Iraq open thread, #1

8 thoughts on “Iraq open thread, #1”

1. These months of delay are for the USA as deciding as for iraq. At first glance it seems to be normal colonial divide and conquer.
   The divide is full on march:
   – Juan cole wrote: (http://www.juancole.com/2005/04/speaker-of-parliament-elected-amid.html) “If the parliament stays deadlocked very much longer, the intrepid Anthony Shadid reveals, there is serious talk among the grand ayatollahs in Najaf about bringing millions of protesters out into the streets to force the politicians’ hands. (Actually the subtext here is that such massive Shiite protests would put pressure on the Kurds to give up some of their maximalist demands and come to a compromise. Such an ultimatum in the streets would be extremely dangerous, especially if it threw Kirkuk into chaos).”
   – Spencer Ackermann reports: (http://www.tnr.com/blog/iraqd) “Kirkuk continues to magnify Iraq’s sectarian divisions. At a meeting of the Tamim (formerly known as Kirkuk) governorate council last week, where the Kurdish-led Brotherhood List holds 26 out of 41 seats, the Arab and Turkmen factions walked out of the session, claiming that they had been muscled out of important provincial positions:
   Tahsin Kahya, the former head of the council who led the Arab and Turkoman members of the council out of the session, said during a short interview after the session:
   ‘During previous rounds of negotiations the Brotherhood List promised to allocate the post of deputy governor and the post of head of the council to Turkoman and Arab bloc in the council. They later reneged on their promise and this is the reason why we boycotted the meeting.’
   Interim council leader and Brotherhood member Ali Salilee denied making any such promise. More ominously, outgoing governor Abdul Rahman Mustafa fretted aloud that the real stumbling block within the council was the non-implementation of Article 58 of Transitional Administrative Law, which provides for the return of displaced Kurds to the city and the commensurate expulsion of Arabs brought in under Saddam Hussein’s Arabization campaign–and which is a not-so-subtle way of telling his rivals that all the city’s problems would be resolved if only they would have the decency to leave. The Brotherhood subsequently promised to establish a provincial government with or without the minority blocs, which is not likely to reverse what KurdishMedia’s Saadulla Abdulla calls ‘deteriorating’ security in the city:
   ‘The security situation is deteriorating with suicide car bombs and assassination of politicians and police personnel. Kidnapping for ransom is on the increase and people feel less and less secure day by day.’
   Abdulla might also have mentioned that Kirkuk’s Sunnis turned out to be some of the most fervent advocates of civil war at a recent Sunni conference.”
   – From the sunni side: “Influential Sunni scholars encouraged Iraqis to join the country’s security forces and protect the country, issuing an edict Friday that departed sharply from earlier warnings against participating in the fledgling police and army.
   Also Friday, an explosion damaged a ninth-century, spiral minaret that is one of Iraq’s most recognized landmarks. The blast in the central city of Samarra blew a large hole in the structure, police Lt. Qasim Mohammed said.
   Witnesses said two men climbed the 170-foot-tall minaret, then returned to the ground before the explosion occurred. The minaret is a symbol of Samarra’s past glory, the only remains of a mosque dating back from the Abbasid Islamic dynasty. It is featured on Iraq’s 250-dinar bill.
   It was unclear why the minaret was targeted. U.S. troops have used its top as a sniper position, and last year, the Islamic extremist group linked to Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi flew a flag from its peak.
   Sgt. Brian Thomas, a spokesman for the 42nd Infantry Division, said coalition forces no longer used the minaret. He said Iraqi police were investigating the explosion.
   Friday’s edict, endorsed by a group of 64 Sunni clerics and scholars, instructed enlistees to refrain from helping foreign troops against their own countrymen.
   But Ahmed Abdul Ghafour al-Samarrai, a cleric in the influential Association of Muslim Scholars who read the edict during a sermon at a major Sunni mosque, said joining the Iraqi security forces was now necessary to prevent the country from falling into ‘the hands of those who have caused chaos, destruction and violated the sanctities.'” Read very carefully!
   – And this from the resistance: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24808-2005Apr4?language=printer)
   “BAGHDAD, April 4 — Insurgent groups led by foreigners and Iraqis asserted Monday that guerrilla leader Abu Musab Zarqawi’s organization was responsible for a major assault on Abu Ghraib prison Saturday that U.S. officers called one of the most sophisticated attacks of the insurgency.
   Rocket barrages forced Marine guards to abandon a prison watchtower at the height of the precision-timed offensive, which employed mortars, rockets, ground assaults and a car bomb, a U.S. military spokesman, Lt. Col. Guy Rudisill, said Monday.
   U.S. rapid-response troops, backed by Apache helicopters and artillery, fired small arms and grenades to help the guards drive attackers back from prison walls, Rudisill said. The battle wounded 44 American troops and 13 of the more than 3,000 detainees held at the prison.
