Last weekend, Czar George tried to deliver a direct personal veto to Iraq’s dominant parliamentary bloc, the UIA, regarding its still-extant nomination of Daawa Party head Ibrahim Jaafari to be (remain as) Prime Minister. That apparently backfired.
Now, the US-backed plotters have managed to persuade a number of UIA personalities to come out publicly to back the call that Jaafari step down. That link takes you to an NYT article by Kirk Semple and Thom Shanker, in which they report that a UIA member identified as Kassim Daoud had told them he and a number of other UIA parliamentarians now want Jaafari to step down.
They wrote that Daoud,
- said a sense of responsibility to end the gridlock [!!] had compelled him to speak out.
“We all hope that he will respond because we know that he is a statesman and he will take the country’s best interest into consideration,” Mr. Daoud, who would be a possible candidate for the post, said Saturday in a brief telephone interview.
A Jaafari aide, Jawad al-Maliki, said Jaafari had no intention of doing that.
This Reuters piece describes Daoud as “a senior member of the independent group within the Alliance”. Whatever that means. (Any more info about him would of course be very useful. Please send it in as a comment!)
This AFP piece also has a quote from Daoud along similar lines. The AFP reporter adds that,
- Saad Jawad Qandil, member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), one of the key parties in the Shiite alliance, also confirmed that a number of alliance members were asking for Jaafari’s withdrawal.
“There have been numerous calls from the members of the Iraqi Alliance, on an individual basis without being the view of the entire bloc, to change the current candidate of the alliance, Jaafari, to resolve the ongoing political crisis,” Qandil told AFP.
This is interesting and significant. Because although the main US-backed candidate for PM is SCIRI pol Adel Abdul-Mahdi, in recent days– until now– SCIRI spokesmen have been rejecting US intervention and expressing continued (if perhaps not terribly fervent) support for Jaafari.
As I noted in my March 29 post here, the US claim that there is an “impasse” in the Iraqi government-formation process is quite disingenuous, since it has been US meddling that has caused the impasse so far.
Also of note: that Ayatollah Muhammad al-Yacoubi has now openly entered the Iraqi political fray. Ed Wong of the NYT wrote in today’s paper that in his Friday sermon yesterday that Yacoubi– who is the head of the pro-Sadrist Fadilah Party– called for the Bush administration to replace Zal Khalilzad as US Ambassador in Iraq…
Wong wrote that Yacoubi said,
- that if the Bush administration “wants to protect itself from more failure and collapse, it should change its ambassador in Iraq, honestly and seriously build strong national military forces able to secure the country, and end the claims to occupation that are the main source of the evolution of terrorism.”
Fateful days in Iraq, indeed.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/786/re11.htm
“”Since 9 April 2003, the US has been trying to foment sectarian tendencies. This may explain the tensions we see today. Doctrinal differences within Islam were never a big deal. Islam is open to many interpretations after all. Shias and Sunnis are more united by religion than divided by interpretation. Islam has also been a uniting force for Kurds and Arabs. This is not something that occupiers wished to encourage. The occupiers adopted a policy of divide and rule. The US had only one post-war scenario, and it was based on pitting Sunni against Shia.””
Juan Cole is also reporting about this possible split of the UIA. He merely repeats the press reports, without further analysis. However in the comment section SWOPA finds these reports suspicious. His Needlenose blog offers some insight about Dawoud. To sum it up : Dawoud had security responsibilities in Allawi’s government. It’s not clear how he ended up on the UIA list at the last elections. He seems to believe that he has a chance of becoming prime minister if Al’Jaafari is forced to step down. To my ears this sounds more like psyops, trial balloons coming from outsiders.
The most interesting remarks of SWOPA is that perhaps SCIRI is playing a double game here, because the spreading of the US rumors concerning this split, may well help kill Al’Jaafari’s candidature. I’d add that it remains to be seen whether this would benefit to the SCIRI and Al’Mahdi, or whether this would benefit to another third “neutral” candidate of the UIA.
Given the fact that Al’Jaafari was elected by the UIA with only one vote more than Al’Mahdi, it’s quite a performance that the UIA didn’t split yet, despite of all the US pressures. If the alliance hasn’t yet split after all these weeks, is there any chance for it to split now ? It seems clear that recently the US has tried to gain Sistani on his side, but that he didn’t comply.
Al’ Yaqoubi of the Fadhila party called for Khalilzad’s resignation at the Friday prayer. Sounds like you don’t want Jaafari, so we don’t want Khalizad.
