Political Gridlock, Violence, Continue
Protests Against "Liberation" Day
Violence left 16 dead and others wounded on Sunday, the anniversary of the fall of Saddam (see below).
Shiite leaders met Sunday to attempt to resolve the gridlock over the formation of a new government led by Ibrahim Jaafari. It failed. Now the leaders say they will meet with the Sunni Arabs and Kurds to find out why they oppose Ibrahim Jaafari so vehemently. Haven't they been listening? The Kurds also renewed their objections to Jaafari. In fact, they dislike him because he favors a fairly strong central government and opposes the loose federalism favored by Kurds, as well as their plans of grabbing Kirkuk for themselves.
Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani appears to have been unhappy about the continued stalemate. He wrote the United Iraqi Alliance leaders asking that they form a government quickly.
The fundamentalist Sunni Iraqi Accord Front continued to express its opposition to Jaafari. The Sunni Arabs feel that Jaafari has not effectively reined in Shiite death squads. I also suspect that they feel they can't dislodge the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq from the Ministry of the Interior, where it has brought in elements of the Badr Corps paramilitary that was originally trained by Iran, unless they give it the prime ministership as a booby prize.
Al-Zaman says that there were demonstrations on Sunday in Mosul [Ar.] by protesters against the designation of April 9 (the fall of Saddam and the US occupation of Iraq) as a national holiday. Iraqis divided about whether the US presence is a liberation or an occupation. But in Mosul, a city of over a million with about 80% of the population Sunni Arab, there is less uncertainty about which it is. a representative of the Association of Muslim Scholars in Mosul spoke of the "shame" of celebrating the day on which Iraq was occupied. The demonstrators challenged the University of Mosul to forbid the commemoration.
In Baghdad, Association of Islamic Scholars leader Ahmad al-Kubaisi said that the US has completely failed in Iraq.
Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), had a statement read to a crowd of protesters in Basra explaining that the commemoration was of the collapse of the Saddam regime, not of a foreign military occupation. (This incident is an indication that there is unrest about the holiday among Shiites, too.)
The Iraqi Accord Front, made up of religious nationalists, urged that the day be commemorated by demonstrations against the US occupation.
The Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party likewise rejected the commemoration of April 9 as a national holiday, and lamented all the Iraqi lives lost during the US invasion and subsequently.
They can't even agree on whether April 9 is a national holiday or not!
The over-emphasis on the role of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the US and even Iraqi press is the direct result of a concerted Department of Defense propaganda campaign, according to the Washington Post. Military correspondent Thomas Ricks writes, "Some senior intelligence officers believe Zarqawi's role may have been overemphasized by the propaganda campaign, which has included leaflets, radio and television broadcasts, Internet postings and at least one leak to an American journalist."
Long-time readers know that I have long railed against the "Zarqawi myth." (Click on the Billmon link for more). Mostly the US has been fighting Iraqi guerrillas, especially those with a background in the Fedayee Saddam, military intelligence, and the officer corps. Contrary to the fevered fantasies of VP Richard Bruce Cheney, the Baath regime was afraid of Zarqawi and once put out an APB on him when they thought he might have come into Iraq. Another piece of proof that propaganda usually betrays itself.
David Enders and Dan Murphy at the CSM report on the increasing difficulty Shiite leaders are having in restraining their rank and file from reprisals against Sunni Arabs for the guerrillas' attacks on Shiites. Sunni newspapers linked to mainstream leaders have also exacerbated this crisis. They get a fascinating interview with a lower-level official of the Shiite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq who urges that top fundamentalist Sunni Arab leaders should be killed. This thing is not going anywhere good.
Saud al-Faisal has also been so impolite as to point out the Iraq is in fact having a civil war: "The definition of civil war is that the people (of a country) are fighting each other ... I don't know what we can call (what is happening) in Iraq except a civil war."
Kurdish and Shiite leaders Sunday condemned Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak for his charge that Arab Shiites are more loyal to Iran than to their own countries. So too did Kuwaiti Shiite members of parliament.
