Percipient as ever (irony alert there), “Uncle” Jalal Talabani, still the President of Iraq, predicted today that a new government could be formed in his country “within weeks”.
This is all so very reminiscent of what happened after the election of January of last year. Back then it took 88 days between election day and the day on which a new “government” arising from those elections was sworn in.
Those 88 days were marked by terrible, terrible waves of violence in the country. And the administration that was then sworn in was able to solve none of the country’s problems and meet pitifully few of its people’s needs.
I pray to God the same thing is not going to happen this time around, too. But Talabani’s announcement of just how long he thinks government formation might take is really depressing. And of course, just like after the January 2005 election, this time too the violence has been escalating badly.
This Hayat article quotes un-named “diplomats” as saying they expect it will not take three months to cobble together the new government this time, as it did last time…
It also quotes British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying that the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq is “a matter of months”. Also this,
- He added that the British troops “will remain as long as the Iraqi government wants them to remain… and we hope in practice that we can withdraw our troops in stages, on our own responsibility, not from Basra in the first instance but from from other governorates. We need to coordinate this withdrawal with the Iraqiswhen they confirm that their troops have become ready to carry all the responsibility in these districts. It is a matter of months, and we are here to liberate Iraq, not exercize imperialism here.” And Straw stressed that the future Iraqi government should be “truly a government of national unity rather than being [a government of] only one party.”
How very kind– one might even say “liberating”– of Minister Straw to tell the Iraqis what kind of a government they should or should not have.
my own opinion is that Straw has given the Iraqis good advice…a government representative of all major Iraqi sectarian groups is a better bet to stabilize the country than one dominated by a single party…but, yes, it is for the Iraqis ultimately to decide.
Helena
“And the administration that was then sworn in was able to solve none of the country’s problems and meet pitifully few of its people’s needs.”
Being an essentially simple soul, I am at a loss to understand all these coded messages.
I wonder does “A Government of National Unity” mean “Put Challabi in charge, help him lock up anyone who argues, then get on with signing the contracts”?
I don’t see much connection betwen the guerilla war and what will happen to the Iraqi government. So, I would not be that concerned.
not with Basra, but with one or two of the other provinces in our area.”
I wounder why? Is it Basa State still not stable is their high level “insurgences” that needs the Britt’s their? Or there is another thing more important?
We seeing some thing strange here; Tony Blair, Jack Straw visiting Basra State without any concern to the “Central Government” in Baghdad!!!! Now the troops will withdraw but not from Basra! Oh I thing just in case Iraq still threaten his neighbouring Kuwait Stat…..
In the other side of Atlantic Maureen Dowd draw for us the picture of the US administration about Iraq as she wrote in NYT
“Reach Out and Touch No One”
“Sure, he has A.D.D. But he just spent six straight days’ mountain-biking and brush clearing in Crawford. He couldn’t devote 60 minutes to getting our kids home rather than just a few for a “Message: I Care” photo-op faking sincerity?”
http://www.trueblueliberal.com/?p=2563#more-2563
my own opinion is that Straw has given the Iraqis good advice
Maybe. So let me give Straw some good advice.
Resign. Report yourself to the nearest office of the International Criminal Court, and ask to be tried for war crimes. That’s all. Good luck.
“[they]will remain as long as the Iraqi government wants them to remain…”
Has always been code for “we will remain as long as the Iraqi government wants us to remain, and we will take steps to ensure that the Iraqi government will ‘ask’ that we remain until and unless we are ready to leave”.
To Give Advice
A bipartisan congressional delegation that included Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) had a blunt assessment Saturday for Iraq’s political leaders: Shape up, or America will ship out.
Obama, with Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr.
(D-Tenn.), arrived in Iraq on Saturday for a whirlwind trip that included meetings with American intelligence and reconstruction specialists and Iraqi election officials in the capital’s U.S.-protected Green Zone. They plan visits today with troops in outlying provinces.
Although the lawmakers said their constituents were proud of America’s accomplishments in Iraq, they were loath to commit further U.S. money and troops if the Iraqi government elected last month did not include all the country’s ethnic
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-congress8jan08,1,5328322.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true
On civil war in Iraq
I have a strong feeling that many readers are likely to think about American civil war when civil war in Iraq is discussed 🙁 The next natural step is to follow Reagan and look for the Iraqi North, South, Lincoln, Lee, etc! But there are 3 major problems with this.
— Iraq is nothing like US, Germany and Japan. Basically, it is not a present or former empire, but a former imperial province / colony.
— Besides American civil war, there are a few more major civil wars in modern history, for example, Russian, Chinese, Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Afghan civil wars. They are all completely different from the American one. For starters, the role of guerilla forces and warlords in Russia, China, Vietnam, not to mention Lebanon and Aghanistan – was much more important than in America.
— Most importantly, there is a huge difference between the material which is taught to kids – and horrifying experience described by Ambrose Bierce.
Let us hope that this delusion will be avoided.
