Iraqis ask for Withdrawal Timetable
AP reports on the results of the Cairo national reconciliation conference, attended by the major Iraqi political factions, including Sunni Arabs.
Al-Hayat gives the orginal Arabic wording of some articles of the agreement. One provision says, "We demand the withdrawal of foreign forces in accordance with a timetable, and the establishment of a national and immediate program for rebuilding the armed forces through drills, preparation and being armed, on a sound basis that will allow it to guard Iraq's borders and to get control of the security situation . . ."
Sources at the conference told al-Hayat that they envisaged the withdrawal of foreign military forces from the cities within 6 months (i.e. mid-May?). They said that the withdrawal would be completed over a period of two years (i.e. November 2007). This timetable, al-Hayat says, appears actually to have been put forward by the Americans themselves. If that is true, we finally know exactly what George W. Bush means by "staying the course." It is a course that takes us to withdrawal.
The Shiite United Iraqi Alliance list had originally called for an American troop withdrawal as part of its party platform, but that plank was opposed by Ibrahim Jaafari, and was dropped even before the January 30 elections, presumably because of American pressure.
The other surprise of the Cairo conference is that the negotiators accepted the right for Iraqi groups to mount an armed resistance against the foreign troops. The participants were careful to condemn universally the killing of innocent non-combatants. They decried "takfir" or declaring a Muslim to be an unbeliever.
The Sunni Arabs appear to have gotten some of the things that they wanted.
At the end of the conference, Shiite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim said that he would go forward with creating a provincial confederation in the south. (Such a body would have special claims on the petroleum resources of the South.) Sunni leader Harith al-Dhari dissociated himself in the end from that scenario.
Reuters continues to report on the horrific security incidents in Iraq.
The Daou Report covers ten pro-war fallacies.
My only dissent is that I do believe that if the Americans aren't very careful about how they do it, when they withdraw there will be a civil war and possibly a regional war. What Lebanon should have taught us is that when sectarian conflicts develop into guerrilla war, and when the central government and its army are for any reason paralyzed, a conventional war can easily ensue. As for a statute of limitations on "you broke it, you own it," whatever it is it is surely longer than 2 years.
posted by Juan Cole @ 11/22/2005 12:30:00 AM
|
Facebook
10 Comments:
Breaking & Buying
The comedy of errors in this conflict is highlighted by not being able to fix what was broken. Like the usual "bull in the china shop," the American behemoth has been let loose in a country that seems to continue to break, no matter which way the beast turns. This is, as we all know, the problem with committing too much power to the problem and not having enough appreciation and delicacy when handling fragile matters.
If we concede that the Iraqis (and others around the region) have been traumatised for who knows how long, it stands to reason that when the sources of the instabilities have been removed, there is no longer a focus or restraint. This results in a sort of nihilism, usually expressing and projecting inner turmoils on the external World. The immolaters when consigning themselves to suicidal bombings have reached a point in their lives where nothing matters any longer, their personal fragmentation merely demonstrated by their final actions. When they "break," they also "buy" the Big One.
Recalling for the Nth time that those who were in power were the Sunnis, the eventual gravitation of power toward the Shias and the Shi'ite Iranis' long-time allies, the Kurds, turns many peoples' lives upside down. It may be a matter of how strong the religious conviction will become but the freedom that comes with being "in charge" has since diminished to the point of vanishing. Exploding into a gazillion pieces is fading to nothing.
The regional conflict is another means by which the whole region can be broken, given the disputes that have yet to be resolved between the Turks and the Kurds, the Shia against the Sunni, the Wahabis against whoever, and the ever present disputes over Palestine. Where the region might have lived in fear for so long simply because Big Bad Hussein was looming on the horizon, this obstacle has been removed from inside and outside of his country. Fear has an interesting way of united people for collective safety and security, something that Hussein used to his advantage for internal affairs and something that worked for him and others in their own local and region relations.
Letting freedom into the discussion is one thing; letting it serve as an active force is another. Trying to assemble the puzzle when the faces of the active pieces are not seen gets difficult. Trying to put a large item like the Middle East back together without being able to distinguish all of the parts and pieces gets interesting. The first step is to find what will -- besides fear -- provide the cohesion and adherence to something commonly acceptable. It is doubtful that, once this is figured out, the clumsy ones will be having much depth in the processes. Forcing parts (or roles) or not being perceptive enough to distinguish the right places for the right pieces will undoubtedly create a monstrosity.
Greetings, Dr Cole. I certainly hope the withdrawal plays out as was described. I think Mr Bush finally realized that the guys that advised him into this mess had no idea what they were doing, and has said to the military brass, "Get me out of this as gracefully as possible." I doubt Cheney or Rumsfeld has much real input by now. This is where John Murtha steps in. He is the public voice of the military realists, and his stance is intended to make sure no side issues (like permanent bases in Iraq) cause more bloodshed. Mr Kristol's dream is finally dead. Thank God.
I think our timetable for leaving is going to depend a great deal on what kind of administration the Bush people think will follow them. If they believe that another Republican administration who shares their feelings on Iraq will, they will likely stay the course. If they believe they'll be replaced by a Democratic administration, it's quite possible they'll do everything they can to make things worse and blame everything that happens on the new administration. Just a nastier version of what Bush I did in Somalia to Clinton.
Cup O' Joe - Blog Of The Working Man!
Unless we have a dynamic and fearless news media, that is ready to challenge and seek verification for all savvy government propaganda, it seems to me that we are eternally condemned to be duped, through our dupe-worthy politicians, into sending in troops for causes that, at the end of the day, seem to serve no other interests except those of war profiteering.