   ‘It was one of the more concerted attacks that we’ve seen,’ said Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, a U.S. military spokesman.
   Asked if there had been any other insurgent attack that surpassed it, Boylan said, ‘Not that I’m aware of.’
   In an interview, Iraqi insurgent leaders said the assault was carried out by Zarqawi’s group, al Qaeda in Iraq. The claim was also made in the name of the group on a radical Islamic Web site. The group’s numerous attacks had until now largely involved suicide bombings, car bombings and kidnappings rather than direct confrontations with U.S. forces.
   … Insurgent commanders said Monday that the prison assault represented a shift in tactics and that more attacks on U.S. installations would follow.
   ‘These operations will be different from the old ones, the car bombs, the IEDs,’ said Abu Jalal, a top commander in the extremist group Mohammed’s Army, using the common abbreviation for improvised explosive devices, or roadside bombs. …
   ‘We are going to use the same method that they used when they attacked Iraq,’ said Abu Jalal, who uses a nom de guerre and described himself as a former general in the Iraqi military during Saddam Hussein’s rule.
   ‘The old military officers know very well that the attacks on the bases of the enemy army weaken the morale of the soldiers and frighten them. The soldier feels safe when he goes back to his base. If he is attacked in the place that feels safe, that place is really hell,’ Abu Jalal said.
   If Zarqawi was behind the attack, it was unclear where or when his movement acquired the tactical expertise to directly confront U.S. Marines. Abu Jalal denied that former military officers in Mohammed’s Army had served as advisers, saying, ‘It was 100 percent Zarqawi.’ …
   Abu Jalal said the attack had been launched to free a commander of Zarqawi’s group and associates held at Abu Ghraib.
   … U.S. officials decided this year to eventually close the prison, in part because it is located in an area heavily populated by insurgents and their supporters.
   The raid Saturday was launched at dusk and appeared to involve at least 40 to 50 men, U.S. officers said.
   The insurgents opened the attack with barrages of 81mm and 120mm mortar rounds, followed by rocket-propelled grenades, the U.S. military said. Arab media reports said some of the projectiles landed inside the prison, causing the injuries among detainees.
   At least one rocket-propelled grenade hit a corner watchtower, wounding Marine guards inside. The explosion forced the guard team to abandon the tower, Rudisill said. The heaviest damage was caused by a mortar round that destroyed a refrigerator truck, he said.
   Ground fighters among the insurgents advanced only after the mortar and rocket assault had ended and attacked the prison from two directions simultaneously. The smaller of the thrusts was apparently a feint to divert attention from the main attack, Rudisill said, who cited both tactics as evidence of sophisticated planning.
   Arab media said the attackers withdrew under covering fire(!). The U.S. military reported one rebel killed and dozens wounded. Authorities declined to say whether any insurgents had been captured.”
   You can say what you want, but this is world-class deviding, purchased on iraqs account. But where is the “conquer”?. (Irony-alert:) Is it not time to see the mediating americans, saving the natives from themselves?
   And that’s what old british imperialist say about US-imperialistic skills: (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Britain-Iraq.html)
   “LONDON (AP) — U.S. troops in Iraq are provoking civilians and hampering rebuilding with an excessive use of force, British lawmakers said in a report Tuesday.
   The House Foreign Affairs Committee also found that the slow pace of reconstruction had fueled the insurgency in Iraq and suggested the country had replaced Afghanistan as a training ground for international terrorists.
   ‘Excessive use by the U.S. forces of overwhelming firepower has also been counterproductive, provoking antagonism toward the coalition among ordinary Iraqis,’ the report said, echoing the concerns of British officials.
   …
   The committee of lawmakers, representing three parties, said foreign fighters had played a leading and deadly role in the insurgency.
   ‘However, the evidence points to the greater part of the violence stemming from Iraqi groups and individuals, some motivated by religious extremism and others who have been dispossessed by policies adopted by the coalition since the war, such as de-Baathification and the disbanding of the Iraqi security forces,’ the report said.
   The committee said U.S.-led forces had clearly failed to stem the violence and suggested the new Iraqi government should try to negotiate with the insurgents.
   ‘We conclude that to date the counterinsurgency strategy has not succeeded. This may reflect an overriding focus on a military approach to the detriment of political engagement … While negotiations with al-Qaida and foreign fighters are out of the question, it might be possible to address some of the Iraqi insurgents’ grievances through political negotiations,’ the report added.”
   Draw your own conclusions.

