Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Friday, September 29, 2006

100 Dead in Iraq on Thursday;
Including 60 Bodies found in Baghdad


Reuters reports almost 40 persons killed in political violence as a result of Iraq's civil war on Thursday. Guerrillas set off several bomb attacks and fired mortars inside Baghdad, accounting for a number of the deaths.

In addition, Police found 60 bodies in various parts of Baghdad, showing signs of torture. They were victims of Sunni-Shiite sectarian reprisal killings. The inability of the current "Forward Together" campaign by the US and Iraqi militaries in Baghdad to deter this widespread murder and lawlessness suggests that the problem is long-term and intractable now.

The US military is complaining that the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is impeding their efforts to take on the Shiite militias that are behind many of these death squad attacks. Al-Maliki came to power with the support of the Sadr Movement and the Mahdi Army, which are prime suspects in the deaths of Sunni Arabs. The US is convinced that the Mahdi Army and the Badr Corps, both Shiite militias are behind a lot of the "war of the corpses" in Baghdad.

Two thirds of Americans say that Iraq is in civil war. Nearly 40 percent of the public said that they did not have a clear idea why the US was in Iraq in the first place.

A new University of Maryland poll found that 71 percent of Iraqis want US troops out by September, 2007. Some 60 percent of Iraqis support attacks on US troops. Since the Sunni Arabs are about 20 percent of the populations, and since the Kurds are very positive toward the US, I figure that this poll result means that the other 40% of Iraqis who support attacks on US troops are Shiites. Shiites make up around 60 percent of the Iraqi population, which means that two-thirds of Shiites support attacks on Americans!

Another recent poll found that 90 percent of Iraqis say that they would not want an American for a neighbor.

If counter-insurgency is about winning hearts and minds, then the US has lost Iraq pretty definitively, if these polling results are at all accurate.

Bob Woodward points out that Iraqis attack US troops on an average once every 15 minutes. There are 900 attacks a week, and it is expected to get worse in 2007. Woodward says that the Bush administration routinely hides from the US public the severity of the problems in Iraq.

Bush accused the Democrats of being the party of "cut and run," on Thursday. But when you are losing a guerrilla war, you should begin considering an orderly retreat. Otherwise you will be stuck in an ever worsening quagmire.

Look at when the British withdrew from Kenya. The Mau Mau revolt and other political violence sudddenly went away. Likewise in the 60s when the French withdrew from Algeria. The longer the US is the military occupier in Iraq, the more likely it is that American lives will be endangered.

Guerrilla sabotage of petroleum facilities has cost Iraq $16 billion in the past two years. Iraq has only been able to pump 1.7 million barrels per day in September, suggesting that the Kirkuk pipeline is closed again and that even down south at Basra something is impeding exports. In August, they did 2.2 million barrels a day, but that apparently could not be sustained. Under the old Baath government, Iraq used to pum 2.8 to 3 mn. barrels per day.

Senior British military officers have been arguing for a British withdrawal from southern Iraq in favor of concentrating on the mission in Afghanistan. It is rare for senior officers to challenge an entire mission. In my view, British impatience to leave southern Iraq reflects a realization that the Shiite south is likely to go on being dominated by Shiite religious parties and militias, and nothing they do is likely to change that outcome. Moreover, since those parties dominate the central government, they are allies on paper, at least, and it is difficult to take them on even if they misbehave (as the Mahdi Army often does).

China says it is interested in resuming oil cooperation with Iraq. You betcha. China has been growing at 10 percent a year and is extremely oil and gas hungry. Oil Minister Hussein Shahristani has signalled that Iraq will honor the deal the Baath government struck with China for development of the small al-Ahdab field.

The news that the Iraqi government seems willing to forge ahead with oil deals, even if they are with China, was said to give heart to the US oil majors, suggesting that they might not be far froms striking some new deals themselves.

The civilian contracting companies that were supposed to do reconstruction in Iraq often did not do it very well, even though they were very well paid for it.

Tom Engelhardt has George W. Bush's Iraq in 21 questions.

7 Comments:

At 2:46 AM, Blogger Juan Cole said...

testing

 
At 6:33 AM, Blogger JHM said...

