Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Over 20 Dead in Guerrilla Violence
Talabani's Bid to call Parliament Fails


The Iraqi general in charge of Baghdad security was killed by a sniper on Monday. I suppose it doesn't need underlining that this is very bad news for Baghdad security. The assassinated commander, himself a Sunni Arab who led men during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, was almost certainly the victim of an inside job. The Iraqi military is deeply infiltrated by guerrilla supporters.

He was among over 20 deaths from guerrilla violence in Iraq on Monday, which saw several car bombs in Baghdad and a major one in Baqubah. The actions in these two cities killed 11 and wounded 30. In downtown Basra, there was a firefight at a police checkpoint that wounded 4. A car bomb in Mahmudiyah killed 3 and wounded 5.

The dean of the engineering school at Mustansiriyah University in the capital, Dr. Ali Hasan al-Mahawish, was kidnapped.

A US soldier was killed by enemy action in the western Anbar province.

Ed Wong reports from Baghdad that those Iraqi security forces on which the Americans are depending are themselves riven with sectarian divisions and often little more than Shiite militias dressed up in American-style uniforms. Reforming these forces "could take years."

US ambassador in Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad is correct that civil war in Iraq could have a terrifying impact on the Oil Gulf and the United States. But the question remains of what the best way is to avert that outcome. Large numbers of US ground troops in the country may be counter-productive.

Jalal Talabani, Iraq's Kurdish president, attempted to call parliament into session no later than March 12. He was blocked, however, by Vice President Adil Abdul Mahdi, from the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). SCIRI is part of the Shiite religious coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance, which has nominated Ibrahim Jaafari as its candidate for prime minister. Jaafari defeated Abdul Mahdi in his bid for the position, and Talabani may have thought that Abdul Mahdi would welcome an opportunity to displace his rival. Party unity held, however, and the Shiite UIA proved that it could block Talabani and his allies from moving forward without it. Talabani was going to call a vote in parliament for prime minister, which Jaafari could only have won if he could put together a 138 seat majority. With two Risaliyun (Sadrist) MPs, Mithal al-Alusi and the Christian MP of Rafidain, Jaafari has 132. He can almost certainly get to 138 by proming important cabinet posts to smaller parties, so it is not clear that Talabani's ploy would have worked anyway. It could easily be defeated if the UIA keeps discipline in its ranks.

As it is, the UIA is positioning itself to extract promises from Talabani that he will support Jaafari for PM before they agree to let parliament meet.

Talabani is delaying the formation of the Iraqi government with all these games, fiddling while Baghdad burns. And his reason for his maneuvering is to protect Kurdish interests, not Iraqi national ones. If that is his position, he has a duty in conscience to resign.

Al-Hayat says that Talabani's plea to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani to get involved in the movement to dump Jaafari has fallen on deaf ears. Sistani's representatives say that he is neutral on the issue of who should be prime minister. He does, however, insist that the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance remain united. If there is a dispute within it, his representative said, it should be settled by an internal party vote. (This statement implies a rebuke to Talabani's notion of resolving it by a vote of the whole parliament, effectively allowing the minority parties to dictate to the largest single bloc.

Minister of Petroleum and Vice Premier Ahmad Chalabi [Ar.]has been negotiating water use with the Turkish government. Al-Zaman says that the Turkish government has offered to build a huge industrial complex in Kirkuk and to open up a second border crossing so as to increase trade between Turkey and Iraq.

(The offers of help with industrializing Kirkuk and of better border access to Turkey are intended by Ankara to offset Kurdish separationism in the region.

FBIS translates an interview with Iraqi politicians on Talabani's failed bid to convene parliament, done by the Iranian Arabic-language satellite television channel, al-`Alam:



' Foreign Broadcast Information Service
Iranian TV's 'Iraq Today' Looks at Talabani's Call To Convene Parliament
Al-Alam Television
Monday, March 6, 2006 T20:50:22Z

Tehran Al-Alam TV in Arabic at 1538 GMT on 6 March broadcast its regular "Iraq Today" program presented by Husayn Murtadha. This edition of the program focused on Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's "sudden" call for the Iraqi parliament to hold its first session within two weeks.

For this purpose, two Iraqi politicians, speaking from Baghdad, and an Iraqi political pundit, speaking from Beirut, were invited. They were respectively Jabir Habib Jabir, member of the Shi'i United Iraqi Alliance, and Muhammad Salih al-Dulaymi, member of Sunni National Dialogue Front; the pundit was Abbas Musawi.

