Solving the mess in Iraq

Remove all ads!

HAHA, chandos, you are so funny sometimes.

 

You both make an interesting point -- can a died in the wool <insert party> supporter ever bring himself to admit that a high profile member of the opposite party did something right? People like me vilify Bill Clinton and his wife, while those on the other side do the same to Bush. One thing I like about the Obama campaign is that he seems to be trying to reach beyond party posturing.

Back to Iraq, though -- one reason that the US is there may very well be to secure the <relative> stability of the area for the sake of their ally Israel. When things get wild in the Mideast, that usually means someone's gonna take a few shots at Israel. Now some might argue that the US presence in Iraq actually makes things MORE dangerous for Israel. I don'[t have any solid articles to go on here. So someone with a Jewish connection tell me -- does Israel want the US to stay in Iraq?

 

I think the best hope for the future of Iraq as a stable and independant nation lies in the Awakening Council. From what I've seen, this is the first time the Sunnis and Shi'ites have worked together in this nation's history, though I could be wrong. Does anyone know any more about these guys?

 

There is no doubt that Kieth Olbermann is a liberal - and proud of it. However, I wonder where else you would expect Mr. Firedman to get an interview? Obviously, Fox News and The O'Reilly Factor won't invite him as a guest, and CNN does it's best to select the least political people possible - they won't take anyone who takes a strong stand on any issue or who either side finds even mildly offensive. Perhaps you would prefer Mr. Friedman go to some satirical news show like The Daily Show, or The Colbert Report? A show like Countdown is the only serious news program he can get on, and it's not surprising that it's a liberal program.

(As an aside, I'm curious as to why you bring up the Webb-Hagel Bill, as that isn't mentioned anywhere in the 4 minute video clip I linked to.)

By definition, a dyed in the wool supporter will not switch to another party. You have to be somewhat moderate to admit they did something right. While I'm a Democrat, I have voted for several Republicans over the years. The reason I villify Bush is he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and failed spectacularly.

After a quick google search, I came up with these search results. As you can see, the most recent news reports are 6 months old. That might be because according to Wiki all such Awakening groups were disbanded because of their militaristic nature, and also because they operated outside of government control. They were effectively a seperate military organization apart from the official Iraqi army. An excerpt:

 

@Aldeth, the support for the Webb-Hagel Bill is at his website votevet.org. I just personally feel that several of the other bills that are on the floor are better.
Why would you feel that he wouldn't be treated equally on fox? Did you see the interview of Hillary Clinton by Bill O'Reilly? I honestly thought it was a very well conducted interview with neither side trying to demolish the other. I think thats why it ticked off both parties
I think in all honesty that Chandos & you feel about bush the same way LKD & i feel about clinton. The bad far outweighs any good that they accomplished. To each their own.

 

You give me far too much credit, as I would hazard to guess that you can think of at least one good thing that Clinton accomplished.

 

HAHA, bad aldeth! no cookies for you

 

Sure... he harpooned his wife's campaign....

 

Indeed, it seems McCain has to do that himself

 

Key Iraqi Leaders Deliver Setbacks to U.S.

and this one contains a few gems on 'permanent bases':

Bush pledges on Iraq bases a ruse, from the intrepid Gareth Porter, with illuminating insights into depeptive use of administration language:

EFPs, Straits of Hormuz incident, here we come! I couldn't make that up.

NOG,
the awakening councils are Sunni. Basically what the US did was to (cleverly) arm the Sunni, who had grown tired of Al Qaeda's proselytizing and bossing the locals around for being insufficiently Muslim, and worse, for denouncing the local traditions of interpretation of the Koran (which carry a great weight) as heresy, and (more on that later) for increasing tensions with the Shiites. The Sunni tribes are conservative, to say the least. They like their ways the way the are and want to keep it that way. Odds are they refuse this ridiculous novelty of democracy in Iraq too, but I digress. Such an assault on the traditional ways of the locals who liked to have Al Qaeda around as smart bombs to use against Americans meant that Al Qaeda overstayed their welcome, especially once they started to use violence against their hosts. It also gives you a glimpse into how radical Al Qaeda's idea of Islam actually is.

That means that the US basically bribed the insurgency, who happily took what they could get in US support, arms and money. That doesn't mean the alliance is permanent or borne of love. The US cleverly exploited a rift in Iraqi politics. As the awakening councils consisted of tribal Sunni sheiks and Sunnis, usually with army or intelligence background, (which explains their effectiveness in dealing with Al Qaeda) they posed, if armed or institutionalised, a counterweight to the Shiite dominated government in Baghdad. That explains the loud denunciations of the awakening councils from Baghdad. The awakening groups exist on, but now have an informal nature. As the above article indicates, US plans and the ideas of the Iraqi government are two different and distinctly separate sets of things.

