Saudis Warn against Partition
Day of Rage leaves 83 Dead
Another US GI was reported killed on Monday. That brings the total about 101 in October.
My article in Salon.com on what a bad idea partitioning Iraq would be has been published on the Web.
Saudi Ambassador to the United States Prince Turki al-Faisal warned Monday against partitioning Iraq and against an abrupt US departure:
' "To envision that you can divide Iraq into three parts is to envision ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, sectarian killing on a massive scale," Prince Turki al-Faisal said as he answered questions after a Washington speech. "Since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." '
In contrast, my position that the US should conduct a phased withdrawal from Iraq so as to attmpt to pressure the Iraqi political elite to compromise with one another-- turn out to be shared by many in the US officer corps.
The other militias: Concern is growing among human rights activists about the unregulated and unaccountable mercenaries operating in Iraq.
Reuters reports numerous instances of political violence on Monday. Most wire services are putting the day's toll at at least 83, including the 33 blown up in Sadr City, which I parsed early Monday morning. That one Has raised fears that Shiite reprisals are not far off. That bombing was one of several on Monday. Major incidents:
' MAHMUDIYA - Police found six bodies bearing signs of torture, blindfolded and with bullet wounds, in Mahmudiya 30 km (20 miles) south of Baghdad, police said. . .
SUWAYRA - Police retrieved the bodies of six policemen bearing signs of torture and with bullet wounds from a river in Suwayra, 40 km (25 miles) south of Baghdad, police said. . .
BAGHDAD - A car bomb exploded in al-Harthiya district of Baghdad, killing two people and wounding five, Interior Ministry sources said.
BAGHDAD - A car bomb exploded in al-Bayaa district of Baghdad killing seven people and wounding 25, police said. . .
BAGHDAD - A car bomb exploded in Baghdad's southwestern Amil district, killing three people and wounding six, Interior Ministry sources said.
MOSUL - Police found four bodies, including that of a policeman, in different parts of Mosul, north of Baghdad, police said. . .
KIRKUK - A suicide attacker blew himself up inside a police headquarters in Kirkuk, killing two policemen and a three-year-old girl and wounding 19, including 10 policemen. Police said the attacker was wearing a police officer uniform. . .
IRAQI-SYRIAN BORDER - A suicide car bomber hit an Iraqi army checkpoint at a border pass near Syria, killing four soldiers and wounding one. '
Al-Zaman spoke of a "collapse" in the security situation in Baghdad.
Department of Damn Gall: Bush accuses Democrats of not having a plan for Iraq! The dictionary defines "plan" as "a detailed formulation of a program of action." And Bush's "plan" is . . ?
posted by Juan Cole @ 10/31/2006 12:34:00 AM
|
Facebook
11 Comments:
Professor, Try and listen to a podcast of the Diane Rehm NPR program for October 30. she interviewed several Iraqi people, including a doctor still attempting to practice medicine in Iraq. A very inciteful program!
"Prince Turki al-Faisal said .... 'Since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited'."
91.7 percent of Iraqis oppose the occupation - 84.5% are "strongly opposed". That's unambiguous: practical unanimity, and with a passion.
Now in a functioning democracy that would translate in a blink of an eye into a formal "invitation" to leave. That our governments present this failure of Iraqi democracy as a democratic mandate to remain gives you the measure of their contempt both for democracy and the Iraqi people. And how reassuring to know that this contempt is shared by, and places us on a par with, no less than Turki al-Faisal.
I wonder. Does anybody realise that it is most probably U.S. and British troops that are training "unwittingly" the sectarian militias and death squads ? After all if they managed to "infiltrate" both police and army they have logically also been trained by the coalition troops !?
In that sense the delayed departure of both countries troops has been detrimental to Iraq... Indeed probably that is the only reason at this stage they are staying, to thwart any chance for the Baath party to seize power again (I presume the thinking is the longer "we" stay the weaker it becomes especially militarily vis à vis the other groups)...
George has a plan, "Stay the Course";
Except that George was never "Stay the course";
Until someboyd dug up last week video of Bush saying "Stay they Course";
Which prompted Tony Snow to show how powerful, well organized and competent his staff was, by finding only 8 instances of GWB using the term "Stay the Course";
To wit Olbermman responded by turning to his assistant who in turn fired up his Google search engine and found over 20 instancesof Mr. Bush saying "Stay the Course";
And finally we have the SecDef saying on the radio that they never abandoned "Stay the Course" only that the people that heard the Chief Executive say "Stay the Course" where misinformed. "Stay the Course" meant exactly that, until Rove said otherwise;
And now back to our ongoing series, the Iraqi-War FIASCO, take it away Thom....