Jabir was first to be invited to comment on the reasons behind Talabani's decision. Jabir says of course not everyone thinks time is right for such a call. However, the president felt it was within his constitutional prerogatives to invite the parliament to meet. In doing so, the president might have felt that with such a call, MPs feel under pressure - as they have to agree on a government within a month of the start of their meetings, to find a way out for the current political debacle in the country - either to accept Al-Ja'fari's nomination or find someone else instead, he says.

In this respect, Jabir believes, the call could be a positive development despite the fact that it was made without prior consultation with the other political forces.

For his part, Al-Dulaymi attacked Talabani's call as "too early". Talabani's decision, he adds, could cause some kind of "embarrassment" for both Al-Ja'fari and the parliament because of its timing. Such a call, he adds, is nothing but "blackmail" for the other political forces. Al-Dulaymi says he could not see how such a call could serve either Iraqi unity or higher interest.

Both politicians discussed the current political situation in the country and Iraq's constitutional provisions. However, whereas Jabir tried to point out the positive points in the convening of the parliament as a way of starting a momentum to end the current crisis, Al-Dulaymi says such a call will only make the situation worse because it is part of a Sunni-Kurdish "conspiracy" to intimidate the Shi'i United Iraqi Alliance and its nominee Al-Ja'fari.

Political pundit Musawi complained about the decision and says he could not see how the convening of the parliament could end the political crisis in the country he could not see how a government could be formed within 30 days as the constitution stipulates.

(Description of Source: Tehran Al-Alam Television in Arabic -- IRIB's 24-hour Arabic news channel, targetting a pan-Arab audience) '

6 Comments:

At 3:54 AM, Blogger Spin proof said...

The inexperienced sunni Accord group have been led to believe that the UIA can be ousted if they allied with Allowi+Kurds. The sunnis have nothing in common with either otherwise. This idea is a pipedream which unravelled quickly.

They have also been told stories about a Sadr conspiracy to evict the Americans only to be followed by the extermination of sunnis.

Talabani thinks that the national unity governement as a given, which offers him veto rights.

The reality is that the Kurds, by having their own ministries; army; and budget, have forfeited their place in the national government. Their interests are still served by their 53 MPs obviously.

The next government can be, and probably will be, formed without needing either Allawi or the Kurds. All what is needed now is for Sistani and Sadr to regain the trust of the Sunnis.

 
At 3:58 AM, Blogger Murteza ali said...

why is the shia UIA guy on the tv debate supporting talabani and why is the baathist from the dialogue council supporting jafari???

 
At 10:58 AM, Blogger sherm said...

From Ed Wong Article:
"But with the threat of full-scale sectarian strife looming larger, they are suddenly grappling with the possibility that they have been arming one side in a prospective civil war."

Isn't it a bit odd that, three years into the the war, the US military is suddenly grappling with this issue. How thick is the collective skull to ignore realities that have been evident for at least a year, and been predicted by experts for longer than that?

After the invasion it was "Sunni Triangle" 24/7. It was also fairly obvious that the Shiites were licking thier lips to have their way with the Shiites (with good reason), and the Sunnis knew it.

By persitantly labeling the Sunni based resistance as sour grape Baathists, rejectionists, Hussein resurectors, etc.,the Bush administration and the military not only misled the public but evidently themselves.

I'm sure some bright men and women in the Green Zone stood up and said "wait a minute", but that was their ticket on the next plane out.

 
At 2:30 PM, Blogger SandSkeptic said...

Conceptual Chaos

There's a rich stew of weird ideas floating around out there.

1) Being there to preserve chaos:

Assuming the Ed Wong piece is essentially accurate, and US "advisors" are removing and replacing police commanders, who then do their own purges, and making recruitment decisions, lurching from ethnic "blindness" to recruiting only Sunnis in the last batch of 1,200, etc.,etc., in what sense do the Iraqis control even their own internal ministry affairs? Why is the Shiite Minister of the Interior being beaten about the head and shoulders for death squads in his ministry if he doesn't even control hiring and firing? Shouldn't the American in charge take this hit?

Of course it's a pretty embarrassing admission for the Minister to make--does he have a written agreement with the US allowing them these sorts of prerogatives? Or do the US advisors just sort of make these decisions on their own?

And given this revelation of a US "crypto-tilt" toward the Sunnis and away from the Shiites, together with the observation in the Guardian that many Shiites in the police have been the victims of attacks, is someone trying to suggest that the US is playing hardball, and that not all the leaking of security information is being done by Iraqis? The Biddle article in Foreign Affairs linked in yesterday's comments (more on this article below) suggests keeping Iraqi police and military weak, which adds another straw in the wind of this kind of speculation.

