Al-Hashimi's Party will not Rejoin Government For Now;
NYT Op-Ed from Soldiers on the Ground
As Bill Maher has quipped, we have had a balanced set of commentaries on the Iraq War on television news. We have heard from the generals and the retired generals. Today at the NYT we hear from some specialists and sergeants. In a thoughtful, analytically precise, and informed essay, they lament the pie in the sky thinking in Washington, admit that 'hearts and minds' are not being won and are unlikely to be, and decry contradictory US policies trying to please everyone that end up alienating everyone. They point to the massive number of Iraqis displaced abroad and the similar number internally displaced, to the lack of electricity, services, potable water, and above all security. They highlight how unreliable they find the Iraqi military, which they think penetrated at the street level by Shiite militiamen and their supporters. They tell a chilling story of a US patrol hit by a roadside bomb between two Iraqi military checkpoints, and almost certainly set by their Iraqi 'allies' or with their knowledge. One of the six suffered a severe head wound while in action during the period they were writing the piece. We can't be too grateful for what these guys are doing for us. The essay is a major part of seeing through their duty to the American people, since in a democracy, for the people to have a clear-eyed view of the situation is essential to informed policy-making. I hope they will let us in the blogosphere know if we can help Staff Sergeant Jeremy Murphy and his family in the wake of his injury, which he is expected to survive.
This essay describes an Iraq I recognize from reading the Iraqi newspapers every day and watching Arabic satellite television. It has the Byzantine political intrigues, the seedy militiamen, the back-stabbing and deal-making, the electricity-deprived tenement dwellers baking in the August sun, the 4 million homeless families, the incommensurate political goals of the factions. It does not depict 'a war we could win.' Money graf:
' In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal. '
The 4-party coalition backing PM Nuri al-Maliki met Sunday. They managed to convince Sunni VP Tariq al-Hashimi to attend. I saw him on Aljazeera after the meeting. He said that the possibility of the Iraqi Accord Front, his political bloc, joining the 4-party alliance was not broached. He said that for the moment at least, that was in any case not going to happen. Al-Hashimi has a list of 6 disagreements between Sunni Arabs and the al-Maliki government that won't be easy to sweep under the rug.
VP al-Hashimi (Sunni Arab) released on Saturday photos of Iraqi prisoners held by the government in wire cages, provoking outrage. Al-Hashimi said that the problem would be resolved. At one point he tried to comfort a prisoner by pointing out that at least the penitentiary was safe, whereas Iraqis free on the outside are not.
Hint: When the vice president of your country thinks you are safer and better off in a wire cage prison than you would be walking free in the streets of your capital, that is not a good sign.
The LA Times observes that:
' Missiles and mortar rounds Saturday struck areas of Baghdad and central Iraq where violence and civilian deaths had decreased in recent weeks, raising concern that insurgents were adapting their strategy around an increase in the number of U.S. troops. '
Oxfam points to a humanitarian crisis in Iraq as the medical personnel flee the country.
I have been very worried that the referendum over the future of Kirkuk scheduled for December of 2007 has the potential for tearing northern Iraq apart. The upshot of Liz Sly's article at the Trib, reporting from Kurdistan, is that the crisis may not occur just because the rest of the Iraqis are dragging their feet on arranging for the referendum. Mostly, postponing crises is unwise because they are just more difficult when they are addressed later on. In this case, foot-dragging is probably all to the good. Iraq cannot take another big meltdown at this point.
As many as 200 victims of the massive bombings of Yazidi villages were left in the rubble for lack of resources to attempt a rescue, according to one Iraqi official.
Steve Clemons on 'Michael Ledeen's Dangerous Iran Obsession.' You say to yourself, but Ledeen is a crank, he couldn't possibly be taken seriously in Washington. Then you remember how we got into the Iraq War, with such fringe elements actually running the Pentagon. Ledeen allegedly spends a lot of time on the phone with Karl Rove, 'Bush's brain.'