Veteran BBC correspondent John Simpson says that Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal predicted before the Iraq war that it would bog down the US and Britain for years, set Shiites and Sunnis at each others' throats, and give an opening for greater Iranian influence. Simpson had asked Saud al-Faisal what the US said when he told them this. He said they did not even seem to be listening. Simpson had asked Saud al-Faisal why he though the Bush administration wanted to go to war. He said that Cheney had told him, "because it is do-able." Simpson explains all the reasons for which it wasn't really. And, anyway, what the hell kind of reason is that to go to war?
It turns out that the Ramadi insurgents are . . . good at insurgency.
Another retired general has called for the resignation of US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and complained about the lack of backbone in the active-duty officer corps in standing up to his daft plan for invading Iraq with only 100,000 men; that would have been fine if you didn't have to rule it once you conquered it.
Hassan al-Fattah of the NYT points out that the problem with the Bush administration argument that American Iraq would be a new exemplar for the region and spread democracy is that when Iraq went bad, so did the democracy project.
Senator Arlen Specter called on Bush and Cheney to fully explain the leaks in summer of 2003 to the American people. Specter wouldn't be speaking out this way if congressional Republicans weren't petrified that this scandal will sink their party in 06.
Bush's defense is that he has an "inherent right" to declassify documents. What BS. Declassification is a bureaucratic process with rules. Bush can initiate it. He can't just arbitrarily declare some parts of some documents leakable for petty political purposes. The number of "inherent rights" of the presidency, from torturing people to prancing around their living rooms when they are out at a ball, keeps exponentially increasing. Next he'll be asserting a claim to deflower our daughters.
Caleb Carr argues that maybe the Iraqis just need to have their civil war. He makes analogies to the United States in the 1860s.
But Iraq is not like the US in the 1860s. It is an industrialized, modern country floating in modern armaments. A million or more people could die in such a war, and millions be displaced. For another thing, Iraq unlike the US is not a virtual island. It is deeply imbricated in social, religious, political and economic relations among Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Turkey, etc. That is, a civil war in Iraq won't stay a purely Iraqi affair. If Shiites are massacred and look as though they may lose, Iran will come in on their side. Likewise the Saudis will fund a defense of the Sunni Arabs, and the vast Sunni Arab hinterland gives them strategic depth. And, a Kurdish massacre of Turkmen, if that happened in Kirkuk, would certainly bring in the Turkish government.
Not only would an Iraq civil war not stay in Iraq, it would not leave the world unscathed. A regional guerrilla war with pipeline sabotage could take 15% of the world petroleum production off the market. If you don't know that the total production is 85-86 million barrels a day, and don't know what Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Kuwait produce and export of that, you shouldn't be prescribing civil war in the region.

|
11 Comments:
He said that Cheney had told him, "because it is do-able." Simpson explains all the reasons for which it wasn't really. And, anyway, what the hell kind of reason is that to go to war?
Early on in the current effort Tom Friedman made the 'doable' argument in a column on Iraq. It seemed to be an effort to show he was a 'realist'. What I don't understand is how so many homegrown commentators lost sight of the basic reasons for international law, the actual dangers stemming from high-handed invasions of sovereign territory, whatever we think of the leaders. We've lived with Castro and North Korea. Anyway I'd like to see such as Tom Friedman called more often on their foolish commentaries.
Dear Juan,
No matter how bad the news coming from Iraq, George W. Bush is still living in his rosy Neocon dream…
I can’t conceptualize the fact that his followers still believe the Pentagon-produced infomercials showing complacent cum generously breasted Baghdad girls throwing rosewater, lukums and champagne at our troops on Apr 9, 2003 …
Frankly, can’t they see Teheran’s mullahs are the only winners here?
And those ungrateful Ayyranians should be mighty satisfied and thankful for el Chimpresidente nukular supreme de la White Casa knocked their secular archenemy for them and handed them (via their SCIRI cum Da’awa stooges) two thirds of Ayyraq on a silver plate!
Plus the Persians got all that for free: future generations of infidel American taxpayers will generously pick the estimated 2 trillion dollars tab- George W’s contribution to the Koranic jurisprudential concept of “Jiziyah”…
As a seasoned Sassanid sophist might have said: With foes like these, who needs friends?
