Things Are Critical In Iraq – Again
We’re in danger of becoming immune to this from overexposure, but we’ve reached yet another critical junction in Iraq, as pressure builds on the Moktada al-Sadr-backed Ibrahim al-Jaafari to step down in light of his failure to build a unity government in the 6 weeks since he was appointed Prime Minister. Condi Rice and Jack Straw made it clear that the prime minister should step down without actually saying so:
Ms. Rice and Mr. Straw, who came here unannounced in a driving rainstorm from a meeting in England punctuated by antiwar protests, told reporters they did not want to intervene in the dispute over the prime minister. But at the same time they pointed out that Mr. Jaafari had been unable to win enough political support to form a government since his nomination on Feb. 12.
“They’ve got to get a prime minister who can actually form the government,” Ms. Rice said after a meetings with Iraqi leaders — which included a visibly uncomfortable photo session with Mr. Jaafari — inside the Green Zone, the fortified part of Baghdad that houses the Iraqi government and American Embassy. She added, “I told them that a lot of treasure, a lot of human treasure, has been put on the line to give Iraq the chance to have a democratic future.”
The problem is that al-Sadr will use his militias to avoid any decrease in power – the militias, the militias, always the militias.
Mohammed at Iraq the Model thinks the coming days will see shrill rhetoric, and perhaps worse, from the religious hardliners aimed at the American troops:
I think the coming days will show a stiffer attitude on the end of the religious hardliners and this includes both Sunni and Shia and we will also be hearing more tense and inflammatory statements that will focus more on rejecting the American presence, not only in the form of the calls to deport or replace the ambassador like the ones we heard during Friday prayers but I’m afraid some clerics are preparing to declare Jihad as the American presence represent the major obstacle facing their dreams of a religious state.
Such declaration will no doubt find support from regional powers that are interested in seeing Iraq and America fail especially that America’s failure in presenting a good example in Iraq will make America think a thousand time before trying to repeat the experiment anywhere else in the region.
Mohammed issues a wake-up call to the forces of liberalism:
Naturally most politicians do not want this land to be their grave but it won’t be easy for them to resist the pressure or stay away from the fire. I really think that clerics are leading us to a real disaster and it is time for Iraqis with brains and influence to put an end for this madness of the clerics. I don’t expect this to be an easy task but just as the religious succeeded in uniting themselves, the liberals must do better to overcome their differences and show more efforts to rescue their country from an imminent disaster.
Forming a unity government and activating the constitution to stop the spread of fanaticism and control the militias cannot be done overnight but doing this as fast possible can greatly reduce the chances of the radical Islamists to manipulate the situation and I am asking the wise politicians of Iraq to start working now and to remember that their differences must not stop them from confronting a greater danger that threatens all of them without discrimination.
A cornered animal is often the most vicious – if we’re serious about doing something about the militias and the hard-liners, we can expect, though it pains me to say so, things to get even worse before they get any better…
“Things to get even worse before they get any better:” what would have to happen on the ground for you to decide that it’s time to leave?
I don’t mean this is a mean-spirited, rhetorical way — rather, what event or combination of events would lead you to say that the war effort ought to be abandoned?
Good question – I don’t want to give a glib, off-the-cuff answer…let me think on that one a while…
You could start with the estimation when Iraq’s own military force is on a basis where we can stand down our troops. Regrettably, that date is still many months away.
Yeah, but I think peter’s more after when we would give it up as lost…
Mark, take a look at this chart:
http://sayanythingblog.com/2006/04/01/why_the_media_is_really_quiet_about_iraq_casualtie/
If these figures are correct, then it does beg the question – are things really getting worse, or is the present situation in fact improving here?
Oh, I definitely agree that U.S. casualties are going down, mostly because we increasingly are letting the Iraqis take the lead – and that’s definitely a good thing.
When I say things may get worse in this context, I mean the sectarian violence, mostly – if we (we being the U.S. and all our allies, including the Iraqis) take on the militias, they will fight back – hard…
peter, I guess my short answer would be when the generals on the ground said the war was unwinnable. I suppose that’s dodging the question, though, so I would say this. If the various movements that are committed to democracy give in to violence, and the will to form a unity government disappeared, I would say we would have to start planning and implementing withdrawal. If there remains a substantial political will to put democratic institutions in place, form the government, and move forward, I’m prepared to stay for years.
I think the symbolism of the Rice-Straw visit is very important, and sends a similar message – we won’t stay indefinitely to preside over sectarian squabbling to no end – we’ll stay however long it takes if you want to move forward and get it done, already…
I think that’s a fair answer, thanks –
I understand the point of your answer to the question of when should we leave. I worry that it is not the role of the generals to make political decisions, and leaving will always be a political issue. In this intensely political administration, when will any active duty general risk his career by making such a statement?
