Ahmadinejad in Baghdad;
Iraqi Death Toll up 33% in February;
Sadrists Protest Veto of Provinces Law
The Iraqi civilian death toll was up 33% in February over January. AFP says, "The combined figures from the interior, defence and health ministries showed that the total number of Iraqis killed in February was 721, including 636 civilians, compared with 541 dead in January."
Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Baghdad on Sunday morning, to be greeted by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. Ahmadinejad was invited by President Jalal Talabani (who, like Zebari, is Kurdish). Talabani has old links of clientelage with Tehran. Ahmadinejad's visit is designed to help shore up the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of the Islamic Call (Da'wa Islamiyyah) Party. Bilateral agreements in 10 fields of endeavor are expected to be signed.
Although the US keeps accusing the Iranian government of deliberately trying to destabilize Iraq, President Talabani and PM al-Maliki steadfastly deny Washington's accusations. And, of course, it does not in fact make sense that Iran would try to topple the first friendly Shiite regime ever to come to power in Baghdad.
Millions of Iranians come to Iraq every year on pilgrimage to holy cities like Karbala and Najaf, and Iran is funding an airport to allow them to fly into Najaf directly. The Iranian pilgrimage trade could eventually be worth billions. Iran in the past has pledged aid, including allowing Iraq to use Iranian ports for transshipping goods and outright grants of $2 bn.
Iran is likely to be a competitor in the medium to long term with the US for influence in Iraq.
Followers of Muqtada al-Sadr in the Iraqi parliament angrily spoke out against the Presidency Council for turning back a bill providing for provincial elections on Oct. 1. The Sadrists believe that VP Adil Abdul Mahdi of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq was the main mover behind the veto, and that he acted because ISCI is afraid it will lose new provincial elections to the Sadrists. ISCI is also said to oppose a provision allowing the prime minister to dismiss elected provincial governors. ISCI controls the provincial governments of several Iraqi provinces, including Diyala, Baghdad, Hilla, Najaf, Karbala, Qadisiya, Dhi Qar, and Muthanna. It also controls 20 of 41 seats on the Basra provincial council. It therefore risks a great deal if the Sadrists sweep to power in very many of these provinces.
Turkey's chief of staff, Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, denied on Saturday that the end of the Turkish incursion into northern Iraq had had anything to do with US pressure. But US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates visited Ankara on Thursday, a day before the withdrawal. And, as late as Thursday, Buyukanit had been talking about a long-term Turkish presence. Draw your own conclusions.
posted by Juan Cole @ 3/02/2008 12:30:00 AM
|
Facebook
9 Comments:
Iran does not want to topple al-Maliki or destabilize Iraq. But it certainly wants a very weak Iraq. This is exactly the desire of the USA and others in the region in fact.
There are three problems, however.
1) The competition over Iraq by so many countries, particularly between Iran and the USA. Iraq is dead, but the hyenas are fighting among themselves over its flesh, causing instability in the whole region.
2) There are millions of armed Iraqis who do not like what is happening to their country, and they can do real damage.
3) It is too hard to strike such a balance. Iraq now swings to total chaos as happened in Feb 2006, then into some calmness, like a pendulum.
Professor, I would say that Iran is a current competitor of the United States for influence in Iraq. Of course, the competition is a bit lopsided now, but the yet-to-be realized potential for such is what furnishes a level of leverage for the Shia dominated Iraqi government, in some of its dealing with the US occupation.
Ahmadinejad's visit to Iraq and the holy cities is rich in symbolism. The old Pasdaran soldier is personally realizing an old war aim from the Imposed War (1980-1988).
From a military perspective, the Turkish incursion into Iraqi Kurdistan is perplexing. Sure, the body counts it has supplied are intended for internal political purposes. But really, isn't the actual result just a shaking of a Kurdish beehive?
Don't be surprised if Bush suddenly announces that Iran plans to increase the world-wide cockroach population by 100 trillion-billion. This would be no more ridiculous than many of his other claims.
Bush is grasping for straws to try to shift attention regarding who the real enemy in the region is. Here is a clue - it is not Iran.
RE the 33% casualty increase... Figures can be, and in Iraq usually are, misleading. One can wail that the death toll is sharply up, and another can rejoice that it is down from the pre-"surge" highs with equal surety. What can be proven with such fluctuations? One thing is that while the US military never loses an engagement, it is not in control. Control would encourage conflict uniformity, which is not what Iraq has now.
The US military has a recurrent behavior of trying to spin any shred of progress into a positive trend. It just can't wait to tell the good news. But time and again the good news has been dashed one or three or six months later when the insurgency surges. As it is now. Then, despite everything the US has said in the mean time about the improved effectiveness of whatever new tactics or policies it is using, it is shown in fact to be behind the game, reactive, not in control, and everything it has said about progress is called into question.
