The State of Iraq – Moon of Alabama

November 15, 2007

The State of Iraq

A look at Iraq:

Violence is down to last year’s level.
Parts of the Sunni resistance, some 70,000 men, have been temporarily bought off with U.S. money.
Al-Sadr has declared and is holding some kind of temporary truce to clean up his movement.
The Kurdish-Turkish conflict is on hold due to winter weather conditions.
Sectarian ethnic cleansing and the U.S. military has killed 1 million and removed 4.5 million people from the contested areas.
The U.S. force is at an all-time height of 175,000.
The Maliki government seems to be as ineffective and un-sovereign as ever.

As Tom Ricks reports from Iraq, the U.S. military sees this as a make or break moment.

In more than a dozen interviews, U.S. military officials expressed growing concern over the Iraqi government’s failure to capitalize on sharp declines in attacks against U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians. A window of opportunity has opened for the government to reach out to its former foes, said Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of day-to-day U.S. military operations in Iraq, but "it’s unclear how long that window is going to be open."

The solution that is thought of are more purple fingers.

The answer to many of Iraq’s problems, several military officials said, would be to hold provincial elections, which they said would inject new blood into Iraq’s political life and also better link the Baghdad government to the people.

I don’t think elections would matter. They even could make things worse. How and where would the refugees vote?

My suspicion is that all we see now is only a pause of the wider conflict. The trend from here will be again downward.

The numbers of U.S. forces will decrease. The bought sheiks will lose their current sponsor and look for new ones. Al-Sadr may decide he wants a bigger share of the government cake or Karbala and reignite his movement. In spring the Turkish-Kurdish conflict will likely flame up again. If refugees come back they will their houses looted or inhabitated by other people. The Shia government shows no signs and has no reason to abondon its partisan policies.

There are reports of Sunni on Sunni violence and Shia on Shia violence. The big groups seem to split into smaller fractions.

That may make it easier for the U.S. to control the mess a bit longer. But it will not better the state of Iraq or the situation of its people.

Posted by b on November 15, 2007 at 17:43 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Murdoch plants a big lie in the upcoming Australian elections.
Global media tycoon Rupert Murdoch has urged Australia to keep its troops in Iraq, saying victory is almost in sight there and in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile for off-topic satirical humour I recommend. this site, it shows you where all the comedy writers are now, unemployed and making way for reality show bullshit. 24 hours new is a big part of the upcoming death of the human race.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Nov 15 2007 18:16 utc | 1

Not quite OT:
Though Syria has an open door policy for Iraqi refugees, Palestinians are now barred from entering Syria for resettlement as Syria is already home to 450,000 Palestinian refugees and does not want more to settle permanently in Syria. Arab and Western governments, approached by the UN, have also refused to resettle this group.
Jordan refuses entry as well.
refug. int’l
Syria let a first group cross the border and settle at al-Hol refugee camp in the al-Hassekeh governorate in May last year. A second group was stranded at al-Tanf refugee camp, but those currently fleeing Baghdad can no longer access al-Tanf, home to 389 Palestinians.   Today, Palestinians fleeing Baghdad for the Syrian border have nowhere to go but al-Waleed, which lacks the infrastructure to support them.
irin news
When asked, by the UN, they spoke as one man, they want to go to Palestine. Israel refused. Brazil, Chili, New Zealand and Canada offered to take some. Brazil took a 100, Canada 54 (afaik.) Sudan offered as well, but the refugees refused. No ‘arab’ country offered.
The Excom, UNHCR’s governing body, however, has yet to engage. The Committee is composed of 70 member states from all continents. It includes UNHCR’s major donors (United States, European Commission, Japan, Sweden, Netherlands, Norway, a.o.), as well as several Arab states and Israel. The Excom has been unable, for political reasons, to reach a consensus for engagement based on Palestinian refugees’ right of return to their homes of origin located in Israel or the 1967 Occupied Palestinian Territory under Israel’s effective control.
UNHCR currently holds that its mandate is limited to Palestinian refugees outside the area of operations of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), such as Palestinians refugees in/from Iraq. UNHCR-Israel does not include Palestinian refugees in its mandate. Arab states are reluctant to cooperate with a UNHCR unable to hold Israel to account and ensure equal burden sharing with rich western states. Thus most Arab and western states – for different reasons – have been unwilling to provide temporary protection or resettlement slots for Palestinian refugees from Iraq. Only Syria, Jordan, Canada, Brazil, Chile and Norway have agreed to host limited numbers.
relief web
Palestinians in Iraq were NOT registered with UNRWA.
Palestinian, from Iraq, Iraqi Palestinians, are the lowest of the low…

Posted by: Tangerine | Nov 15 2007 18:41 utc | 2

There is one “funny” part in the Ricks piece:

Late last month, Crocker traveled to virtually every nearby Arab country except Syria and Saudi Arabia. His message, one official said, was “Look, you have got to get behind this because you’ve got to do everything you can to give all sides confidence.”

