Category: Iraq | Main

Chris Hill Tapped as Ambassador to Iraq

February 02, 2009 1:50 PM

ABC News' Martha Raddatz Reports: The Obama administration has tapped Ambassador Chris Hill, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, to be Ambassador to Iraq.

Hill, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, served as the U.S. Ambassador to Korea from 2004 to 2005.  In Feb. 2005, Hill headed the U.S. delegation to the Six-Party Talks on the North Korean nuclear issue.

Vetting has been completed for Lt. General Karl Eikenberry, Deputy Chairman of the NATO Military Committee in Brussels and former top commander in Afghanistan, as the new Ambassador to Afghanistan.

February 2, 2009 in Iraq | Permalink | User Comments (4)

Iraq Bans Blackwater Security Firm from Providing Protection to U.S. Diplomats

January 29, 2009 2:09 PM

ABC News' Jennifer Duck Reports: Iraq is banning security company Blackwater Worldwide from providing protection to U.S. diplomats because of "improper conduct and excessive use of force."

The company's reputation is highly damaged from an incident in 2007 when Blackwater guards opened fire on civilians in Baghdad killing 17 people.

Acting State Department Spokesman Robert Wood told reporters he didn't know who will step in to protect the diplomats now that Blackwater is barred.

"Contingency plans are obviously being looked at," Wood said noting the Iraq Ministry of Interior informed the embassy in Baghdad on January 23 that Blackwater's application for an operating license was not going to be approved.

He emphasized the U.S. will comply with Iraqi law and not use Blackwater.  "We're going to comply with the Iraqi decision.  We have no choice but to do that.  So we're just right now trying to formulate how we're going to go forward."

Wood added, "We haven't made a decision on how we're going to move forward yet."

When asked who is protecting the diplomats today, Wood said, "I'll have to see who's actually on the ground doing it.  I'm just not sure at this point."

Wood said the State Department "will do everything necessary to make sure that our personnel are -- have the security that they need."

Two other contractors work in Iraq but Wood wouldn't confirm if one of the contractors would take over Blackwater's role.  "That's a possibility, but we haven't made a decision on how we're going to go," Wood said.

January 29, 2009 in Iraq | Permalink | User Comments (7)

Army Apologizes for John Doe Letters to Gold Star Families

January 07, 2009 5:06 PM

ABC News' Luis Martinez Reports: The Army is apologizing for having sent letters mistakenly addressed "Dear John Doe" to 7,000  family members of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Army Chief of Staff George Casey is sending personal letters to the 7,000 family members who received the improperly labeled letters sent this past December. The letters were intended to inform the families about private organizations offering assistance to those who have lost loved ones in both conflicts.

An Army statement blames a printing error by the contractor hired to send out the letters.  They were supposed to have contained the specific names and addresses of survivors, but were instead given the placeholder greeting of "Dear John Doe."

The U.S. Army Human Resources Command's Casualty and Mortuary Affairs Center, which issued the letters, has formally apologized for the error.

"There are no words to adequately apologize for this mistake, or for the hurt it may have caused," said Brig. Gen. Reuben Jones, the Army's Adjutant General. "It is important the original intent of the letter is not lost. The organizations mentioned are dedicated to honoring loved ones and recognizing their sacrifice and commitment."

The Army says all the other information in the letter referring to the assistance organizations was correct. 

January 7, 2009 in Iraq | Permalink | User Comments (7)

WMD: Who's telling the truth?

December 08, 2008 3:48 PM

ABC News' Martha Raddatz and Richard Coolidge Report: On Sunday, the New York Times weighed into the debate over Weapons of Mass Destruction and whether it was the Bush administration's true causus belli to go to war in Iraq.

Quoting from the editorial, "The truth is that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had been chafing to attack Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001. They justified that unnecessary war using intelligence reports that they knew or should have known to be faulty. And it was pressure from the White House and a highly politicized Pentagon that compelled people like Secretary of State Colin Powell and George Tenet, the Central Intelligence director, to ignore the counter-evidence and squander their good names on hyped claims of weapons of mass destruction."

In an interview with ABC News' anchor Charlie Gibson that aired last week, President Bush defended his decision to go to war and seemed to spread the blame around.

"The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.

And what if the intelligence had shown he didn't have any WMD?

"You know, that's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do. It's hard for me to speculate."

But Karl Rove, last week, in a debate about the legacy of the Bush Presidency, was asked whether an invasion would have taken place had the intelligence been accurate (i.e. there had been no WMD), appeared to take a slightly different tack:

"In the aftermath of 9/11 the concern was about a tyrant guilty of enormous human rights abuses, but possessed with weapons of mass destruction and an intention to use them as a state sponsor of terror. Absent that, I suspect the administration’s course would have been to work to find more creative ways to constrain him than he’d been constrained in the nineties."

Today, the White House responded with a statement by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley:

"While the President has repeatedly acknowledged the mistakes in the pre-war intelligence, there is no support for the Times’ claim that the President and his national security team “knew or should have known [the intelligence] to be faulty” or that “pressure from the White House” led to particular conclusions. Nothing in the many inquiries conducted into these matters supports the view of the Times’ Editorial Board. Indeed, the independent Silberman-Robb Commission and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that no political pressure was brought to bear on the Intelligence Community."

The President, however, seemed to be avoiding being drawn further into the debate. In an interview with National Review posted this morning, Bush was asked about the Rove remark. But he sidestepped, saying the President doesn't "get an opportunity to redo a decision," and Bush presented the counter argument that the world would have been left with a tyrant who had sponsored terrorism in the past, had the capacity to make nuclear weapons, next door to an unpredictable Iran, and therefore the region is today much better off without him.

It's a question to which we may never have a satisfactory answer.

December 8, 2008 in Bush, George W., Iraq, Washington, White House | Permalink | User Comments (92)