Juan, further to your point about Shiite ambivalence as regards the marking of 9 April, last Friday Jawad al-Khalisi of Kazimayn even warned his followers specifically against observing this day as an official holiday.
Because it was doable sounds like a perfect Cheney Style Argument to me.
The wanted to go into Iraq because they could. Same reason they leaked a CIA agent's name or wiretap American Citizens without a warrant: Because THEY COULD.
Now, the moral validity of such an argument is, well, beyond suspect. But it fits into the Bush Administration Mentality Perfectly.
Government? Security? Don't Start Holding Your Breath Yet?
US-annointed PM-interim Jaafari, who of course stays in office until a "government" is or is not formed, said there would be a resolution by the end of April, still three weeks away. Or not.
One of the imputations against continuing Jaafari is the Sunni plaint that J. has not been doing a good job on security. That of course is laughable in the light of disclosures over the past week or two that the US has retained de jure and de facto control of the security (both military and police) portfolio. So all the bombing and bodies most properly redound to the incompetence/impotence of the US and US-trained forces, assuming that they are trying to keep a lid on things, as opposed to keeping the pot boiling. (There is the alternate reading that this is a bureaucratic dust-up turf war between the US military-trained Iraqi Army on one side, and the CIA-trained Iraqi Ministry of Interior types, but that's pretty linear.)
So what do the Sunnis, or the US, have against Jaafari, if anything?
Or is this just a way of passing the time, kicking the can down the road?
There is a hint that the Shiites, a bit novice at this parliamentary thing, may have been focussing so much on holding their own coalition together that they forgot to negotiate with other players to see if they couldn't get some of them aboard. Typically the last few to join a winning coalition get to get bigger-than-normal goodies, but then if they don't play and someone else does, they get nothing.
Maybe with the UIA's collective mind focussed on the problem they can find a solution with some of their fellow Iraqis from other parties.
Why the meme about "disarming the militias", meaning Sadr and Badr groupies, when no one has been able to stop the mad growth of Sunni guerrilla forces in the field? The buzz earlier was to reincorporate some of these into the security forces as a way of getting them on board a political settlement, although that seems to have been a non-starter with the guerrillas, who have other, better outcomes in prospect.
What if the Shiites haven't even begun to mobilize? There must be several hundred thousand Shiite veterans of the Iraq-Iran war. They would be in their late 30's by now, just about right to serve as a source of non-coms in a citizen army big enough to at least take the river valley heartland of Iraq from the weakened Sunnis left after the months of 1,000-sorty-a-night US air action we've been reading about. One source said there were a million Sunnis in Jordan and Syria each, which leaves just a couple million left inside Iraq.
Somebody is not being straight with the American press again. Tsk, tsk, such a surprise.
So we are left to wonder if Machiavellian brilliance is at work, or just a further continuation of the thousands of "tactical" mistakes, i.e., blundering as usual.
You have to go with the odds on that one, until evidence surfaces indicating M. is someone W. can channel.
And if it's just the usual blundering about from day to day, couldn't we blunder with our troops safely at home even better than we can with them in harm's way? We could save a bundle on QM supplies, and still send the odd Senator or Secretary of Something over to tell the Iraqis how to run their lives, or even just ask the President-for-life of some neighboring puppet-country to do it for us.
Khalilzad's explosive success
United Sunni-Kurdi rejection of Jaafari can be a success of Khalilzad's diplomatic effort. The problem is, this development is highly explosive.
AJ. Iraqi Sunnis, Kurds reject Jaafari
Iraqi Sunni and Kurdish leaders have officially rejected the possibility of Ibrahim al-Jaafari remaining as prime minister in the next governmment.
The American Civil War was not an isolated island incident. Canada, Mexico, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Costa Rica all felt effects of the crumbling American nation. Refugees, gun runners, and expansionist partisans (esp. from the Confederacy) were problems thorughout the hemisphere. Imagine the greater chaos if England or Napoleonic France had actually taken a side (free association here)!