Yesterday,

Back to Iraq. A top US general implicitly criticized the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for not having dealt with the problem of Shiite militias:

Today,

The US military is complaining that the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is impeding their efforts to take on the Shiite militias that are behind many of these death squad attacks. Al-Maliki came to power with the support of the Sadr Movement and the Mahdi Army, which are prime suspects in the deaths of Sunni Arabs. The US is convinced that the Mahdi Army and the Badr Corps, both Shiite militias are behind a lot of the "war of the corpses" in Baghdad.

Prof. Cole's wording is moving in the right direction, getting harsher, but the best, and most alarming, story about the Wednesday Five O'Clock Follies and associated matters appeared in Thursday's Washington Post:

"It's going to take time for a government to cleanse itself over time . . . .I've got to give it time to do that and hope that I have a prime minister that's going to take that on."

"There is going to come a time when I would argue we are going to have to force this issue. . . . We have to, wherever we can, use what pressure, what influence we have, to get them as quickly as possible to clear these places out." [those two bits are almost certainly from Gen. Chiarelli]

... [I]t's got to be dealt with and it ought to be dealt with by the prime minister and the folks that are inside this government. And I think the time is short for them to deal with that over time because this can't go on like that. I don't see an open end to this deal, I mean, where this just goes on and on. I think the government, the people will get tired if they don't see any action on this.

[S]enior U.S. military commanders have suggested that if the Maliki government fails to take action soon, they may have to step in and pressure the government

My own term for this sort of an orchestrated campaign of leakages aimed at M. al-Maliki rather than any other reader of the Post would be intimidation.

One of Mr. Moore's two pieces in the Friday Los Angeles Times adds

In Washington, members of the Iraq Study Group — a high-profile, administration-backed panel examining U.S. policy in Iraq — recently held a news conference to say that they believed Maliki had just three months to act against the militias and restore stability.,

which might be taken to up the Crawford ante to an ultimatum with a deadline attached.

But God knows best. Happy days.

 
At 9:18 AM, Blogger David Wearing said...

Juan - I was wondering if you'd come across this article by Gareth Porter at Asia Times. I'd not seen it mentioned on Informed Comment.

Basically, he characterises the conflict in Anbar province as consisting of three distinct protagonists: al Qaeda, Sunni nationalists and the US, all at war with each other. What struck me was that I've not seen the dividing line between al Qaeda and the nationalists being draw quite so starkly before. There was a report from the international crisis group earlier this year that said that any differences between the two that might once have existed had pretty much dissolved by now. I understand that to be basically your view as well. But what do you make of Porter's take on the situation? According to him the nationalists are actively fighting a war against al Qaeda.



The NIE report said that any perceived victory for al Qaeda in Iraq would be disastrous, but as you pointed out, that doesn't mean its the West that can defeat them. Porter's article seems to suggest that if there was a US-UK withdrawal, the Iraqi insurgents would take care of al Qaeda in pretty short order - which could be decisive in heading off full-scale civil war in Iraq (if its not too late already) and would also be a decisive blow against international terrorism. Do you think that's a fair assessment?

 
At 9:38 AM, Blogger John Koch said...

China has other priorities, and there is no AIPAC office in Beijing. If W rattles the sabre too much about Iran, America will discover it is indebted to a country that will soon have much more leverage than that supposed omnipotent lobby. If US machinations threaten secure supplies of oil for the sake of destroying Iran, China could demand a stop and be capable, economically and militarily, of doing so. Meanwhile, however, they find no trouble at all in seeing the US mired in a costly quagmire, just so long as it keeps buying goods.

 
At 6:41 PM, Blogger Peter Patau said...

Both Rumsfeld and Cheney were self-aggrandizing mediocrities in the Ford White House, as congressmen and in corporate life. Now, tragically, they've wrecked Iraq and are looking ahead to Iran.

Talk about the blind leading the blind: We're ruled by delusional ideologues, and their followers are even worse. If you're that far out of touch with reality, you need extraordinary powers just to keep one step ahead of the law. Thursday, their congressional enablers -- a Roll Call Hall of Shame -- were quick to oblige.

Still, Woodward's book may mark a turning point. You know things are bad when the court stenographer starts to bite the hand that has been feeding him.