1. Juan Cole. Baghdad Fuel Blockade and Possibility of “All Out Civil War”
2. Permanent location of this comment: 006-01-08 On civil war in Iraq
Managed democracy for export
In the late 2004, US vote-rigging practices were instantly exported to Ukraine. There local orangists did what Kerry did not – they fiercely disputed vote-rigging by their opponents.
In the US, vote-rigging is typically used to resolve 50-50 uncertainty: a small number of rigged votes is enough to get necessary 50%+. The difference is, in Iraq, we have 2/3-1/3 situation. Miraculously, Shiites and Kurds miss a small number of votes necessary to get 2/3, so Sunnis get into play.
Well, my guess is, it will not take long for Iraqis to figure this little trick out.
1. Richard A.Oppel Jr. Governing in Iraq may require broad coalition: http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/01/8iraq.html
The leading Kurdish and Shiite political groups probably did not win enough seats in last month’s national parliamentary elections to form a governing coalition on their own, and will have to persuade some Sunni Arab legislators to join their alliance, a Western diplomat here said Saturday.
The popular view among political parties here and the Iraqi news media has been that the Shiites and Kurds will likely have enough seats to form a government on their own, if by only a very small margin.
However, the Western diplomat said Saturday that an analysis of preliminary election results indicated that the Shiites and Kurds would need to include others to reach a two-thirds majority.
The preliminary results, the diplomat said, “suggest that together the Shia and the Kurds cannot reach two-thirds by themselves.”
2. Bob Fitrakis, Harvey Wasserman. Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election findings: http://www.globalecho.org/view_article.php?aid=6283
yes, there are Americans who believe that following the uprooting of the Saddam regime and Iraqi elections in which all sectarian groups took part, a continued large American military presence is no longer justified and will only serve to make us enablers with respect to Iraq’s dysfunctional tendencies. One way or another, they will have to learn to live with each other and that means each faction must reduce its maximalist demands. That’s what democracy is all about. As Churchill noted, it can be a messy process but beats all the others. Germans, Japanese, Ukrainians, Koreans, among others, can attest to that.
“One way or another, they will have to learn to live with each other”
Iraqis have been living with each other – and doing business with each other, and working with each other, and marrying each other – for centuries. They don’t have to learn anything, they just need the outsiders to get the hell out and stop stirring up trouble.
yea, and running a tightly controlled police state, gassing minority groups and murdering religious leaders (like Sadr’s Ayatollah father)and ethnic cleansing of Kirkuk and draining of the marshlands near Basra…and conscripting young Iraqis to fight Iran, Kuwait and other neighbors…not to mention the leader’s horny sons randomly rounding up attractive women to amuse themselves – some living with each other!
Hammurabi
What’s a” Rubbish” you put, is it Iraq history start with Saddam and end with him.
Can you be more honest in your wards and be real a man of his ward.
Unless you a shamed been a Muslim “I am guessing” or Arab Hammurabi, these days few behaving like this.
Henry James Wrote
— Iraq is nothing like US, Germany and Japan. Basically, it is not a present or former empire, but a former imperial province / colony.
This isn’t right Henry J. I believe you well aware that the history a Golden Aged of Islamic Empire was started from Baghdad when Islamic Empire starched over non Arab lands reached to China East, East Europe North, and Africa.
I believe your knowledge make me suspicious about your statement if it’s not missed so I guess its deliberate for some reasons you hided in your heart.
For more details read this may help you to remember if you missed…
Abbasid (Arabic: العبّاسيّون Abbāsīyūn) was the dynastic name generally given to the caliphs of Baghdad, the second of the two great Sunni dynasties of the Islamic empire, that overthrew the Umayyad caliphs. It seized power in 750, when it finally defeated the Umayyads in battle, and flourished for two centuries,
Abbasid Provinces during the caliphate of Harun al-Rashid
Not to mention Babylonian Empire all we know that ” Nabopolassar’s son Nebuchadnezzar II marched against the Egyptians and defeated them at Carchemish. Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned for 43 years, extended Babylonian political control over practically all of Mesopotamia. To students of the Bible he is known as the destroyer of Jerusalem and as the king who took the captive Jews to Babylonia. To archaeologists and historians he is known as the great builder and restorer. He reconstructed Babylon, his capital, in elaborate style and restored many temples throughout Babylonia.” The old Empire in addition to few other northern Iraq…
Helena,
(-: Thanks for criticism and kind word 🙂 Here is an updared variant, I hope now it is better.
The Biercian view of Iraqi war
I have a sad feeling that many in America compare the Iraqi conflict with the American civil war, but what they take for American civil war is very different from wiki prospective. The next natural step in this direction is to look for Iraqi North, South, Lincoln, Lee, etc. Well, there are 3 major problems with this.
— Iraq is nothing like US, Germany or Japan. Basically, at least after the 16c, what we now know as Iraq was not an imperial center, but a province of Iranian and then Ottoman Empires; after WW1 came the British. This is a very important difference!
