British Chief of Staff Calls for Troop Withdrawal
Sunnis in Parliament Revolt over Vote on Confederacies
53% of Americans want a timetable to be set for when US troops would leave Iraq. The funny thing? A big majority of Iraqis also wants a timetable! Here we have a case where the two publics agree, on a reasonable policy that would improve the situation, but where political elites ignore them and go on making the situation worse.
Is this an instance of speaking truth to power? Or just power speaking truth? Sir Richard Dannatt, the British general who recently became Chief of the General Staff, says that British troops should leave Iraq because their presence is exacerbating the violence. ITV quotes him as saying,
' "As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited in a country, but we weren't invited certainly by those in Iraq at the time.
"The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in.
"Whatever consent we may have had in the first place, may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance." '
I don't think the British military is going to be in Iraq much longer. Certainly no longer than Tony Blair is PM. If the chief of the army is demonstrating this sort of rank insubordination toward the prime minister, who has supported a continued British military role in Iraq, it is a sign that the prime minister is a lame duck and that there are indications that his successor will draw down the British troops in Basra.
Al-Sharq al-Awsat [Ar.] reports that the Iraqi cabinet has demanded that Iraqi security forces be given a bigger role in security operations, and that that of the multinational forces be reduced. It appears that that would suit Gen. Dannatt to a "T." Dick Cheney may be a harder sell.
The political fallout of the controversial vote on Wednesday in the Iraqi parliament for a provision that allows the formation of further provincial confederacies continued to roil Iraq on Thursday.
There is a controversy about whether there really was a quorum of deputies voting (at least 138 of 275 MPs), with Shiites claiming 140 and Sunnis claiming 133 or less. The vote was by raised hands with no count, so there is no way independently to verify that there was a quorum. On the other hand, Sunni fundamentalist speaker of parliament Mahmud al-Mashhadani was the one who announced that a quorum had been reached. He then stormed out in protest.
The Shiites and Kurds hold a majority in parliament, so that any time they can agree on an issue, they can always outvote the Sunni Arabs. This dynamic is one of the reasons for which Sunni Arabs reject the new political system. They had been in power via the old Baath Party, and now they would lose every vote on issues important to them.
These charges and counter-charges by Shiite and Sunni Arab leaders reported by AP seem especially disheartening and suggest to me that partition of the country is not only a likely outcome but may be nearer than we think:
' Triumphant with the bill's passage, the Shiite SCIRI leader Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim dismissed Sunni opponents of federalism as "Saddamists, Baathists and Takfiris (Islamic radicals)."
Al-Mutlaq, of the Sunni Dialogue Front, meanwhile, said the votes of the Shiite lawmakers shouldn't be counted anyway, suggesting they were really loyal only to mainly Shiite Iran.
"They hold Persian citizenship ... and so don't have legitimacy to be parliament members according to Iraqi constitution," he said. '
The Lancet study asserting that the Iraq conflict has cost the lives of between 420,000 and 780,000 Iraqis continues to generate controversy. But Dan Murphy of the CSM quotes public health officials pointing out that its methodology was sound, contrary to what Presiden Bush asserted. Murphy's article also puts its finger on the likely source of the discrepancy between the Lancet numbers and those of the Iraqi ministry of health: The ministry employees cannot travel easily to places like Baqubah and Kut and Ramadi to collect death statistics from local officials. I can remember talking recently to a Shiite from Baghdad who said that virtually no one routinely goes to Najaf from the capital any more because the roads are too unsafe. Najaf was only an hour's drive from Baghdad in the old days.
The Iraqi police administrators have to budget for the loss of 25 policemen a day-- 10 killed and 15 wounded.
Reuters reports 38 deaths from political violence in Iraq. On the other hand, al-Sharq al-Awsat estimates 33 killed in Baghdad alone, so Reuters has undercounted. Major incidents include:
' BAGHDAD - Gunmen raided the offices of al-Shaabiya Iraqi satellite television channel in Baghdad and killed 11 people, including guards, technicians and administrative staff, the station manager said. The Interior Ministry said nine were killed in the raid.
BAGHDAD - A bomb placed under a car and a car bomb exploded in quick succession, killing five people and wounding 10 in central Baghdad, police said.
BAGHDAD - A motorbike strapped with explosives targeted a police patrol and killed three people, including a policeman, and wounded 15, including five policemen, in northern Qahira district, police said. . .
BAQUBA - A total of 12 people were killed in different districts of the religiously mixed city of Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) north of Baghdad, police said. . .'
Reuters reports on how violence and instability in Iraq has limited political participation and forestalled a plan for national reconciliation.


