Al-Maliki: May ask US Troops to Leave;
Al-Sadr Forms Special Groups to Fight Occupation
First, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced that negotiations between Iraq and the Bush administration over a status of forces agreement were at an impasse. He said that the US was asking Iraq to give up too much sovereignty. Earlier this week he had met with Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, who warned him against giving away Iraq's sovereignty to the US.
Then on Friday al-Maliki went further:
' "Iraq has another option that it may use," Maliki said during a visit to Amman, Jordan. "The Iraqi government, if it wants, has the right to demand that the U.N. terminate the presence of international forces on Iraqi sovereign soil." '
Other senior Iraqi officials speculated that al-Maliki was bluffing, as part of his negotiations with the US. But there is also the possibility that al-Maliki is serious, and is overestimating the capacity of his security forces to control the country. Al-Maliki said that the negotiations with the US would continue.
Meanwhile, Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr announced in his Friday prayers sermon that
"resistance to the Occupation will be limited to a Group that will be announced . . ."
Sadr said that he would fight the Occupation until it ended or the struggle lead to his own martyrdom. He added that 'The fight against US troops will now be waged only by the new group, while other members will "take on a social and religious role," Sadr said in a statement which was read out at mosques in the holy Shi'ite town of Kufa. '
American observers constantly underestimate the Sadr Movement, which is millions strong and has gotten stronger in the south as discontent with lack of services has risen.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/13/2008 06:30:00 PM
|
Facebook
7 Comments:
The new Sadr Special Force is a clever way to avoid the restrictions imposed against the Sadrists in the elections.
The other groups ganged against them a couple of months ago and declared that unless the Mahdi Army is dissolved, the Sadrists will be barred. Now the Mahdi Army is no longer an armed group, just like the Badr Brigade.
Moreover, the Sadrists will not enter as one group, but will join various others depending on which province the are competing.
By the way, even if the US makes big concessions to satisfy Maliki the deal still has to be approved by parliament (fat chance,) be subject to ending by a future Iraqi government and may even face a popular uprising. Forget it.
Other senior Iraqi officials speculated that al-Maliki was bluffing, as part of his negotiations with the US. But there is also the possibility that al-Maliki is serious, and is overestimating the capacity of his security forces to control the country. Al-Maliki said that the negotiations with the US would continue.
There is much at statkes in this negotiation, for the US as well as for the Iraqi, the Iranians, the rest of the ME and we, all the consummers of oil.
Alas, it's very difficult to know who says the truth and who not, who is bluffing and why.
Let's consider things from different points of view :
1) The demands made by the US seem so outrageous that it's quite hard to believe them. It's as if they were acknowledging the fact that they invaded Iraq in order to plunder it and from there further subjugate the whole oil regions, like a 19th century colony. Insofar are they information or desinformation ?
There are three possibilities :
a) The US exagerated the demandes made, so that in the end when the Al'Maliki's government bows to the Americans they won't look too much like the stooges they are (in this case, the US and the Iraqi puppet government are accomplices). This is well possible.
b) The US has requested the legitimation of her actual situation in Iraq. Aka : can you imagine the US accepting that Iraqi judge US military personal, or even US citizen ? Can you imagine Bush admitting defeat and withdrawing from all these expansive facilities he has built ? So in the tradition of the neocons, the Bush administration was just too stupid, too naive and too confident in itself to understand the emotion these exagerated demands would cause to the Iraqi. I don't really believe in the "stupidity and arrogance" argument. Of course the US need an agreement, but in order to avoid stirring of the pot, not all need to be explicitly and bluntly stated. Why ask to put anything black on white on a sheet of paper (not even a treaty ?) when she, de facto, has the power to do all what pleases her in Iraq ?
c) The US asked more in order to at least obtain what it wants ( a traditional way in negotiations), which could complement point a).
d) The demands are so exagerated as to look provocing : what if it is their real goal ? what if the aim of the Bush administration was to push nationalist opponents out of the wood and "finish them once for all" ? Al'Sadr recent declaration that he was building an anti-occupation force seems to go in that direction.
e) It is desinformation on the part of anti-occupation movement(s) who want to mobilize Iraqi against the US occupation. It is well possible as well, but then why are these negotiations kept so secrete ? If the US and the Al'Maliki's government were negotiating a more moderate agreement, then why don't they publicize it ?
2) The reaction of Al'Maliki's government : is he bluffing or not ? is it all theater or not ? Personnally, I think that there is both at the time bargaining to get something more acceptable and playing the role expected from a stooge.
3) Then, there are the Iranians.. they have clearly expressed that they were against the SOFA and wanted an end to the US occupation. What is they changed alliances ? if they thought that Al'Maliki's government is too discredited and now were lending more support to a rewamped and more disciplined Al'Sadr current ?
4) Then, there are the Gulf states : some say that they are already negotiating with the Iranians..