— Besides American civil war, modern history knows other civil conflicts, for example, Russian, Chinese, Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Afghan civil wars. They are all completely different from the American one! In particular, the role of guerilla forces and warlords in China, Vietnam, not to mention Lebanon and Aghanistan – was much bigger than in America.
— Finally, there is a huge difference between “idealistic” material taught to kids – and horrifying experience described by Ambrose Bierce. Let us hope that this delusion will be avoided, it is time for the Biercian view of Iraqi war.
1. Juan Cole. Baghdad Fuel Blockade and Possibility of “All Out Civil War”: http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/17-us-troops-killed-in-iraq-baghdad.html
2. Permanent location of this comment: 006-01-08 The Biercian view of Iraqi war
Another piece.
SFgate on Iran
This article is a hilariously ignorant piece of islamohobic PR. Contrary to SFGate news hack and legions of propagandists before him, what we find in wiki comes to the following.
— In WW2 Iran was neutral. not a German ally. In 1941, Iran was occupied by Britain and USSR. Pahlavi Jr. ruled the country since 1941. As it is well known, in his later years, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became staunchly pro-American.
— In 1979, Khomeinists who currently rule Iran, deposed the Pahlavi dynasty, they are fiercely anti-monarchist.
— Mufti of Jerusalem has absolutely nothing to do with Pahlavi, he was a Sunni while Iranians are Shiites.
1. Edwin Black. Denial of Holocaust nothing new in Iran: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/08/INGODGH99Q1.DTL
Iran’s axis with the Third Reich began during the prewar years, when it welcomed Nazi Gestapo agents and other operatives to Tehran, allowing them to use the city as a base for Middle East agitation against the British and the region’s Jews.
Relations between Berlin and Tehran were strong from the moment Hitler came to power in 1933. At that time, Reza Shah Pahlavi’s nation was known as Persia. The shah became a stalwart admirer of Hitler, Nazism and the concept of the Aryan master race. He also sought the Reich’s help in reducing British petro-political domination.
So intense was the shah’s identification with the Third Reich that in 1935 he renamed his ancient country “Iran,” which in Farsi means Aryan and refers to the Proto-Indo-European lineage that Nazi racial theorists and Persian ethnologists cherished.
The idea for the name change was suggested by the Iranian ambassador to Germany, who came under the influence of Hitler’s trusted banker, Hjalmar Schacht. From that point, all Iranians were constantly reminded that their country shared a common bond with the Nazi regime.
Shortly after World War II broke out in 1939, the Mufti of Jerusalem crafted a strategic alliance with Hitler to exchange Iraqi oil for active Arab and Islamic participation in the murder of Jews in the Mideast and Eastern Europe. This was predicated on support for a pan-Arab state and Arab control over Palestine.
2. Wiki on Mohammad Reza Pahlavi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi_of_Iran
Helena
I found this in yesterday’s LA Times.
It predicts that Iraq will revert to a government by Saddam Lite.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-belkin9jan09,1,529242.story
How sad. What a waste of blood and treasure.
Shortly after World War II broke out in 1939, the Mufti of Jerusalem crafted a strategic alliance with Hitler to exchange Iraqi oil for active Arab and Islamic participation in the murder of Jews in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. This was predicated on support for a pan-Arab state and Arab control over Palestine.
If we think about Germany we never forgot the Holocaust that crimes never been heard in the humans live.
Just remainder that Theodore Herzel motive for his ideology was
”Herzl was in Paris when a wave of anti-Semitism broke out over the court martial of Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish army officer. Dreyfus, falsely accused of espionage and banished to an island prison, was divested of his rank in a humiliating public ceremony in January 1895, as a mob shouted “Death to the Jews. Herzl became convinced that the only solution to the Jewish problem was the mass exodus of Jews from their places of residence.
The Dreyfus case motivated Herzl to devote thought and effort to the Jewish problem. He formalized the concept of emergence from the Diaspora (the dispersion of the Jews) and return to Zion in The Jewish State. In the Jewish State, he proposed, for the first time, a program for immediate political action.”
It isn’t really what you quoted above and Theodore when he start his thinking way back and he heard or lived the Jew suffering in France Spain, East Europe and so on.
The history never tell us that the Jews suffer under Arab/Islamic regimes just when the call for State of Israel started then the mixing happened between Zionist whom they clamed the Jews State and the Jews as a religious group with the Palestinians were enforced to leave their lands.
At 3:52 PM, helena said… So Juan, I guess we’d all like to hear a little more about the “redeployment plan” you laid out last July, in which reliance on US air power was a major factor. Have your views changed since then? Please tell us why.
Well, of course I noticed this shift 😉
Technically, reliance on air power in a guerilla war does not make much sense. It is quite obvious that locals will abuse it to settle their scores.
Anyway, I am really glad that Juan Cole has finally changed his mind.
“reliance on air power in a guerilla war does not make much sense. It is quite obvious that locals will abuse it to settle their scores.”
Ah yes, of course! The problem with U.S. reliance on air power in a guerilla war lies with the “locals”, and the “obvious” fact that they will use it to “settle their scores”.