• Obama takes diplomatic tack on Chinese cyberespionage charges

    Jewel Samad / AFP - Getty Images

    President Barack Obama shakes hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping before their meeting Friday, June 7, in Rancho Mirage, Calif.

    By M. Alex Johnson and Matthew DeLuca, NBC News

    President Barack Obama sidestepped questions about cyberespionage linked to China, telling reporters Friday after meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping that accusations against Beijing need further investigation.

    On a day when he had to defend his own government's collection of cyberdata, Obama said he and Xi had had a "very constructive conversation" on the first day of their weekend summit in Rancho Mirage, Calif.

    Earlier in the day, Obama defended the U.S. National Security Agency's collection of so-called metadata from telephone and Internet companies from strongly worded accusations that it amounted to unconstitutional secret spying on U.S. citizens.

    That made for a delicate situation Friday night as Obama spoke to reporters after an evening meeting with Xi.

    Obama said he and Xi agreed that it was important for China and the U.S. to come up with common rules on cybersecurity. But when asked about reports linking cyberattacks back to hackers associated with the government in Beijing, he said caution was needed because hacking often involved "non-state actors."

    Speaking through an interpreter, Xi said China also had major concerns over cybersecurity and had itself been the victim of hacking.

    President Xi Jinping is already being protested by demonstrators against China's crackdown on human rights, but the biggest issue dividing China and the U.S. may be cyber and intellectual property theft. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.

    Before the meeting, Obama insisted that addressing difficult issues like cyberespionage wouldn't scuttle a "new model of cooperation" between Washington and Beijing.

    Obama cited human rights and cyberespionage as "inevitable" areas of tension, but he said he hoped the casual setting under the desert palo verde trees at Sunnylands — the 200-acre estate built by late billionaire Walter Annenberg in Rancho Mirage — would foster an informal and "extensive" dialogue.

    While it is the leaders' first big meet and greet, it won't be all desert strolls and pink sunsets. Plenty of weighty issues are to be addressed over the two-day summit. Here's a guide:

    Cyber warfare
    Neither China nor the United States wants to get entangled in a computer-powered showdown, and either world leader might want to bring up some strategies to civilize the online battlegrounds of the future. The two countries have gone back and forth, each accusing the other of being the worst offender when it comes to digital misdeeds, and media outlets, including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, have run extensive reports on attacks against their publications that they say came from hackers in China.

    The head of China's Internet security agency said recently that he has "mountains of data" to demonstrate that hackers in the U.S. have targeted his country, Reuters reported. Blaming the government in Washington would not help resolve the issue, he said. The same week as Xi's visit, three members of Congress said they would introduce a bill to punish hackers who received support from the government of China or other foreign countries, like Russia.

    Any comparison made between activity by the U.S. and Chinese government in cyberspace is "nuts," said Tim Junio, a cybersecurity fellow at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation. "The main issue is China doesn't really acknowledge all the intellectual property theft as well as espionage that's happening from Chinese territory."

    North Korea
    Xi and Obama might be able to find some common ground on North Korea. Neither country has much to gain from rookie dictator Kim Jong Un's saber-rattling, like when he said he'd "settle accounts" with the U.S. and put rockets on standby in March.


    "For the first time, the areas of common interest between the U.S. and China are much more evident in China's declarations," said Orville Schell, director of the U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society. "They're fed up. And they don't want some tin-pot dictator across their border messing life up for them, and they're now beginning to make utterances to that effect."

    North Korea has long depended on friendly relations with China, from whom it gets crucial food and other supplies. There may be limits to how far China will bend for its neighbor to the south, however.

    "We do not want to see chaos and conflict on China's doorstep," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said in an April interview with NBC News.

    Trade
    The proposed $4.6 billion purchase of Smithfield Foods, a U.S. pork producer, by the Chinese company Shuanghui International raised some consumers' eyebrows recently, though officials from the company, which was founded in Virginia in 1936, said the acquisition won't affect the quality of the bacon on stateside breakfast tables.

