Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Thursday, August 07, 2008

Parliament Adjourns with No Provincial Election Law;
Arab Tribes Threaten Violence

The Iraqi parliament proved unable to pass a provincial elections law on Wednesday despite a marathon 4-hour extraordinary session. They adjourned for the rest of the month. The sticking point was finding an acceptable formula for holding the elections in the mixed province of Kirkuk, which is being fought over by Kurds, Turkmen and Arabs. The failure to pass the law makes it virtually impossible to hold provincial elections in 2008.

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that Speaker of the House Mahmud al-Mashhadani postponed the debate until September 9. A multi-party working group will continue to work on the problem in the meantime.

Al-Hayat says that the Arab tribal leaders of Kirkuk Province have threatened violence to "defend the Arab character of the city," which the Kurdistan Regional Government wants to annex. Shaykh Husayn Ali al-Juburi, the head of the governing council in Hawija District and leader of the United Arab Bloc, told the paper, "Arabs have limited patience," adding, "the Arab tribes in Kirkuk are prepared, and have the ability, and the reach, in all Iraqi cities." (He means "to commit violence.")

Al-Hayat also reports that the worsening of the crisis in Kirkuk was a topic of discussion between President Bashar al-Asad of Syria and Turkish Prime Minsiter Rejep Tayyip Erdogan as they met at the presidential palace in Damascus. In a joint communique they urged the unity of Iraq and the need for security and stability in Iraq." There were reportedly fears that a failure to resolve the Kirkuk crisis could lead Iraq to implode.

Al-Zaman gives as one reason for the postponement of the debate to September was a fear that the Kirkuk issue could lead to an "explosion" at any moment, with severe security implications for other Iraqi cities, such as Mosul and those in Diyala province. Al-Zaman also says that Turkmen and some Arab members of parliament are demanding the removal of UN negotiator Steffan de Mistura, whon they accuse of bias (i.e. toward the Kurds) had suggested that elections in Kirkuk be postponed while they were held in the rest of the country. The Turkmen want the elections to be held in Kirkuk at the same time as in the rest of Iraq.

The elections are important to social peace in Iraq. The January, 2005, provincial elections were deeply flawed. The Sunni Arabs largely boycotted them. Only a few party lists had the organization and experience to contest them effectively-- especially the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, many of whose members had lived in Iran and witnessed the elections there, which involve a lot of canvassing and sometimes produce surprise upsets.

Diyala Province, which has a Sunni majority, is ruled by the pro-Tehran Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq-- a recipe for disaster. Kurds play a disproportionate role in governing Ninevah, a largely Sunni Arab province. Al-Anbar Province is dominated by the Sunni fundamentalist Iraqi Islamic Party, the only one to run in 2005, but only 2% of the electorate voted. The Dulaim tribal elite and the Awakening Councils are largely disenfranchised in al-Anbar, which is not a stable situation. Even the provinces of the Shiite south, which saw good turnout in 2005, are dominated by the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, which ran a good campaign but may no longer be very popular.

Indeed, the lack of enthusiasm for new provincial elections among the high politicians elected in 2005 can probably be explained in part by their fear of not running very well and of the rise of challengers, from the Awakening Councils to the Sadr Movement.

McClatchy quotes a UN official cautioning that if provincial elections are not held by the end of 2008, they could get postponed until June, 2009.

I am unhappy about the delay in the holding of provincial elections. It is a step I have been championing for some time, as in my article at The Nation on "How to Get Out of Iraq" as a preparation for US military withdrawal. The independent, Durayd Kashmula, cannot rule largely Sunni Arab Ninevah Province if the US departs it. The Shiite government of Badr Corps member Ra’ad Hameed Al-Mula Jowad Al-Tamimi, the governor of Diyala wouldn't last a month if US troops were not around. (The deputy governor, Awf Rahim, was arrested by US troops last week; that is never a good sign.)

