Top Ten Catastrophes of the Third Year of American Iraq
The American war against Iraq began on March 20, 2003, so today is the third anniversary. The Himalyan mistakes of the American administration of the country in its first two years have by now been much analyzed -- the punitive steps against even low-level Baath Party members, the firing of tens of thousands of Sunni Arabs, the dissolution of the army, the permitting of looting on a vast scale, the failure to understand tribal honor, the failure to get a handle on the early guerrilla war, the failure to understand Shiite Islam, the torture at Abu Ghraib, the failure to get services on line, the destruction of Fallujah, the ill-timed and ill-advised attempt to "kill or capture" Muqtada al-Sadr, the adoption of an election system that allowed the almost complete exclusion of the Sunni Arabs, etc., etc.
Here, let us examine the top disasters of the third year in American Iraq.
1. The Shiite religious parties, having won a majority in parliament, took over the Ministry of the Interior and drew, for its special police commandos, on members of the Badr Corps. Badr is the paramilitary of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and it was trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guards. These special commandos set up secret prisons and tortured Sunni Arabs they suspected of being in the guerrilla resistance to the new order.
2. The constitution drafted by the elected parliament enshrines Islam as the religion of state and stipulates that the civil parliament may pass no legislation that contravenes the established laws of Islam. It hints that clerics and ayatollahs will be appointed to court benches. The constitution has brought Iraq to the brink of being an Islamic Republic, with potentially harmful effects on the rights of women, gays, Christians and others. Since the Shiite religious parties had won the January 30, 2005 elections, this outcome was predictable.
3. The constitution allows provinces to establish provincial confederacies. This provision reflections the model adopted by the Kurds in the north, which is now attractive to Shiite parties in the south. These confederacies can claim 100 percent of the revenues from all future petroleum, natural gas and other natural resource finds. The loose, weak federal government, like the early American state under the Articles of Confederation will be robbed of sovereignty (and income) by ambitious provincial elites. It is possible that these provincial confederacies may break up the country.
4. The US military used Kurdish and Shiite troops to attack the northern Turkmen city of Talafar in August. Kurdish troops, drawn from the Peshmerga militia, were allowed to paint lasers on targets in the city, which were then destroyed by the US air force. Entire neighborhoods were destroyed, and much of the population was displaced for some time. Shiite troops and local Shiite Turkmen informants were used to identify and interrogate alleged Sunni insurgents. Turkey was furious at the attack on ethnically related Turkmen and threatened to halt its cooperation with the US. Although the attack was allegedly undertaken to capture foreign forces allegedly based in the city, only 50 were announced apprehended. The entire operation ended up looking like a joint Kurdish-Shiite attack on Sunni Turkmen, backed by the US military. Turkmen and Kurds do not generally get along, and Turkmen accuse Kurds of wanting to ethnically clense them from Kirkuk. The entire operation was politically the worst possible public relations for the US in northern Iraq, and seems unlikely to have put a signficant dent in the guerrillas' capabilities.
5. All three Sunni Arab-majority provinces rejected the new constitution by a sound margin, two of them by a two-thirds majority. The Kurdish and Shiite provinces overwhelmingly approved the charter. Iraq thus has a permanent constitution that is absolutely unacceptable to the country's most powerful minority.
6. British government leakers revealed that George W. Bush told British PM Tony Blair in April, 2002, that he was seriously considering bombing the HQ of the Aljazeera satellite news channel. Bush's reputation, already low in the Arab world, took another hit.
7. Iraqi petroleum exports fell to an average of only 1.8 million barrels a day during the past year, down from 2.8 million barrels per day before the war. In recent months the exports have been as low as 1.1 million barrels a day.
8. Guerrillas have managed to surround and cut off Baghdad, the capital and a population center with 1/4 of the country's inhabitants, from much fuel and electricity.
9. Widespread hopes, fanned by the Bush administration, that Sunni Arab participation in the parliamentary elections would lead to a reduction in guerrilla violence proved completely untrue. The various Sunni Arab lists garnered 58 seats of 275. The Sunni Arabs have now adopted a two-track strategy, working in parliament to play the Kurds and the Shiites off against one another while its paramilitary wing continued to blow things up with unrelenting ferocity.
10. Guerrillas in Samarra on February 22 blew up the Askari Shrine, holy to Shiites because of its association with the hidden Twelfth Imam, whose Second Coming many await. The Sunni Arab guerrilla movement has been trying to provoke popular attacks and sectarian reprisals, but this is the first time it met with a measure of success. Enraged Shiites attacked 100 mosques, damaging between two and four dozen, killing some Sunni clerics, and murdering hundreds of Sunnis. Iraqi clerics, both Shiite and Sunni, helped bring Iraq back from the brink of hot civil war. The US troops in the country proved generally unuseful in this crisis.

|
17 Comments:
Iraq was the sole counterweight to Iranian Islamic fundamentalism, and the only (relatively) secular country in the whole Middle-East: many members of Saddam’s government such as Tariq Hanna Aziz and 30%+ of high-ranking civil servants were actually European-educated Catholics whereas Christians made up less than 4% of Iraq’s total population…
Bush, Cheney and their Neocon cum Israeli partners in crime favored a “free and democratic” Iraq ruled by “progressive” Shiite fundamentalists such as Prime-Minister Al-Ja’afari, a bearded Islamist thug of Iranian descent who claims to be an admirer of both Donald Rumsfeld and Grand Ayatollah Khomeini…Go figure.
Anyway, apart from the renegade “Sunni triangle” and the Kurdish Northeast, most of the country in now “fully liberated”, firmly under Persian terrorist influence: in many neighborhoods, from Baghdad’s eastern suburbs to downtown Basra, bearded Iranian agents roam freely in broad daylight while US and British soldiers don’t dare enter...
President Bush, thank you so much for fighting for America’s freedom by “sending a strong message to Iran” during that muscular speech of yours last week!
Long live freedom!
Long live el Presidente Bush!
Long live Shariaa-based Islamic Law and the institutionalized persecution of second-class citizen such as women, Sunnis and Christians in “Grand” Ayatollah Sistani’s “free Iraq” for which we’ve spent a mere $800 billion in taxpayers money and the life of 2,400+ American kids!
Maybe This Isn't One of the Top Ten
The utter irrelevancy of the US military presence in Iraq for any of the myriad stated goals is something that more Americans are finally beginning to comprehend.
Maybe this isn't a catastrophe, but it needs to be highlighted and understood as the debate on our future policy proceeds.
Over half a million man-years of US military and intelligence presence in Iraq have not resulted in the capture of one particularly nasty Jordanian, whom most Iraqis apparently can't stand either. That's so sad on so many levels.
The US military isn't going to intervene in any civil war that may eventuate.
So why is the US military there at all, at great cost in lives and treasure?
Couldn't we not catch Zarqawi and not intervene in a civil war, for say $4 billion a year instead of $300 billion? Half the savings could even go in further tax cuts to the super-rich and we'd all still be better off.
The recent tele-farce "Operation Smarmy" made particularly clear that US forces don't have much of a goal, don't play much of a role, and can't give any soul. Let them come home.
Iraq will get over it somehow. Heartbroken at the departure of all those handsome heroes, perhaps, but life will go on.
Otherwise, the catastrophes will go on too, and the casualties will continue to mount. Except for the wounded, whose number on icasualties.org has been frozen at 311 for the year for weeks. (Would that it were so in reality.)
OK. Situation hopeless. But what to do? How about some guidelines? Support the SCIRI, Muqtada, or the Sunnis? Furthermore, is all you say really true?
You state:
"8. Guerrillas have managed to surround and cut off Baghdad, the capital and a population center with 1/4 of the country's inhabitants, from much fuel and electricity."
Broad declarations occasionally require proof. Yes, fuel and electricity are below requirements. Sabotage, ambushes, and IED are acute problems. However, to say that Baghdad is surrounded and cut off seems like an overstatement. It is not, like Stalingrad, surrounded by armies. A US withdrawal would not be followed by any "liberation" by any unified national resistance.
Would any elected assembly of Muslims write a constitution that did not proclaim Islam as its basis? Is "catastrophe" a helpful way to describe the inevitable?
Melvin Laird argues that the RVN Saigon regime would have survived, were it not for withering US support. Is that also the case in Iraq? How can or should the US bug out?
any one connecting the dots between saddam's calling for iraqi unity against the aggressor and the lack of overt terrorist style bombing in the past few days?
a word to john koch: what would have had a win over saigon signify--a nuclear weapon seeking north vietnam?
Why Iranians want to talk
This list of Iraqi disasters is pretty much perfect, assuming that the order is irrelevant. IMO, it is essential for proper interpretation of the current situation in Iraq.
I'd especially point out the importance of the the Golden Mosque disaster which is #10 in Cole's list. One crude Western analogy for this situation is assassination of Hector during the Trojan war.
Knowing the symbolic importance of this site for the Iranians, we can suggest that, devastated by the loss, they feel obliged to discuss what can be done to secure other Iraqi holy sites. One thing is for sure, Iranians expect an expression of regret for what happened to the Samarra mosque.
From the other side, WaPo apparently takes the Iranian move as a sign of weakness, a step to surrender. In fact, they hardly see any difference between the 10c mosque and a decorated warehouse. No, this is absolutely not the case!
You stated:
2. The constitution drafted by the elected parliament enshrines Islam as the religion of state and stipulates that the civil parliament may pass no legislation that contravenes the established laws of Islam. It hints that clerics and ayatollahs will be appointed to court benches. The constitution has brought Iraq to the brink of being an Islamic Republic, with potentially harmful effects on the rights of women, gays, Christians and others. Since the Shiite religious parties had won the January 30, 2005 elections, this outcome was predictable.
This is hardly a disaster, it is the biggest success of the Iraq mission. Despite all the violence it is this fact that will lead Iraqi's to the eventual success and freedom from tyranny and occupation they deserve.
While it is tempting indeed to throw this in the face of the neocon's to say "I told you so", to show them they can not shape the whole world into their image as they think they can, it is a success not a disaster.
After the drafting of the Constitution blogger after blogger and reporter after reporter touted how they just could not believe that now with Islamic law a woman may not get an inheritance as large as her brother. All that is going on in Iraq and this is what the talking heads complain about with Islamic law? How many Iraqi's do you think right now have huge piles of inheritance they need to worry about? With their families dying and there country in ruins how much does this matter to them? Even in the U.S. with people overwhelmed in debt, health care costs and college costs how many of them do you think spend their days worried about dividing up their massive inheritances they don't know what else to do with?
The only thing that will pull these disparate groups in Iraq together is the one thing they agree upon: there is only one deity, Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. The thing that will give them success in Iraq and success in the hereafter.
Greetings Prof. Juan Cole ! You rightly put your finger on ten of the most painful catastrophies arising from the American Iraq fiasco, but I think you have missed the point; the USA in fact committed the single and only one mother of all disaster. the USA sleep walked into committing the most costly aggression against a weak & unarmed third world nation that has done no harm to the USA nor are they at anytime at all likely to threaten the security of the USA whatsoever.
To further rub salt to open wound, President Bush & Donny Rumsfeld were seduced by that wily Arab "FOX" Ahmad Chalabi, that mother of all scam artist; and as a consequence the USA not only lost US$1.5 trillion, but made 2,400 widows and orphans.
What has the USA gained from all that "gas"; other than to look foolish. The lone superpower of the world made to look like a mug. Even President Hugo Chavez has the guts to call Bush a "DONKEY" & A DRUNCKARD. At the end of all that immense waste (all of US$1.5 trillion) has the USA achieved DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ ?
The bottom line to all this American fantasy is that the USA is today the biggest laughing stock of the world. In the face of real power like dear leader Kim of DPRK, Hugo Chavez etc. the USA is quite helpless. All the ten USA air-craft carriers & hundreds of top F16 fighters are emasculated; to use a Chinese turn of phrase, the USA is soft as tofu.
The US is negotiating with Iran about Iraq. Kind of like Truman negotiating with Stalin about the World War II booty.
On the table are US interests, Iranian ambitions, Israeli interests, Kurdish interests.
Of course, the booty, Iraq, is not represented at the table.
The funny thing is that none of the wannabee Stalins and Trumans at the table has any control over what could happen next in Iraq.
ycy and cyte,
Investigative journalist Greg Palast has just posted a piece "Bush Didn't Bungle Iraq, You Fools:
THE MISSION WAS INDEED ACCCOMPLISHED". It is based on insider documents indicating that the purpose of the war in Iraq was to significantly raise the price of oil, thereby increasing the profits of the oil oligopoly who put Bush et al into power.
See the full article here:
http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=483&row=0
The real catastrophe of the Iraq War is that it has created a cult of Bushiites in America who will follow their cabal leaders into the gates of the apocalypse.
If this sounds too harsh, you only need look to the 30 million or so die-hard supporters of this president, and the anti-Castro and pro-Israel crowd, who are now pushing for an escalation in U.S. military posture in the region - especially against Iran.
The worse things get, the better they look to this Bushiite cult who readily believe their Great Leader's prophesy that the better things get the worse they will seem.
The fact that big corporations have swindled money and profited from this war, the fact that the war was based on lies, the fact that thousands of innocent Iraqis have died needlessly - all these facts are but the Devil's breath to the Bushiites.
They did not drink the Kool-Aid - they are living in it.
Re: #4
Is that the same Talafar that Bush touts as a victory, and that ABC News (US variety) also seems to think was a success?
Bush has never intented to do anything right for the world. By not going after Bin Laden, he is actually protecting him because Bin Laden is his biggest asset. The asset is fear in the American people, so with this fear he could do anything like go to Iraq. Grinding all the money out of American's hand for himself, Chaney(Haliburton), and their friends.
Hello Catinthehat ! I believe that you are brilliant and I am a convert.
What a fantastic plan & all I thought of was that the USA wanted democrcay in Iraq ?
If what catinthehat said is factual, then President Bush, VP Cheny, Donny Rumsfeld and all the bunch of the Bush Administration are war criminals.
Vow what a bunch of crooks.
I agree with catinhat, and some.The scariest thing is how to stop them- they think they can get away with any lie, any crime- and i am begining to believe they will- you drop a nuke in Iran declare marshall law in the USA, freeze elections and viola- we have a benovolent dictator and then what?
Harun Abd As-Sami, do you really think that the part of Islamic law that scares people is the inheritance rule that you mentioned? Professor Cole alludes to it in the very text you cite! Iraqi women were freer than other Muslim women, and now will be slaves just as they are in Iran or Taliban Afghanistan. How long before we hear news of public stonings for alleged indiscretions, of honor killings...how dare you belittle this very real concern?
How powerful are they really?
An informal test over the few weeks of the Mearsheimer/Walt hypothesis at The Lobby Watch
AIPAC and American Interests: The Pushback begins [Eric Alterman - blog]
As I noted earlier this week, it is impossible to criticize America’s Israel lobby, or even call attention to its actions--even the ones for which its top employees are not accused of spying-- without being smeared as an anti-Semite, a crank, an isolationist, or more likely, all three. (And not just by the Cathy Youngs and Nick Kings of the world….) This is true for America’s most admired realist foreign policy scholars like John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, as it is for any of us and serves as an extremely intimidating factor to anyone who might consider doing so, especially if unprotected by such enviable titles as “Wendell Harrison Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago” and “Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs [and Academic Dean] at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
Post a Comment
<< Home