    When it comes to trade and investment between the two countries, overreaction may be the worst possible response.

    "The biggest new challenge is Chinese investment in America. They have the money, and we need it," Schell said. "We are traditionally the most open economy in the world, and I think it's emphatically in our interest to welcome Chinese investment."

    Better trade relations between the two countries might also have positive effects for people of Chinese descent in the U.S. who may feel discriminated against because of China's growing influence in the global market.

    "A lot of people regard China as a threat or a potential competitor," Yong Chen, associate professor of Asian American studies at the University of California, Irvine, told The Associated Press. "Many people want China and the United States to have good relations so that Chinese-Americans will not be treated in a hostile manner."

    Reuters contributed to this report.

    Related:


    This story was originally published on Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:42 AM EDT

  • Blizzard, possible tornadoes forecast in nasty weather week

    NBC News

    Golf-ball sized hail falls in Rush County, Kan.

    By Kevin Murphy, Reuters

    KANSAS CITY, Kansas — Forecasters called for strong hail and possible tornadoes in western Kansas and a blizzard in four other states on Monday in the first of what are expected to be several days of nasty weather in the middle of the country.

    The blizzard was expected to hit Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota and Wyoming on Monday. An Arctic cold front has triggered winter weather warnings over most of Colorado, said National Weather Service meteorologist Jim Kalina.

    Much of the country's midsection will face severe storms and a high risk of tornadoes. NBC's Brian Williams reports.

    Meanwhile, warm air from the south mixing with cold air from Colorado is expected to cause severe weather in western Kansas, including possible tornadoes, said weather service meteorologist Matt Gerard, based in Dodge City, Kansas.

    "It's a clash of air masses going on," Gerard said, adding that forecasts call for large hail in western Kansas.

    Denver and its urban area could get up to 11 inches of snow overnight and through Tuesday, said Kalina. He said temperatures could plunge some 40 degrees from the mid-60s on Monday to well below freezing when the front moves through.

    Areas from Denver to Rapid City, South Dakota; Casper, Wyoming; and Scottsbluff, Nebraska are expected to see blizzard conditions between Monday night and Tuesday, with plunging temperatures, high winds and heavy snow, according to Accuweather.com. The blizzard is forecast to move into north central Nebraska and central Minnesota later Tuesday into Wednesday.

    South Dakota transportation officials advised travelers to move up travel plans to reach intended destinations during daylight hours, and be prepared to stay in until the storm passes. Heavy snowfall is expected, from 3 to 16 inches in the state, with winds up to 40 miles per hour.

    The nasty weather will move toward more populated areas on Tuesday evening, with hail, damaging winds and some possibility of tornadoes predicted around Kansas City, Oklahoma City, and the Dallas-Fort Worth area in Texas, according to Robert Thompson, lead forecaster with the National Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Oklahoma.

    Forecasters expect the front to hit Arkansas Wednesday afternoon and evening, with a line of thunderstorms expected to bring as much as three inches of rain and damaging winds, according to the National Weather Service.

    The tornado season in the United States typically starts in the Gulf Coast states in the late winter, and then moves north with the warming weather, peaking around May and trailing off by July.

    Additional reporting by Suzi Parker in Arkansas, Keith Coffman in Denver and Mary Wisniewski in Chicago

    Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.

  • Looking for a little peace? Look to Maine, not Louisiana

    /

    Arricka Nowland, left, and Brian Lessels cross country ski on a snow covered street during a storm on March 1 in Portland, Maine. The northeasternmost state ranked No.1 in terms of "peacefulness" according to the U.S. Peace Index.

    By Kari Huus, msnbc.com

    In the pursuit of peace, the crashing Atlantic waves hold more promise than the bayou.

    A new study ranking American states and cities for "peacefulness" puts Louisiana on the bottom of the heap,  while Maine, tucked away in the northeast corner of the country, is rated No. 1.

