the world and this is dangerous. No matter how many weapons ameri-kkk-a has, this will not insure this country that no other country will engage them in conflict. Ameri-kkk-a needs friends, not enemies and ameri-kkk-a is racking up many enemies.

Lastly, I wish someone would tell me how many of the war crazy politicians family members were killed in this war? None. Not only that, how many of their family members are actually in the military presently? Perhaps a few but probably not in the war zone. When Representative Charles Rangel suggested this country initiate a military draft, these same people scream bloody murder because they do not want their relatives in this war. They want our sons and daughters to die in their stead. Some allegiance. Where is their loyalty and where is their so-called patriotism? In the bank!! Don't be fooled for their call of patriotism. It only goes' so far. Hotep my Beatuiful Black Brothers and Sisters. Listen to www.wblr.com and learn. You can e-mail me at: cpohio1940@aol.com Again, Hotep (Peace) OLU

I couldn't agree with you more, Carl Prather!

And the only correction I would make is that many businesses, such as Haliburton won't have to wait until after the war is over ... they have already made and continue to make, ridiculous amounts of money off of this insanity in Iraq.

Bush thanks troops; Marine says bring them home



WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush urged Americans to use Memorial Day to rededicate themselves to fighting for freedom around the world and pray for the safety of U.S. troops serving overseas.

"In Iraq and Afghanistan, millions have shown their desire to be free," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address. "We are determined to help them secure their liberty. "

On Monday, Bush will mark his sixth Memorial Day as a wartime president with a visit to Arlington National Cemetery. He is to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns to honor those who have died in past and current conflicts.

"From Valley Forge to Vietnam, from Kuwait to Kandahar, from Berlin to Baghdad, brave men and women have given up their own futures so that others might have a future of freedom," he said. "Because of their sacrifice, millions here and around the world enjoy the blessings of liberty. And wherever these patriots rest, we offer them the respect and gratitude of our nation."

Bush used his radio address to tell the story of Sgt. David Christoff Jr. of Rossford, Ohio, one of at least 3,431 members of the U.S. military who have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003. Christoff signed up for the Marines the day after the September 11 attacks in 2001, saying he didn't want his brother and sister to "live in fear," Bush said.

Christoff was deployed to Iraq, where he fought in street battles in Falluja and earned a Purple Heart for wounds suffered in action. He returned to Iraq and was killed last May in the volatile Anbar province.

"When his family received his belongings, his mother and his father each found a letter from David," Bush said. "He asked that they pray for his fellow Marines and all those still serving overseas."

Bush said U.S. troops are helping build democracies that respect the rights of their people, uphold the rule of law and become allies in the fight against extremists.

"On Memorial Day, we rededicate ourselves to freedom's cause," the president said.
Marine who served: End war to honor troops

For their weekly radio address, Democrats called on Elliot Anderson of Las Vegas, who spent four years on active duty with the Marine Corps, including a seven-month deployment to Afghanistan.

Anderson said patriotism is an American value, not a Democratic or a Republican one.

"I strongly oppose our involvement in Iraq's civil war, but I am still proud of my service to my country," Anderson said.

"But I know I speak for many of my friends overseas when I say that the best way to honor the troops is to responsibly end our involvement in Iraq's civil war. As long as President Bush stays committed to the same policies that aren't working, it won't be easy. But I am proud to see Democrats and now some brave Republicans standing up to him."


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/26/Radio.addresses.ap/index.html

This message has been edited. Last edited by: EbonyRose,

********************
BLACK by NATURE, PROUD by CHOICE.
Before there was ANY history, there was BLACK history.

BUY BLACK!!!

Ebony,

I'm sorry but this post is unacceptable!

It hasn't been pre-approved by the postmaster general.

Yeah ... with any luck, it won't just disappear!

Powell calls for closing Guantanamo Bay

By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer
Sun Jun 10, 3:02 PM ET

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday he favors immediately closing the Guantanamo Bay military prison and moving its detainees to U.S. facilities.

The prison, which now holds about 380 suspected terrorists, has tarnished the world's perception of the United States, Powell said.

"If it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo. Not tomorrow, but this afternoon. I'd close it," he said.

"And I would not let any of those people go," he said. "I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system. The concern was, well then they'll have access to lawyers, then they'll have access to writs of habeas corpus. So what? Let them. Isn't that what our system is all about?"

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said Congress and the Bush administration should work together to allow imprisonment of some of the more dangerous detainees elsewhere so the military camp at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba can be closed.

The Defense Department estimates it would take about three years to conduct 60 to 80 military commission trials, if the administration decides to hold that many.

Some Democrats in Congress have sought to close the camp, which occupies part of the Navy's base in Guantanamo Bay. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., and other lawmakers have proposed shuttering the camp and shifting the commission trials to the U.S.

Powell, who was secretary of state under President Bush, said the U.S. should do away with the military commission system in favor of procedures already established in federal law or the manual for courts-martial.

"I would also do it because every morning, I pick up a paper and some authoritarian figure, some person somewhere, is using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds," Powell said. "And so essentially, we have shaken the belief that the world had in America's justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commission.

"We don't need it, and it's causing us far more damage than any good we get for it," he said.

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said he believes the prison should remain open.

"It's more symbolic than it is a substantive issue, because people perceive of mistreatment when, in fact, there are extraordinary means being taken to make sure these detainees are being given, really, every consideration," said Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor.

"But I'll tell you, if we let somebody out and it turns out that they come and fly an airliner into one of our skyscrapers, we're going to be asking, how come we didn't stop them? We had them detained," Huckabee said.

"I can tell you, most of our prisoners would love to be in a facility more like Guantanamo and less like the state prisons that people are in in the United States," he said.

