Tens of Thousands in Najaf Demand US Departure from Iraq
Tens of thousands of followers of young Shiite nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr rallied in the Shiite holy city of Najaf south of Baghdad on Monday, protesting the continued presence of US troops in Iraq. They burned US flags and held up posters saying, "America will fall, will fall." Chillingly, some of the demonstrators appeared to be soldiers in the Iraqi army. Although the Iraqi government tried to spin the demonstration as a celebration of the fall of Saddam, it was in fact an ironic denunciation of the US for not withdrawing from Iraq after the demise of the Baath. Sadr City residents in Baghdad also supported the demonstration by flying Iraqi flags. Iraqi authorities appear to have been terrified of Muqtada's street power, and they imposed a curfew on the capital.
A statement by Muqtada was distributed to demonstrators at Najaf and the LAT gives some of it: "We live at this moment and so far 48 months of anxiety, oppression and occupational tyranny have passed, four years which have only brought us more death, destruction and humiliation. Every day tens are martyred, tens are crippled and every day we see and hear U.S. interference in every aspect of our lives, which means that we are not sovereign, not independent and therefore not free. This is what Iraq has harvested from the U.S. invasion."
Al-Ra'y quotes the statement as saying, in addition, America has striven to ignite sectarian turmmoil among the sons of the people. We say to the American people and to that of Europe, we want peace and liberty and independence." He addressed American and European publics, saying, "We urge you, on the basis of simple humanity, to put pressure on your governments to end our torture and the shedding of Iraqi blood." He also pledged to the Arab world his solidarity with its causes.
Sadr MP Nassar al-Rubaie said, "Today is a call for resistance, for liberty and honor after four years of Occupation from which Iraq has gained nothing but killings without any services, even electricity and water. There is no sovereignty for the people or the government. We are not saying that sovereignty is limited. We are saying that it is absent."
Sunni clerics and members of the Iraqi Islamic Party, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, were bussed up from the southern city of Basra. Abdul Qadir Abdul Da'im of the IIP said, "The demonstration is a love letter that gathers together Iraqis and unifies them with regard to demanding the departure of the Occupation from this country. We must close ranks so that we can liberate our land from the north to the south."
Iraqslogger has photos.
Fred Kaplan at Slate discusses the proposals for a US withdrawal from Iraq put forward by Steven Simon and myself. Simon's thoughtful paper is in pdf format at this Council on Foreign Relations site.
Labels: Iraq War
posted by Juan Cole @ 4/10/2007 02:31:00 AM
|
Facebook
9 Comments:
Seth James is proposing NKVD-style "blocking detachments" and decimation.
Unfortunately, some HGB conscripts may resolve to commit acts of violence against civilians regardless of reprisals. There are two factors to dissuade them. One, even if a single conscript or a small group of conscripts choose to risk retributive attacks in response to their attacks against the civilians they are assigned to guard, the rest of their HGB unit may not be so willing and choose to stop them. Two, even if they attempt to keep their identities hidden (so as not to be killed by their fellow unit members), the US response to an HGB that is believed to have committed or allowed the commission of acts of violence against civilians is the execution of all members of the HGB in question. Thus, if an HGB commits or allows an insurgent group to commit acts of violence against civilians (colludes, not simply fails to stop, which will happen), a US unit of 5 to 10 times the size of the HGB—armed and supported with all the weapons not given to the HGBs—will attack and destroy the HGB as a punishment for treason. Since the execution of an HGB that has committed or allowed the commission of acts of violence against civilians is a matter of military justice, any member of the guilty HGB that attempts to surrender can and should be executed along with the rest of his unit. We admit the brutality of such a policy as certainly as we recognize its necessity. The HGBs must be given only two options: behave as loyal soldiers or die.