    The 2012 U.S. Peace Index, produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace, a nonprofit nonpartisan research organization with offices in Sydney Australia, New York and Washington, D.C., considered five factors in its rankings: the number of homicides, number of violent crimes, the incarceration rate, number of police department employees and the availability of small arms.  


    Kari Huus


    Follow Kari Huus on Twitter and Facebook.


    It also offers an assessment of the benefits of peace, and the costs generated by violence.

    In Maine, violence and violence containment cost taxpayers roughly $1,300 per person in 2011, the study said, compared to the average of $3,260 across the country.

    If all the states had the same level of peacefulness as Maine, the total savings to the country would surpass $274 billion, according to the report.

    "What is absolutely clear from the index," said Steve Killelea, founder and CEO of the institute, "is that peaceful states perform better across a range of economic, health, education and community factors. They have higher high school graduation rates, lower poverty, better access to basic services, higher labor force participation rates, higher life expectancy and less single parented families. Even social capital – like volunteerism, civic engagement, trust, and group membership — is higher in more peaceful states."

    IEP, which also does a global peace index each year, showed that the most peaceful metropolitan area was Cambridge-Newton-Framingham in Massachusetts, while Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn in Michigan was the most violent, followed by New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner in Louisiana.

    Some rankings have remained consistent — including that of Louisiana, which has been 50th among the states for two decades, according to the study.

    Interactive map of 2012 state rankings

    But Wyoming, which saw declines in homicides and violent crimes, climbed to 17th most peaceful, up from 23rd in 1995. Arizona plummeted into the bottom five least peaceful because of rising murder rates.

    The report showed encouraging trends — with homicide rates across the nation falling by 50 percent since 1991, and a reduction in violent crime rates in 42 states during the same period.

    "What the USPI shows is that over the past 20 years, America has become substantially more peaceful, witnessing a significant reduction in direct violence," said Killelea.

    Experts attribute the decline in violence to a range of factors, said Killelea, including better policing, an aging population, rising socioeconomic standards and the use of private security, to name a few.

    But the homicide rate in the United States remains much higher than in countries that are similar in socioeconomic terms, he said.

    This difference appears to be related to the availability of guns in the United States, said Killelea. He noted that while the rate of violence in the United States is about 30 percent higher than in Canada, the homicide rate in the United States is about 400 percent higher.

    "We’re not making any moral judgments on this," said Killelea. "But the availability of guns is associated with higher levels of homicide."

    And even with declines in violence, its costs to the United States remain high, he said.

    "To highlight the size of the problem, if all of the people who were incarcerated were contained in one city it would be the fourth-largest in the U.S.," he said.

    More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

    Follow Kari Huus on Facebook

     

  • Afghans fatally shoot 2 US troops at joint base

    An Afghan soldier and a literacy teacher shot and killed two American soldiers in Afghanistan Thursday. This is the latest in a series of deaths as anti-Americanism rises in the country following the accidental burning of Qurans by U.S. soldiers. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports.

    By NBC News, msnbc.com staff and news services

    KABUL, Afghanistan -- Two American soldiers were killed Thursday in a shooting by an Afghan soldier and a literacy teacher at a joint base in southern Afghanistan, officials said, the latest in a series of deaths as anti-Americanism rises following the burning of Qurans by U.S. soldiers.

    Both were killed on the same day that the top NATO commander allowed a small number of foreign advisers to return to work at Afghan ministries after more than a week of being locked down in secure locations because of the killing of two other Americans.

    Thursday's killings raised to six the number of Americans killed in less than two weeks amid heightened tensions over the Feb. 20 burning of Qurans and other Islamic texts that had been dumped in a garbage pit at Bagram Air Field near Kabul. More than 30 Afghans also were killed in six days of violent riots that broke out after the incident.

    President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials apologized and said the burning was an accident, but that has failed to quell the anger.

    "We are staying the course in Afghanistan," Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said today, adding that the strategy of partnering and working with Afghan National Security Forces "is not changing."