Today we see that the second retired general is calling for the resignation of Rumsfeld. Is that a factor for you?
One condition of the Powell Doctrine was a clear understanding of how we would extricate ourselves, how we would know when we had accomplished the goal. That has to come from above under our system, and I am concerned that this condition has never been explained carefully.
masaccio, I’m not too persuaded by the views of retired generals simply because you can find a retired general who will back up either the pro- or anti- position on almost anything. I do agree that the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force and and a defined quick exit looks pretty good in retrospect. Clearly we find ourselves in our age-old nemisis of nation-building, yet again…
I don’t understand how anyone can think the US is concerned with nation-building in Iraq. Sure, vast amounts of our money (or the money we borrowed if you want) is being burned up, but the normal precautions to get RESULTS were deliberately avoided.
The whole slide into a state paralleling that of Lebanon just prior to its 15-year civil war has been predicted by so many mideast experts, it makes no sense to claim the results were not predictable — because they WERE predicted.
Personally I’d like to see more of the people who were RIGHT about this invasion given time on TV and in print.
But back to Condi Rice: it is utterly LAUGHABLE that the “threat” to Jaafari is that the US will pull out. You can hear Moqtada Al-Sadr: Oh no, don’t throw me in the briar patch! Considering the US pullout clears the way for him, the US has just sent the unequivocal signal to him: if you want a chance at the big power in Iraq, just keep stonewalling on sharing power — and you won’t have to.
Biggest. Screwup. By the US. EVER.
Iraq is not a screwup. It’s going exactly as planned. What was intended was destabilization of the region, with ensuing civil wars. In each country, while the population is busy killing each other, the US quietly goes about building permanent military bases [with private Republican contractors, financed by American middle-class taxpayers] and pumping oil [for the benefit of Exxon Mobil, now the nation's largest corporation]. Voila! Perfect. With any luck the civil war will go on for decades. We will, of course, lose quite a few American troops [whom we need to guard the pipelines] but they’re career military — cannon fodder. Who cares?
Drindl, it is interesting that the MSM recoils at the idea of actually ASKING our leaders some simple questions about the construction of bases.
I wonder, though… if no govt is formed, and Rice is stuck with carrying out the threat of pulling out… how will they sell the contradictory truths that the US is pulling out (due to “Iraqi failure” of course), while still keeping bases?
Stranger things happen, I guess.
Drindl, interesting, um, ‘theory’ – any proof, or are we supposed to just take it as self-evident?…
Mark,
This will give you some clues:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Of course, your other option to believing it’s all part of a plan is to realize it’s an abysmal failure. Come on, people, is there anyone out there who thinks this is the way it was supposed to turn out? Or that it was supposed to take this long, or kill this many people? Remember Donald Rumsfeld said, what was it, 3 months at the outside?
You have to admit you were either lied to or your administration is incompetent. Pick one.
So, Drindl, that document proves we want instability so that the price of oil will go up?
Talk about reading between the lines…
Look, it’s no good to say that we were either lied to or the administration is incompotent. You’re setting up a situation where you say (a) or (b), and you’re picking the choices.
One other option is that we underestimated the strength of the insurgency…and of course, there are others, as well…
Dmac,
Certainly makes for interesting reading, and thank God fewer parents will be getting bad news this month. Obviously this is the result of a pull back by American troops which seems to have left vital areas in the hands of dodgy militias. No doubt you have all read the latest figures on Iraqi deaths by so called domestic secruity forces, 900 in March alone. This does not bode well for a demiocratic Iraq.
No, what I’m saying is long term. The price of oil has gone up already because of instability. Notice how it never drops below $2.50 a gallon? That’s the floor now. But eventually… and when Rice is being honest, she admit’s it’s a generation away… the plan is that the US will control the oil spigot in the Mideast. The instability will pass, because we will have subdued those who oppose us, and installed oil-company friendly governments.
Which is all fine and good, except we are going to bankrupt ourselves achieving it.
In any case, you admit that we ‘underestimated’ the insurgency. That was a huge strategic mistake that anyone who had a clue about the history and circumstances particular to Iraq would not have made. Yet, everything that is happening there now was predictable, and predicted. So a possible fatal mistake has been made? Is anyone accountible for that?
There have been oil-company friendly governments in the Middle East since the discovery of oil there. Saddam was more than happy to trade with anyone who wanted his oil (see the Oil-for-Food scandal, and the French and Russian corruption). This is about politics and the War on Terror, not oil…
No Mark, it’s about oil.