I recall the pre-war reports that US military officers were watching documentary The Battle of Algiers as they prepared for another insurgency, at the same time Wolfowitz was yodeling the open arms meme. The US didn't want to make the same mistakes the French did. But on a large scale, they have in Iraq. And if one includes the destruction of societal infrastructure--buildings, houses, bridges, sewage treatment plants, water systems, electrical production-- the dissembly of the police forces, exclusions of Iraqi companies for rebuilding contracts, massive fraud and profiteering, de-Baathification, the stunted "re-building" effort, and damage to religious structures, the alienation of the Iraqi population by US policy and military errors have far exceeded those of the French in Algeria, despite the good intentions of the large majority of US troops.
A few years ago media finally caught up with the blogosphere and the buzz was all: "Civil war in Iraq? Is it, or isn't it?" Definitions flew back in forth. It's a cold civil war if X% of the population a day are killed. It's a hot civil war if Y% are killed. People argued back and forth with absolute certainty. Now it is a couple of years later any no one can apparently remember what they argued then.
The Iraqi casualty rate now exceeds the highest casualty rate figures propounded by the "It's not a civil war yet" people. Post surge. Bush progress.
A casualty rate change of 33% in a single month, in a country the size of California, after more time than it took to resolve WWII is all the proof one needs that, despite the wish of many to leave Iraq in a semblence of order, the US is not driving the bus in Iraq any longer. It's continued presence there illustrates only a bleeding body, tied down in the sands.
It's obviously a foreign policy disaster for Bush when Ahmadinejad visits Baghdad, but it's also a PR disaster. Bush officials can't visit Iraq except in those famous "surprise" visits. Ahmadinejad apparently feels safe enough to show up with an invitation and spend a leisurely overnight trip there. The Surge: Making Iraq Safe for Iran.
And looking ahead to the June 2009 presidentials, Mohammad Qalibaf is in Baghdad this week, doing Mayor-to-Mayor with Sabir al-Isawi, and meeting with Nouri al-Maliki, not just Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
For reasons of commerce alone, Iran would like a strong Iraq, as it in turn facilitates a strong Iran. Such development was stiffled after the Iranian Revolution; so, there will naturally be a busrt of activity to make up for almost 30 lost years. This commercial opportunity will not be lost by other memebers of the Gulf and Caspian regions who are flush with funds needing a place to invest, and is a fundamental reason why sanctions against Iran will fail.
ref : “the US keeps accusing the Iranian government of deliberately trying to destabilize Iraq . . . it does not in fact make sense that Iran would try to topple the first friendly Shi'ite regime ever to come to power in Baghdad.”
yes, Professor; Indeed, it would be more accurate to “accuse IRAN of deliberately trying to stabilize IRAQ,” for they are de facto, if only ‘by proxy militas enabled’, rival Occupiers of IRAQ, and no doubt desire to remain so.
Only after conceding this grounded reality, viewing afresh IRAN in this manner, can we compare & contrast the successes and failures, the costs and benefits apparent ~ of ‘The Sunni/American Occupation of IRAQ’, and ‘The Shi'ite/Iranian Occupation of IRAQ’.
In Baghdad, fwiw ~ there exist numerous (i daresay, classical) walls delineating two distinct Occupation Zones; not unlike, say ~ Berlin (there are countless other examples an historian could cite), replete with the requisite ‘CheckPoint Charlie’ interfaces, etc. All that's missing from IRAQ is the recognition of realpolitik ‘checkpoint signs’, announcing : “You Are Now Entering The American Sector”. Perhaps such signs are there, scrawled all over these walls ~ only written in scripts that few of us are able, or willing to read?
In any case, after completing the intellectual hurdle of rival Occupations, if only for mind game ~ we can parse a plethora of "national" data into "zones" apparent, and what a revelation this is . . .
. . . Foremost, Zone Américaine is a cost center, while Zone Iranienne is a profit center. For another, construction of infra-structure ~ roads, waterworks, powerlines, sanitation, greengrocers, schools and remarkably Western-like, entreprenurial investment ~ thrives in one Zone d'Occupation, yet remains stalled, corrupted or crumbling, in the other.
Unfortunate for the Americans, they cannot contract ‘Occupation’ out to the Iranians, for they appear to be better at this business. Unfortunate for the Iranians, they suffer not only from outside sanctions, but also prejudices from within their own Theocratic fundamentalism ~ against those ‘other’ brave Muslims ~ who might otherwise be willing to become their brothers and sisters.
President Ahmadinejad announced months in advance his Iraq visit schedule. Bush can only fly into Iraq in TOP SECRET.
Wonder why someone who is "spreading democracy" can only visit without anyone knowing in advance ????
2 + 2 = 5,297
Post a Comment
<< Home