Along these same lines, an old Roman practice called decimation could be employed to quell desertion. We see this recommendation as possible, profitable, but not, strictly speaking, required. It could be maintained as a threat only, but a threat that is not carried out is worse than no threat at all. It works like this: if the desertion rate for a given HGB exceeds 5% in a given year—and for every 5% thereafter—the HGB suffers decimation, that is 10% of its troops are randomly selected and executed. The same penalty should be applied to any HGB that shows cowardice in battle (we will revisit this facet of employing Iraqi conscripts later on).
The two primary groups to conscript from are the Sunnis and the Shiites, obviously, but they are not the only groups needed to complete the plan. The Kurds must be involved as well, but they should not be deployed in the same manner. As a means to quell desertion and to keep HGBs from moving en masse from their assignments, the roads of Iraq must be constantly monitored; Kurdish forces should provide units to conduct these patrols. The Kurds have proven themselves willing and capable of defending themselves and their province. Their reward is more responsibility. Given sufficient transportation assets, Kurdish HGBs should patrol all of Iraq’s roads, inspecting travelers and executing deserters.
Seth James is a nutcase who should be locked up.
Wow. I'm hurt. You post a link to the moronic, racist, colonialist idea of conscripting Sunnis to fight to subjugate Shi'a neighborhoods to US rule, and conscripting Kurds to be our Gurkhas in Sunni neighborhoods, but you still won't write an explication of the only approach that can actually bring success in Iraq, the "Model Communities" approach.
Until we are willing to show respect for the people and culture of Iraq, we will not be winning any hearts and minds.
Having US troops or their surrogates wantonly kill Iraqi children is not going to bring stability or success.
The only forces that can identify and root out our Terrorist enemies are the locals that are too busy fighting us, in their Insurgent role, to track down and kill our mutual enemy.
No Amnesty, no peace.
Iraq used to be a country. That country was broken and is gone. There is no basis for a central government, either the Iraqi puppets or the American de facto, to impose a top-down solution.
Stability can only happen at a local level, and only if someone has the power to make it happen. Said someone will have to be a legitimate authentic indigenous local leader, as in, a leader in the Insurgency. We can co-opt the Insurgency to win this war for us, or we can lose it ourselves.
In mid-February I received this comment on Simon's CFR paper from an American who had just returned from a forward operating base in Baghdad:
I just returned from 3 weeks in Taji, Iraq. I must say that the report from CFR you cited has the single best synopsis of the current situation in Iraq that I have ever seen.
At some point, our intervention there must be subjected to serious cost/benefit analysis, as opposed to political posturing.
The Vietnam analogies are inappropriate precisely because our pullout there was unmanaged. This report offers a rationale and a methodology to disengage militarily in a way that makes sense for both the US and the region.
Of course, it will not ever come to pass - the cupidity and callowness of this administration is historic. Instead, more tired and bewildered American troops will patrol the Iraqi badlands in a futile effort to bring peace.
It strikes me that life in Iraq now is a matter of survival. Because we are thin on the ground and likely to get thinner (pace surge), Iraqis are choosing affiliations based on a long-term need to survive. They aren't choosing us, we will withdraw at some point, probably in the next two years. Hence the political dynamic is against us, and our capacity to shape it militarily or diplomatically is decreasing. This doesn't require a statement from Washington; everyone understands that our withdrawal is a matter of time.
We need a plan that allows us to engage for the very long term, and it seems to me that the elements of national power that are conducive to such a plan involve diplomacy and economic/security assistance. We can shape the battlefield without being a large part of the battle.
Stop academic blacklisting!
Professor Norman Finkelstein has the overhwelming support of students, faculty and his family, and he consistently gets excellent reviews and ratings. For purely political reasons, wealthy outsiders who oppose freedom of speech want to quash Prof F's chances of getting tenure. Scholarly professionals are being asked to support him.
In my warped view, McCutcheon just endorsed "Model Communities."
the "suggestion for homogeneous guard battalions" is sick, sick, sick, sick, sick.
disgustingly sick
Simon Says ...