Abbas Khadim, an Iraqi academic living in the US has an interesting article in Al-Ahram. It illustrates how the Shiites feels about the actual US policy change in Iraq.
Qasim Dawud is another exile who returned in 2003. His small party, the Movement of Iraqi Democrats, was part of Allawi’s list in the January 2005 elections so he may well be among the more secular-leaning figures of the “independents” within the UIA.
WE WILL DO THE SERGURY BY OUR HANDS ,
“US made thousands of mistakes over Iraq”+ 1
“”US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Britain’s Jack Straw flew to Baghdad on Sunday and pressed Iraqi politicians to break their deadlock and form a unity government that can halt a slide to civil war.
“The Iraqi people are losing patience,” Rice said after meeting Sunni, Shia and Kurdish leaders. On the delay of nearly four months in forming a government since elections, she said she had told them: “Your international allies want to see this done.”
Pressure on Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari looked almost irresistible as a leader of the biggest party in his ruling Shi’ite Alliance joined others in publicly breaking ranks and calling on him to step aside in the name of national consensus.””
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-04-02T182752Z_01_GEO222768_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-RICE-STRAW.xml
Over at Alive in Baghdad I posted the proposal for withdrawal that my friend Ali Shalal Abbas made to me this morning as he was speaking to me from Amman.
Please check it out. I’ll elaborate on my own feelings about it soon, either later tonight or early tomorrow.
Here is the mission statement for his organization, the Association of Victims of American Occupation Prisons:
A HUMANITARIAN ASSOCIATIONv NOT FOR PROFITS.v NOT SECTARIAN.v NOT ETHNIC.v DEFEND HUMAN RIGHTS, DETAINEES, PRISONERS, WHO ARE ACUSED IN RESISTING THE OCCUPATION, DEMANDING FOR RELEASING AND FOR THE MORAL AND FINANCIAL COMPENSATING DUE TO THE VIOLATION THEY FACED AND EXPOSING THE NON – HUMAN ACTIONS HAPPENED AGAINST THEM.v TAKING CARE OF THE DETAINEES, PRISONERS AND WHO ARE ACCUSED OF RESISTING THE OCCUPATION FAMILIES AS MUCH AS WE CAN.
And the permanent link:
http://www.aliveinbaghdad.org/?p=4732
Helena
This morning’s Telegraph has a poll that says 24% of the UK population agree with you and want withdrawal of UK troops from Iraq immediately.
another 31% agree with Juan Cole and I and want withdrawal within 12 Months. That at least gives people who have been working with UK forces, and would be shot as collaborators, time to bale out to Kuwait or Jordan.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/03/wirq03.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/04/03/ixportaltop.html
The efforts to find a new UK Prime Minister continue.
Frank,
12 months?! Why do you need 12 months except to help the Bush administration complete their program, kill more Iraqis, and destroy more of Iraq? Collaborators don’t need 12 months to bail. They can bail in one week. Stop stalling and just get out.
Shirin
Wes Clark who used to be Supreme Allied Commander Europe explained how withdrawal in contact works at a conference before Christmas. I dont know if it is still online.
It is frankly difficult and terrifying. If you are an 18 year old pfc and get off your vehicle to take a pee, you might get left behind and die horribly, alone.(see Kipling The Young British Soldier)
The only route out is south through the ports at Umm Qasr and Kuwait.
The Brits are essentially the rearguard and need to hold Basra, The bridges at Nasariah, and the road to Kuwait to allow the US divisions to get their armour and vehicles and people out.
After 50 years in Germany together we can’t just leave them to take their chances. Cunningham when he decided to risk his ships to evacuate the Brits and New Zealanders from Crete in 1941 said “it takes three years to build a ship, but 300 years to build a tradition”
Once the US pass through the perimiter then the incredibly difficult exercise of collapsing the perimiter can begin.
Read Gallipoli, or Dunkirk, or Corunna if you want to know how it is done. Xenophon is a good read if you want to know what is like trying to march to the sea in a hostile land.
I wish it were as simple as rolling up the sleeping bags, laying timed charges on the ammunition dumps and running for the Hercules. But it is not.
That’s why I think it might take a year.
Frank wrote :
“Read Gallipoli, or Dunkirk, or Corunna if you want to know how it is done. Xenophon is a good read if you want to know what is like trying to march to the sea in a hostile land.”
The real problem is that they shouldn’t be there at all. Why did they invade Iraq ? what are they doing in that foreign country which wasn’t a threat to them ?