Looking at an Iraqi map, there are exactly two “nearby Arab countries” other than Syria and Saudi Arabia.
That would be Kuwait and Jordan – both of them more or less irrelevant. And Crocker “virtually” visited them?
Ricks has quite some humor, but this is devastating.

Posted by: b | Nov 15 2007 18:56 utc | 3

This is all pretty fantastic, and not in a good fantastic way. No surprise I guess, but the U.S. has come to believe in its own magical thinking – that after nearly 5 years in Iraq the stateside political metric of success which enables the occupation to continue (and has nothing to do with actual success) has been wholesale adopted by the administration and military. In lieu of the endless strategic disasters, they have elected to actively create a failed state instead. A failed state crafted to answer the political needs back in washington of reducing the levels of attacks against civilians and U.S. troops. And because this has achieved a limited reduction in violence (to 2006 levels) it can be (and is being) used (daily) against the rising forces of withdrawal.
Unfortunately, what looks good in washington is usually bad for Iraqis – in that they are being twisted around and manipulated into a perfect failed state where the sitting government is kept in a perpetual state of impotence while its enemies are being artificially strengthened. Even Sadr seems to see that in the New Iraq, everyone is on the U.S. welfare dole – provided they stop shooting at them.
Of course, this increases exponentially, not only dependency but creates in the process an exploding warlord society not beholden to the central government. But, beholden to the hapless U.S. paymaster, whom incidentally, must now stay longer to keep the program going.
This whole thing is like a big city mayor with a drug and crime problem, authorizing the police to stand on a ghetto street corner and throw drugs and money into the crowd – as a means of lowering the overall crime figures. This is beyond stupid.

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 15 2007 20:34 utc | 4

cloned
whatever traitorus australian government is chosen – they will of course obey their master, mr murdoch – there are no doubt valets from both parties cleaning his shoes, licking his ass & promising to go all the way with l b j

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 15 2007 20:58 utc | 5

Abu Aardvark seems to agree:

One comment: The officers interviewed in the story are agonizing over whether provincial elections would help bridge the political gap. I understand the hope that this could break the impasse, but I’m skeptical for three reasons.
First, it’s important to recognize the intense Sunni-Sunni political struggles unfolding, as I wrote about in some detail the other day, and think about how elections could be a trigger for bringing those undercurrents to the surface.
Second, as I mentioned the other day most Sunnis seem more preoccupied with the national level than the local – the new elections that they want are to the national Parliament. They are also intensely suspicious of anything which smells like partition, and promoting provincial over national elections could well trigger an intensely hostile reaction.
Finally, and most importantly, provincial elections sidestep the really important question: the relationship between these local militias and the central state. Without institutionalized control over the means of violence and a meaningful political bargain at the center, I just do not see any way to prevent a spiral into sectarian warfare. And thus, as Ricks quotes my argument, the current strategy is accelerating Iraq’s descent into a warlord state even if violence is temporarily down.

Posted by: b | Nov 16 2007 8:50 utc | 6

my comment on this at AA:
…[ And thus, as Ricks quotes my argument, the current strategy is accelerating Iraq’s descent into a warlord state even if violence is temporarily down. ]…
I can’t think of any other (rational) reason for this strategy other than 1) it will (and does) reduce violence, 2) which makes the current “surge” appear to be “working”, and 3) requires the occupation to continue, because dependency on U.S. forces has expanded beyond the Shiite government and now includes the former Sunni insurgency.
But as usual and keeping within precident, the long term logic and potential remains grounded in a wish and a dream.

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 16 2007 9:08 utc | 7

One can imagine just how bad it really is when even the NYTimes’ editorial page calls for
prosecution. Suggested Republican campaign slogan: Support our Mercenaries .