I have just yesterday finished reading *Cobra II* (Gordon/Trainor; Vintage; 2007) that outlines may of the mistakes, problems, and misapprehensions of the decisions to invade and occupy Iraq. The one troubling thing that seems to recur in all of this is the failure of the 'leadership' to outline its errors and accept responsibility for what thinking and actions went wrong. It's almost as if there has been a continued rewarding of the government functionaries for their ineptitude. Throughout the book, there is some discussion about 'Phase IV,' the aftermath of Iraq, something that was -- at best -- cloudy if not murky, as if there was the expectation -- one stated at least by Wolfowitz -- that the Iraqis would be so jubilant about being almost Saddam-free that they would just shake off their previous experiences, rub their wrists where their shackles had been, only to arise like some long-forgotten desert blooms completely capable of pursuing a modernistic lifestyle. It's as if they had it in 'em all the time but weren't allowed to display their talents. Unfortunately, very little has happened to support any such outcomes.
The continuing failure has been largely one of anyone politically connected wanting to take responsibility for what's gone and going (to go) on. The Buscists have lost the momentum of their initiatives for a quick and easy 'victory.' Everything that has been done, spent, or sacrificed remains a gamble, putting increased resources at risk in hopes of a dramatic turn-around. Other politicians have recanted their original positions on supporting the invasion, as if some confession would salvage their tainted souls. Many have just evaporated from the scene in hopes of being forgotten. The worst that will happen is the military taking the fall for having followed instructions, like the GIs after Vietnam or the Germans in Eisenhower's 'holocaust.'
At some point, there will have to be a withdrawal of Americans but not on their terms. Everything will be ultimately decided by the Iraqis themselves, whether Sunni, Shi'a, or Kurd, Moslem, Christian, or others. Only in a stablised country will there be an opportunity to hand off the baton from one power force to another, one that will save the Buscists' faces and ultimately the Americans as well. The trick is determining at which point this can happen. Only when the country begins to resemble the old dayze of Saddam Hussein will there be any chance of evicting the occupiers, letting them exit through the door by which they gained entry, a little worse for wear but worn down and out nonetheless.
As we've seen in the past day or two, there have been massive demonstrations by Iraqis protesting the occupation and calling for the redeployment of the Americans, large groups massing largely without incident, policed by the Iraqis themselves. The issue of responsibility has arisen, shifting it onto the indigenous population, removing the American forces from the scene and sight. This is an important step in that a credible show of force has been made that will remove the burden from the U.S. to some degree. As has been said, the Americans will stand down when the Iraqis stand up; the only hitch is who the Iraqis are and how they enforce their own positions.
Once the new strongman (al-Sadr or whoever) begins to become assertive, the reasons and rationales for American presence diminishes. This is what should have happened from the very beginning, at least in terms of a feint, giving everyone the impression that everything was being controlled. Perhaps, it was only a matter of waiting until the political climate cooled a bit before making the proper moves on the parts of the Iraqis, once the support in the U.S. for throwing resources down a black hole slowed or stopped.
Once the Americans are shown the door, the Iraqis can settle their differences any which way they want, peacefully or through civil war. The Buscists can wash their hands of the whole matter while internecine warfare continues until it stops, at some indefinite but locally defined time in the future. At least the Americans will have tried, given a grade of 'E' for 'Effort,' but not for 'Efficiency' or 'Effectiveness.'
As we've seen in the case of Vietnam and other countries 'liberated' from American control, there will be some bloodshed and reeducation until it stops, once again locally determined. The collaborators will have to be dealt with, if not turned into latter-day Chalabis or Allawis and allowed to live in exile, then to be subject to Iraqi law. The danger of exiles, as has been seen in Jordan and Syria, is having potential jihadists emerge from the expatriates' ranks, in effect bringing the combatants to the U.S., not unlike the supposed Attas and others joyriders of the skies.