Even more alarming than the Iraqi parliament's inability to arrange for provincial elections to be held over 2 years after they were first scheduled is the reason for the failure. The debate on provincial elections has revealed that the Kirkuk dispute is a volcano about to blow, and that ordinary liberal institutions of debate and compromise seem helpless before the ethno-nationalist passions boiling there. Resolving Kirkuk is not only key to social peace in northern Iraq but also in the entire eastern Mediterranean.

One big mystery is why so few displaced Iraqis have gone home, given the lessened rates of violence. Apparently it is in some part because other people are now living in their house. The Iraqi government is using carrots and sticks to try to remove the squatters.

McClatchy reports political violence in Iraq on Wednesday:

' Baghdad

Two policemen were injured in a roadside bomb that targeted their vehicle in Karrada neighborhood in downtown Baghdad around 7:30 a.m.

Around 10 a.m. An IED exploded targeting a Sport Utility Vehicle of one of the Iraqi security companies near Olwiyah operator in Karrada neighborhood. Two employees of the company were injured in addition to another two civilians.

Gunmen attacked a checkpoint manned by awakening members, a U.S. backed militia, in Sleikh neighborhood killing three militia members and injuring two others.

Police found one dead body throughout Baghdad in Karrada neighborhood.

Nineveh

A civilian was killed and nine civilians and one Iraqi soldier were injured in a suicide car bomb targeted a check point of the Iraqi army in Dawasa area in downtown Mosul city.

Basra

A roadside bomb exploded in Al Muwafaqiya area in west Basra, in[j]ured one citizen.'

Labels:

5 Comments:

At 3:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is no mystery about why the refugees are unwilling to return. It is too damn dangerous. Only 15% of their homes are occupied by others. Two thirds did not own their homes in the first place, and the rest are left with empty or destroyed homes. So the homes are not the main problem as being claimed.

Apart from the 5 million refugees inside and outside Iraq, millions more are refugee wannabes but can't afford to leave or are unable to arrange to leave.

 
At 12:46 PM, Blogger MonsieurGonzo said...

ref : “the lack of enthusiasm for new provincial elections [in Iraq] among the high politicians elected in 2005 can probably be explained in part... by the rise of [viable] challengers [to their power basis].”

We are reminded at once of that classical stasis of Greek political history : ‘Stasis’... "refers to the constant feuds between aristocrats in archaic Greece, struggling about who is the best (aristos is Greek for "the best") both in terms of prestige and property. It led to various Civil Wars and the establishment of Tyrannies in many cities of ancient Greece, most notably the Tyranny of Peisistratos in Athens."

indeed, Professor I do believe we could rightly say that, whatever its good intentions, (even in the absurd, simplistic sense of "reduction of violence, apparent" given to it by revisionist historians), classical stasis was then the direct result, and remains today that most lingering legacy of ‘The Surge’.

The historical irony, then ~ is that the sacrifice of ‘The Surge’, for that is what it was for US in general, and for our troops in particular ~ rather than being a means for moving forward: the classical stasis end result of ‘The Surge’ strategy did, itself become an enemy of the future of this place, IRAQ.

 
At 1:35 PM, Anonymous Watson said...

I understand the desirability of holding elections. Iraqis are entitled to regular elections. Everyone is (or should be). But it seems unlikely that Iraq could conduct free and fair elections before Bush/Cheney leave office.

 
At 4:06 PM, Blogger workshop said...

It seems more than a little strange to take the "reduction in violence" for granted in a region where reporting is thin and biased, and on that basis to declare it a "mystery" that refugees have not returned.

It seems more obvious that warlordism has simply taken hold in Iraq:

"A massive military operation in Diyala province has underscored the military and political gains by the Sahwa militia, despite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's earlier attempts to thwart them. Maliki has now apparently come around to involving the Sahwa rather than opposing them.

The Sahwa are the 'Awakening Forces' created and paid by the U.S. military to co-opt militants and to fight al-Qaeda, but which have become a force of their own parallel to the military and the police.

They are a mostly Sunni militia of about 90,000 comprising mostly former anti-occupation resistance fighters and even al-Qaeda members. Each member is paid 300 dollars monthly.