    NYT: Quran burning outrage complicates US pullout

    One of the gunmen was wearing civilian clothing and the other was believed to be a member of the Afghan army, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said in a statement.

    "Two individuals, one believed to be an Afghan National Army service member and the other in civilian clothing, turned their weapons indiscriminately against International Security Assistance Force and Afghan National Security Force service members in southern Afghanistan today," the statement said.

    A senior defense official confirmed to NBC News that both of the NATO service members were American.

    The Associated Press quoted a U.S. official as saying three attackers were believed to be involved, two of whom were subsequently killed. He said the third may be in custody. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.

    A district chief in southern Kandahar's Zhari district said the shootings took place on a NATO base when an Afghan civilian who taught a literacy course for Afghan soldiers and lived on the base started shooting at NATO troops. Niaz Mohammad Sarhadi said the shootings occurred at 3 a.m. and that NATO troops returned fire and killed the man and an Afghan soldier.

    Mohammad Mohssan, an Afghan Army spokesman in Kandahar city, confirmed the incident occurred at a base in Zhari and involved two Afghans, one of whom was a soldier, who opened fire on coalition troops from a sentry tower. He said both were killed.

    The shootings on Thursday were the latest in a series of attacks by Afghan security forces — or militants disguised in their uniforms — against Americans and other members of the international alliance. Last month the Pentagon released data showing that 75 percent of the more than 45 insider attacks since 2007 occurred in the last two years.

    More than 75 NATO ISAF troops have been killed by Afghan forces in the past 5 years.

    They are likely to raise further questions about the training of Afghan security forces by coalition troops as foreign forces prepare to withdraw by 2014.

    Afghanistan unrest stirs worries, but doesn't shake commitment

    Hundreds of advisers were pulled out of ministries and other government locations after an Afghan gunman shot and killed two U.S. military advisers on Feb. 25 inside their office at the Interior Ministry. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the ministry shootings, saying they were conducted in retaliation for last week's Quran burnings, but no one has been arrested in the case.

    An Afghan soldier also killed two U.S. troops in eastern Afghanistan on Feb. 23 during a protest over the Quran burnings.

    U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Jimmie Cummings said Thursday that Marine Gen. John Allen, the top commander in Afghanistan, approved the return of selected personnel. He could not elaborate which ministries were involved, but an Afghan official said some had returned to a department setting up a government-run security force that will guard international development projects.

    A NATO official said less than a dozen advisers had returned. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

    Foreign advisers are key to helping improve governance and prepare Afghan security forces to take on more responsibility. The U.S. is already reducing its own troop presence by 30,000 at the end of the summer. Many of the remaining soldiers will switch from fighting to training and mentoring Afghan forces. 

    NBC News' Courtney Kube, The Associated Press and msnbc.com staff contributed to this report.

    More from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world

     

  • Amanda Knox appeals slander conviction

    Amanda Knox, left, is comforted by her sister, Deanna Knox, during a news conference shortly after her arrival at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on Oct. 4, 2011.

    By msnbc.com news services

    Amanda Knox's Italian lawyer has filed an appeal of her slander conviction in Italy, a family spokesman said Monday.

    In October, an Italian appeals court overturned the young Seattle woman's murder conviction in the 2007 death of her British roommate in Perugia. But the same court upheld Knox's conviction for slander — for falsely accusing bar owner Diya "Patrick" Lumumba of involvement in the slaying.

    Lumumba was freed after two weeks in prison for lack of evidence.

    Knox later said she was "manipulated" during her lengthy police interrogation.

    Amanda Knox 'loves Italy' and might return

    An appeal of the slander conviction was filed Monday, Knox family spokesman Dave Marriott confirmed. He doesn't know when the Italian court might consider it.

    Knox returned to Seattle after her murder conviction was overturned. The former exchange student had been in custody since 2007.

    In its ruling last fall, the Italian appeals court also acquitted Knox's then-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

    An Italian appeals court throws out Amanda Knox's murder conviction and orders her free after nearly four years in prison for the death of her British roommate. NBC's Lester Holt reports.

