US Drawdown Begins
Sadrists call for New Parliamentary Elections
The US military has begun to reverse last year's troop escalation, which brought the number of combat brigades in Iraq up to 20. It is now going back down to 19, and will stand at 15 in July of 2008 if things go according to plan. That is, the number of US troops in Iraq on the eve of the 2008 election will be about 140,000. If the "take, clear and hold" strategy of clearing guerrillas out of Baghdad neighborhoods has been successful, and if Iraqi security forces can continue the "hold" stage on their own, and if Sunni Arab guerrillas and Shiite militias don't reemerge in the neighborhoods that the US abandons in the capital, then violence looks set to hold at some 10,000 civilian deaths a year.
That level of violence is horrible, among the worst in the world. But the American Right, having promised us garlands, then democracy and secularism, then peace both in Iraq and in Israel & Palestine, has finally declared that an ongoing low intensity guerrilla war is a glorious victory and is 'turning the corner.'
My best guess is that Iraqis will go on fighting their three wars, for control of Basra among Shiite militiamen; for control of Baghdad and its hinterlands between Sunnis and Shiites; and for control of Kirkuk among Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen. They will fight these wars to a conclusion or a stalemate. It is only the battle for Baghdad that has been fought at a lower intensity because of the American surge in any case, and I would be surprised if it does not start back up as US troops leave. Violence in all three wars was reported by McClatchy for Monday, with bombings and mortar attacks continuing in Baghdad albeit on a reduced scale. Violence in Kirkuk, and in the northern Sunni hinterland of Baghdad (Samarra) was already reported for today early Tuesday morning.
Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that the police chief of Basra, Jalil Khalaf, says he has faced 7 assassination attempts and that his city suffers from religious and ideological terrorism that has caused the educated middle class to flee and led to the dominance of a band of "thieves" supported by political parties grown rich through the theft of materiel from the formal government security forces.
He said he has only been in office 4 months and has not had time to purge corrupt elements from the police who have given protection to militia and party leaders. He said that there is constant theft of petroleum products, antiquities, and livestock, and that the city had been flooded with weaponry and snipers. He admitted that police intelligence had been penetrated by the militias, which is how they knew his own location well enough to set roadside bombs for his convoy. He has narrowly escaped death on several recent occasions.
Khalaf said that the British had turned 4,000 vehicles over to the Basra police, but that he did not know the fate of most of them, since the Basra police only had 1335 vehicles left.
He pledged to reverse the recent downward spiral in Basra's security. But he said that foreign powers armed the militiamen, so that even if he could disarm them, the weapons would just be given to them again from outside. He pledged nevertheless to protect artists, intellectuals, writers and university professors from terror threats aimed at silencing them.
The problem is that Basra is Iraq's major port area, and the point from which most of its petroleum is exported, and if it is such a mess, it is hard to see how the Baghdad government can flourish. Mind you, Khalaf is saying that his own men routinely try to kill him, and these are the ones he is trying to deploy against the Shiite militias and tribal mafias!
The Sadr Bloc is now demanding the dissolution of parliament and the calling of new elections. If they follow through on this demand, the next step is for them to try to call a vote of no confidence in Prime Minister al-Maliki, a step that can be initiated by 55 members of parliament. The trouble is that they would need a majority of the full 275 member parliament to unseat him, not just a majority of a quorum. Gathering a quorum has been hard enough for the past year or so.
Sami Moubayid argues that PM al-Maliki will find it difficult to transcend his own history of narrow sectarian decision-making.
At the Napoleon's Egypt blog, two letters from the French politician Tallien on the disaster of the sinking of much of the French fleet by the British off Alexandria.
Labels: Iraq

|
7 Comments:
The article by Sami Moubayed in your link actually gives Maliki too much credit.
Most people are unaware that the Da'wa branch Maliki leads is an extra-national party concerned with Shiism. It is similar to Pan-Arab nationalism and communism. Shiites even outside Iraq are considered as "us" and non-Shiite even inside Iraq are "them".
Maliki, Hakim, and others really feel that democracy in Iraq is about giving ALL power to the Shiite majority, who would then treat the minorities humanely out of the goodness of their hearts. All their manoeuvres are aimed at masking their aims, which they truly believe to be just, and trying to achieve them by stealth.
Most of the Sunni fundamentalists in the Green Zone acurately acuse Maliki & Co of being sectarian, but they are no different. A good example of their contradictions is a comment I read once: "Maliki is secterian and must be replaced by a non-secterian PM who would give each sect its rightful share of the ministries!"
It is only the battle for Baghdad that has been fought at a lower intensity because of the American surge in any case, and I would be surprised if it does not start back up as US troops leave.
I wouldn't be surprised either, as Jon Lee Anderson reports:
Zaidan [al-Awad, a prominent Sunni tribal leader from Anbar] said that Anbar’s Sunni tribes no longer had any need to exact blood vengeance on U.S. forces. “We’ve already taken our revenge,” he said. “We’re the ones who’ve made them crawl on their stomachs, and now we’re the ones to pick them up.” He added, “Once Anbar is settled, we must take control of Baghdad, and we will.” There would have to be a lot more fighting before the capital was taken back from the Shiites, he said. “The Anbaris will take charge of the purge. What the whole world failed to do in Anbar, we have done overnight. Baghdad will be a lot easier.”
