Iraq between Accelerated Withdrawal and bringing US Troops back In
Today's story about Iraq is a story of conflict between Gen. Ray Odierno and the Iraqi parliament. Elements in the cabinet and the parliament put pressure on Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki not only to put the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the US to a referendum on Jan. 15, but also to allow Iraqis to vote on whether all US troops should leave by the end of 2011, or whether that timetable should be moved up so that they are out by the end of 2010. (I am just speculating, but I wonder if this measure was pushed by the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, which is close to the ayatollahs in Tehran, who in turn may want to speed up the US withdrawal because they have become afraid of a 'color revolution' in Iran promoted by the US. Staging such things from neighboring Iraq would be easier than doing it from a greater distance . . .)
Gen. Odierno has repeatedly given interviews in which he questioned the timetable set out in the SOFA. Indeed, he wants to bring US troops back up to Mosul and Kirkuk to do joint patrols with Iraqi army troops and with the Peshmerga, the Kurdistan national guard. This step would be a reversal of the decision to have US troops cease patrolling in the major cities. It is aimed at intercepting attacks planned by radical fundamentalist cells in Mosul targeting heterodox Kurdish groups, which aim at polarizing the population with regard to ethnic and religious sensibilities-- setting Kurd against Arab and Sunni against non-Sunni. Theoretically, the plan would need Iraqi parliamentary approval, but they won't be back in session until after the fasting month of Ramadan ends around 20 September.
So Iraq moved in two directions on Monday. The cabinet moved to contemplating a hastier US exit. The American military commander moved to undo a clause of the SOFA and bring US troops back in to a volatile situation in the north.
One of these two moves is a dead end. We'll know which by late January.
End/ (Not Continued)
posted by Juan Cole @ 8/18/2009 12:59:00 AM
|
Facebook
5 Comments:
We can count on President Obama for more war no matter where:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/us/politics/18vets.html
August 18, 2009
Obama Defends Strategy in Afghanistan
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
PHOENIX — President Obama on Monday defended his decision to increase American involvement in Afghanistan, calling it a “a war of necessity” and warning an audience of military veterans that Al Qaeda was still plotting to attack the United States and would not easily be defeated....
What they say and what they do are not the same thing.
Publicly, Maliki, ISCI and Sunni must all position themselves as moving US occupiers out. Odierno/MNFI must put all its efforts inside the story that it's supporting GOI by partnering with 'Iraq Army' forces to provide security. The truth is that sectarian ministry forces were and will be the agents of civil war.
The Kurds must give lip service to Iraq Nationalism in Baghdad. Yet they march under their own flag, and work in Kurd terror cells and pesh controlled IA units to undermine GOI control along their disputed borders. Kurds put up a unified external face, but their two armed parties are separated by an internal KRG demilitarized zone; they fought pitched battles under Saddam, and have probably bombed each others party HQ's in the occupation era.
Now that the Anbar Sunni aren't consumed in a war of attrition in Ramadi and the river cities, elements are rearming and reorganizing with Saudi money, to hang on to critical Baghdad river neighborhoods (Dora, Adhimiya) and cities like Samarra or Yassoufiya that sit astride Shiite pilgrimage routes.
In a zero sum game of revenge, the longer the music plays, the closer all are to the moment when it stops, and someone is pushed out.
Pity the widow, and recruit the orphan...
Odierno is certainly the leading member of the "bewildered", as mentioned in comments to the Iraq post yesterday (17th). "Bewildered", that is, those American military and others who cannot understand why the US has signed the agreement to withdraw, having won all the battles, and thus behave as though the US has not made that commitment, although it has.
Technically speaking, of course, Odierno is verging on insubordination, and even rebellion, against the US government. Obama has repeatedly confirmed his acceptance of the conditions of the SOFA/Withdrawal agreement. And the agreement was originally signed by a previous president, GWB. So it's quite a serious piece of US engagement.
So who's going to win in this internal US conflict? Hard to say, as Juan says. But the conflict is more correctly defined as situated in Washington and not in Baghdad.
The position in Baghdad is much clearer. The Iraqis (other than the Kurds) have all decided they have had enough of the US. That means - and this is the threat that Maliki used to get the US to sign last November - that, in order to stay, the US has to maintain the full 130,000 man occupation force for ever. That doesn't appeal to Bush or Obama, so they signed and confirmed. The White House was so ashamed that they did not publish the English version of the text for weeks. But it's been confirmed again and again.
However dimwit Odierno doesn't understand such high-level politics.
By the way, the WaPo article tries to muddy the waters by looking for witnesses who might have doubts about US withdrawal. Typical journalistic operation, decide what you want to say, and then find quotes to prove it.
I think Odierno has zero chance of getting through his joint US-Iraqi army-Pesh Merga operation. Completely the wrong way of doing it. It would be more likely to provoke an Arab-Kurd war, at present. Maliki will nix it.
The Kurds and the US military are trying to get long-term (well beyond 2011)US troop presence in Mosul and Kirkuk.
In the short term, allowing joint US/Iraqi/Kurdish patrols does not need parliamentary approval. SOFA allows for the Iraqi commanders to request help from US troop, even in the cities.
The Iraqi military may well do that. It gives them a foothold in Kurdish controlled areas, which can also have a great impact in those areas in the coming January general election. It is widely known that the Kurdish parties committed electoral fraud on a mammoth scale in the areas they control in Mosul earlier this year in the provincial election. Without their forces full control, it will be impossible to repeat that yet again.
The sticking point is whether the US/Kurd axis can find ways to make US presence there permanent. The neo-cons have been very active in recent weeks. Lieberman (and McCain too) sent letters of support to Barzani, and a group of them have just visited Kurdistan. Zalmay Khalilzad was in Erbil on the eve of the Kurdish election in a pre-vote celebration (no, I can't expalin that either.)
Whatever the result, of the SOF or timetable, are we looking at Afghanistan as a staging ground for Iran?
Southern Af/Pak and eastern Iran are similar in tribes/customs/manners? If we 'defeat' the Taliban in Af/Pak, what is stopping them from having safe harbor in the east/south of Iran?
We have already heard of reports that al Queida has some safe houses there, are we relying on the Iranians to give up their 'friend' (loosely used, as reference to the enemy of my enemy is my friend) so we do not attack their soil?
Any of the drug running operations been disrupted that run into Iran?
Post a Comment
<< Home