    A third defendant, Ivory Coast-born drifter Rudy Guede, was convicted in a separate trial of sexually assaulting and stabbing Kercher. His 16-year prison sentence — reduced on appeal from an initial 30 years — was upheld by Italy's highest court in 2010.

    In a lengthy court document explaining the ruling that cleared Knox and Sollecito, presiding appeals court Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann wrote that Knox implicated Lumumba after hours of intense police questioning because "she was convinced that was what the police wanted her to do; to name a guilty person."

    More from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

  • 'A new chapter': US officially ends Iraq war

    A ceremony held in Baghdad marked the official end of the nearly 9-year military campaign in Iraq, and now the 4,000 remaining troops in the country are heading home for the holidays. NBC's Richard Engel reports.

    By NBC News, msnbc.com staff and news services

    Updated at 6:10 p.m. ET

    President Barack Obama stopped short of calling the U.S. effort in Iraq a victory in an interview taped Thursday with ABC News' Barbara Walters.

    "I would describe our troops as having succeeded in the mission of giving to the Iraqis their country in a way that gives them a chance for a successful future," Obama said.

    Iraqi citizens offered a more pessimistic assessment. "The Americans are leaving behind them a destroyed country," said Mariam Khazim of Sadr City. "The Americans did not leave modern schools or big factories behind them. Instead, they left thousands of widows and orphans."

    The Iraq Body Count website says more than 100,000 Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invasion. The vast majority were civilians.

    Updated at 10:58 a.m. ET

    BAGHDAD --  U.S. forces formally ended their nine-year war in Iraq with a low-key flag ceremony in Baghdad on Thursday.

    "After a lot of blood spilled by Iraqis and Americans, the mission of an Iraq that could govern and secure itself has become real," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said at the ceremony at Baghdad's still heavily fortified airport.

    Almost 4,500 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives in the war that began with a "Shock and Awe" campaign of missiles pounding Baghdad and descended into sectarian strife and a surge in U.S. troop numbers.

    U.S. soldiers lowered the flag of American forces in Iraq and slipped it into a camouflage-colored sleeve in a brief outdoor ceremony, symbolically ending the most unpopular U.S. military venture since the Vietnam War of the 1960s and 70s.

    Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Jalal Talabani were invited to the ceremony but did not attend.

    In addition to the dead, the war left 32,000 Americans wounded and cost the U.S. more than $800 billion.

    The remaining 4,000 American troops will leave by the end of the year.

    Bombings are still common. Experts are also concerned about the Iraqi security force's ability to defend the nation against foreign threats.

    However, Panetta said veterans of the conflict can be "secure in knowing that your sacrifice has helped the Iraqi people to cast tyranny aside."

    Some Iraqi citizens offered a more pessimistic assessment. "The Americans are leaving behind them a destroyed country," said Mariam Khazim of Sadr City. "The Americans did not leave modern schools or big factories behind them. Instead, they left thousands of widows and orphans."

    Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also spoke during the ceremony.

    Updated at 5:46 a.m. ET: Austin says Iraqis now have "unprecedented opportunities."

    Sen. John McCain, the ranking Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, discusses the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq with TODAY's Matt Lauer. McCain says we risk losing everything we gained in the war-torn country by not leaving a residual force behind, apart from about 200 military advisers.

    Updated at 5:42 a.m ET: "Since 2003, we have helped the Iraqi security forces grow from zero to 650,000-strong," Austin says.

    Updated at 5:40 a.m. ET: Austin recalls how he was present when American forces secured the airfield where the ceremony is being held. "After 21 days of tough fighting, we ended Saddam Hussein's reign of terror," he adds.

    Updated at 5:37 a.m. ET: Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, points out that the next time he visits Baghdad it will have to be at the invitation of the Iraqi government. "I kinda like that," he adds.