"Iraq said it will buy 30 737-800 aircraft made in Renton to reequip its commercial aircraft fleet. Most of that fleet was destroyed during the initial stages of the Iraq War.
The government also revealed it is negotiating with Boeing for 10 787 Dreamliner aircraft for longer distance routes.
The 737 order is valued at $2.2 billion at list prices. The Iraq government has also secured options for 10 additional 737s."
With all the problems faced by Iraq, such as lack of safe water, sewage standing in streets, lack of medical facilities, etc., is a shiny new airline really a priority???
It really is wonderful to hear that Iraq is contemplating a commercial airline, when air travel for the masses and the airlines that provide it are going away with the age of cheap petroleum. Kind of like a shiny new factory to make 8-track tapes.
This is of course in addition to minor details like not having an effective government or any realistic hope of keeping those shiny new planes from being blown up or shot down.
"With all the problems faced by Iraq, such as lack of safe water, sewage standing in streets, lack of medical facilities, etc., is a shiny new airline really a priority???"
Yes it is. Iraq needs to trade more with the rest of the world. This is essential to improve the Iraqi economy. The MoD also needs access to aircraft for logistics to support the ISF. They need to increase their self reliance quickly.
Put yourself in PM Maliki's shoes. Try to understand his perspective.
At 3:02 PM, Anonymous said...
With all the problems faced by Iraq, such as lack of safe water, sewage standing in streets, lack of medical facilities, etc., is a shiny new airline really a priority???
yes it is a priority if you are getting ready to flee the country with your nation's Oil Revenues after your protector pulls up stakes and leaves you high and dry - you will need a reliable aircraft to get you out of the country before the nation's people come and drag you out of the Green Zone and hang you from the nearest light pole.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that those who favour an early exit from Iraq and those who want to stay each may wish to see a degree of stability and peace begin to be established in that unfortunate land. The former will be motivated by a humanitarian concern that any informed person would feel to end or mitigate the horror that Iraq has become. The latter may share those feelings, indeed, let's say for the sake of argument that most do. But those who also wish to remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future will claim such an outcome as a success, or even more bellicose, a "victory". For those who wish to end the occupation of Iraq by foreign troops and who know something about the forces at work in Iraq various scenarios within which peace and security could return to Iraq can be discerned. No conceivable set of circumstances could see the establishment of peace and security in Iraq without either involving Iran, intimidating Iran into accepting an unacceptable situation, or outright defeating Iran in a war. Peace and security in Iraq can surely be achieved by democratic means internally and diplomatic means by willing partners. Such a peace will not be kind to imperial ambition. Such a peace will surely be a strategic victory for Iran. It may be possible for a far-sighted leader not involved in the sophomoric calculations of the unregenerate utopian idealists who have created this situation to see that though Iran benefits from a peace that restores to those Shia of Iraq who favour close ties a measure of influence, and though there will be some who crow about the humiliation of this neighbour who devastated a generation at least of Iranians, the removal of American troops and a return to a principled multi-lateral approach to nuclear proliferation will ultimately undermine the mullahs and the forces of reaction in Iran. But to get there it is necessary to deconstruct this nightmarish logic of the so called neo-conservatives and part of that has to be acknowledging that it is not worth the destruction that would follow to prevent Iran from gaining a measure of advantage from an American withdrawal. This became inevitable when the American tanks began rolling across the Kuwaiti border with dreams of democracy and no clue what they were getting themselves into. I fear that an unwillingness to grasp the nettle here combined with a largely uncurious population not conditioned to nuance or to seeing that in this instance America's security and return to a leadership role in the community of nations must involve acceptance of the consequences of the disastrous policies since 2003. Some unflattering, even humiliating times for America must come. At the very least, the architects of this horrible disaster cannot be allowed to escape the fact that America has been placed in a circumstance where an enemy can only lose should they be attacked massively, an outcome that will surely devastate America as well even more than it has been devastated economically and morally, if not militarily,already. If this is not the height of criminal stupidity it is difficult to imagine what could be and it really doesn't matter what you call yourself politically to see it. Even McCain could see it if he decided that his best bet to get elected is to consign his predecessor to the ignominy he deserves. But to have this jingoistic nonsense to vilify Iran put forward as serious discourse while ignoring the strategic cul de sac that America has been so incompetently manoeuvred into is to render history and rationality completely mute. It has become fashionable to look back upon the agony of Neville Chamberlain as he struggled to avoid another descent into the abattoir of war with the memory of the Somme still fresh in his mind and from this safe distance to draw pious lessons about "appeasement" in his time. The challenge for the observers and statesmen of these times is to resist the easy patriotism and comfortable denial of plain facts and say that there is no "victory" to be had with respect to the Iraq adventure, that some short term advantage will likely be gained by those more odious theocrats who cling to power in Iran but that there is no imminent risk to the US and not even to Israel that would justify unleashing the dogs of war yet again with even greater peril to the middle east and the world.
Post a Comment
<< Home