Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Two Deadlocked Parliaments



The Democratic senators held an all night session Tuesday night, to underline that they are unable to get through their plan on an Iraq withdrawal plan because of Republican threats of filibuster. Despite what some commentators are saying, the Democrats (unlike the Republicans when they had a majority) are not trying to get rid of the consensus rule in the Senate, whereby you need at least 60 votes for important issues. They are simply insisting that Republicans who reject withdrawal stand and be counted. The rest is up to the American people in 2008.

If the US parliament (i.e. Congress) is deadlocked over how to go forward, so is the Iraqi. Azhar al-Samarra`i, a member of parliament from the [Sunni fundamentalist] Iraqi Accord Front, told the Sawt al-Iraq wire service Wednesday that her coalition will only enter a new political bloc in parliament if it is given constitutional changes up front. The US behind the scenes has been urging the formation of a "Moderate Bloc" in parliament that would support Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and free him of dependence on the Sadr Bloc. He needs 138 for a simple majority and to avoid a vote of no confidence. The Moderates so far include the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the Da`wa Party [both Shiite fundamentalist] and the Kurdistan Alliance. These three want the Iraqi Accord Front to join, thus grouping Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis willing to cooperate with the Americans [apparently the meaning of "moderate."] The Iraqi Accord Front, however, has not only not rushed to embrace the new alliance, but has threatened to call a vote of no confidence on al-Maliki itself. The Sunni Arab members of parliament generally feel betrayed that they entered the political process in December 2005 on promises that they would have the opportunity to revise the constitution (which they largely rejected). But no such opportunity seems forthcoming. Among their major objections is to the provision of the constitution allowing for the formation of new regional confederacies (i.e. a Shiite one in addition to the present Kurdish one.) The main proponent of this plan is the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, so that getting a stable alliance between it and the Sunni Arabs strikes me as a stretch.

One of the bills before parliament that the Moderates would like to pass is the petroleum bill. But 100 technocrats have written the Iraqi parliament objecting to provisions of the current draft and urging caution rather than haste.

McClatchy reports that 24 bodies were found in Baghdad on Tuesday. Also, " 20 people including 4 soldiers were killed and 20 people wounded including two Iraqi soldiers in a parked car explosion targeted an Iraqi army patrol in Zayuna neighborhood east Baghdad around 2,00 pm."

Reuters reports civil war violence in Iraq on Tuesday. Major incidents:

`BAGHDAD - At least four people were killed and five others wounded by a car bomb inside a parking lot near the Iranian Embassy in central Baghdad, police said. . . .

BAGHDAD - Three people were killed and five wounded in a drive-by shooting as people queued for petrol in the central Baghdad district of Mansour, police said. . .

SUWAYRA - Police recovered five bodies from Tigris river in the town of Suwayra, south of Baghdad, police said. . . .

JURF AL-SAKHIR - Five people were killed in clashes between suspected al Qaeda militants and Islamic Army insurgents linked with former Saddam Hussein loyalists near Jurf al-Sakhar, 85 km (60 miles) south of Baghdad, police said. `

Labels:

5 Comments:

At 11:06 AM, Blogger John Koch said...

Pragmatists on either side of the Senate aisle might agree on an Iraq withdrawal formula. However, several problems intervene. First, all agree that a quick withdrawal is plagued with downside risks, with loads of blame to rub off on the party judged responsible. Murphy's famous law will have a field day. Even believers in "things will right themselves," such as McGovern-Polk, concede that things might get uglier before they get nicer, and are candid that, except in Kurdistan, a post-occupation regime will probably be anti-US.

Second, Republicans who advocate withdrawal risk instant loss of support of the 30% of the public wedded to the San Juan Hill / Remember the Maine concept of victory in Iraq: the idea that all we have to do is kill a few thousand more bad guys (any Muslim will do), avenge 9/11, and peace will come.

Finally, both parties are haunted by voices that insist we keep behind some sort of robust military presence in the region. Both parties are afraid to argue the exact reasons, costs, or functionality of land bases. The unmentionable elephants in the room trumpet so loud that no one hazards to say, except through that mythic code word: al Qaeda. Neither side dares argue that such bases are nothing more than albatrosses, tar pits, trip wires, or bait for anti-American agitation and terrorism. Heaven's, why should anyone not want a big foreign military base near town? Or, the logic goes, why shoulnd't a beefed up NATO presence in Afghanistan or pressure on Musharraf help stabilize Waziristan and alleviate instability?

In any case, the reluctance to withdraw entirely translates to a rough equivalency between "stay the course" and "redeploy," or between "the long war" and "our permanent security interests." It's pick six or a half-dozen.

 
At 2:43 PM, Blogger Paris ib said...

The Senate may be deadlocked on the vote to withdraw from Iraq but that is of little consequence. The game has moved on and on the 12th of July the Senate declared unanimously that Iran was committing acts of war against the United States.

Watch this space this could get a lot worse.

 
At 6:46 PM, Blogger Mike Breton said...

Prof. Cole, it is worth pointing out that the eagerness of the US to get that oil law passed has taken a very sinister turn. The Iraq Freedom Congress (IFC) -- a coalition of trade unions and other civil society organizations united in a non-violent civil resistance to the occupation and sectarian violence -- had called a demonstration for July 7 to protest the oil law. On July 4, US forces showed up at the house of one of the officers of the IFC, opened fire on his house wounding him and his daughter, and carted him away. His badly beaten body showed up in a morgue on July 6.

This is what it has now come to -- the US is now using the men and women of our armed forces as death squads to silence democratic opposition to the occupation and imperial grab for Iraq's oil. Given the point you made yesterday that the US now "will freeze the assets of persons or organizations that attempt to destabilize Iraq", I wonder if this is not part of this effort. The IFC has drawn solidarity from trade union organizations and peace groups from around the world -- including, for instance, US Labor Against the War. Will the Bush administration begin seizing assets of these solidarity campaigns on the pretext that they are trying to "destabilize Iraq"?

Just how bad do things need to get before the Democrats fulfill their constitutional responsibilities and start impeaching these bastards?!

 
At 12:03 PM, Blogger dancewater said...

"One of the bills before parliament that the Moderates would like to pass is the petroleum bill."

And the MODERATES, as always, are the ones who go along with western corporate interests.

Here's a review of why the US is really in Iraq:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/24832

 
At 3:07 PM, Blogger sherm said...

The Wash Post editorial page has picked up its bugle again. Having been one of the most outspoken advocates for the 03 Iraq invasion, it now insists we conquer the Tribal Areas as quickly as possible.

While the Democrats are working to end the Iraq mess they'd better be using their peripheral vision. They should not let Bush start another war he can't possible finish. If allowed to invade the Tribal Areas (against Musharraf's warning not to)he could single handedly start a civil war in Pakistan, and everyone knows how affective we are in stopping civil wars.

Besides, no matter what we do in the Tribal Areas, terrorist plots can be hatched elsewhere. The 9/11 bunch did their planning in Germany and the US. A Pentagon equivalent is not needed, especially one as remote as Waziristan.

Bush always gives the impression that terrorism is a finite entity that can be destroyed like you'd flatten a village. So he's always looking for something tangible to destroy. A good analogy is the war on drugs. Our local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies have trumpeted thousands of major arrests, raids, confiscations, eradications, etc. yet the war goes on and drugs are available everywhere.

Terrorism is bad but compared to the death, destruction, and ruination we have caused, and will continue to cause, in the name of fighting it, it is like comparing a
fleabite to an amputation.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home