    Updated at 5:32 a.m. ET: "This is not the end, this is the beginning," Panetta says. "May God bless Iraq, its people and its future."

    NBC News

    U.S. troops take part in the end of mission ceremony in Baghdad, Iraq, on Thursday.

    Updated at 5:29 a.m. ET: "Let me be clear, Iraq will be tested in the days ahead -- by terrorism, by those who would seek to divide," Panetta says. "Challenges remain but the United States will be there to stand with the Iraqi people. We are not about to turn our backs on all that has been sacrificed and accomplished."

    Updated at 5:26 a.m. ET: "Your sacrifice has helped the Iraqi people begin a new chapter in history, free from tyranny," Panetta says. "This outcome was never certain, particularly during the war's darkest days."

    Updated at 5:23 a.m. ET: Panetta highlights the "heartbreak" of military families who watched their loved ones go off to war.

    Updated at 5:18 a.m. ET: "It is a profound honor to be here in Baghdad," Panetta says at ceremony."No words, no ceremony can provide full tribute to the sacrifices that have brought this day to pass."

    Saddam's Iraq is gone, but in its place is a state with close ties to one of America's biggest and most unpredictable enemies: Iran. NBC's Richard Engel has been covering the war from the start, and went back for this historic week to take a closer look at the Iran connection.

    Updated at 5:16 a.m. ET: "We look forward to an Iraq that is sovereign, secure and self-reliant," US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey says.

    Published at 4:45 a.m. ET: After nearly nine years, 4,500 American dead, 32,000 wounded and more than $800 billion, U.S. officials prepared Thursday to formally shut down the war in Iraq — a conflict that U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said was worth the price in blood and money, as it set Iraq on a path to democracy.

    Panetta stepped off his military plane in Baghdad Thursday as the leader of America's war in Iraq, but will leave as one of many top U.S. and global officials who hope to work with the struggling nation as it tries to find its new place in the Middle East and the broader world.

    He and several other U.S. diplomatic, military and defense leaders will participate in a highly symbolic ceremony during which the flag of U.S. Forces-Iraq will officially be retired, or "cased," according to Army tradition.

    During several stops in Afghanistan this week, Panetta made it clear that the U.S. can be proud of its accomplishments in Iraq, and that the cost of the bitterly divisive war was worth it.

    After nearly nine years and 4,500 American lives lost, President Obama and the first lady officially marked the end of the Iraq war Wednesday. NBC's Kristen Welker has more.

    "We spilled a lot of blood there," Panetta said. "But all of that has not been in vain. It's been to achieve a mission making that country sovereign and independent and able to govern and secure itself."

    That, he said, is "a tribute to everybody — everybody who fought in that war, everybody who spilled blood in that war, everybody who was dedicated to making sure we could achieve that mission."

    Panetta has echoed President Barack Obama's promise that the U.S. plans to keep a robust diplomatic presence in Iraq, foster a deep and lasting relationship with the nation and maintain a strong military force in the region.

    As of Thursday, there were two U.S. bases and about 4,000 U.S. troops in Iraq — a dramatic drop from the roughly 500 military installations and as many as 170,000 troops during the surge ordered by President George W. Bush in 2007, when violence and raging sectarianism gripped the country. All U.S. troops are slated to be out of Iraq by the end of the year, but officials are likely to meet that goal a bit before then.

    Read more about the Iraq withdrawal

    The total U.S. departure is a bit earlier than initially planned, and military leaders worry that it is premature for the still maturing Iraqi security forces, who face continuing struggles to develop the logistics, air operations, surveillance and intelligence sharing capabilities they will need in what has long been a difficult neighborhood.

    U.S. officials were unable to reach an agreement with the Iraqis on legal issues and troop immunity that would have allowed a small training and counterterrorism force to remain. U.S. defense officials said they expect there will be no movement on that issue until sometime next year.

    Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org and Matthew Hoh of the Center for International Policy debate the winners and losers of the Iraq War and the non-military presence that will remain.