2. Addendum:
   http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=354212005: “BRITAIN is preparing for a major redeployment of troops stationed overseas, withdrawing thousands from Iraq and boosting its military presence in Afghanistan.
   Military sources say 5,500 troops will be pulled out of Iraq within the next 12 months, reducing the British presence there by almost two thirds. ”

3. Apart all the wrangling concerning the nomination of the new Iraqis authorities, two other events attracted my attention :
   1) A riot took place in Camp Buca in the South. It was first announced by the Sadrists and later confirmed by the the International Red Cross Committee (ICRC). Rana Sidani, ICRC’s spokeswoman, asked the US military for clarification. Extract :
   The ICRC warned that a tense atmosphere existed in Camp Bucca, where many detainees are ignorant of their legal status and complain about living conditions.
   “The detainees complained about their conditions at the camp where they are living in the desert in tents where it is hot in the day and too cold at night,” Ms Sidani said.
   The prisonners’ scandal and the breaches of the Geneva Conventions are just going on amid general indifference.
   2) If there is one issue on which the Bushies have got a total victory, it’s the Fallujan case. They have managed to block any information coming out of the city. No one seems to care about it. No one took it to the streets to protest against this salvage collective punishment. Now a first survey tells more about the extent of the damages. But it doesn’t receive much attention in the rest of the world (they are probably too occupied by the burrial of the Pope).

4. From “After Kennan’s ‘containment'” by Philip Cunliffe in spiked! at http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA981.htm
   Excerpts:
   … Kennan likened Stalinism to ‘a malignant parasite, which feeds only on diseased tissue’. Though basically correct, Kennan missed the point that the nature of this ‘parasite’ revealed more about the ‘diseased tissue’ than it did about the USSR – the tissue and disease in this case being a crisis-ridden international capitalism. ‘In these circumstances’, Kennan reasoned, ‘it is clear that the main elements of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies’.
   … to say that Kennan’s vision was merely misinterpreted by Pentagon hawks is to overlook the flaw shared both by Kennan and the subsequent interpreters of his doctrine. Regardless of whether it was interpreted in a political or military sense, the problem with containment was that it was a purely negative doctrine, whereby all politics was defined defensively, as a retort to its perceived enemy (world communism). While Kennan saw the core problem as one of American ‘spiritual vitality’, this was still not a positive vision that could stand alone. Instead, the USSR was set up as the yardstick for measuring the extent of the ‘internal problems’ of US society.
   In the words of historian Bruce Cumings: ‘Imagine, a doctrine defining hegemony by what it opposes, obviating the necessity to explain to the American people what it is, and what its consequences will be for them.’
   When the Cold War ended, US politics, including its diplomacy, was left disoriented and adrift. One measure of this disorientation is the remarkable flux in US foreign policy ideas since 1991. The intellectual volatility of the US foreign policy establishment is something that is frequently lost in the hysterical fixation with the neocons’ geeky babbling about ‘full spectrum dominance’.
   Kennan’s vacuous strategic vision set the stage for the belligerent floundering of US foreign policy today.