Powell spoke on "Meet the Press on NBC." Huckabee was on "Late Edition" on CNN.

erm...

I'm sorry, but, I just can't give any credence to anything Powell has said

after he made the speech at the UN complete with charts and graphs

that strengthened the so called case for pre-emptive strike

anything he says is too little too late

POWELL:STFU

Oh, now, NS ... give the old man a break!

It wasn't his fake, faulty, inaccurate, pure lies information he went to the UN with!! He was set up!

he was not set up

he complied

It's funny you should say that, NS!!

Last night I was watching a little news blurb on him that was saying how in recent months, he's been more and more outspoken against the administration and that he's even been reluctant to (publicly) align himself with the Republican party!! He was shown saying that he would like to support the best person for the job who would be the most fit to run the country both in domestic and international policies. He even admitted to speaking with Sen. Obama at least twice to offer consultation ... but then the reporter said that he's talked to just about any candidate that cares to seek his opinion ... and named off most of them ... on both sides of the political aisle!

The story also spoke of the fact that he may be trying to set himself up for an assignment within the Cabinet of whoever wins the White House ... but, that his little "snafu" with the U.N. means he brings a certain amount of baggage to the table.

He gave no indication of what he plans to do with himself in the future ... but, the opinion was that he's no longer a Republican patsy as he has always been in the past!

Not that that's any reason for you not to be mad at him! But, I just thought I'd mention it!

Democrats to revive Iraq war timetables


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Democrats will once again try to impose timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Tuesday.

Reid said Democrats will use a defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2008 as a vehicle to revive two Iraq timetable amendments that they pushed unsuccessfully during a fight over Iraq funding in May.

The first, sponsored by Reid and Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, would set a goal of beginning the withdrawal of U.S. troops by April 2008, unless the Iraqi government demonstrated political and security progress. However, President Bush would have the power to waive that requirement.

The second, sponsored by Reid and Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, would go further and cut off funding for the Iraq war by next April, without giving the president any flexibility to extend the mission.

"On Iraq, we're going to hold the president's feet to the fire," Reid said at a news conference Tuesday afternoon.

Reid said debate on the bill will begin June 27, giving senators the chance to begin work on the contentious issues before Congress' break for the Fourth of July holiday.

Reid also said Democrats will bring forward an amendment addressing the "readiness" of U.S. troops in Iraq. While the details of that proposal are still being worked out, he said, one possibility is a requirement that after being deployed in Iraq, U.S. troops return stateside for an amount of time that is at least equivalent to the length of their service overseas.

The majority leader told reporters that Democrats are also still working on the details of another amendment to address the congressional authorization for the war given to Bush back in 2003. Some Democrats critical of the president's handling of the war have been pushing to rescind that authorization.

On May 1, Bush vetoed a funding bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan because it contained a timetable to begin troop withdrawals, along the lines of the Reid-Levin plan. The president said the bill would have set "a date for failure" and amounted to substituting "the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military leaders."

After nearly a month of wrangling, Democrats in the House and Senate eventually relented and agreed to send the president a funding bill without any timetables -- a move that provoked anger among anti-war forces in their political base.



Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/12/war.deadline/index.html

Guess that troop surge thing isn't working ... yet.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-sur...l=la-headlines-world

Iraq violence up since troop increase

More attacks occur in areas that had been relatively peaceful before the U.S. buildup, the Pentagon reports.

By Peter Spiegel
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

June 14, 2007

WASHINGTON — Violence in Iraq rose slightly in the three months ended in May because of increased attacks in cities and provinces that had been relatively peaceful before the Bush administration's troop buildup, the Pentagon reported Wednesday.

The intense focus on Baghdad and western Iraq by newly arriving U.S. troops pushed insurgent groups into other regions, causing a rise in violence in northern and eastern provinces such as Diyala and Nineveh, the Pentagon said in a quarterly report to Congress on Iraqi security.

The U.S. military repeatedly has touted decreases in sectarian and insurgent killings in Baghdad and Al Anbar province, which have been the focus of the so-called surge that has added 28,500 combat and support troops. U.S. officials have acknowledged problems in Diyala, and the report for the first time documents that rising violence there and in other outlying provinces has largely offset gains in Iraq's center. Overall, the average of more than 1,000 attacks each week represented a 2% increase from the preceding three months.

The report is the first in a series of Pentagon evaluations to cover a period that encompasses the troop buildup. The report contains frequent caveats, noting that additional forces were still arriving during the February-to-May period evaluated, and it repeatedly asserts that it is too early to draw firm conclusions about the buildup.

But the rise in violence elsewhere reveals an early trend that could further complicate the Bush administration's goals in Iraq. U.S. military plans do not include deploying additional troops in outlying provinces, despite calls by some commanders for more forces to deal with the rise in insurgent attacks in those places.

According to the report, Shiite Muslim fighters affiliated with radical cleric Muqtada Sadr have been moving south over the last three months, contributing to a "significant increase in attacks" on coalition forces in the city of Basra and inflaming inter-Shiite factionalism in the region.

The report documents the movement of significant numbers of Sunni insurgents linked to Al Qaeda in Iraq, confirming anecdotal reports of Al Qaeda fighters leaving Al Anbar and setting up new bases in Diyala province, where U.S. military officials have requested more troops.

But the report also shows that the violence has moved beyond the well-publicized flare-ups in Diyala. In Mosul, the country's third-largest city, Iraqi forces have been able to maintain security with minimal U.S. assistance, but the report says insurgent and terrorist groups have increased the frequency and intensity of their attacks against police.

The same is true in the northern city of Tall Afar, once touted by the White House as a case study in how its new counterinsurgency plan could be effective. There, Sunni extremists linked to Al Qaeda in Iraq have attempted to reignite sectarian conflicts through a series of "high-profile attacks against civilians," the study says.