13 Comments:
Prof. Cole, allow me but it seems you missed this outstanding to say the least bomb-shell
UK minister urged Aljazeera bombing
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9A630ED2-D7F7-40F2-A04E-DF6D08CBC7F6.htm
I am at a loss why nobody, especially journalists, is calling for the immediate indictment of David Blunkett?
Is the life on an Ukrainian/Russian journalist more important than that of an Arab journalist? Is (relative and nominal) freedom a press only applicable to western societies?
Time to start listening to Wardog who knows Western politics far better than you do. Many of the British elite are near revolt against their political establishment. When the head of the general staff, Sir Richard Dannat, openly challenges the authority of government to protect society and the nation, that is rebellion. The entire British Army is fed up not just with Blair, but with the whole lot of corporate politicians. Mind you, the medical elite are in rebellion also-- look at The Lancet. And let us not forget the Law Lords.They have been saying the new roll-back of civil freedoms is a treasonous attack on the state. Time to think about what it means to have an authoritarian, corporate. warrior state. That was Hitler and Mussolini. This sort of state need not be a single party iron fisted dictatorship. Ask yourselves: what is the proper name for such a state? No proper republican, conservative or liberal, can accept it. Churchill is spinning in his grave! Think:time for Oliver Cromwell!
Federalism is at least 18 months away, if ever. Security and services are today's problems and they will deterrmine the future of Iraq, if any.
The vote is useful in an indirect way. Both the Iraqi and US governments have been playing for time working on a reconciliation scheme that really had no chance. Have you ever seen apes sit down to discuss a solution? They don't. They wait a bit to assess the situation then lash out, the weaker one of the day runs away only to come back later to try his luck again. That is pretty much what has been happening between the Turbans in the Green zone.
Now any talk of reconciliation is out of the question, even for extra-terristrials like Mr President, and a new way out will be found now rather than wait for a yet another dilusionary corner to turn.
...the prime minister is a lame duck and that there are indications that his successor will draw down the British troops in Basra.
The British Labor politicians are vying with one another for the title of genteel racist these days. Their take on veiled Muslim women reminds me of Henry Higgins take on Eliza, "Why can't a woman... be more like a man."
Nothing unreasonable there! It's those Muslim women with their heathenish ways that make civilized people, like Gordon Brown and Jack Snow (you can tell they're "civilized" by their names!) uncomfortable.
The British government that succeeds this one will no more work to roll back the excesses of the Bush-Blair era than will the American successors to the Bush regime.
Dear Prof. Cole and IC Readers,
Courtesy WaPo online: Amyas Godrey, a former British Army officer at the Royal United Services Institute, says that Chief of Staff Dannatt was just being honest in his recent suggestion that the UK should get out of Basra "soon." After all, says Godrey, "Iraq wasn't the greatest idea."
Between the recent John Hopkins study of civilian casualties, the disenfranchisement of the large and enraged Sunni minority, and the rest of it, I thought I just had to share that assessment -"Iraq wasn't the greatest idea."
WaPo link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101300102.html
Best Wishes,
Reuben Apple
Toronto, Canada
I'm a Sunni resistance leader looking at the "Federal" vote and planning for what needs to be done in terms of long-term response. I would start a campaign to control the oil region around Kirkuk and make Mosul untenable for the Kurds, whom I would view as stabbing Iraq in the back, more so than the Shia, whose numbers are far to large for me to win against. I might even sponsor some false-flag operations in Turkey. There's nothing to be gained by debate in parliament as Sunni's will always be voted down; so, the battlefield becomes the floor of parliament.
If Cheney's goal was to partition Iraq, then he will have won and lost at the same time given what I consider the rational response scenario above. Cheney's goal was/is to control the oil fields, refineries and pipelines. I see no chance of that happening now or by 2010. The Cheney/Bush terrorism has insured that whatever future form Iraq takes it will be a very motivated anti-US state wanting to sell its hydrocarbons to anyone else but US. Thus the total failure of the Cheney/Bush criminal operation aside from the enrichment of their military-industrial complex friends.
I am disturbed by the media's deafening silence about the Lancet report.
People who call the conclusions "off base" have an obligation to refute them.
It would be supreme moral cowardice to ignore the report.
Why? Because the study says, in essence, that America is the biggest mass killer
of the 21st century. The figure of 650,000 exceeds the
latest death toll estimate of 400K in the Darfur conflict.
The 21st c is still young and I have no doubt that someone
will come in one day and steal Bush's record. But right now
the record belongs to Bush. And, therefore, to America.
So it'd be nice if the mainstream media would either refute the study
persuasively or explain to us how we can
look in the mirror and not be disgusted by what we see.