    Still, despite Obama's earlier contention that all American troops would be home for Christmas, at least 4,000 forces will remain in Kuwait for some months. The troops will be able to help finalize the move out of Iraq, but could also be used as a quick reaction force if needed.

    Bombings and attacks have eased since American and Iraqi security forces weakened insurgents. But roadside bombs, car bombs and assassinations still kill and maim almost every day.

    A frail economy, constant power shortages, scarce jobs and discontent with political leaders all fuel uncertainty among Iraqis.

    "Thanks to the Americans. They took us away from Saddam Hussein, I have to say that. But I think now we are going to be in trouble," said Malik Abed, 44, a vendor at a Baghdad fish market. "Maybe the terrorists will start attacking us again."

    Read more content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    The Associated Press, Reuters, NBC News and msnbc.com staff contributed to this report.

  • Blindsided by Arab Spring, US sees changes in Mideast influence

    Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

    Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Barack Obama, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Jordan's King Abdullah II walk to East Room of the White House before making statements on the Middle East peace negotiations in Washington in September, 2010.

    By The Associated Press

    DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - About 18 months before the Egyptian uprising that would doom Hosni Mubarak, a U.S. diplomatic cable was sent from Cairo. It described Mubarak as the likely president-for-life and said his regime's ability to intimidate critics and rig elections was as solid as ever.

    Around the same time, another dispatch to the State Department came from the American Embassy in Tunisia. In a precise foreshadowing of the revolts to come, it said the country's longtime leader, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, had "lost touch" and faced escalating anger from the streets, according to once-classified memos posted by Wikileaks.

    So what was it? Was America blindsided or bunkered down for the Arab Spring?

    The case is often made that Washington was caught flatfooted and now must adapt to diminished influence in a Middle East with new priorities. But there is an alternative narrative: that the epic events of 2011 are an opportunity to enhance Washington's role in a region hungry for democracy and innovation, and to form new strategic alliances.

    Cost of 'Arab Spring' more than $55 billion - IMF

    There is no doubt that Washington was jolted by the downfall of its Egyptian and Tunisian allies. The revolutions blew apart the regimes' ossified relationships with the U.S. and cleared the way for long-suppressed Islamist groups that eye the West with suspicion.

    But declaring a twilight for America in the Mideast ignores a big caveat: The Persian Gulf. There are deep U.S. connections among the small but economically powerful and diplomatically adept monarchies, emirates and sheikdoms, which so far have ridden out the upheavals and are increasingly flexing their political clout around the Arab world.

    The Gulf Arabs and America are, in many ways, foreign policy soul mates. Both share grave misgivings about Iran's expanding military ambitions and its nuclear program. The Gulf hosts crucial U.S. military bases — including the Navy's 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrain — and is an essential part of the Pentagon's strategic blueprint for the Mideast after this year's U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

    In summary: America's influence took blows from the Arab Spring, but also remains hitched to the rising stars in the Gulf.

    Transformation
    "America has lost the predictability of friends like Mubarak," said Sami Alfaraj, director of the Kuwait Center for Strategic Studies. "But, at the same time, its allies in the Gulf are on the rise. So I would call it a shuffle for America. Maybe a step back in some places, but not in others."

    Led by hyper-wealthy Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the Gulf rulers have stepped up their games in various ways as the region's political center of gravity drifts in their direction.

    Libya's new PM balances demands of ex-rebels, West

    NATO's airstrikes in Libya got important Arab credibility from warplane contributions by Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. The Gulf's six-nation political bloc also has tried to negotiate an exit for Yemen's protest-battered president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, and has taken the lead in Arab pressures on Syria's Bashar Assad, one of Iran's most critical partners.

    Yet the Gulf rulers' desire for change stops at their own borders. In March, they authorized a Saudi-led military force to help their neighbor, Bahrain, defend its 200-year-old unelected Sunni dynasty against pro-reform protests by the island's Shiite majority.