2) Proconsul with American characteristics:

Our proconsul Sell-me is all heart bemoaning in advance the chaos an all-out civil war would bring to Iraq while doing his assigned considerable bit to fan the flames.

Justifying his latest effort to keep the Iraqis from interfering in their own internal affairs, he comes up with a gem worthy of the High Imcompetency hisself, "Sectarian Sunnis are as bad as sectarian Shiites."

This is rich coming from the representative of the power that made Islam the official religion of Iraq in the TAL. What a great way to ingratiate yourself with leaders of many tendencies all at once. Does anyone in the Iraqi Foreign Ministry know what "persona non grata" stands for?

And try translating the sentence into 'Merrican: "Christian Baptists are as bad as Christian Methodists." How would anyone associated with any denomination react to such a statement?

We still think we are sensitive enough to Iraqi realities to play a positive role?

3) We're just trying to prevent a larger tragedy in Iraq:

The above-mentioned Biddle Foreign Affairs article has a minor advance in postulating that the situation in Iraq is more a civil war than a war of national liberation ala Vietnam. Then it pulls a crocodile skin over itself and begins weeping about the horrible consequences for Iraq if the US military uses the new advanced anti-war-of-national-liberation model of war-fighting/democracy-building, and comes up with a fantastic mish-mash prescription instead: we should slow up the "break-neck" pace of building Iraqi police and military forces, reserving for ourselves indefinitely the military/security role we have played (so well!) to manipulate the balance among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, threatening to pull out (oh, how effective a threat) and using our forces as bargaining leverage to force the different Iraqi factions into political compromise.

Whew!

Whole think tanks must be boggling.

And yet there is more than a suggestion in current reports that something like this way of thinking is guiding US actions in Iraq.

Mom!

4) The Constitution as something other than blood-soaked TP:

Talabani's unsuccessful effort to convene parliament by the deadline set in the constitution suggests that the UIA at least will not be stampeded by artificial deadlines, including those in the notional constitution.

One could argue that this is just some Arab concept of flexible time, but more and more pieces are liable to come flying off the fragile edifice as deadlock continues, and casualties continue despite the efficient, wise and all-knowing American-controlled Interior Ministry with the puppet Shiite minister who can't even keep his friends in a job, while being forced to swallow huge gobs of spin-blame.

How will Shiites react to the suspicion that the US is leaning increasingly toward protecting Sunni interests, and stabbing the Shiites in the back once again?

The Shiites , having taken inordinate civilian casualties for years, should now be upset that Sunnis are starting to suffer civilian casualties themselves, and turn over nominal control of the police to--who? Doesn't sound likely, does it?

Eventually they will find work-arounds for other troublesome aspects of the constitution that get in the way of effectively governing Iraq, or at least that part of it they can control.

5) Bottom line:

The US Iraq War v.9.1.1 or whatever flip-flopping number you care to assign to it, continues under a barrage of squishy rationales, cloaked in the fiction that we give a marsh otter for the well being of the Iraqi people, or which ever subset we are spinning on behalf of today.

The US military is in for the long haul, or the end of the current imcompetency, whichever comes first. The strategic imperatives to deny oil to the market and support prices, and to have bases from which the invasion of Iran can be launched remain unperturbed by mere unclarity and irrationality of rationale.

The recent precipitous drop in the US casualty rate suggests either that US troops are being confined to base and thus influencing only by their moral presence, or the Sunni resistance has gotten the word and is laying off attacks. Tune in next year for more exciting details.

 
At 6:42 PM, Blogger sherm said...

In my post above I said "the Shiites were licking thier lips to have their way with the Shiites (with good reason), and the Sunnis knew it." (A difficult concept to visualize.)

It should read "the Shiites were licking their lips to have their way with the SUNNIS (with good reason), and the Sunnis knew it."

Excuse my blunder

 
At 7:41 PM, Blogger Kelly said...

Juan,

You know, day after day I read your comments and sometimes there is a gleam of hope admidst the despair, but lately I find myself wishing more and more that we really did have a time machine and could go back in time to before this war and just erase the whole blasted thing from history. I even find myself wishing for Saddam Hussein again. Even from his trial for his life, he was trying to unite his people, to lead his people so that there would not be a civil war. He was a leader who many despised but at least it seemed that he united the country, unlike the leaders of Iraq right now. I don't know.. this just cannot end well.. I am worried that things are just going to deteriorate more and more.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home