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Nov 16 2007 9:17 utc | 8

I think the war nerd is prone to claiming that there are three ways of dealing with insurgency: bribe ’em, nuke ’em, or get the hell out.
It would seem the US command presently is following strategy number one. Of course this has the effect of empowering the militias, so that if the US down the road would fail the payments they will come back that much stronger.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Nov 16 2007 16:16 utc | 9

@askod – another way is to bribe AND kill them …
Sunni Group Says U.S. Killed Its Members

A tribal group tapped by American forces to root out extremists here said Friday that more than four dozen of its members were killed during United States air and ground strikes north of the capital this week. But the United States military insisted that the attacks had been aimed instead at Al Qaeda and had killed 25 insurgents.
…
The attacks were mounted late Tuesday near Taji, a restive town 15 miles north of Baghdad, after American forces said they saw armed men in the area and detected “hostile intent.” Helicopters and airplanes strafed buildings, and ground troops later exchanged fire with men who had shot at them, according to the military version of events.
…
Yet Sheik Jasim Zaidan Khalaf, who heads one of the area’s American-backed tribal groups, known as an Awakening Council, said the Americans had erred in the attack. The sheik said his council had been active in purging the area of militants belonging to Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia, a homegrown Sunni extremist group.

Posted by: b | Nov 17 2007 6:00 utc | 10

Abu Aardvark

I attended a talk today by Stephen Biddle, a first-rate military strategist who has been working with General Petraeus, about military progress in Iraq
…
I just wanted to lay out Biddle’s best case scenario as he presented it: if everything goes right and if the US continues to “hit the lottery” with the spread of local ceasefires and none of a dozen different spoilers happens, then a patchwork of local ceasefires between heavily armed, mistrustful communities could possibly hold if and only if the US keeps 80,000-100,000 troops in Iraq for the next twenty to thirty years. And that’s the best case scenario of one of the current strategy’s smartest supporters.

Posted by: b | Nov 17 2007 7:37 utc | 11

b – 11,
Exactly as planned, or at least until the democrats take over and all the bolts explode off the pressure cooker lid – then it will be their fault for blowing the victory.
I fail to see why nobody takes this strategy seriously for what it is – a political holding strategy.

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 17 2007 8:24 utc | 12

Ghaith Abdul-Ahad from Basra: When night falls, the assassins gather in Hayaniya Square

The Sadr office in Basra has become the real centre of power in the city. Outside the large compound, dozens of cars were parked, white pick-ups with no licence plates, a few police cars and many of the assassins’ Toyota saloons. Bearded men wearing the Mahdi army’s colour of choice, black, came and went.
Behind a metal gate overshadowed by a big mural of Moqtada, were two separate doors, one for women and one for men.
In the men’s waiting room, a young militiaman sat behind a pile of visitor’s badges while men crowded around. To receive a badge, each visitor had to hand in his phone and his gun. An open drawer in the militiaman’s desk was piled high with firearms and Nokia mobiles.
Although I arrived early in the morning, the waiting room was full. A man in white robes with papers in his hand stood in front of the desk. “What do you want, Haji?” asked the militiaman, who looked to be still in his teens.
The man replied in a pleading voice: “My daughter needs an operation,” while pushing a handful of x- rays and medical reports into the militiaman’s face. “Do you have a phone? No? Here is a badge. Go to the social services committee. May Allah heal her,” the militiaman said.
The office is subdivided into committees, covering social services, security, culture and conflict resolution – the latter being a sharia-based tribunal. This is where most of the visitors went.

The British soldiers have learned the local customs:

To reach Basra airport, the last remaining British base in Iraq, you have to pass through a series of Iraqi and British checkpoints. I took an official taxi, one that is permitted to drive into the airport. At a British checkpoint, a young soldier with sandy hair and a dirty flak jacket stuck his head through the window and said: “Badges.”
The driver handed over his ID badge and I gave him my passport. He handed the passport back and kept the driver’s badge. “Money,” he said to the driver.
“Me no money,” the driver said in broken English, forcing a big smile on to his face. “Money, moneeeyyy,” said the soldier. He pointed at the driver’s shirt pocket. “Me no money … me badge please,” the driver said, laughing.
“You give money, I give you badge,” said the soldier. “Camera, camera,” said driver, pointing at the nearby British watchtower. “Money, money,” repeated the soldier.
The driver handed the soldier a 5,000 Iraqi dinar note, worth around £1.50.

Posted by: b | Nov 17 2007 8:49 utc | 13

RE post #12:
“The conservative British newspaper, The Telegraph, has named its top 100 most influential conservatives (and top 100 liberals), and coming in at #2 on the conservative list — right behind Rudy Giuliani, and just ahead of Matt Drudge, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh” — is Gen. David Petraeus.”
No other general, bar none, has been elevated to such a status. Now under his leadership in Iraq a policy has been hatched to play into U.S. partisan politics by providing metric evidence of success; specifically, reducing the number of attacks on U.S. forces. To achieve this metric evidence Petraeus has co-opted the tribal insurgent infrastructure in their own fight against the AQiI “occupation” in exchange for not attacking U.S. interests – in spite of the fact they are also mortal enemies of the U.S. supported Shiite government. How anyone can view this policy as anything other than a cheap temporary, and ultimately counterproductive to the max, policy is beyond me. Petraeus has achieved his status by delivering on republican demands to continue the occupation, at the expense of even an greater and more deadly blowback in the near future. It must be very painful to see his tenure for what it is, zero-sum propaganda.

