Political Crisis Worsens as Sectarian War Threatens
The Financial Times reports further on the fighting in Adhamiyah on Monday and Tuesday, asking whether the incident suggests greater Sunni Arab backing for the guerrillas. But I am told, and the Baghdad press also reports, that the real significance here was that the Shiite death squads in the ministry of interior tried to operate in force and in daylight in a Sunni Arab neighborhood. Earlier, they had had to kidnap and kill at night.
Al-Zaman / AFP / Reuters report that that the parliamentary crisis got even worse on Tuesday. The National Iraqi list of Iyad Allawi insisted on putting him forth for one of vice president positions. He has been rejected by the Sunni Arab religious coalition, the National Accord Front, on the grounds that Allawi is a Shiite and would forestall there being a Sunni Arab vice president.
Tariq al-Hashimi of the Sunni religious Iraqi Accord front attacked the fundamentalist Shiites for insisting on their candidate for prime minister. The (Shiite) United Iraqi Alliance has rejected al-Hashimi as speaker of the house on the grounds that he is too sectarian. Al-Hashimi is now putting forth his deputy, Iyad al-Samarra'i, as candidate for speaker.
Abdul Razzaq al-Kadhimi, a spokesman for Jaafari, complained to al-Zaman that there were forces attempting to split up the United Iraqi Alliance (the coalition of Shiite religious parties), and to interfere in its internal affairs. He said their goal is to have Iraq restored to its old way of doing things.
For his part, al-Hashimi said that that the UIA has already been given too much time form a government, and that the other blocs should create a coalition in parliament that would allow them to nominate a prime minister.
Al-Zaman/ AFP report that the grand ayatollahs in Najaf, including Sistani, have decided not to attend the conference to be held in Amman this Saturday, at the invitation of King Abdullah II. No reason was given. But this is a blow to the hope of getting the clergy, at least, to come to an understanding at the Amman conference. In contrast, young nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr will send a representative. Likewise, provincial clergy of both major branches of Islam, from Mosul to Basra, are planning to attend.
[The Jordanian embassy on Wednesday denied the report that Sistani will not send a delegate. A spokesman said the grand ayatollah is still committed to the conference. Obviously something is going on, but what?]
Joost Hilterman sensibly argues that the US and Iran should put aside their differences and work to restore stability in Iraq.
The LA Times reports that the Kurdistan Confederacy is developing its own oil ministry, a further step toward autonomy from Baghdad.
posted by Juan Cole @ 4/19/2006 12:30:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
6 Comments:
When Incompetence and Arrogance Ride Together
With W. and Ch. it's hard to tell the difference, even analytically.
Even if one wanted the US to stay in Iraq, for entirely altruistic purposes, this would not be the crew to lead the effort.
One line of analysis has been that the US seeks increased disorder in Iraq, the easier to divide and rule. There is much evidence to support this view, such as the initial steps allowing chaos, US control of security forces, some of which have been implicated in sectarian violence, closing eyes to Shiite militia moves into security forces (although this was also bruited about as the way to coopt Sunni resistance forces, and is indeed a tried and true method of bringing dissident forces into the power structure), etc. etc.
A weakness in this line of analysis is of course, that the US has shown little interest/talent/aptitude in bringing any rule or order out of the disorder. Maybe it's early for this step, and things have to get worse before they get better. That's not what W. and Ch. say, however.
Hilterman argues that the US and Iran should share an interest in stabilizing Iraq, but that is only true if both are rational actors acting in good faith. If W. in fact hopes to mount an invasion of Iran in the near future, as he and his are broadly hinting, it is arguably in Iran's immediate security interests that the US be denied Iraq as a stable platform from which to operate against Iran with impunity.
If W. really intends to stay in Iraq indefinitely, the sheer incompetence of his efforts is infuriating. Normally a thousand modus vivendi's would be being worked out at the local levels, in which the weaker party (Iraqis) would cut deals with the occupying power.
But the US doesn't even think it important enough to be able to talk to locals in any significant way.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0417/p01s01-woiq.html?s=t5
We don't train our own troops in Arabic. Every soldier ought to have at least eight weeks of Arabic, platoon leaders four months, and higher officers correspondingly more--generals two to four years'. Yes, at least that much. If a country is worth dying for, it's worth learning how to speak the local languages.
Speaking Arabic can pick up information that can keep US soldiers from dying unnecessarily. Why isn't this being done? It's a lot more important than body armor, but not purchasable from a contractor.
The link above is heart-rending. Interpretors that barely speak English, trying to catch the questions and reflect the answers.
Interpretors wearing masks for Pete's sake--looking like a hooded prisoner, a Klansman, a hijab-wearing woman, a non-entity unwilling to bare its face to humanity or the ummah. Between this kind of distancing, and trying to lay on our "surgical strike" violence by bombing from 30,000 feet, we are always going to have problems relating to the Middle East.
We instinctively know at a sub-conscious level, that these sorts of approaches are ridiculous and counterproductive, but instead of admiting them and facing them squarely and adjusting ourselves, it's easier for our leaders to become hysterical and try to convince us that we must fear and conquer the next demon. The next demon is currently a hundred-foot- tall nuclear-armed Iran, able to wipe out civilization with the flick of a mullah's beard, but that will change to a different foe after Iran is "quelled", because the problem is within the psyche of the leader and his associates.
There are real problems out there, but we aren't dealing with them rationally.
Jaafari is proving his critics right. Now he says he can not betray the trust of the 'Iraqi People' by declining, because that would create a real crises -- unlike now.
The excellent commentator Brian Whitaker wrote in the Guardian -- http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2006/04/bold_brave_and_incompetent.html
"On the way back from hobnobbing with President Bush last year, Mr Jaafari stopped off in London and gave a talk at Chatham House about Islam and democracy. Chatham House is a highly-regarded thinktank on international relations and receives many distinguished speakers from around the world. Mr Jaafari's talk was one of the most embarrassing ever heard there and would scarcely have challenged the intellect of a 12-year-old."
He then adds:"Unfortunately, if and when he does go, there is no reason to expect that Mr Jaafari's successor will be any more inspiring. When it comes to choosing prime ministers in the Middle East, competence is not necessarily among the requirements for the job."
This is the greater problem. The Iraqi garbage the Americans brought in with their tanks are only good enough for the American plots against Iraq. That excludes decent and able Iraqis who will not collaborate with them, and we end up with these freaks.
Great remarks on Adhamiya. I've read in blogs and MSM stories that night time assaults were more typical with those Deat Squads. Also, Zeyad is in Adhamiya today. Not certain if he has the best luck of any Iraqi blogger or the worst...
It is just me or does seem just a trifle odd that the Kurds are pushing so hard for a "national unity" government. There isn't going be much unity in a governmetn where one of the major parties has one foot in the door on the way out.
breaking news alert :-(
In response to Ahmadinejad's threat, GU features Ann Coulter ad
Here it goes, link to Newsmax with Coulter's book ad on the Guardian site. Apparently, this way GU responds to the recent Iranian threat to use suicide bombers against the UK targets. Controversial ad is not on the permanent display, but I managed to capture it.
Nancy Youssef's latest story
<< http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/14371862.htm >>
for Knight-Ridder ("Iraqi politicians blame each other for lack of new government") contains a number of quotations that are enjoyable, although not necessarily insightful:
"We [of the UIA] are ready to cooperate, but we see others calling for roles and posts bigger than what they deserve."
"The reason for the delay is that we have people who have come to power without really being competent."
"Every day we have 100 people killed and we don't talk about that . . .What kind of responsibility is this?"
And so on. Happy days.
Post a Comment
<< Home