Many of the players in Iraq seemed, like Zaidan, to be positioning themselves for the next battle.
Seems like the prelude to a bloodbath, if you ask me.
Interesting, as always. However, I would suggest that there are not just three wars raging in Iraq, als mentioned in this post. There is a fourth war going on, intertwined with especially the Sunni-Shiite war in and aroud Bagdad. That fourth war is the fight against the occupation as such.
The fact that the main groups fighting against the occupation are Sunni guerrillas does not mean that their fight is only a sectarion, anti-Shiite, war. The ambitions of at least some of the guerrilla groups are nationalist, not just communalist, in my view.
I am curious as to how much of the drop in violence in Baghdad has to do with Muqtada al-Sadr's call for a cease fire earlier this year. If that cease fire ends, will Baghdad see a return to the higher levels of violence caused by the Jaish al-Mahdi militia activities against Sunnis?
Also, the Sunni tribal groups that have allied with the U.S. to destroy Al Qaeda in Iraqi in their villages don't seem to have a clear cut plan for reconciliation with the Shiite militias... What happens when, with the inevitable decrease in U.S. deployment, the Sunni tribal groups armed by the U.S. are left to fend for themselves?
And how much of this drop in violence is due to the anticipation of a withdrawal of American troops - wherein the warring militias are laying low and stocking up on munitions because they know it is not worth their while now to actively engage U.S. troops. When these militia groups realize that a substantial U.S. troop presence is going to remain in Iraq permanently, are they going to change their wait and watch strategy?
And lastly, how likely is it that the Badr Corps, the Jaish al-Mahdi and the al-Dawa militias will remain peaceful if the U.S. or Israel bombs Iran?
All these factors lead me to believe that the level of violence in Iraq is likely to rise over the next year.
The Guardian (UK) had a news report Sunday titled Iraqi fighters 'grilled for evidence on Iran'. It's about US interrogators being told to put a top priority on evidence linking Iran to Iraqi insurgents. As the contract interrogator said: "It feels a lot like, if you get something and Iran's not involved, it's a let down." He continued "It now really depends on who gets elected President in the US. If nothing changes in the current course, I'd say military action is inevitable. But we have to hope there will be a change of course."
Also in the report a military intelligence officials in Iraq is quoted as saying: "The message is 'Got to find a link with Iran, got to find a link with Iran.' It's sickening." There was evidence of this change in the mission in Iraq going back to August in the manner raids were carried out by US Special Forces in Sadr city - Shiite women and children who were killed or injured in the raid were described as "terrorists" by the US military. The manner in which these raids were carried out was clearly counter to General David Petraeus's larger counter-insurgency agenda.
The Guardian news report essentially goes to the heart of the issue of General David Petraeus's credibility, since it raises the question of whether General Petraeus has allowed the mission in Iraq to degrade into a kind of "witch-hunt" against Iran. (That's a reference to early colonial history in Massachusetts when there was mass hysteria about alleged witches.) General David Petraeus's message before Congress was essentially to allow the US military to complete the mission in Iraq, not to gather evidence against Iran. The problem of the Vietnam war was that US military commanders couldn't be trusted by the American public, the same problem this Guardian news report indicates they are at risk of repeating in Iraq.
Bush after all announced his new unilateral sanctions against Iran, and the designation of Iran's "Republican Guard" as a terrorist group, at the beginning of AIPAC's "National Summit" for their biggest contributors. AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is the most powerful pro-Israel lobby and the significance of the Bush's timing won't be lost on Iran.
The post-occupation scenarios must not assume that the same Iraqi players will feature. As president Carter said, the only Iraqis who want us there are the one who would leave with us. They will not survive a week without US presence.
The Americans in Baghdad know this very well. They can leave without doing nothing, which will leave Iraq without a government, ie a failed state. They can replace this government with a clean nationalist one which will be supported by the people, but will not be a US puppet. Yet another option is to return Iraq to military rule, with a forever delayed elections date, just like gen. Zia in Pakistan did.
In all these cases, the charecters you see now will vanish. The Iraqi population is not sectarian, so the "bloodbath" is not going to happen naturally.
The Kurds are not going to fight without the Americans. Kirkuk is in the plains and they cannot hold it. Kirkuk Province can become a region under the constitution and that will be that. The large minorities in Kirkuk will be satisfied, so would the Turks and the rest of Iraq. The Kurds could not export Kirkuk's oil even they occupied it so they will settle for some kind of a deal.
I wonder if there will be greater bloodletting in Iraq when the draw-down happens. I imagine whatever happens will involve lots of violence, but more than recently? It's all speculation at this point. It does seem as if the US being there creates a greater chance of spreading the conflict to other regions though.
Post a Comment
<< Home