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 17 2007 10:07 utc | 14

@anna missed – 14
I somehow have the feeling Petraeus is getting “prepared” for a more “leading role”.
WaPo headline on page A01 today: Petraeus Helping Pick New Generals

The Army has summoned the top U.S. commander in Iraq back to Washington to preside over a board that will pick some of the next generation of Army leaders, an unusual decision that officials say represents a vote of confidence in Gen. David H. Petraeus’s conduct of the war, as well as the Army counterinsurgency doctrine he helped rewrite.
The Army has long been criticized for rewarding conventional military thinking and experience in traditional combat operations, and current and former defense officials have pointed to Petraeus’s involvement in the promotion board process this month as a sign of the Army’s commitment to encouraging innovation and rewarding skills beyond the battlefield.
Some junior and midlevel officers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have been particularly outspoken in their criticisms, saying the Army’s current leadership lacks a hands-on understanding of today’s conflicts and has not listened to feedback from younger personnel.

It is complete spin to display this as a demand of the junior officers.
Those junior officers have spoken out for a peer-review for promoting, i.e. Captains reviewing other Captains for who will become Major, Colonels reviewing other Colonels for who will become Brigade General etc.
Now a four star General will select “trusted” Colonels to become Brigade Generals. That is certainly no the change in promotion policy that is sold here.
It is in fact the “#2 influential conservative” selecting more conservatives into leading army positions.
Indeed:

“Dave Petraeus in many ways is viewed as the archetype of what this new generation of senior leader is all about,” Scales said, “a guy . . . who understands information operations, who can be effective on Capitol Hill, who can communicate with Iraqis, who understands the value of original thought, who has the ability through the power of his intellect to lead people to change.”

Has the White House arranged this to bypass SecDef Gates in promoting people?

Posted by: b | Nov 17 2007 10:24 utc | 15

Stole this comment by Michael Murry at PL’s.
Babak Makkinejad wrote:
“I do not think that anyone not in Iraq can form any reliable opinions about what is going on in Iraq or were she is going.”
I agree with this statement as it concerns what happens to the terribly abused Iraqi people. Ultimately, the people living in Iraq will have the determinate say in how they live their lives.
However, American policy does not concern itself with what happens to the Iraqi people. American policy concerns itself with what happens to the American policy-making “elites.” This incestuously inbred group — which typically forms the “government” of the United States — reacts to one and only one thing, as the late Barbara Tuchman wrote in her classic March of Folly: namely, “intimidation by the rabid right at home and the public dread of [Bogeyman du jour]-ism that this plays on and reflects.” Events in Iraq only concern America’s governing claque to the extent that propaganda salesmanship can feed American perceptions of them into the hyped public revulsion to [Terror]-ism, Abstract Angst, Reactionary Panic, Mystical Dread, or just-plain-old Fear Itself that keeps Americans subservient and docile, generation after generation.
Since Americans do not tend to know this important truth about their own abject and declining situation, it should come as no surprise that — well-intentioned web forums like this one notwithstanding — they know even less about the alien and opaque civilization and cultures of the Middle East.
The American ruling claque has (if you will pardon the expression) gotten its collective tit caught in one hell of a wringer — again — yet can only continue doing the one bureaucratic thing it knows how to do: keep on turning the fear-and-loathing crank in the same direction. Like the simplest, mindless BASIC computer virus, it endlessly repeats, “START: GO TO START.”
Again, the Big Question for the imperiled American regime does not concern Iraq, per se, but rather which Americans will pay which other Americans How Much, When, and For What? The put-upon and traumatized Iraqi people cannot decide this American domestic political question. Only Americans can. Yet to keep the average American from rendering a decision in his or her own interest, the American ruling claque continues staging the Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran Horror Puppet Show to distract and scare Americans shitless so that they remain what Gore Vidal called “The United States of Amnesia;” what Studs Terkel called “The United States of Alzheimers;” and what I prefer to call “The Land that Forgot Time.” America as a nation — by “intelligent design” of its ruling corporate claque — has no memory but the moment, and that has already passed into the ever-receding, fantastical future where projected denial wages “long wars” against peace in the present.
Posted by: Michael Murry | 16 November 2007 at 08:21 PM

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 17 2007 19:19 utc | 16

Back to Main