    And here lies one of the paradoxes for U.S. statecraft in the Middle East: to align with rulers who are firmly vested in the status quo, but not be cast as the spoilers of the Arab uprisings.

    "No one is immune from the waves of change," said Nicholas Burns, a former No. 3 official at the State Department. "There's certainly an effort to advise the Gulf Arabs to continue to get on the side of reform."

    Burns believes the Arab Spring has taught U.S. diplomats valuable lessons in patience and perspective.

    "We are witnessing something that is transformative and whose full impact will play out over years, maybe decades, ahead," said Burns, a professor of diplomacy and international politics at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "Here is one of those times when the U.S. has to not overact and overreact."

    But when events move fast, that may not be the easiest advice to follow. Mubarak was a loyal guardian of Egypt's groundbreaking 1979 peace treaty with Israel, and there is no certainty that whoever succeeds him will do likewise. Meanwhile, the Palestinians have overridden U.S. objections and asked the U.N. for statehood.

    "Our ability to influence is limited today more than at any time in the last 35 years," said Graeme Bannerman, a former State Department analyst on Mideast affairs, at a conference in November co-sponsored by the United States Institute of Peace.

    That assessment may have some traction in places such as in Tunisia or Egypt, where the U.S. is widely viewed as tainted by its long alliance with Mubarak. A burning U.S. flag is still a common sight in Cairo's Tahrir Square, epicenter of the Egyptian uprising.

    'No longer Big Brother'
    But ask about America's pull in other Mideast points — the free-spending Gulf, the new proto-state in Libya, even slow-healing Iraq and its Iran-friendly government — and the conversation is different. It is more measured about how the U.S. fits into the new Mideast. There is more talk about the arc of history rather than the latest sound bite.

    "It's too early to tell whether U.S. influence has diminished or indeed any change will happen because the Arab Spring is still in process," said Nawaf Tell, former director of the University of Jordan Strategic Studies Center.

    Tell sees the Arab Spring as the death rattle of the Arab revolutions and coups defined by the all-powerful state and embodied by winner-take-all leaders: Egypt's Gamal Abdel-Nasser (1954), Libya's Moammar Gadhafi (1969), the 1970 putsch in Syria that brought Hafez Assad to power in Syria and now a dynasty-in-peril under his son, Bashar, and so on.

    "These regimes have exhausted their revolutionary credibility and have seen their legitimacy go bankrupt," Tell said. And as with any big unraveling, there are new rules in the aftermath.

    This may mean a less privileged position for U.S. interests and more legwork for Washington's envoys, said Morris Reid, managing director of the Washington-based BGR Group, which works often in liaison roles between Mideast officials and U.S. companies.

    The U.S. approach to the region "will be better," he said. "Not necessarily stronger."

    "The U.S. will have to work harder for intelligence, diplomatic relations, commercial deals," said Reid after meetings in mid-November at the Dubai Airshow, where Boeing Co. made a slew of deals including a record $18 billion order from the fast-growing air carrier Emirates. "The U.S. will now have to prove their value as allies."

    A showcase for that in the coming year is likely to be Iraq, and the contest for influence between neighboring Iran and the U.S. after U.S. military forces are gone. That rivalry in turn is influenced by events in Syria, Iran's main Arab ally, and the concerns of emirates and sheikdoms that lie just across the Persian Gulf from Iran.

    "Look at it this way: If you accept that the Arab Spring is a once in a four- or five-generations moment, then, of course, it will reorder the entire game of influence and politics by the big powers," said Salman Shaikh, director of The Brookings Doha Center in Qatar.

    "U.S. leadership does matter," he continued. "It's naive to say it will become irrelevant. But it's also wrong not to notice that America's era as the region's diplomatic superpower is coming to an end. The Arab Spring has brought much more independent-minded diplomacy by nations and a new empowerment among Arab people. America is a big player, but no longer Big Brother."

    Associated Press writer Dale Gavlak in Amman, Jordan, contributed to this report.

    Read more content from msnbc.com and NBC News: