BAGHDAD, Oct 26 (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al- Maliki told Reuters on Thursday he could end the violence in Iraq in six months if the United States gave him the weaponry and control over Iraqi forces.

Following are edited excerpts from the interview (Reuters translated Maliki's remarks from Arabic):

Q. The United States says you have agreed to a 12-month "timeline" of measures to end the violence and bring stability to Iraq. Can you tell us in your own words about this?

A. They think building Iraqi forces will need 12 to 18 months for us to be in control of security. We agree our forces need work but think that if, as we are asking, the rebuilding of our forces was in our own hands, then it would take not 12-18 months but six might be enough.

Q. What sort of weapons are you saying you need?

A. I'm not talking about modern tanks or modern warplanes and missiles because we aren't fighting a war with another country and facing an army. I'm talking about having a well- trained army, swift and light on its feet and at the same time with medium weapons. The police are sharing rifles. That is why when the police clashed with the (Shi'ite Mehdi Army) militia in Amara, the police fled. This is the responsibility of the Coalition because they created them (the police). Maybe they thought that the country would not slip into this situation. Well, now that we are here we need them to build the army quickly.

Q. The U.S. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, spoke on Tuesday of a series of "benchmarks" on political and security issues that were agreed with your government. Is this the case?

A. I want to clarify something ... Khalilzad was at a meeting between us and other officials including the president and his deputies. We discussed setting a timetable for solving pending issues. That was two months ago ... It is not a timetable for the government but rather the issues needed to be solved. We said, for example, 'In November we will finish this and in January this and in 2007 we will amend the constitution'. The term used by Khalilzad was not accurate. That is why it was negatively understood. It is a list of issues we need to solve and this was our decision. It was not Khalilzad's decision but he was present.

Q. Are you concerned that the United States could try to push you aside if there is no progress in the coming months?

A. I don't think American policy would commit the mistake of replacing a prime minister or a government in Iraq. That would be burning their slogans. I don't think they think like that as it would mean the failure of the entire political process. As far as 'tough decisions' go, I say we want to take firm and difficult decisions. But anyone who wants to take a difficult decision has to do so from solid ground and so the far the ground is unstable -- due to current security policies ...

If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq it is the Coalition. I am now prime minister and overall commander of the armed forces yet I cannot move a single company without Coalition approval because of the U.N. mandate. So those who have the authority and could move the forces are also responsible. This should be clear ...

I have to be careful fighting some militias and terrorists ... because they are better armed than the army and police. The other point is that the army and police have been infiltrated because they were randomly formed. There are terrorists in the army and militias in the police and also members of the old regime.

Q. Ambassador Khalilzad also said you had told him that the Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr had promised to disarm his Mehdi Army militia. Is that the case?

A. He issued a statement after I went to see him saying that the Mehdi Army is a political organisation and is banned from doing any military activities, killings and kidnapping. It was the first time Moqtada al-Sadr has made a public announcement supporting the government ...

He told his people that he forbids use of force against the government and the Coalition forces and that opposition to the occupation should be peaceful and political. We support such a position because it will reflect positively on the security situation and we have started talking to them about how to disarm militias. We are thinking of ways to resolve this.

I have agreed with him that the efforts for all political groups should be focused on the most dangerous challenge, which is al Qaeda and the Saddam Baathists ... I told Moqtada that weapons should only be in the hands of the government and he supported that.

Q. You criticised a U.S.-led raid on Sadr City in Baghdad on Wednesday to try to capture an alleged death squad leader, saying you knew nothing about it. What was the situation?

A. There is a wanted man called Abu Deraa and of course the security forces are going to try to get him, but a few days ago an Iraqi holding American citizenship who works with U.S. forces was kidnapped. So the operation was not only to get Abu Deraa. They said it was targeting him and then they issued a statement saying it was to try to free the kidnapped soldier. We knew about the first part but they did not tell us about the second part. There is also the way they go after people. The first time they tried to get Abu Deraa they killed and wounded 17 people and demolished two houses (and) they did not arrest him in either operation.

I said we agree on arresting wanted criminals and we do not care whether they are Sunnis or Shi'ites, but that was not an arrest operation. Do you send in planes to arrest one person? There is no problem with the principle of arresting criminals but you should not harm people in the way you go to arrest people, spreading horror and at the risk of sabotaging political actions we have worked on.

Q. What do you know about the kidnapped soldier?

A. There are two brothers. One was released and the second is still being held. I do not know what his job is exactly. We tried to find out where he might have been taken but we could not. We asked the Sadr movement to look for him and they swear they know nothing about him. The brother who was released said he had been abducted by the Mehdi Army but we don't know what Mehdi Army means any more. Some Sunnis now operate in the name of the Mehdi Army and dress in black as well. Baathists also, and foreign intelligence. We have a problem on the subject of Mehdi Army. That is why Moqtada is trying to clean it up but I think he started late.

Q. How critical is it to start disarming the militias?

A. After the bombing in Samarra (of a Shi'ite shrine in February) there was sectarian tension. The Mehdi Army and the Badr group and some independents had a reaction to that. But the government managed to stop that ...

Terrorism and the militias are separate issues. There is a political plan aimed at making the militias the priority. The militias are not acceptable but they are not the main reason (for the security situation). Terrorism is the main reason.

There is Sunni pressure and Arab pressure on this but we reject drawing a veil over the Baath party and terrorism. At least we can talk to the militias, we know who they are. They follow Moqtada al Sadr, the Dawa party, Badr etc. We can talk to them but who are terrorists loyal too and who do they follow?

AlertNet news is provided by

del.icio.us  |   Digg  |   NewsVine  |   Reddit