Most Iraqi voters will go to the polls Sunday. As so often, Reidar Visser has been doing the best, most systematic, and well-informed reporting on the important political developments of these days. The picture he paints (1, 2, 3) is troubling indeed.
He notes that the big issue in the election is still “Debaathification”, that is, continuing to pore over the extremely divisive and painful issues of the past rather than looking to the future…
Not surprising, maybe, since the present and immediate future both look fairly grim. But certainly, given both the worrying political news, as described by Visser– and by Raed Jarrar, see below– and the continuing large-scale security breaches, the situation in pre-election Iraq seems very far from the rosy picture given in this latest big Newsweek article.
Why on earth have the Newsweek people been doing this? This article includes this:
- The elections to be held in Iraq on March 7 feature 6,100 parliamentary candidates from all of the country’s major sects and many different parties. They have wildly conflicting interests and ambitions. Yet in the past couple of years, these politicians have come to see themselves as part of the same club, where hardball political debate has supplanted civil war and legislation is hammered out, however slowly and painfully, through compromises—not dictatorial decrees or, for that matter, the executive fiats of U.S. occupiers. Although protected, encouraged, and sometimes tutored by Washington, Iraq’s political class is now shaping its own system—what Gen. David Petraeus calls “Iraqracy.” With luck, the politics will bolster the institutions through which true democracy thrives.
Some of this is just flat-out wrong. The decrees of the “Debaathification Commission”, which prohibited many of the candidates from participating, were nothing if not “dictatorial”.
But the whole upbeat tone of the report was also highly misleading. The cover of the U.S. edition of Newsweek even featured– apparently without any irony– that famous photo of George W. Bush strutting across the aircraft carrier with the big banner stating “Mission Accomplished” behind him. Why do they feel they need to do this, nearly seven years after Bush’s launching of that infamous, damaging war?
The only possible reason I can think of is that the editors there are eager to get Americans into a more feel-good mood about war in general…. just in time for the next one…
But as analysis, it’s disgraceful.
You’ll find much better analysis from Ra’ed Jarrar, here, at Truthout.
He writes this:
- The Iraqi Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) is fully controlled by members of the current five ruling parties. Thus, many Iraqis, especially from opposition parties, don’t believe the IHEC is fair and balanced.
What adds complication to the already tense situation is that only a few hundred international monitors are participating in these elections, and many of them have not been there long enough to monitor the preparations and set-up process. For example, most US organizations that have sent international monitors to Iraq’s past elections are not sending any at this time -some of them due to a lack of funds, others because of the lack of interest and security concerns. Last month, 28 US Congress members, including the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and two chairmen of his subcommittees, sent a letter to President Obama asking him to pay more attention to the Iraqi elections. The letter urged Obama to “allocate emergency funds for US NGOs and encourage them to go to Iraq to observe the election,” but the White House does not seem to have considered that appeal.
In addition to the absence of international monitors and lack of IHEC credibility, rumors about the impending theft of elections have been creating an atmosphere where the slightest claim of fraud might lead to Iranian-style post-election unrest.
… Even if this election proves to be inclusive, fair and transparent, there are other threats to a peaceful transition of power to the upcoming democratically elected government. The Iraqi armed forces continue to be infiltrated by militias and controlled by the current ruling parties.
… There is a high probability that Iraq will face a political meltdown after these elections. There is also the possibility, if al-Iraqiya wins the elections, that ISCI and other ruling parties backed by the Iranian government might stage a military coup. Most Iraqis would agree that the upcoming months will most probably bear a lot of bad news.
However, for the US, this should not affect withdrawal plans. There are two approaching deadlines for the US withdrawal from Iraq: President Obama’s plan to withdraw all combat forces and end combat operations by August 31 of this year and the US-Iraq bilateral security agreement’s deadline for all troops to withdraw by December 31, 2011.
… The situation in Iraq is horrible, and it will most likely deteriorate further this year, but that should not be used as an excuse to delay or cancel the US withdrawal from the country. Prolonging the occupation will not fix what the occupation has broken, and extending the US military intervention will not help protect Iraq from other interventions. The only way we can help Iraq and Iraqis is to first withdraw from the country, and then do our best to help them help themselves – without interfering in their domestic issues.
Newsweek article whatever motive behind it, it’s clearly both David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have many times working close with Iranians to setting things together!
“The only possible reason I can think of is that the editors there are eager to get Americans into a more feel-good mood about war in general…. just in time for the next one…
Again and again there is no war with IRAN, this just hot air for sucking more money from the gulf sheikhs
The Iraqi Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) is fully controlled by members of the current five ruling parties.
Wonder why the writer hid the name who these five ruling parties relay on, in fact midwife by?
One of the apparent contradictions in US foreign policy is exemplified by its love-hate relationship with religious parties. This is because the underlying policy is to fight against any socialist (aka ‘atheist-communist’) or working class (secular aaka ‘atheist’) nationalist currents.