You are overstating the difficulties there. It’s right that one can’t withdraw in one week. But one can withdraw in three months. If they were able to march into Baghdad in 40 days (or how many weeks was that already ?) Why should it take so many months to withdraw ? Common. what it takes is just good will. Fruther they can leave all their material there and, it’s rusty and worn out by sand. They just have to destroy it in a big firework (so that it won’t serve for further wars).
Christiane
You are spot on. withdrawing always takes much longer than advancing.
The key thing in a withdrawal is to keep it orderly.
There were thousands of French troops who drowned in the river after the battle of Leipzig in their panic to escape.
The big thing is to manage the fear associated with knowing that a vehicle breakdown might be fatal to everybody on board, and prevent panic breaking out.
You are right that it only takes goodwill but the troops know that there are people out there who have been killing and maiming them for three years and who have a few scores to even. There is always a temptation to fire a few rounds after a departing army.
Managing the fear requires very robust and detailed planning that people believe in and that is what takes the time.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20060320.html
Frank,
Yes, withdrawing may be longer than invading. But three months, not one day more. Anyone who says it should be longer is looking for pretexts to stay for ever. Anyone who says we will withdraw “when the conditions allow it” are in fact planning to be there for eternity.
US used to be an imperialist state at the economic level and with lots of military bases scattered all over the world. Since the Iraq invasion she is trying to build a colonialist empire in the older acception of the term.
at some point we have to start assuming that all this ‘destabilization’ in Iraq is not due to mistakes and general stupidity – rather they are doing it on purpose
I have assumed that for quite a while, Susan!
For sure Iraq is being deconstructed, not reconstructed.
For sure Exxon or Shell or Aramco or whoever will still get the oil even after the US troops leave, but only if they are able to successfully break the back of any nationalist movement in Iraq and promote sectarian strife and civil war.
Nigeria may be experiencing open rebellion, yet Shell and Chevron still manage to pump oil there.
As I’ve already said, Iraq, Afghanistan, and perhaps Iran may be destined to be restructured, or perhaps, “structurally adjusted” to look more like post-colonial Africa.
Even in South Africa, after years of oppression under apartheid rule, Nelson Mandela now supports the neo-liberal agenda and the predatory lending of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank institutions.
Perhaps now that we’ve been at the devastation of Iraq for 15 years the “American Left” is starting to realize, “it’s the economy, stupid.”
Deconstruction of Iraq = Huge profits for trans-national corporations.
Deconstruction of Iraq = Huge profits for trans-national corporations.
AIB, perhaps you’re unaware that Iraq shipped twice as much oil to the US under sanctions as it does now. ‘Sectarian strife’ is preventing it from pumping and shipping more. And over half Shell’s Nigerian production is currently shut in due to rebel violence there. They’re losing millions a day in opportunity cost. Plus repair costs, insurance on equipment and personnel, and permanent yield losses/geological damage incurred by capping wells. you clearly have no idea how expensive it is to idle an oil rig.
FYI Iran’s oil industry is already a basket case — its production in 2006 is half the level of 30 years ago. Which is why it’s angling to become a Chinese protectorate, offering Sinopec a majority share of Iran’s natural gas (worse than Anglo-Persian) in exchange for weapons technology and a security council vote.
Christiane
You might find this document of interest
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CWSC/pdf/Cambridge_LSE_May_2005/Wieland_Paper.doc
It describes the toing and froing prior to leaving the British leaving the port of Aden in 1967.
At what point in the 90 day withdrawal cycle would you tell the civilians to abandon the work they are doing and leave? Reporters, doctors, diplomats, tea ladies.
At what point would you abandon Baghdad airport? Once you do you are dependent on road transport.
Without wishing to put you on the spot these are the decisions that you as Chief of Staff have to take to implement a 90 day withdrawal.
These historical comparisons seem inapt, considering the US has total control of the air over Iraq, and there exists no coherent political or military entity ready to assume control once it inevitably leaves (which will be a welcome event, though it may take many years.)
Since the Iraq invasion she is trying to build a colonialist empire in the older acception of the term.
Where is the exploited workforce? The stolen mineral resources (see above re:oil production)? where are the US settlers? where’s the market for US goods?
Frank,
1) I agree with Christiane. There is simply no reason for withdrawal to take 12 months, except as an excuse to stay forever. (It doesn’t even need to take 3 months. The Israelis took less than a week to withdraw from Lebanon.)