Re: Partition as mentioned in Salon and elsewhere:
Partition - and violent instability in Iraq in general - is a very bad idea considered in a vacuum. But is it worse than the alternatives?
Is the alternative a stable pro-US Iraq? If that is the alternative, violent partition is a far worse outcome from the US point of view.
What if a stable pro-US Iraq is not plausible? What if the alternative is an Iraq that is just as hostile to the US as Hussein was, but also having good relations with Iran?
Violent partition is bad for Iraqis. But compared to a stable anti-US Iraq, is violent partition bad for the US? I say it is not, and US policy makers are acting as if it is not.
Because Iran, Syria and Turkey at least would all be willing to enforce a resolution that leaves an intact anti-US Iraq. The other neighbors, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait could tolerate an anti-US Iraq much better than the US could since Iran is not overtly hostile to any of them. They would on net be supportive if the alternative is civil war.
The Sunnis and Shiites both would prefer an intact anti-US Iraq to violent civil war and the Kurds could probably be brought into line.
So a stable anti-US Iraq may be a plausible alternative to violent civil war. Those who argue that violent civil war is bad for US interests have to explain how it is worse, for US interests, than a stable anti-US Iraq.
I have not seen it argued. I'm not sure it can be argued.
The "security collapse," my friend, was when the U.S. invaded Iraq. The actual events we are witnessing now are merely a formality.
Bush's plan is to continue trying to piece something together with an undersized force. It's a stupid plan.
How long did the Sadr reprisals take in the last market explosion? There was also a mass kidnapping of Shiite on their way to Balad. I'd expect a rather unfortunate amount of bodies in the coming days. Which will play poorly with Maliki's decision to reduce checkpoints around Sadr city.
I have been arguing, at least since 2004, that the announcement of a time table for withdrawl has two overwhelmingly positive effects.
First, it gives the Iraqi people (not the parliment, THE PEOPLE) hope (not incentive to get their act together) for the future.
Have you ever had a job where you didn't have a set time to get off work, and you had to stay there until the boss said go home? It's utterly depressing, you can't plan for the immediate future, you're live at the whim of your overseer. Now imagine that on a national scale, in the midst of a civil war.
Second, once they know we're leaving, they have no reason to further support the insurgency or the terrorists.
I am glad you blogged on the Mercenaries who operate in Iraq - it is a little reported fact that some of these private mercenary companies had their roots in South Africa, where they flourished under Apartheid-era illegal wars...
These guys were booted out of South Africa by the post-Apartheid government, and now bring the same vulgar and violent attitude to Iraq.
They appear to be least interested in the welfare of the Iraqi people, and do not care to shoot at any civilians at the drop of the hat in order to 'protect' their high-value foreign VIP corporate clients.
To envision that you can divide Iraq into three parts is to envision ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, sectarian killing on a massive scale
That's happening right now.
Something has to be done to bring down the level of violence. The Kurds have successful working model. The only Iraqi politicans against it are those more interested in their careers than Iraq.
We lived under articles of confederation for over 7 years until we realized we could do better working more closely together.
The Iraqis will figure out the same thing once they stop killing each other.
And once we withdraw to enforce the International borders of Iraq, foreign interests will withdraw or the Iraqis will kill them. Either of which works for me.
To oppose and to prevent partition are two different things. A unitary Iraq might be a fine idea, but does it work? Iraqis appear to be in spontanteous partition. Violent, yes. But does any use of official force stop it or save lives? A good question to place to the JHU authors of the article in Lancet is whether fewer will die by one outcome or the other.
Saddam's Iraq was unitary. It "worked," but relied on a minority dictatorship. If Sunnis don't accept Shia majority rule, then they (and the Kurds) will spoil any unitary formula based on the ballot. Furthermore, if Saudis complain about Shia empowerment, why does this qualify as a veto of a "New Sumer"? If (some) Turks want to invade Kurdistan, is it because they want to kiss EU membership good-bye, or because they want to prove the stories of brutality and annihilation of the Armenians?
To claim that Iraq's oil is a reason to meddle in its politics is not convincing. We buy Nigerian, Venezuelan, and Saudi oil without any endorsement or disavowal of their regimes or customs. Europe buys Russian gas with no pretence of like or dislike of its new Czar. China does not complain about Iran, so long as it sells oil and buys Chinese goodies. Whoever runs Iraq, the country will sell oil. So why care?
Post a Comment
<< Home