And many thanks in advance to Steve for the nice event he has arranged in DC on Friday for my new book, 'Napoleon's Egypt.'
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 8/19/2007 12:32:00 AM
|
Facebook
9 Comments:
In the context of the NYT article about the US military in Iraq, Dr Cole writes:
"We can't be too grateful for what these guys are doing for us."
Question: What are those guys doing for you?
From what I can see, countless people are becoming casualties for no good reason whatsoever.
Dear Professor Cole
The Public Editor at NYT supports your assetion that reporting of who is attacking troops in Iraq is sloppy reporting.
Take it with a pinch of salt
His comment about the personal nature of a lot of the comments is worrying. It reminds me of the description of how each side prior to the Spanish Civil War, or Austria prior to the Anschluss dehumanised each other.
Unlike the US troops British troops are now forbidden to talk to the press without having a papal indulgence.
It's Tommy this, and Tommy that ...
dear Juan,
i m deeply troubled by this new political developments in Iraq.
Bush is trying to push the oil law through iraqi parliament. he needs this to claim success in september. he doesn t care about problems with the law and its effect on the conflict between groups inside Iraq.
he will try to trick some sunnis into the process, in the very same way they did before the referendum on the constitution. they bring them in via vague promises and benefits for individuals and party leaders.
the more people who are aware of the plot in advance, the better.
http://sod-iraq.blogspot.com/2007/08/how-bush-will-manipulate-september.html
greetings,
sod
For me, the 'money graf' was the last one, 'We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.'
While we are indeed concerned and congratulatory with respect to the American forces, we need to think about the other side(s) as well, those who are opposing the army of occupation, they who are the army of disoccupation or dislodgement. The primary purpose of surges and the introduction of advanced weaponry is to show the opposition that 'we' can survive and withstand the assaults of our foes indefinitely. What has emerged is a sort of gang warfare, the objective of which is to not so much defeat the adversaries but to establish the factions as some sort of respected (not necessarily 'respectable') force within the societal structures. The notion of becoming part of the scenery and local colour is paramount in the minds of the participants, establishing turf having become the key concern. 'Stick-to-it-iveness' is what will sway the various parties to eventually come to a peaceful solution and conclusion to the hostilities. Like a banal marriage, a 'stalemate' is the best of all possible outcomes for the longer term.
We are reminded every so often of the gang warfare in Chicago between Capone's and Moran's groups in the 1920ies, culminating with the 'St Valentine's Day Massacre' of 14th February 1929, recreated in documentaries and movies for the entertainment of the masses. The result of this action between rival gangs was the public outcry against the existence of the criminal elements, forcing the authorities to take some drastic (by the standards of the times) measures by the Feds to reduce or remove the gangsters. While only a few crooks and their supporters were killed, the outcry was loud and far-reaching. Unfortunately, this sort of thing happens on a daily basis in Iraq (and elsewhere) without the same reaction. We are instead referred to the American Capone-like soup kitchens and other socially beneficial efforts that justify the continued existence of one side's 'just cause' ploys.
Once more, it takes at least two sides married to make a conflict, the ultimate goal is for the established government or the gangs to control their respective territory. This is an agreement of sorts, one that establishes the necessity of adversaries in order for there to be any shows of force. Thus, the opposing factions support each others' efforts by the continued opposition, creating heroes and celebrities on both sides, the morale of whom is only bolstered and increased by each encounter with their enemies.
While the Americans are stating that they 'will see this mission through,' we can only wonder what the other side is saying as well, that they will continue their struggles against all odds and foes, seeing their mission through as well. Unfortunately, given the 'Whack-A-Mole' theorem, there are several many odd foes to confront and defeat, perhaps with many overlapping loyalties and objectives, sort of like day-jobbers who will work for whoever is paying on that day, tacitly approved so long as the Americans are the ultimate targets and casualties.
We recall the shrugged deflection of responsibility, usually expressed in terms of 'It's not my day to watch him/her/them.' On any given day, any Iraqi partisan can be or not be part of the resistance. 'Time out' or 'Base' or any other means of sidelining one's self only removes participants from any day's activities, keeping them in reserve for any other days' participation, if not shifting focus to another part of the contest. One day on a mortar crew, another day tending a farm, and another addressing the social needs.
A kind of warfare pitting uniformed combatants against each other is so 'Early 20th Century.' Going with the terrain and the climate as well as the shifting sands is so 'Arabian.' The danger has always been with the indigenous not having anywhere else to go, with exceptions existing with refugees and expatriates who are equally undefineable, opting to remove themselves from the scenes of the action (after the fashion of Chalabi, e.g.) as the times suit. Chalabi is the 'good guys'' example, being an expatriate in one guise then a contender for a prominent role in the 'New Iraq,' only to later express his solidarity with the Iranian Shi'ites on another occasion.
One side does not fit all in an Arabian culture, the need to address all aspects of an issue dominating all other concerns. As a purveyor political sustenance, any player becomes a useful vendor of information, treating most clients as equals given their ability to pay and be loyal customers. One only need see 'Casablanca' to understand the fluidity of allegiances that exist in similar cultural bazaars. Of course, behind each merchant is another layer of influence, like the old-style (actually, traditional) gangster elements, seeking to establish and maintain cooperation, 'Godfather'-like, among the interested parties, established government(s) (recalling Renault and Strasser) included.
With as many assets employed as possible, incursions by the 'liberators' only make messes of things, create disruptions and disorder, give rise to ever-increasing 'law and order' surges that may or might not work. However 'shocked' the authorities are, public opinion always varies. We only have to look at the results of other wars, those on drugs and poverty, to understand how resilient the foes can be, using the system for and against itself.
At bottom, all that matters is the notion of 'morale,' the participants on any side maintaining themselves through any means possible, taking losses as they come, fielding replacements as required, finding success as one finds shade. The Americans are in a dangerous spot now, having been in country for four or so years, finding themselves becoming turf-conscious, wanting to own what they've gained. It's now a matter of guts and the associated blood, the inurement of all sides to a long, drawn-out struggle for the least common denominator of 'success': survival.
For both the Americans and the Iraqis, it will be decided by a negotiated settlement based upon 'dignity.' As the article states, 'They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.' The longer the Americans stay in country, the more ambiguous their roles will become, dignity returning to, recalling the old lines in 'Patton,' when the general tells the assembled that Americans cannot tolerate a loser. Unfortunately, the generals have been countermanded and contradicted at every point, usually by losers.
"We can't be too grateful for what these guys are doing for us."
Which is what, exactly?
I loved the op-ed piece. So I wonder if these NCO's lost confidence in Gen Petraeus's resolve to tell us the way it is? They certainly beat him to punch.
In response to Anonymous comment yesterday
"Al Sadr and the boys" to be gone after by GOP aggressors and invasionauts? That one seems radically incalculable to me. Of course there would be Hell to pay if the Big Management Party stumblebums ever actually did anything as dumb as that, but my own thumb doesn't prick either way. The bozos might do it, and on the other hand, they might not do it.
Who knows? Wait and see!
We Won. We have the oil terminals
"The British have given-up and they know they will be leaving Iraq soon," Mr Sadr said. "They are retreating because of the resistance they have faced. Without that, they would have stayed for much longer, there is no doubt."
The young nationalist cleric heads Iraq's largest Arab grassroots political movement, and its powerful military wing, the Mehdi army. It has clashed frequently with British forces in southern Iraq, most recently in the battle for power over the oil-rich port city of Basra. Scores of British soldiers have been killed and wounded by Sadrist militants.
Fratliff,
thanks for the long-winded endorsement of "Model Communities."
took a LOT of guts for those troopers to write that Op-Ed.
but their careers are gonna be in the shitter now.
and i wonder if they will get out of Iraq alive ( a la Tillman ).
Post a Comment
<< Home