A suicide bomber struck a crowd of 300 people this morning in Baghdad.  Jane Arraf, a reporter for the Christian Science Monitor was at the scene. She says that a young man with explosives strapped to his legs blew himself up in the crowd of people who had gathered to apply for coveted jobs with the army. Araf says that it seemed like security was lacking.

Saad al Mutalibi, an Iraqi government spokesperson also responds to the attack. He maintains that his country will be more secure without U.S. forces, and that the attaack is not linked to the withdrawal of troops.

A suicide bomber attacked a busy army recruitment center today in Baghdad where a large crowd was waiting in line to apply for work. The attack comes ahead of the U.S. military's planned drawdown of forces. The BBC reports that as many as 50 people are dead after the blast. Stephen Farrell, reporter for The New York Times updateds us on the bombing from Baghdad.

The Green Zone was established in Baghdad when U.S. troops invaded in 2003, and since then it has come to symbolize much of the American presence, both in Iraq and abroad. It is a fortress, a city within a city, and the headquarters of both American power and the Iraqi government.

Today we take a look at the Green Zone’s future and legacy as American troops continue their withdrawal from Iraq, and whether the Green Zone needs to be dismantled in order for the country to have true sovereignty.

Operation Iraqi Freedom will draw to a close on September 1st, 2010. As American forces transition from combat operations into the stability operations of Operation New Dawn, we're thinking about the troops who will be coming home.

Just this month, 13,000 troops will return home to the U.S. That's the equivalent of one 747 every day. By the end of next year, all 50,000 remaining troops will come home.

All week long, we've been focusing on Iraq, where American forces are drawing down this month. We've heard mixed opinions from Iraqis and analysts who say Iraq still lacks stability, infrastructure and a functioning government. Now, we turn to Kurdistan, where the view is altogether different from the rest of Iraq. For Kurds, the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 was largely positive. For decades Kurds had suffered repression and abuse under Saddam Hussein's regime.

But what happens when the U.S. pulls out?

President Obama has announced his commitment to draw down American forces in Iraq after seven years of combat. There will be 90,000 fewer troops in Iraq by the end of next year. But will the costs – financial, human, emotional – come down as the troops come home?

As the U.S. prepares for a full drawdown of troops in Iraq, we check in with Lubna Naji, a recent graduate of Baghdad Medical School. She says she is less concerned with the withdrawal of troops from her country than the restoration of services like electricity and water supplies. Life there is "barely tolerable," she says.

At the beginning of his presidency, President Obama pledged to cease combat operations in Iraq by August 31st, 2010. As we near that deadline, Obama seems on track to keep his promise. By the end of this month, combat operations will cease, and only 50,000 support troops will remain in Iraq. By the end of 2011, the president says, they will all come home. 

20 years ago, history began. Saddam Hussein’s wrong bet on the West – when he invaded Kuwait and assumed the rest of the world would shrug – set everything in motion that we still see unfolding today. The Cold War narrative of European history was ending. The Cold War was the last act of an unraveling of the Napoleonic demons of European History. Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait was the inauguration of a different narrative. 

Twenty years ago today, one of the Arab world's most powerful armies invaded its tiny neighbor to the south. Iraqi forces significantly outnumbered and overpowered Kuwait's military as they marched in, and within a short time had overthrown the government. Saddam Hussein declared that the nation of Kuwait no longer existed; Iraqi forces held the country for seven months, until U.S. and coalition forces liberated the occupied country in the first Gulf War.

As many as two thousand members of Gold Star families – families who lost members while serving our country – convened at Arlington cemetery's “Tomb of the Unknowns” this weekend, to pay tribute to military men and women killed in action. This weekend’s events mark the largest gathering of such families in the country’s history.

Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan come from hill towns and farm country all across America – and when they return home, they bring their combat injuries with them. Traumatic brain injuries and missing limbs require sophisticated and constant treatment, and the Department of Veterans Affairs has a duty to treat them. But when roads are blocked by snow, or the nearest VA facility is hours away, giving veterans the care they’ve been promised can be a challenge.

This morning, Washington Post reporter Dana Priest broke an exclusive story about the increased use of intelligence contractors. After years of research and information gathering, Priest found that billions of dollars are being wasted because of redundancies between the intelligence community and its contractors. And even though many top government officials know this is going on, little is being done to make operations more efficient or rein in spending.

More than 40 people were killed by a suicide bomber yesterday in Baghdad as they lined up outside an Iraqi army base to receive their paychecks. Those killed were mainly members of the Awakening movement, an organization composed mostly of Sunni former insurgents, who switched sides to fight alongside American forces. The attacks, along with America's withdrawal from Iraq are leaving those in the Awakening movement with a sense of desertion. The BBC's Baghdad correspondent, Gabriel Gatehouse, has the details.

Since September 11^th, the intelligence community has handed off many of its responsibilities to private contractors. The private intelligence industry has grown, and been paid billions by the government despite a culture of waste and mismanagement. Because the intelligence community and contractors now share many similar responsibilities, the line distinguishing the two is blurry.

Today the U.S. hands over a prison in Iraq and it’s barely worth a headline. The time that has passed since the U.S. invaded Iraq has created some scars and healed others. I’m struck by how much this milestone conveys the mystery of what the Iraq war has meant to the U.S. What is its legacy to a generation of young people, policymakers, and citizens? Is Iraq a failure, a success, or something different altogether?

The United States transferred the last American-run prison to Iraq in a significant move as the U.S. winds down its war there. The transfer of Camp Cropper, renamed Karkh Prison, also marks the end of a troubling chapter in America's relationship with Iraq, marred by the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib.

Security officials in Iraq say that at least three people have been killed and more than 30 injured in the latest bomb attack. Today marks the death of the Imam Kadhim, the seventh of twelve holy figures who defined the Shiite faith. This follows yesterday's suicide bombing that killed more than 50 people at a police checkpoint in Baghdad. They were among the hundreds of thousands of Shiite pilgrims taking part in the annual precession to Kadhimiya's shrine to honor the eight century Imam.

General David Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate yesterday as General Stanley McChrystal's replacement as top commander for U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. A demoralized army, an inept Afghan government seen as hopelessly corrupt, increasingly skeptical international partners, a disinterested American public, a report that American taxpayer money has inadvertently been funneled to Afghan warlords, and a new torrent of violence resulting in 100 military casualities over that last month are among the panoply of challenges Petraeus faces when he touches down in Afghanistan.

In April, British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, who commands NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, proposed creating an award for "courageous restraint." As avoiding the loss of civilian life is a cornerstone of the coalition's counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan, does rewarding restraint makes sense?  Is restraint a courageous act of discipline under fire or does it put our troops in danger? 

On Facebook, Takeaway listener, Rusty Roy wrote: