Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Friday, March 17, 2006

US/Iraqi Attack on Samarra Region
Parliament Sworn In


Saddam Hussein's call at his trial for Iraqis to unite, stop killing each other on sectarian grounds, and attack US troops instead is likely to be very popular in the Sunni Arab region. The ineptitude of this tribunal is astonishing-- the US and its Iraqi allies have basically given Saddam a platform on which to make himself a martyr to Iraqi unity and independence. Given that he ran the country into the ground and engaged in large-scale ethnic cleansing, this call is the height of hypocrisy. But you wonder if Bush will remain more popular than Saddam in Iraq if things go on as they have been.

US military aircraft delivered a mixed US and Iraqi force to four villages north of Samarra which, the US military says, are suspected guerrilla bases. Actually, Samarra and its environs have long been dominated by the guerrillas, and repeated US attempts to subdue Samarra have all failed. Some sources reported massive bombing, which the Pentagon denied. Local Iraqis said they heard big explosions, however.

The US military command in Iraq, perhaps despairing of inaction in Washington, does not seem to have sought the authorization of President Bush for this operation. It does make you wonder what Bush thinks he is doing. After the Samarra shrine bombing, which many Iraqis blamed on the US one way or another, Bush should have been going on Iraqi television and addressing them directly as to what would be done about it. Instead, he kept trying to tell the Americans that things were actually just wonderful in Iraq.

This Samarra operation is probably mainly a political act. The US generals are attempting to demonstrate to their Shiite allies that they take seriously the terror attack on the Askari Shrine on Feb. 22. Presumably they are also attempting to ensure that if the shrine is rebuilt, it won't just be blown up again. Short of pulling a Fallujah on Samarra, however-- which would involve emptying the city and then destroying it-- it is difficult to see how the US/ Iraqi government forces can prevail. Even then, they would just face sullen suicide bombers thereafter, as has happened in Fallujah, where 2/3s of the buildings were damaged and a large part of the population permanently dispossessed.

Frankly, the Samarra "Operation Swarm" is probably also meant to give the impression of progress or at least of activity in Iraq, where the political process is stalled and the guerrillas seem to strike at will, with increasing political success.

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and Jalal Talabani, prominent Iraqi politicians who are also close to Tehran, have convinced the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to open direct talks with the United States on Iraqi security concerns. Such talks have been sought by US ambassador in Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad, who is the first Bush administration official in Iraq who seems to know what he is doing, and some important part of whose activities are likely to bear positive results. Note that the Neocons would never have agreed to talk to the Iranian government, which they just want to bomb (e.g. Richard Perle and Michael Ledeen). I disagree with some of what Khalilzad is doing, of course. I personally think Ibrahim Jaafari's commitment a strong Iraqi central government and national unity is more promising than the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq's adoption of the loose federalism model of Kurdistan for the Shiite south. On the other hand, if Jaafari is so unpopular that Iraq comes apart at the seams now, it doesn't do us much good that his policy vision is probably better for the country in the long run.

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq renewed his pledge Thursday to create two new provincial confederations in Iraq, in the Shiite far south and in the middle Euphrates [on the Kurdistan model]. Ibrahim Jaafari is opposed to such provincial confederations, which may lead to the break-up of Iraq or at least to an extremely weak central government. If you had in the United States the system that al-Hakim proposes, then Oklahoma, Texas and Louisiana could form a regional confederacy, elect a parliament and prime minister, and keep 100% of the revenue from all future oil finds, refusing to pay taxes to the federal government on it. And if Bush wanted to talk to Austin, he'd be directed to the Prime Minister of the Regional Confederacy. It would cause a lot of trouble.

The Iraqi parliament opened on Thursday, and the 275 members took their oath of office, administered in the absence of an elected speaker of the house (on whom parliament could not decide) by senior statesman Adnan Pachachi (on the grounds that he is the oldest MP). Some of the members objected to the form of the oath administered by the chief justice, on the grounds that it differed from the text that had been distributed beforehand, and some said it the way it had been written (-Al-Sharq al-Awsat). The autnorities decided to let that pass.

Pachachi attempted to make a speech from the floor, lamenting the recent sectarian violence, but was interrupted by Shiite cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who said it was inappropriate for Pachachi to do more than swear in the members of parliament.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat says that the MPs universally expressed a desire for a national unity government as a way to end the crisis. A Sunni politician, Khalaf al-Ulyan, said that it would also allow the government to avoid the problems that beset the previous, Jaafari, government. Mahmoud Osman, an independent Kurd, predicted that it would be difficult for Jaafari, leader of the Shiite Dawa Party, to form a new government given the opposition to him among other blocs.

Outgoing Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari, nominated by the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance for a second term, said Thursday that he would step down if his people asked him to. He clarified that he was referring to the parliament. Jaafari's political foes believe they can deny him the simple majority he needs to form a government, since the UIA only has 132 deputies willing to vote for it including allies, and needs 138. Moreover, there is opposition to Jaafari within the UIA, so he might not even get 132. The Virtue Party, lead by Nadim al-Jabiri, is diehard opposed to him. It has 15 seats.

Reuters argues that Washington views Jaafari as Iran's candidate, explaining US hostility to his nomination. But the idea that Jaafari is closer to Iran than the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim is frankly absurd. Whatever is going on, this isn't it. My suspicion? The Bush administration also sees that the establishment of several more provincial confederacies on the Kurdistan model, to which al-Hakim is committed (see above) will guarantee a very weak central government in Iraq and will also guarantee US oil firms weak, naive local governments on whom unfair contracts can be imposed. But the possibility that these confederacies will pull Iraq apart and reconfigure the Middle East and the Gulf in a way such as to provoke massive wars and pipeline sabotage must be taken into consideration.

Kurdish sources alleged that young Shiite nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has set up a virtual mini-state in slummy, Shiite East Baghdad, his power base. This allegation seems an exaggeration. The Sadrists in what is now called Sadr City have long run organizations that parallel those of the state, and it is hard to see what is new here.

6 Comments:

At 6:46 AM, Blogger Joe M said...

I think it is fairly clear why the USA is against Jaafari. The primary reason is that he is seen by Washington as being Sadr's candidate. All the other political players in Iraq have been wooed to some significant degree by the power of the USA, and the prospect of the Americans helping them come to power. Even the Sunni are now talking about how their short term interests are the same as the Americans. The Sadr trend is the only one to have philosophical opposition to the americans. and he is also the only Iraqi political player with serious indigenous grassroots support. Memories of the battles with the jash al-mahdi were rekindled when all those articles about him being a "king maker" scared the living shit out of the Americans. My bet is that washington sees Sadr as their #1 danger in Iraq today, far greater then the "terrorists" because he has true popular support and he was able to shift the entire political landscape away from the American sphere with his 14 point plan, among other things. the Americans are against Jafaari specifically because he is more iraqi and more democratic then the other candidates, not because he is an iranian stooge as some would suggest.

 
At 6:54 AM, Blogger Salvador said...

Dear Prof. Cole!

Some thoughts on your posting:

1) It seems to me as if the Operation in Samarra is more a PR- stunt of the Bush administration than a way to calm the shiites. I think this is clearly shown by the way it was presented to the media and the framing of it there. I also don`t think that the WH wasn`t involved, as your link to itv seems to indicate, because it`s absolutely standard procedure for the military to contact AT LEAST the Pentagon (=Rumsfeld) before they start such a media hyping action. Karl Rove and his spindoc companions clearly were involved here and I would bet that the sentence from itv over "military personal on the ground" deciding to initiate the operation was planted there to cover the tracks.

2) In behalf of the political wrestling in the iraqi ring I would say that the US is trying not only to get weak provinces in favor of the oil- contracts, but to generally weaken the UIA so they can get their beloved puppets Allawi and Co. involved again with the government. I would go even further- this is part of a longtime plan for preparing the attack on Irans nuclear industry.

sincerely yours

Salvador

 
At 11:29 AM, Blogger johnMccutchen said...

Reuters view of the Hakim/Iran ploy and yours Juan are not inconsistent. If this is about loose confederation and if Jaafari and Sadr are opposed to loose confederation, then Iran's backing of the Jafaari prime ministership must be dealt with from Hakim's point of view.

Now let's take what I more and more see as having a huge potential for mischief a step further. If indeed this is all about isolating Al-Sadr and other UIA forces opposed to Hakim's MegaShiite Region and Kurdistan who favor a strong central government where does this leave Kahlilizad and his Sunnis?

Out in the cold

And where does that leave the unity government?

Another bullet on Rove's daily script of talking points..another delusion

Again, there are I count 6 factions in Iran, Iraq, and BushVille all of whom have completly different agendas and stakes in these talks. Some will be sitting at the negotiating table, most won't.

This is very very bad,short term, medium or long

 
At 1:13 PM, Blogger JHM said...

"The US military command in Iraq, perhaps despairing of inaction in Washington, does not seem to have sought the authorization of President Bush for this operation. It does make you wonder what Bush thinks he is doing."
--J.C.


If we take all today's items together, we may safely generalize that there's a whole lot of sheer guesswork going on out there. It would probably be unwise to repose very much confidence in any one particular guess, or to write any guess off as "frankly absurd" either.

Prof. Cole awards that verbal booby prize to Ms. Karouny of Reuters, whose piece is indeed rather mind-boggling: not only is everything you thought you knew about occupation politics wrong, the New Conventional Wisdom is preached as if everybody had thought it all along. [A]

Still, one swallow does not make a summer, aggressions and occupations are not the work of mere journalists. What matters more is the cumulative impact of the really empowered. "The US military command in Iraq, perhaps despairing of inaction in Washington, does not seem to have sought the authorization of President Bush for this operation" may count as Swallow Number Two, for it is far from clear that Dubya has expressly authorized Ambassador Khalilzad's recent proconsular and diplomatic shenanigans any more than "Operation Swarmer." Up to this point, the Bushies have zigged and zagged between half a dozen inconsistent colonial policies, but they were nevertheless only doing one particular dumb thing at any given time. Now it looks as if those invaders who still care about the neo-Iraq project can do as they please locally without any central coordination from the ranch.

An outsider like me unaquainted with GOP motives and personalities is likely to view this development as a crack-up and infer that the major players at Crawford are getting so desperate that they are reduced to making all possible mistakes simultaneously in hopes that _something_ will help a little, maybe bombing the Sunnis with the Pentagon folks, maybe pandering to the Sunnis with Sultan Zalmay. Maybe this, maybe that, maybe the other.

So what does Bush think He is doing? Despair and disarray are most likely the real situation, yet a pious Republican could maintain that what we have here is an ideologically correct deduction from "Freedom means peace" -- as long as the hired hands, military and diplomatic, were not allowed to pick their own policy but had to slavishly obey orders from the ranch, the genius of free enterprise was cramped and rebuked and unable to expand its wings and do the job right. Now, however, . . . .

But God knows best.
--JHM

[A] As a technical matter of journalism, I suppose the scribblers can get away with this sort of thing (or think they can) because they don't believe that their customers have ever actually _learned_ much about neo-Iraq. Which probably is more or less how it is. [sigh]

Setting aside the basic _Daily Bodycount_ kind of reporting, they almost always rehash the same old stuff from scratch in every more analytical piece, and so it must look easy enough to recite some rather different "same old stuff" without drawing any particular notice to the switcheroo. It may be a bit unkind to drag in Orwell, perhaps, but I do get the impression that Ms. Karouny wants her readers to suppose that Eastasia has _always_ been at war with Oceania, i.e., that the Qommies were always standing in back of Firebrand Muqtada and only pretending to like SCIRI better.

 
At 4:40 AM, Blogger Sulayman said...

I really agree with your idea that Bush should address the Iraqi people directly and at least pretend to confront some of the issues there.

Can't you write an open letter to Bush? A bunch of experts signing off on a list of simple ideas; ie. greater UN involvement, Iraqi parliament adding an Upper House, direct address of Iraqi concerns, would either A) cause Bush to take that into account, or B) give the Democrats ideas on which to challenge the Republicans and promise effective changes. A Win-Win situation either way.

 
At 5:07 PM, Blogger Mikey said...

A small point: the administration's said that the president was briefed on "Swarmer" but did not specifically authorize it. That sounds right: the president should know what's going on but you would not expect him to be signing off on individual operations smaller than (at least) brigade size. (Think LBJ picking targets for B-52's.)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home