Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Sunday, June 25, 2006

23 Killed in Renewed Violence
Reconciliation Plan to be Unveiled


US troops had briefly arrested, then released, Shaikh Jamal Abdul Karim al-Dabaan. He is the chief Sunni jurisconsult (mufti) of Iraq, and the US military called his arrest "a mistake." A thousand people gathered to picket the house of the governor of Salahuddin Province in protest.

Reuters gives the specifics of some of the bombings and other violence on Saturday.

Al-Hayat says that 23 fresh lives were lost on Saturday to civil war violence.

Steve Hurst points out that the guerrilla and civil war violence has gone on in spades since Zarqawi's death. I'd make two further points. First, the daily carnage against Iraqis has been enormous in the past two weeks. There were several deadly car bombings again early Sunday in Baghdad itself. Second, the violence is not most "al-Qaeda"-driven. People in the Sunni district of Adhamiyah in Baghdad are mostly Baathists, not al-Qaeda, and some of them are surely planning out these bombings. Adhamiyah is now under actual attack by US and Iraqi forces, though there is some kind of news blackout on the operation. But the violence is going on anyway. The guerrillas, who still are able to coordinate, have just shifted operations to some other cities, or other districts of Baghdad. As Hurst notes, there was heavy fighting on Haifa Street near the Green Zone just the other day, an area of longstanding guerrilla activity that has been declared pacified over and over again by the US military and press. Bottom line, this article's corrective is a good one, but doesn't go far enough.

Update: Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki presented a 28-point reconciliation plan to parliament on Sunday.

Al-Hayat reports that Malik views this initiative as a privilege of the executive and that he does not intend to have parliament vote on it. A Shiite parliamentarian said it was outrageous to by-pass parliament in this way. Also, significant elements within al-Maliki's own United Iraqi Alliance (Shiite) are disturbed by the idea of granting amnesty to Sunni Arab guerrillas.

The problem is quite the other way around. The amnesty is not extended to anyone who has "shed Iraqi blood," and the Bush administration made al-Maliki back off the idea of granting amnesty to guerrillas who had killed US troops.

But if the point of the amnesty is to bring the guerrilla leadership in from the cold, this amnesty is useless. What Sunni Arab guerrillas worth their salt have killed no Iraqis and no US troops? As for the rest, why would Sunnis who had not killed anyone need to be amnestied? And wouldn't they be rather pitiful guerrillas?

This is like Kissinger saying he would talk to the North Vietnamese but not to any of them who helped the VC kill ARvN and US soldiers. There wouldn't have been any round table talks (not that that whole thing went very well anyway. Just saying.)

It appears that the main point of the "reconciliation" is not in fact to reconcile with the guerrilla movement. It is an attempt to draw off support from it by rehabilitating the Sunni Arabs who had been Baath party members. Those who had not actively killed anyone would now be brought back into public life and deep debaathification would be reversed, as I read it. (Ironically, al-Maliki led the charge for deep debaathification in the past 3 years!) Sunni Arabs would be compensated for losses inflicted on them by Iraqi and US troops (this is key to settling clan feuds against the new order). Shiite militias are to be disbanded. Militia influence in Iraqi police to be curbed. etc.

The plan also hopes to separate out the ex-Baathists from the Qutbists, who style themselves "Salafi Jihadis" but actually are just violent vigilantes, who, in the tradition of Sayyid Qutb of Egypt, blithely brand as non-Muslims worthy of death anyone who disagrees with their version of Islam. The Qutbists are coded as mainly foreigners.

My reading is that large numbers of Iraqi Sunni Arabs have swung to fundamentalist religion, and that the ex-Baathists use them in various ways, and it won't be easy to break up this alliance of convenience.

I do not think this plan goes far enough. It is too little too late. But, well, reversing Ahmad Chalabi's deep debaathification, in which school teachers were punished for joining the Baath Party in 1994 to get a promotion, would be a positive step, if that is what is envisaged. But then there is the question of implementation, and the question of what economy or government is left for the ex-Baathists now to join. Moreover, there is a lot of anger that can't be dampened down so easily.

British forces seem unable to quell the rising tide of violence and insecurity in southern Iraq.

Some Iraqi veterans are already showing up back in the states as among the homeless.

5 Comments:

At 9:38 AM, Blogger Arnold Evans said...

the Bush administration made al-Maliki back off the idea of granting amnesty to guerrillas who had killed US troops.

It has never been explained what leverage the US has in doing these things.

On paper, when the sovereign government of Iraq disagrees with the United States, the Iraqi government should get what it wants. But it never seems to work out that way.

Riverbend and others will say, oh, they're puppets. Accepting that, what exactly are the puppet strings?

There are over 100,000 US troops. But how do they translate to policy? Does Khalizad tell Maliki that he will have Iraq's prime minister arrested and sent to Abu Ghraib?

Khalizad has allies in Parliament, especially Kurds, but Maliki has more Shiite allies, and was elected himself.

I think a clear explanation of the mechanisms by which the US influences the Iraqi government is an important missing part of the reporting of the occupation.

By the way, this intervention by the US pretty clearly contradicts the stated US goals of encouraging reconciliation and reducing sectarian violence among Iraqis. The case is becoming stronger and stronger that those are not the US' goals.

 
At 11:12 AM, Blogger JHM said...

Today's New York Times contains an interesting leak about what the Pentagon people suppose themselves to be doing:

"According to accounts by American officials, General Casey's briefing identifies four main threats in Iraq: Al Qaeda, criminal groups, Iranian support for violent Shiite organizations and ethnic and sectarian strife over the distribution of power."

The story as a whole agrees with its title, "U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts," but if that sentence is Casey's real agenda, one would expect him to be asking for more troops. Or at least I would.

 
At 9:51 PM, Blogger Sulayman said...

I'm pretty sure, unless you can provide a good citation, that Qutubists don't kill anyone who disagrees with them; only secularists. (Don't forget, the secularist Sadat/Mubarak regimes have really oppressed the religious Brotherhood pretty terribly)

 
At 9:56 PM, Blogger Sulayman said...

The word for "De-Baathification" in Arabic was "uproot." It was pretty harsh.

Chalabi himself told in an interview:
"We must uproot the Baath Party from the fabric of Iraqi society. This does not mean killing or humiliating or torturing or in any way demeaning individual Baathists but they must come forward, say what they have, deliver what they have of government property, but it means also the destruction completely of the Baath Party organisation."

So what was his plan? Please Confess and we'll ban you from the government and public life?

 
At 7:50 AM, Blogger Arnold Evans said...

The reconciliation plan published Sunday was far more limited than an earlier draft leaked to Western newsmedia.

The earlier draft did, and the published report did not, explicitly differentiate between attackers of Americans and attackers of Iraqis.

So it seems that the source that the Bush administration made Maliki back off was correct at least as far as Maliki backed off.

How was it done? What did Khalizad say? What are Khalizad's carrots and what are his sticks when trying to influence Maliki?

Any theory on this would be better than what we now have, which is complete silence.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home