For purposes of de-Baathification ‘Baathists’ include those promoting Arab nationalism and socialists. Knock them out of the electoral equation and pretty well all that you have left (with any kind of independent politics) are islamic parties of one kind or another. Or anti-Arab nationalists.
This is why, years after the proclamation of the War on Terror, the default position of the US, (whenever CIA agents of the Egyptian/Jordanian kind are unavailable or discredited), is to seek out the local Al Qaida types or the more obscurantist and authoritarian shia people.
In fact the US finds it extremely difficult to deal with any non-Europeans unless they are corrupt and ready to do as they are bid. This is often what lies behind charges of irrationality, fanaticism and medievalism levelled against muslim politicians: if they are not corrupt and ready to betray their own people, the theory is that, if they are not just putting on a show in order to extort more from Uncle Sam, they are crazy.
And they are crazy, it is thought, because they are standing in the way of the providential unfolding of history which ends with the revelation that all the world must follow America’s diktat. Which would not be hard to do if they simply anticipated its desires and strove to fulfill them.
Iran is the big dog in Iraq.
BAGHDAD (AP) — As the U.S. prepares to withdraw its forces from Iraq, Iran is said to be working hard to fill a potential power vacuum — an effort that faces its first big test in Sunday’s elections, in which Tehran is backing hard-liners against a coalition of moderates.
There are no reliable opinion polls, but the Shiite coalition, which is led by clerics and calls itself the Iraqi National Alliance, is expected to do well against Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a moderate Iraqi whose bloc is dominated by Shiites but also has Sunnis and Kurds.
Whichever bloc wins the most seats in the 325-member parliament gets to nominate the next prime minister.
Yes, the Newsweek story sounds like a prequel to a full rewrite of history. “the editors there are eager to get Americans into a more feel-good mood about war in general…. just in time for the next one…” It probably reflects the views of some in the military who want to declare victory and leave.
However, others seem to want to take full advantage of election turmoil and “delay” withdrawal. There is a stream of stories about Odierno and others advocating a “moratorium.” That’s certainly understandable, since the US has yet to achieve whatever it was they wanted to achieve in Iraq. They simply can’t quit now.
How the domestic political battle (internal military battle?) plays out will indeed have a powerful impact on how soon the US makes its next military intervention. In any event, Iraq must be seen as a success to convince Americans that the next war will be a success, too.
I’m not sure I agree, Helena.
The Newsweek article is grossly over-optimistic, but isn’t that useful? Soothing US fears about the future in Iraq. The main aim is to get US troops out of Iraq, is it not? We all know that there is no future for Iraq as long as US troops are there. Therefore, anything which gets them out of the way is not so bad.
Note that Ra’ed Jarrar is unhappy about the political process, but he still thinks the US ought to get out, without any slow-down.
I do think Reidar has been very down about the Iraqi political process. It is obvious that there is endless in-fighting on the run-up to the election. The Debaathification process has not been very nice.
It should not be forgotten that Iraq continues to be in a very difficult situation. The Kurds are continuing to undermine Baghdad, let alone internal conflict within the Shia alliances. I’m not that surprised if some extreme political acts have taken place.
It’s a natural outcome of the Iraq War, after all.
So pathetic of some one bluntly calling it “a Natural Outcome”. Its clearly his speaking in reflects how he is out of the blue planet, spacailly from his US surgical polatics in Iraq war.
To refresh the short meomery of some who thinks in same way, after the invasion of the country with the raise and incerasinlg insurgance with majority of Iraqis opposed US invasion of their country, these were detailed,documented in may news media outlets and polls. US found itself in the medill of nowhere for losing control with high cost really were looked ugley to US Pathatic and war crminal GW Bush.
Then the doors open to Iran’s Quds Forces and Iranain to play thier game, you started to hear etnic, sectarian claesning which never beeen as norm in iraq mosaice sociality, at that time US have start breathe again with more heavily Iranian’s support inside Iraq.I may pick your attentions its have nothing to do with Shiites Iraq remember the big fights in Najaf, Karbla, Basra and other southern Iraqi with majority Shiites cities which most of have ugly and bloody fights against Iranians, and US forces.
The person who wrote about Iraq war outcome as “a natural outcome” showed how arrogance US military should ashamed been a US military worriers.
Zybari, Kuwait, Saudis, Syria, Jordan, Turkey all interfere with the election in Iraq…. Is there any missing neighbour state fro the list?
wonder if the Iraqi foreign minister do not know the total number of neighbours that sharing the borders with Iraq
اتهم وزير الخارجية العراقي هوشيار زيباري الكويت وايران والمملكة العربية السعودية وسورية وتركيا والأردن بالتدخل في الانتخابات التشريعية العراقية المقررة يوم الأحد المقبل، وأشار الى ان هذه الدول كلها تدخلت بدرجات متفاوتة قبل ثاني انتخابات عامة يشهدها العراق.
http://www.sotaliraq.com/iraqnews.php?id=59272