Still, the carnage incited by Al Qaeda ruthlessly bombing Shiite civilians, just because, resulted in ethnic cleansing. Al Qaeda's man in Iraq, Al Zarqawi calculated that he would, if he only butchered enough Shiites, manage to incited a real civil war in Iraq - so he would both fight the hated Shiite apostates and the American infidels at the same time, and by hitting the apostates create enough chaos to thwart the plans of the infidels to create this 'new Iraq'. While his plan succeeded to a great extent, it deservedly cost him his life. The Shiites, perfectly aware of who was bombing them, improved their 'Operational Security', by casting Sunnis out. Al Qaeda was Sunni, so chances are that by casting out their Sunni neighbours they would also expel the Al Qaeda goons that hid among them, and of course, they would kill immediately anyone who could be identified as Al Qaeda or supporter, or for good measure, suspect supporter.

The result was ethnic cleansing with reprisals and atrocities committed on both sides in an escalating circle of violence, and the US inbetween, with 2 million or so refugees internally and 1 million externally out of a population of 25 million. To get an idea of the scale, in America that would mean roughly 24 million refugees internally, and half of that externally. That means that the Shiite government and the Sunni are unlikely to refind brotherly love any time soon.

The US helped in that by supporting the main culprit - the Iraqi Shiite central government. Today the 'quadrilage' in Baghdad, Petraeus 'new' strategy, separates quarters with concrete walls into gated, secure (= ethnically pure = less internecine strife) communities casts in concrete the results of the ethnic cleansing. The tensions between the groups are still there and unresolved.

In the meanwhile, the Kurds in the north build on their national independence, build an ethnically pure Kurdistan (begone Turkomans [ethnical Turks] and Sunnis!) and dream of their State that they envision to extend over Syrian, Turkish, Iranian borders. Something tells me that vision isn't going to go uncontested.

In face of this I perceive the talk from Darth Cheney's quarter about the sensibility and desirability of a military strike on Iran for their meddling in Iraq as irresponsible, demented, moon-howling-mad, utter lunacy.

 

Afterthoughts

Thinking of it, I can't say whether I find it more likely that the US will not get their deal or that they will get it.

Compared to the Iraqis the US are certainly the better lawyers. I have great professional respect for US lawyers - apparently law schools in the US do some things quite right. The Bush crew desperately wants this deal. It will be an important step for McCain, too. McCain has staked nearly his entire campaign on the "things are getting better in Iraq so why not stay?" It would be entertaining to see, while the US produce nothing but partisan bickering on this, the Iraqis pulling the rug under McCain and the entire pointless exchange by creating 'facts on the ground' and making the decision over a withdrawal for the US. It would certainly be a highly bewildering and iirc unprecedented experience for the US.

That means that Iraq is important for the GOP, too. That at stake means that the current administration will threaten the Iraqis with everything they have - freezing their foreign assets, cut their payments, do some serious arm twisting, arrest a lawmaker or two for being part of a 'rogue militia' and all other sort of niceties. At the same time they will undergo every effort to blandish and bribe the individual Iraqi lawmakers and their groups. As long as they get their majority, the administration can live with the opposition of Sadr who will with great probability resist US blandishments anyway (has has made a point of that in the past).

All this puts the Iraqis in a position they can work with. They are patient. The Iraqis have been playing those haggling-for-power games since under Saddam and longer. That breeds good hagglers. Considering Bush's position they might just decide to wait him out. They could do it if they could muster up the courage and unity to do it in spite of their massive internal divisions and the blandishments of people like Petraeus, Crocker and Satterfield. They have been seen playing a poor hand well.

Witness the hydrocarbon law that was supposed to turn Iraqi oil fields into a field of wet dreams for Big Oil. Privatisation of Iraqi oil to break the firm grip of Arab governments on the oil weapon (the neo-con/ neo-lib rationale for writing the law for the Iraqis)! It died a slow, quiet death. Now contracts are about to be issued under the old law, which keeps ownership and revenue firmly in Iraqi government hands. That must be from a neo-con point of view a major defeat.

On the other hand, considering that the US only need a majority there can come a time when you got to cut your deal because of the competition, and the Iraqi expertise at haggling suggests they are susceptible to the blandishments. It will be interesting to watch.