The Sahwa have long been at odds with the regular Iraqi forces, but they came out in strength this time following a promise of 3,000 jobs for their members in the national police. "
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43451

The Maliki government runs campaigns where the supposed 'enemy' are forwarned to leave, with the result that the campaign is labeled a success. When they fail to do this, the campaign fails (eg. first attempt at Basra). Meanwhile they seem to round up lists of suspects provided by the warlords on the US payroll.

Violence reduced? It sounds more to me like the US has simple ceased efforts to keep the peace, and is satisfied to keep things quiet from a news point of view.

"Few people would consider Afghanistan, where last year an average of 550 people were killed per month, a safe place. Yet, "that is about the rate recently (in Iraq), according to official statistics." "

Yes, according to official statistics. And we all know how reliable official statistics coming from the US government are. Just imagine how reliable they are coming from an occuppied government.

"The Unites States has received reports that its combat casualties in Iraq dropped to their lowest level in July with glee.
...
Lowest ever U.S. casualties may speak volumes for the U.S. but it has little meaning for Iraqis.

The drastic drop in U.S. casualties coincides with a drastic surge in Iraqi casualties.

Joint U.S. and Iraqi military operations are proceeding in several provinces, leaving behind a trail of destruction and many casualties. The U.S. keeps no tally of the Iraqis it kills. Neither does the Iraqi government.
...
The military tactics pursued by the U.S. in the past five years have illustrated that military campaigns in which heavy weapons like warplanes, artillery and armor are deployed, have become the means to solve problems, though experience has shown that they have drastically failed to do so.
."
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/93976/drop_in_u.s._casualties_coincides_with_surge_in_iraqi_deaths/

I'm glad US losses are down. They'd be a lot more down if we'd left years ago. Meanwhile, as we saw in Sadre City, US and Iraqi military tactics are so violent that masses of civilians are being killed and are not being counted, or are being counted as 'insurgents' or 'terrorists', whether they are or not. one suspects.

As for the Awakening Councils and other mini-warlord groups, who knows how much violence they are perpetrating?

I don't think it's a mystery that refugees are not returning. I think calling it a mystery takes either very, very rosy glasses, or something worse.

Even by the most glowing estimates, the situation in Iraq remains violent. And those estimates are highly dubious.

This is from 2007:

"There is growing concern among Bush's detractors in Washington that the White House is tinkering with the definitions and the statistics to paint a rosy scenario"
http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources/2007/08/30/statistics/#

Is there any reason to think that this truth challenged administration is telling the truth now?
I would say that there is every reason to suspect that whatever they say is NOT the truth. I'm STILL reading about that 'Iran-incriminating' cache of weapons in Basra that the government itself belatedly backed away from claiming was from Iran.

I've read that morgues are not allowed, by law, to report on the number of dead. I've read that reporters are muzzled when they report on violent incidents. A reporter was just ejected from Iraq for not telling the story the US military wanted to hear. The death toll on reporters in Iraq has been such that it's amazing any are left.

Sure, if you believe the administration, the economy is rosy (just a little tipsy), Global Warming doesn't exist (ok, maybe it does, just a little), Aids cases are way down (instead of being underreported by some 40%), the federal deficit is 400 billion and not 600 billion. And so on.

If the violence was down, the refugees would be back. They are not exactly welcome or well treated in Syria, etc.. It's just not hard to figure that if the US is paying former insurgents to patrol neighborhoods, those neighborhoods are not going to be safe places.

"
Chabalko said that some Sons of Iraq in his area use their positions "as an opportunity to play both sides of the fence, usually the guys at checkpoints." American soldiers say that Sunni members of the force extorted money from Shiite civilians and attacked people they believed were members of Shiite militias.

In Baghdad's religiously mixed Risala neighborhood in May, U.S. Army medics treated a man who had been beaten and kicked in the face and torso by Sons of Iraq, who believed that the man was an informant for the Mahdi army, the militia loyal to the anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The man survived because the local Sons of Iraq leader, Karim al-Gortani, happened by and ordered them to stop, said U.S. Army Capt. Sean Chase, whose soldiers treated the man.
'
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/08/06/sons_of_iraq/index.html


This one guy was lucky. How many aren't so lucky?