2) You stated that a 12 month withdrawal would “at least” give collaborators time to bail to Kuwait or Jordan. That is a ridiculous reason to prolong the leavetaking. Collaborators can leave tonight and be in Kuwait or Jordan tomorrow morning. They could even walk it in that time from some parts of Iraq.
Where is the exploited workforce? The stolen mineral resources (see above re:oil production)? where are the US settlers? where’s the market for US goods?
I wrote that they were trying. I didn’t wrote that they were succeeding, or do you think there is any once of success in Iraq after three years of brutal military occupation ? When a US reconstruction corporation is only able to achieve the construction of 20 out of 120 clinics ? Yeah.. it brought a bunch of benefits to the American company, but how much did the Iraqi benefit of that money ?
Y’all could re-read the post I put here last July 6. Then, I wrote:
Given the need to muster the necessary sealift, airlift, and other logistics, I think that 4-5 months from the date that Washington makes the total-withdrawal decision to the time the last British squadron follows the last US troops out of the door would be about right. And contrary to what some folks say I believe that, once a total-withdrawal decision is made, announcing it as soon as possible will help ensure more calm for the period of the withdrawal, rather than less. Let’s face it, the Iraqis and most of their neighbors will be delighted by the decision!
The way the withdrawal is announced is part of the very essential political strategy that precedes/accompanies it. It would be crazy to imagine that this need be a withdrawal under fire.
Anyway, all three of those pieces I wrote last summer about the need for a withdrawal that is “speedy, total, and generous” still stand up well. (The links are on the sidebar on the JWN front page– including one that I just corrected, so now they all work.)
Indeed, such a withdrawal is more necessary than ever!
Helena
Thanks. I would go along with your five to six months.
Doing the withdrawal in a period of truce, where neither side fires on the other makes things simpler. Setting up the truce requires announcing the withdrawal.
I have no problem at all with people driving south with banners flying and bands playing, not defeated, just retracing their steps after a wrong turn on the road.
In the back of everybody’s minds is the picture of Gandamak during a similar withdrawal from Kabul.
http://www.britishbattles.com/first-afghan-war/kabul-gandamak.htm
Deconstruction of Iraq = Huge profits for trans-national corporations.
vadim, I rest my case.
Furthermore, lets not forget Chevron posted record profits in the middle of a “global economic downturn” in the wake of the previous Gulf War.
Neither trans-national corporations nor the United States needs Iraq’s oil today. What they need today:
1. the deconstruction of Iraq’s physical infrastructure-largely already achieved
2. the deconstruction of Iraq’s social infrastructure-well on it’s way.
I would suggest that the tacit support for Shi’a militias by the US until recently and the almost certain support by Iranian black ops has directly led to the climate of sectarianism.
Now we have a masterful act of global “strategery” occurring in the Middle East. The US appears to have succeeded in pushing the “Iraqi government” into a sort of zero-sum game for the Iraqi people.
Either accept Adel Abd Al’Mahdi or a similarly western-minded neoliberal as prime minister, OR accept inevitable descent into civil war now that the occupation and other state powers have effectively destroyed Iraq’s social fabric and the politicians are left to fight it out amongst themselves, with the Shi’a and Kurd blocs benefiting from Oil and other money as we move into the future.
However, there is another option, which leads me to recall the 80s film WarGames and this quote by the computer:
“A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”
I think the Iraqi people recognize their position, and there still may be a unified opposition and civil disobedience across sectarian and ethnic lines. Accepting a government established under occupation will never benefit the Iraqi people more than a government built on the national unity forged in opposition to an occupying force.
Unfortunately, I doubt WarGames was ever translated into Arabic….
Brian
The Endgame in Iraq
“Iraq is becoming a country that America should be ashamed to support, let alone occupy.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/opinion/02sun1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
” The possible fragmentation of Iraq is a most unwelcome prospect from the Israeli point of view. Some observers, locked in perceptions of a bygone era, might still think otherwise.”
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=23478
“هو ذا العراق الذي طالما حلمتم به خذوه، إنه لكم”، ها هنا البضاعة المسمومة التي قد يخدع منظرها تاجر البازار، فماذا يلزم لإشعال حرب عراقية-إيرانية جديدة وطويلة ودامية؟
http://www.aljazeera.net/KnowledgeGate/Templates/Postings/detailedpage.aspx?NRORIGINALURL=/NR/exeres/3162F040-1AFF-45F3-A18B-D58777BEBE51.htm&FRAMELESS=false&NRNODEGUID={3162F040-1AFF-45F3-A18B-D58777BEBE51}&NRCACHEHINT=Guest