You mention Saddam, who wasn’t an enemy when killed his own people (when he was oil-friendly with U.S.), but became an enemy after he stopped being oil-friendly with the U.S.
Also, Drindl’s piece makes some good points.
Were those that planned this war stupid to think it would turn out better, or just playing stupid?
Robert, I have little tolerance for conspiracy theories offered in an all-knowing tone without any backup. If you truly think the invasion of Iraq was about oil, well, I don’t think we have much to talk about. I notice you offer nothing to back up your opinions. Very well, opinions are all well and fine – you have yours and I have mine (hey, that rhymes). Nevertheless, clearly, to an disinterested observer not in thrall to conspiracy-mongering, the invasion of Iraq was an attempt to change the political dynamic of the Middle East and remove a long-term threat in the form of Saddam Hussein, who just this very day was charged with genocide…
‘Conspiracy theories?’ Please. Do you know anything about the history of Iraq? The last 100 years has been about oil. Period. Sure, it’s about ‘politics’ but what is politics about but power? And what does power want? Resources. Oil, water, gold, land. That’s what wars are fought over. The little people who fight them always think it’s about religion or something else, but the people in power get what they want. Follow the money… and who’s making lots of it? Dick Cheney for one [$9 million just last year]. That’s a fact, not a theory. It’s on his financial disclosure statements.
The US supported Saddam when he was murdering Kurds and Shia as long as the oil kept flowing. When he stopped cooperating, he had to go. End of story. There is no “war on terror” — that’s just a construct to get simple people on board. If we really were at war, wouldn’t we secure our borders and ports and nuclear and chemical facilities and transportation hubs? I mean, presuming we had an administration that was competent enough to do that?
Drindl and Robert no doubt are currently reading the great and all – knowing Richard Belzer for their informed opinions here. I hear he uses Oliver Stone for many of his sources as well.
And for their waking hours of the day, may I suggest some more appropriate attire:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
Drindl: “there is no war on terror”…
Really, I think that’s the signal that my time is up…sorry, got to catch a plane back to reality now!…
Sorry Mark– you’re on the wrong side of the looking glass. Reality is over here.
1. I don’t deny that you could find a retired general on any side of an issue, but I am not seeing any on the other side of Anthony Zinni. And I do not think active duty generals are likely to risk the remainder of their careers saying we need to leave. That is why I suggested considering their views.
2. I have never thought that oil was the principle reason for the invasion of Iraq. But this article by Kevin Phillips is of grave concern.
I hear ya – I shouldn’t just ignore their views – look, I won’t deny I’m not worried about Iraq…but worried is a long way from throwing in the towel. I think it’s premature…but I do think the Iraqis are in a position where they have to start making progress. I do detect a shift in the winds along the lines of, “okay, we’re not going to keep spending all this money and taking all these casualties if you guys don’t get serious about negotiating a real government that is serious about running this country’…
Well, apparently I cannot figure out the href stuff. Here is a tinyurl for the Phillips article.
http://tinyurl.com/oaz7p
Mark said, about Drindl, “I notice you offer nothing to back up your opinions. ”
To say this, Mark had to quite forcefully ignore that Drindl wrote:
Mark,
This will give you some clues:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Which is to say, he had to ignore that many of the most powerful proponents of the war wrote a document that proclaims the whole neocon dream about the middle east.
Drindl, you offer a a false choice. You ask, liars or incompents? I say BOTH.
I think the necons wanted to one over the taxpaying masses (lied), but were truly incompetent in the planning of the invasion and aftermath. I don’t think the chaos completely supports their cause, because it really threatens US control in the region. The Kurds have been quite friendly to the US, for example, but Kurdish autonomy may make Turkish intervention unavoidable, and that would not be favorable for US control. Another example: the leverage that Iran can exert quite easily in Iraq is not favorable for the US.
I guess you say, in the long term it won’t matter, but what a stupid deadly and reckless way to gamble.
Oooh, the neocon boogeyman! I’m scared…
Actually, I made the comment about offering nothing as backup to Robert (see comments number twenty and twenty-one)…
Tell me, what kind of a conspiracy is it when you give out links to a pdf file of an official document? There’s no hidden history here, it’s all in plain sight….
Who said it was a conspiracy? Not me. It was hidden in plain sight, because the media won’t touch it. But it was a game plan. It started with a ‘catastrophic event like Pearl Harbor’…
Oh, so the government knew about 9-11, did they? Drindl, please…take a big dose of grow-up…