 
At 5:16 PM, Blogger Walking Wounded said...

I don't see that the Iraqi civil war matrix has exhausted the domestic players into a willingness to get on with effective compromises for delivering safe water, security, or national unity. The folks who don't have water, jobs or security are certainly exhausted. But not the regional arms merchants, or full-employment militias that receive their Sunni or Turkish or US or Isreali or Persian or Russian support. With $70B of windfall oil sales piling up in gov't coffers, everyone has eyes on keeping the prize out of their rivals hands.

Iraq today is maybe a bit like China at the end of the WW2 Japanese occupation. Nationalists, Communists, warlords and businesses all knew that the civil war would go on after the Japanese war machine imploded. Players conserved their resources, even as the Japanese remained the dominant military force until their surrender.

Kurds played a big role as cheerleaders and enablers for US occupation. They allowed the temporary reflagging of KDP and PUK pesh militias as 'ethnically balanced Iraq Army units' in repeated reoccupations of Turkoman Talafar and Arab Baghdad. Kurds supplied pesh mercenaries for Chalabi's palace guards and projects.

Sometimes incompetent or corrupt Kurd translaters 'helped' clueless junior US officers 'police' intertribal sunni-shiite conflicts. And send thousands of Arab men to radicalizing prisons, revenge for Anfaal. The opaque Kurds have helped shaped our Iraq failures, and stand to continue to benefit from a failed Iraq.

Kurd affairs seem less opaque if you take the push for eretz Kurdistan at it's word, that it's a deep rooted independence movement. Then lose the illusion of a benign unitary Kurd polity, and recognize the blood spilled by inter-Kurd civil war between Barzani's KDP, N. of Kirkuk in Arbil, and Talibani's PUK to the S., in Sulaymaniya.

Kurd regional president Barzani was an ambitious and ruthless warlord, willing to deal with Saddam in the 90's, to militarily defeat the rival PUK, even after the Anfaal genocides. His deeply muslim-nationalist troops might resort to extreme measures, of the sort once used against the Kurds, to expand his domain. Dealing arms from Iran or Isreal, that's no big deal for a movement that was being mustard-gassed by Churchill before the current leadership was born.

Talibani's PUK is following an aged and ill leader, one consumed with riding the Green Zone juggernaut. The PUK question is one of party succession and survival I should think, while Talibani presents an Iraqi nationalist face outside Kurdistan. The PUK ward-healers whisper 'that's just a pose'. But it's not a vote-grabber in Kurdistan.

Both PUK and KDP would tend to view independent kurd press, tribes, or political actors as potential allies of their rivals, and move to freeze out or stomp them out, as needed. Both Talibani and Barzani are committed to preventing Maliki/Hakim (or the US) from thwarting Kurd independence. They won't turn back on a bloody 90 year old independence movement, as they consolidate the Kurd gains since 2003.

Expansive Kurd territorial ambitions now thrive under a Kurd flag, and take advantage of chaos in Baghdad, well beyond the concessions they got in the 2005 constitution. The Kurds are re-building their cities and taking in wealthy refugees, while the US walls the unfortunate and destitute millions of Baghdad into narrow neighborhoods. Kurd regional gov't, parties and militias are full-spectrum operations, from warm web-PR, to combat brigades, foreign intrigue, political prisons, and assassinating rivals.

Cooperation on territorial expansion probably doesn't mean that KDP and PUK are ready to lower their guard, or call off the cold war between their parties and militias. But maybe they've agreed to less lethal competition. Kurd ambitions in Kirkuk are frustrated in part by that city's wedge-like geo-ethnic position on the fault line between two armed Kurd camps.

Whenever two blood-rival institutions like PUK/KDP declare the intention to integrate and coordinate, look for sparks to fly, and one side to eventually dominate the union. The tribes that produced Saladin and the Barzanis are willing to spend blood; theirs or others, in Mosul and Kirkuk. An exhausted population can only stand by and watch for salvage from the train wreck.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home