5. As far as we can tell, Sistani and the Kurds are moving toward democracy. The Sunni/Baath insurgency is the main roadbloack, and must be defeated and/or transformed in order for democracy to occur. Yet, the Sunnis must be included in Iraqi democracy, for it to work. Otherwise Iraq must split up into smaller states. The only force capable of taking on the insurgency is the US, together with Great Britain.
   If we ask ourselves what we can do to help Iraqi democracy grow, it must be to transform the insurgency into a democratic movement. It is not clear that we can do anything at all to help this happen. Britain and the US seem to have different ideas on how to deal with the insurgency. We lack objective criteria to choose between the two approaches. We even lack true understanding of what the two approaches are and what the argument is about.
   It is clear that if the current insurgent leaders were given control of Iraq or any part of it, the resulting administration would be a tyranny unacceptable to all of us.
   In the past, in other countries, many democracies have grown despite the difficulties of dealing with poor leadership and ongoing insurgencies. Examples include The Phillipines, South Korea, Israel, Italy, Spain, and others.
   Helena and Dominic, et al, seem to be cheerleading the insurgency by tearing down the only force that can make it compatible with democracy. If I read them right, they are against peace and in favor of tyranny. If I read them wrong, I would like to know how they believe peace and democracy can be achieved in Iraq.

6. Warren,
   I thank you so much for including the examples of Spain and Italy in the category of those who had poor leaderships; indeed, Berlusconi and Aznar have been the worst leaders one can imagine and the less democratic : both dared to oppose their public opinion in order to follow Bush in the Iraqi aggression. Happily, Aznar could be replaced by Zapatero a much more reasonable leader, in phase with his citizen. And rejoyce yourself, the case of Italy is going to be solved soon, in 2006 with the next national elections. The regional elections of last week-end just saw the victory of Prodi and the center-left coalition in 11 regions against 2 for Berlusconi and his likes (there were elections in 13 regions); Berlusconi did even loose in the north and in several strong posts of right parties.
   As a side note : what would be your criteria for good leadership ? Bush ?!!! No thank you, if that’s the kind of good governance you have in mind, you can keep it for yourself, we have already been colonialist and we have learned it’s wrong, just plainly wrong to impose our principles to other countries.
   PS : We are all tired of the selfsufficiency of the US.
   PPS : By “we”, I mean not only the Arabs, but all the other countries in the world as well, Europe included.

7. Christiane:
   You have masterfully evaded my questions, but that is your right.
   My criteria for good leadership — Bush?
   Bush would not be a criteria, he might be an example (or a counter-example). Did you mean to ask for examples? I’d say George Washington. And I’d say General Eisenhower and Marshall Zhukov, who marched on the Nazis from opposite directions. Other than that, it’s hard to name a truly great leader since Moses. Maybe FDR, Joan D’Arc, Mandela.
   If you meant criteria, the answer is obvious, success in a rightious cause, with an absence of evil. And maybe success on his or her own terms.

8. Christiane:
   You have masterfully evaded my questions, but that is your right.
   My criteria for good leadership — Bush?
   Bush would not be a criteria, he might be an example (or a counter-example). Did you mean to ask for examples? I’d say George Washington. And I’d say General Eisenhower and Marshall Zhukov, who marched on the Nazis from opposite directions. Other than that, it’s hard to name a truly great leader since Moses. Maybe FDR, Joan D’Arc, Mandela.
   If you meant criteria, the answer is obvious, success in a rightious cause, with an absence of evil. And maybe success on his or her own terms.

Comments are closed.