For example - here is one angle not yet examined by the corporate news media - What happens to the multi-billion dollar contracts for Halliburton and other Republican-friendly firms once U.S. troops start withdrawing? Does anyone seriously think these war profiteers will hang around and brave the insurgency under the protection of Iraqi troops?
I fear that we will only get to pull the troops from Iraq once Halliburton and Friends have slurped up the last bits from the Iraqi trough. Nothing short of a conservative revolt within the Republican party will reel these pork barrels home.
After all, what mercenary is going to be willing to stick his neck out - even for $1,000 a day - when he is caught in the middle of a Debke with no Arabs holding his hands? The Crawford Two Step will just not do.
At the end of the day, the only true allies the U.S. has in Iraq are the Kurds, and that is because the Kurds desperately need U.S. cover to protect them from the wrath of the Turks, the Iranians and the Syrians. In the end, the U.S. might withdraw from all Sunni and Shiite areas (the Brits plan to leave in 2006) and hunker down in areas deep behind Peshmerga lines.
---------------------
In the stores that I shop in, when you break something you pay for it to be replaced or fixed. You don't own it, because there is nothing worth owning.
The logic that anywhere America attacks militarily, rightly or wrongly, legally or illegally, with cause or without, we own--well, what can one say--is there a more naked apology for imperialism, for the Project For A New American Century? Yes, it explains our behavior in places like Rwanda, where training the Ugandan Army that invaded, then doing nothing, allows us to control the Coltan resources of the eastern Congo.
A more just formulation might be "You break it and you are responsible for paying to put it back together." Though its hard to see how any amount of reparations will ever clean up the DU that has caused birth defects to skyrocket.
I agree that sunni get great succes in getting statement that attack on foreign soldiers and "iraq army soldiers are justified. Unfortunatelly this is only words. Americans has main power in Iraq not talabani. As soon as they doesn't withdraw there will be no peace in Iraq and i'm sceptical that they withdraw. Americans can always find new Chalabis or Allawis who will do what they demand.
Even though the Iraqis themselves may be divided, it seems from your analysis that they are united in their opposition to US troop presence for more than 2 years, 1 if you count significant withdrawal. What happens after the US leaves, however, is very much in the air since the Iraqis will no longer have a common platform (Force US troops out). My guess is that Bush is indeed planning some withdrawal next year, presumably after the election, which he will deceitfully hail as a success. Sectarian violence in Iraq may take time, but my guess is that Bush's "allies" in Congress are counting on some initial calm, at least until the 2006 US Congressional elections. What a mess. The neo-CONS should be sent away like other serious, violent criminals.
If we leave Iraq is it concievable that the the insurgents could actually take territory from the entrenched Kurdish and Shiite regions?
Don't both of these groups have well trained militias and a populace that would vigoriously defend any incursion from the insurgents?
Isn't the real role of the Iraq military to go shoulder to shoulder with the Shiite and Kurdish fighters to put down any Sunni uprising?
Aren't the insurgents pretty much limited by logistics and armament to very small (though deadly) operations such as suicide bombings, roadside bombings, kidnapping, and murder? Do they have any tanks, heavy artillery, fighter bombers, helicopter gunships, armoured personnel carriers, med-evac to sophisticated rear echelon hospitals, recognizable secure military bases, and five billion a month to pay for what they do?
The US military operation is the anti-insurgency version of the Maginot line. If only the insurgents would line up in falanxes on a soccer field, we could smart/stupid/phosfor bomb them to oblivion. But instead they choose to act like a bunch of common criminals and everyone knows how hard it is to stamp out crime.
Just one question, Professor Cole. You say:
"My only dissent is that I do believe that if the Americans aren't very careful about how they do it, when they withdraw there will be a civil war and possibly a regional war."
By the Americans you presumably mean the current administration, at least until 2008.
Can you point to a single instance, either internationally or domestically, of this administration being very careful about how they have done anything at all?
What, George Bush is going to be born again, again, as a responsible statesman?
John
Would be damn ironic if Arab League vehicle helps carry the US out of Iraq. But everyone's gotta love the ambiguity of the group statement. Condemns terror and legitimizes resistance to occupation.
Cairo meet was just prepcon for main meeting in Baghdad next Feb. or Mar. By then there should be a new Iraqi government and much needed debate on constitutional amendments.
Just to assume that December 15 elections would be anything but the usual partisan wizardry, there could be some interesting campaigns. RFE/RL's Iraq Report summarizes a couple dozen competing party lists. Many include weird combos of former exiles, Saddam-era resistance types, tribal chiefs, religious whack jobs and ethnic/sectarian figures of all ilk. It's amazing some well-known exiles (likes of Rend "US Ambassador?" Rahim, Sharif "Kingrich" Ali, Laith (Neddy Dread) Kubba, Najib "Free Willy" Al-Salhi, "Saddam Lite" Allawi, Safia "Purple Thumb" Suhail, Ahmed "Debtor" Chalabi, etc) are still in the game. (Are there trading cards of all these chucklehead candidates, with stats (ie., graft index, attributable murders; torture quotient; US fund meter, etc?)
Many, including parties to the Arab League venture, and apparently, growing segments of Washington society, think violence can be reduced by withdrawing CoW troops to split Ba'athis & nationalists from foreign Jihadis. The tougher part will be creating a functional government that can restore basic services and get big oil online. If major sectarian and ethnic parties dominate next government, its unlikely that Shia and Kurd blocs will cede meaningful authority to Baghdad. There is critical implementing legislation that needs to be crafted, as well as constitutional amendments (if there is to be any notion of "social contract" or modicum of a central governemnt).
Even if KillerDems see an opening in the Arab League meeting to support calls for a withdrawal timetable, one wonders how the BushPigs will weigh in now that the sands have shifted and the poll numbers have gone South.
Post a Comment
<< Home