And of course, the terroristic partisan struggles continued for decades through and after Reconstruction. Google Jesse James and look into his political statements for the most famous example. The "heritage" state flags throughout the Old South, and the persistance of archaic sociopolitical arrangements in many parts of the former Confederacy show that the symbols of discontent can ring loud and clear through almost 150 years.
http://www.answers.com/topic/american-civil-war
Mr. Carr seems to ignore the fact that punishing (on a mass scale) the whole Sunni Community (including women and children, who inevitably get the worst treatment during war) for the actions of an elite of Baathists and foreign fighters is prima facie unjust. Surely he wouldn't say that it is just to target American civilians for the actions grossly unjust actions of US officials and corporations? Why then should the bar be lower for Iraqi Sunnis? Raping a sunni woman because some Baathist raped your sister is nothing more than injustice. Invading a Sunni home and killing the people inside because a Baathist did so to your family is nothing more than injustice. They are practices of collective punishment that are wisely prohibited under international law.
cALEB CARR writes:
"Does the United States have any right to forcibly stop such a war, when and if it begins?"
Perhaps the better question is 'Does the United States have any RESPONSIBILITY to forcibly stop such a war, when and if ( hasn't it already begun?) it begins?'
This goes back to the pottery barn rule about owning Iraq once the US breaks it. I don't know what Carr's position was before the war, but if he supported it and is now looking for a way out, I say shame. Those of us who were against the war from the start argued that the quagmire we are now in was inevitable. It is now your quagmire (BTW, is the fact that we are in a quagmire a foregone conclusion? Is that why we don't hear it being dicussed?)
Let's start the conversation back up - Are we or are we not in a quagmire?
Civil war the worst that can happen? Baloney. There are worse things. Maybe they are already here.
The deaths in Colombia's 1948-58 Violencia were as high, relative to the population, as the 618,000 of America's 31 million that died in its 1861-5 Civil War.
About 200,000 people or 2% of Colombia's 12 million souls perished in brawls, riots, kidnappings, murders, and ambushes between Adherents of two political parties. The national army was unable to throttle militias, gangs, and hired goons that marauded cities, towns, and farms. The doctrinal differences separating the factions were only slight. The two sides shared the same language, blood, and prior history of civilian rule. Neither side had a decisive class identity. None believed in paradise for martyrs. But personal jealousies, family loyalties, and ambition to control the spoils of office inspired a decade of bloody pogroms, wholesale banditry, and assassinations.
Colombia eventually recovered a system of civilian rule, but never overcame a high level of murders, kidnappings, and insecurity.
Iraq's sectarian and other divisions are more intense and ancient than Colombia's. Oil also gives more to covet from the spoils of state. Iraq is also more urban and target rich.
Carr may not be endorsing civil war, but merely advise to brace for the eventuality. People who say the US should not "let" Iraq descend into chaos should also ask why Iraqis need not bear the same duty.
Many Sunnis might have a "live and let live" sentiment towards their "rejectionist" (Shia) brethren, but like the supposed "good Germans" of the 30s and 40s, haven't the guts or courage to stand up to bigots and ghouls in their own camp. Evidently, a lot of Sunnis really do believe that the Shia are a scheming minority padded with Iranians.
The horrific bombings of civilians and shrines could not persists unless the authors could count on ample cover in the Sunni community.
Iraq's civil war need not involve any traditional battles between standing armies. More likely, it will be an indefinite continuation of anarchic violence.
Disruption of oil supplies and fear of Iranian incursion will make the reluctant to abandon Iraq to this fate. Sooner or later, however, it may figure out that peace keeping and nation building are a fool's errand. The question is whether the US will be able to withdraw from these unrewarding roles, yet still deter Iran and prevent complete breakdown of the oil sector.
Mr. Carr does ignore international law, but then that is an established habit here in the USA.
A civil war is the most evil of things, and one would think that anyone with half a functioning brain and any sense of decency would be yelling for anything BUT a civil war.
Unfortunately, a lot of American commenters in our papers have neither half a brain or any sense of decency. And no knowledge of international law either.
Post a Comment
<< Home