In fact, what are the moral implications of being the worst mass killer?
When we look into the abyss and the abyss looks back, what do we do?
Our moral authority -- whatever is left of it -- depends on our answer to that question.
I am also disturbed but not surprised by the way the Lancet report has sunk almost without trace. To be honest, I find the contempt with which the media and politicians treat scientific method as provoking as the political aspect of this. This study used a perfectly respectable scientific method to study deaths, and the statistics were peer reviewed and published in a respectable journal. To my mind there are very few options:
1) Accept their estimate range.
2) Accept their method but state they have by sheer chance picked a very unrepresentative sample. (However this is particularly unlikely given that it is the second such study).
3) Allege that the Iraqi respondents frequently lied. This would either be by covering up deaths in Saddam era (Why?) or overstating recent deaths and forging death certificates (Why and how?)
4) Alleging that the Iraqi survey gatherers deliberately falsified data.
5) Alleging that the survey organisers deliberately falsified data.
Any of these would be reasonable, but all but 1) would require further supporting evidence, and if there is any, I've yet to see it.
Instead the media seem to have gone for:
- Smearing it as controversial without any basis.
- Attacking the method used (which as far as I can tell is perfectly valid).
- Rubbishing it without explanation.
- Comparing it to measures of entirely different numbers.
What worries me is that these pathetic and ignorant retorts are not being recognised for what they are.
Bernard,
Don't be too concerned with the silence on the Lancet report. After all, it ain't over yet. If bush starts dropping nukes in Iran, 650,000 will be nothing.
And to think it's all just a warmup for the ultimate prize, Iran. You want to scream...
We're reduced to watching a Doomsday Scenario unfold in slow motion with the Bush administration’s clear intention to go for regime change in Iran. The neocons really are determined to go our in a nuclear blaze of glory, whether triggered by American nuclear bunker busters, or perhaps the Pakistani government falling and losing control of its nukes in the messy aftermath of an attack on Iran. We’re entering a period that is far more dangerous than the balance of terror of “mutual assurred destruction” deterrence of the cold war, dangerous as that was.
Why so little outrage — including none from our leading liberal political figures? Perhaps because, judging from things like the reaction to the TV show Jericho, more and more folks seem to think nuclear war is survivable with just a little grit and determination — just another kind of war. It’s a huge collective failure of memory.
Some thoughts about an increasingly oblivious world poised on the edge of the abyss: Dr. Strangelove, please keep an eye on your toys. The grandchildren are getting forgetful.
Regarding the vote on Federalism taken in the Iraqi Congress, YES indeed the result is controversial. Important facts were omitted from the AP story that almost all of the Western press relied on. (U.S., UK, Le Monde)
1. Roughly HALF of the members of the Congress boycotted the vote.
2. The vote was taken by a show of hands, paragraph by paragraph.
3. The resulting count is legitimately under dispute.
4. There are accusations of rigging as well.
It is impossible to draw any conclusions about the "Federalism Question" based on the (so far) reported facts.
Please refer to this site where the reports from the Arabic press (several sources) are reported and discussed in English.
Missing Links by Badger
"I am at a loss why nobody, especially journalists, is calling for the immediate indictment of David Blunkett?"
Apart from the routine hypocrisy of westerners on this kind of issue, Blunkett made very careful use of weasel words to claim that he only wanted Al-Jazeera's transmission equipment targeted. This means he can pretend that he didn't mean for any civilians to get killed.
Anyway, UK Cabinet member (at the time of the invasion of Iraq) Alan Milburn confessed on prime time BBC TV (This Week, broadcast Thursday 25th May 2006 11pm) that his motive in supporting the invasion of Iraq was regime change - admitted to be an illegal motive even by the comical UK Attorney General, and there was not a peep of media interest.
The constraints of international law and laws of war are for darkies and foreigners who can't be relied upon to do the right thing otherwise, you see. Trying to hold our own leaders to them is "moral equivalence", don't you know?
Professor Cole,
I found it interesting that on CN's website, they "REPLACED" their online story that they released on the "British Army chief calls for Iraq pullout - CNN.com" ( found by googling "british commander iraq ") actually brings up a story titled: "Blair backs UK army chief on Iraq" , but the Google Cache link shows the original story with that title. The second article uses the same link on Cnn's website, same picture, etc. but replacxes the title and the lion's share of the text with the "clarifications" of Blair , et al, and the "new statements" by the British commander. On CNN's part, to REPLACE the story seems a bit disingenous. But it's the web, so they apparently did it becuase they could (and perhpas because they were asked to).
Dale, Blogging at theoblogical.org
Post a Comment
<< Home