The only great worry will be when Saudi Arabia decides it wants to become the power in the region, offsetting Iran with Iraq as the flashpoint between the religious factions. Next will be Turkey and the Kurds (with a little Iran and Syria thrown in due their Kurdish populations), allowing Turkey to reassert some of its Ottoman self. The Buscists will have set off all of the fireworks but will blame those who might be tasked with putting out the fires for their incompetence should things get out of control.
But. The issue always comes back to who's going to accept responsibility for any- and everything. If we look at the leadership tendencies, there are very few people in politics who are held accountable beyond their being voted out in an election or being demoted or fired just to quiet down the critics. Congresspeople from the House and the Senate get their severance pay or annuities even after they've voted for disasterous policies but then choose to retire if they are not reelected. Various functionaries like the NeoCons get jobs elsewhere without too much fear of being taken to task (or the woodshed) for their past errors. Forgiveness is such a great virtue that it chlorinates (in a sense) the fouled political waters. The taste may be unpleasant but it's relatively free of germs ... until the 'chlorine' runs out.
The key, after all, is how to keep the Buscists from being held accountable for their mistakes, a tactic that their leader has utilised throughout his life. Each time, there has been something that has allowed him to evade entrapment, whether legal, political, or the ever-popular religious in nature. At the conclusion, everyone therewith associated should be able to say, "It's not my fault!" The blame can be put on the Iraqis or the Iranis or Al-Qaeda or on someone other than those who thoughtlessly think up policies and programmes that certainly seem credible to the originators but make no sense to anyone who really knows and understands the issues. And, then, there are the voters who can always plead ignorance ...
The danger of being critical is that too many times too many people take too much too personally. Recently, there was a professor who was put on a 'no-fly list' for having been deemed 'critical.' Walter Murphy from Princeton had criticised the Buscists for their liberalism with the Executive Branch powers and authorities. Normal Finkelstein has his tenure at DePaul in jeopardy for his outspokenness against the liberal -- almost libertine -- policies in another part of the Middle East. The Wilsons, Joe and Valerie, have had their run-ins with the government. Many others who have voiced disagreements have been sidelined or ostracised for their words and deeds if only for calling empowered people to account for themselves, focussing on their thinking abilities. Again, it all comes down to a simple matter of justification that never seems to be forthcoming, deflecting the blame onto those like Hussein or Ahmadinejad or some other bogeyman.
We have known for well over thirty years that there has been an oil crisis yet few, if any, steps have been taken to reduce the Americans' dependency on Islamic states' oil. Chavez in Venezuela is vilified for his positions about his own country, hoping for reactionaries to retake the leadership. Oil companies and carmakers are given pass after pass simply because of their influence over the energy industries. Yet, it is American policy that drives the need for interference in other countries existences. The proper approach has been, again for over three decades, to reinvent American society to become energy independent.
The solution to the crises in the Middle East? Let them sit on their oceans of oil that the 'West' will no longer need. This past Sunday, '60 Minutes' aired a programme about the French and their love for nuclear energy. For Americans to compete, this means that they will need to have and to show leadership that will provide the long-term, perhaps permanent, solution to oil needs and oily nations' early neutralisation.
Keeping the fires from breaking out is the way, not setting them hoping some superheroic fire department will come to the rescue. War has no $250 deductibles with guaranteed replacement of belongings at current market value. If it did, there would be no insurance industry, only the Buscist-style bailouts and forgivenesses, but only for their family members, allies, and cronies.
Actually Avid Student it's "EN" but EON, IN, ON..it's all good
And no, I've not recommended "model communities" but disengagement, concert of powers and Iraqi factional butt kicking for want of a better term - these being the only means that hold any promise for containing the catastrophe - ie the very approach that Steve Simon and Juan Cole have advanced
What's "chilling" about soldiers in the Itaqi army demonstrating in favor of national independence and against the imperial occupiers - except to the imperial forces and those who wish them well?
Isn't opposition to foreign occupation the kind of sentiment any nation would want in its army?
Post a Comment
<< Home