It certainly demonstrates that there are limits to what US power can do in Iraq in face of the interests of the Iraqi parties. What the US can do is to play the divisions to their advantage and apply force where necessary, which is what they are trying right now, and which is incidentally pretty much what Saddam did. But there is a limit to what you can ask people to do, and how often, when it hurts their, their faction's or their client's interests. And so far, US interests and Iraqi (that is Shia, Sunni, Kurdish) interests cannot be easily reconciled.
In face of this I find the can-do-talk of we can fix, reconstruct Iraq is well meant, but somewhat beside the point. Never mind the reconstruction - you bet that the Iraqis, once they sorted themselves out, will prove themselves up to the task. They don't do sabotage for the fun of seeing something burn. They aren't insane, they are purpose driven. There is no need to blow up a power line when there is no point in discrediting the central government or to extract/extort concessions when you got a fair deal. If the US insist on compensating the Iraqis, they will certainly still be willing to take US money for reconstruction even if the US withdrew. The US cannot solve the internal Iraqi divisions. That is a deal only the Iraqis can make.

 

But what if they are unwilling to make that change? Truthfully, Saddam is dead and burning in Hell, Iraq has been immolated, the objectives are accomplished. Since the people don't want to rebuild the "American way", then the Americans should pull out and let them kill each other...

 

Or, as John Pike of globalsecurity.org sais, the Iraqis will just have to get used to it

Much like the Americans one might say, after all they're an empire now. My personal view is that Pike is becoming a hawk, and sucking up to the defence politicos because he as the eternal web-pundit wants to play with the big guys eventually, that's where the money is. That said, his site is indeed informative. And that said, Pike is a cretin. Much like the politicos, even at the cost of 4.100 US soldiers killed, another 30.000 or more seriously wounded, a reputation sorely tarnished, and a trillion dollar hole in public accounts, Pike has clearly not yet learned the lesson that occupation, oh, my mistake, protecting the Iraqis irrespective of their wishes, breeds insurrection.

Foreign policy doesn't matter to the 'little people'? Ask yourself if that is true next time you fill up mama's Explorer. The Saudis are not happy with that the US have done in their neighbourhood for six years. The US 'staying the course' are not going to make them any happier.

To stay is a grave strategic mistake for which both the United States and its Iraqi vassals are likely to pay dearly. I have been looking at the statistics for Russian casualties in Afghanistan. Over a decade they lost 13.836 people, on average 1.537 people a year. I attribute the lesser US losses per year not to less fighting but to superior training, equipment and medical services. The question about sustainability remains untouched by that: How much is the US willing to invest in trying to delay the inevitable?

And if Cheney has his way and the US indeed bombs Iran, he will get the US into something worse they're in now. The Iranians are unlikely to bend over and ask for more. Is the US ready for their reaction? Or will they have to get used to that, too? It might take a while.

 

Now, you see Ragusa, this is what I don't like about you. This guy Pike makes a perfectly relevant point and you attack him. Now, if you have some complaints other than that about him, go ahead and make them, I'll listen. Unless you're trying to argue that Iraq is going to instantly manefest a trained and disciplined army, though, you're just agruing 'damned if we do, damned if we don't'.

Of course, that may well end up being true. I figure we'll at least be demonized in the international community regardless of what we do (and not just for going in there in the first place, but for doing what we end up doing to fix the situation, regardless of what the results are). If we leave, we'll be accused of going in to mess up the place and then not cleaning up our messes (even if leaving leads to stabilization). If we stay we'll be accused of occupying a foreign nation and supressing their people (even if reconstruction is successful and leads to a happy Iraq).

But more to the point on Pike, with all the nations around Iraq greedily eyeing it for oil and money, how long do you really think it would last if the US just up and left?

 

Here's what I don't like about what I read from Ragusa - if what Pike says is true, then the American people have been lied to yet again. The only thing we've been hearing for the last five years is we're staying until the Iraqis have a trained army. When they stand up, we stand down. Turns out, even if we had 500,000 trained Iraqis ready to go, we're still not done. Sure, 500,000 ground troops would be fine for putting down insurgencies, but it wouldn't do a hell of a lot of good against Iran, which actually does have functional fighter aircraft and tanks.

So what do we have to do? Clearly, we're not just going to hand over Abrams and Raptors over the Iraqis. Are we going to teach them how to build their own? Does this mean we're going through formal military acquisition guildelines? If so, then contrary to what McCain is saying, we WILL be there for decades.

 

We, and others, will sell the hardware to the Iraqi's. I believe Isreal is the only nation in the reqion who makes their own weapons of war -- everything else is American, Russian, German, or French (with some Chinese and other odds and ends in there).

Part of rebuilding is refitting. It takes a while. Worse than refitting is training. It takes years to become proficient with aircraft and tanks (and ships). Until the Iraqi's are refitted and proficient, they are simply targets for experienced fighters.