 
At 8:52 PM, Blogger Arnold Evans said...

JHM: Pressuring the government. Threatening to overturn Maliki and replace him with someone more willing to disarm the militias. Is exactly why Maliki, like every other Iraqi politician with a Shiite constituency will never disarm the militias. The militia will fight for Maliki when the US tells the "Iraqi army" to fight against him. And with Sistani's backing, which he will get, and the ability to dramatically ramp up US deaths and cause a pullout of the US backbone of the Iraqi army, the militias will win.

I don't think Maliki is even worried about these threats. They strike me as a combination of tough talk for the US domestic audience and typical US bumbling, with the US personnel honestly not knowing how weak their position is.

JohnMcCutchen: It takes a high level of ignorance to believe the US can leave behind a pro-US Iraq. Victory means a pro-US Iraq. Correct me on my logic, but it seems Q.E.D. that it takes a high level of ignorance to believe the US will leave Iraq.

If the Iraqis do not have a high enough level of ignorance to believe the US will "stand down", they will conclude, as they have, that the US will only leave when forced out. And if they conclude that, the Iraqis will refuse to disarm the exact organizations that will, when the time come, force the US out.

If the US announces that it will fully pull out by a committed date, then and only then will the militias and guerillas voluntarily put down their arms. That will leave an anti-US state, but it may prevent a civil war.

If the US was willing to give up its dreams of a pro-US Iraq, after the voters have already spoken against that dream, then that would lessen the civil war. It says a lot that the US is not willing to do so.

 
At 9:57 PM, Blogger Arnold Evans said...

Please forgive this attempt at drama while discussing a subject as serious as Iraq. Here is a fictionalized dialogue between Maliki and Sadr about disarming.

Maliki: Sadr, I'm feeling weak and timid. The Americans are telling me to disarm the Mahdi Army, and that if I don't they will install someone who will. (Note: This is pure fiction. Maliki is actually the opposite of weak and timid, which is why he has not given in to the Americans yet.)

Sadr: First, who do you trust, me or the Americans? I used what political power I had to put you in place against American opposition. Remember?

Maliki: Well yes.

Sadr: I'll get back to that. My second question is what would happen if the Americans told their army to install Allawi as their puppet leader of an emergency unity government?

M: I'm not sure.

S: Let's see. I have as many supporters as the Sunnis and my supplies from Iran are at least as good as their supplies from Syria and the Gulf states. The US right now is just fighting the Sunnis and not doing too good a job.

M: Keep going.

S: Allawi spoke in favor of the US bombing Fallujah. I spoke against it. Even if you were silent, because you are my man, you spoke against it through me. The Sunnis, won't stop fighting, they'll fight harder if you are replaced by Allawi.

M: Hmmm. I never thought of that. (Note: Totally fiction.)

S: Meanwhile, both Sunni and Shiite clerics are sure to issue fatwas that the "emergency unity government" is not legitimate and that anyone fighting for it is a traitor to their country and religion.

S: Meanwhile, I'll start fighting just as hard as the Sunnis. Hakim will fight just as hard as the Sunnis. Iran will do everything it can to ensure that we stay supplied. Syria will do the same for the Sunnis if the Americans buy off the Saudi half-men, Iran will help that effort and eventually all three groups will increase their coordination.

S: If the Americans can't beat just the Sunnis, who is going to win when they fight everyone else, plus further enraged Sunnis?

M: Maybe not the Americans.

S: Maybe not. Definitely not. But back to who do you trust - these are the people who imposed the sanctions. We both know people with relatives who died because of that. After you shut us down - let's say you can shut us down - do you think the Americans are going to be happy with you? Do you think they won't still want to install Allawi?

M: I never thought of that. (Note. Just fiction.)

S: And let's say you start winning your battle to shut us down. I tell my men to keep their weapons in their living rooms under the sofas. Do you plan on letting the Iraqi Army act as translators as the Americans search us door to door?

M: Of course not. Who do you think I look like, the King of Jordan?

S: Bah. Enough of that nonsense. The sun is about to set. Let's get ready to break this fast. I have serious business to discuss - you said your nephew was going into business? Because I have a cousin who is looking for a partner.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home