 

It looks to me, then, that some people (Ragusa would call them Neo-Cons, and to be honest I don't think I'd disagree with him there) feel that the US should use Iraq as a foothold in the volatile regioon of the Mideast. That would require a permanent military presence there, regardless of rhetoric that attempts to obscure the issue.

What it looks like to me is that this would be a very poor policy move -- certainly the alliance with Israel is one foothold the US has, but it doesn't do much for their relationship with Arab nations. Some bright boy thinks that staying in Iraq will leverage the US into a friendly (or at least non-hostile) relationship with other Arab nations. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't think THAT particular policy goal is going to work, especially if the US keeps threatening to invade Iran. Maybe the US thinks the other Arab nations can be intimidated?

I hate to keep harping on this topic, but I am of the opinion that we wouldn't have this mess if the US weren't so bloody dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Start a belt-tightening program and develop other sources of oil and power. THAT would require breaking the huge influence the oil companies have in the US, and that'll take some doing.

 

Yes I do. Because he draws a stupid conclusion: Occupation. Breeds. Insurrection. Read that carefully. Pike doesn't see insurrection as a problem. Just like the Iraqis will get used to a US presence, the US will inevitably succeed against the Iraqi insurgency. That are mere assertions, wishful thinking at best. It will go that way because he wishes it will.

A little reminder: Iraq did decidedly not go they way the deep thinkers in DC wished it would go.

For the US it is not damned if they do, damned if they don't: It is getting hurt real bad if they stay, as opposed to getting away with yet tolerable losses. Accept that there are things US power cannot do. That is what Pike doesn't get, what Condi doesn't get if her scary recent piece in Foreign Affairs is any indication. To her the engagement in Iraq is all about transformation of the region - a thing she has no doubt that the US will achieve. I do.

I wrote before that the 'little people' matter. If the US make plans for transforming the region that ignore the 'little people' that live in the place, they're in for a surprise. It won't work. If they invest quite a lot in such silly ideas, they will lose quite a lot. If the US lose quite a lot the US will either lash out real bad (like by bombing Iran) and probably make things a lot worse, or withdraw into an isolationist cocoon for a decade. Neither is desirable.

 

Ragusa, from the US's POV a quick pullout of all of our troops followed by an invasion by iran would be the BEST thing we could ask for.
How you say?
Think about it. When iraq invaded kuwait, the world realised he would control too large of a chunk of the oil market & threaten the whole regions stability. Same thing with a combined iran-iraq. The US would have a world community begging us to go back in & send iran packing just as we had to do to saddam. H#!!, i'm suprised that they haven't pulled all the troops already, if as you seem to think all they want is war with iran. It is so easily accomplished.

 

You haven't been listening.

Ask yourself a question: Who's afraid of Iran in Iraq? Talabani? Maliki? Certainly not. The US? Absolutely. Why? The US problem with Iranian influence in Iraq is that it makes Iraq friendly to Iran. That is not in the US administration's interest because they want to isolate, confront Iran. US policy to wards Tehran still has to be understood in the context of regime change. The administration has no interest in peaceful bilateral Iranian-Iraqi ties because they strengthen Iran. They want to weaken Iran, undermine Iran, and build Iraq as a counter-state to Iran and use it as a base to contain Iran.

Iran will not do what you suggest because they are not daft. They have sufficient influence with a very friendly Iraqi government already. Maliki, the president, is their guy. To a lesser extent Sadr is their guy. Talabani, the Iraqi president, a Kurd, likes to go to Tehran and calls the Iranians good friends. The Iranians made a lot of friends in Iraq. So why should they expose themselves in such a ham fisted way? There is no benefit in doing what you suggest. Also, it would put on them the burden to defeat the Sunni insurgency, and their presence would re-invigorate Al Qaeda in Iraq. So why should they do that? It would be stupid, and Iran doesn't play stupid.

A thing that might tempt Iran to do something stupid is a US strike. That would change the entire situation. Considering statements from the Shiites 'they would then do their duty' and fight the US. Chances are that they then also wouldn't oppose Iranian troops in Iraq. That would then be the battle for the supply lines in the south. It would be plain reckless from the US to get themselves into such a situation.

What I would expect is that in case the US do leave, the Iraqi Shiites will pursue their interests but stay friendly to Iran. The notion that everybody who is Shiite is automatically a proxy to Tehran is so simplistic that it is just silly. The Iraqi Shiites will not submit to Iran. If I was an American strategist I would relax. Sure, the Iraqi majority and the Iranians share the Shiite faith. But Persians and Arabs don't like each other too much. Persians tend to look down at Arabs. It is not surprising that the majority of Saddam's troops that successfully fought Iran to a standstill were Shiites. When looking at the region, don't just look at the confession, ethnic lines are just as important.