Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

King Abdullah II: It's Palestine, Stupid
US Troops may Leave al-Anbar


A surprise for Americans: The most urgent and destabilizing crisis in the Middle East is not Iraq. It is, according to King Abdullah II of Jordan (who will meet Bush today), the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is a major engine driving the radicalization of Muslims in the Middle East and in Europe. It seldom makes the front page any more, but the Israelis are keeping the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank in Bantustan penitentiaries and bombing the ones in Gaza relentlessly, often killing signficant numbers of innocent civilians. Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Rubin, David Wurmser and other Likudniks who had managed to get influential perches in the US government once argued that the road to peace in Jerusalem lay through Baghdad. It never did, and they were wrong about that the way they were wrong about everything else.

In fact, September 11 was significantly about the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem, and as long as the Israelis continue their actual creeping colonialization of Palestinian land while they pretend to engage in a (non-existent) "peace process," radicalism in the region will only grow. Polls taken in the last few years have shown that 64 percent of Egyptians expressed satisfaction with the Mubarak government, but only 2 percent had a favorable view of US foreign policy (i.e. knee-jerk pro-Likud policy) in the Middle East. That is, the argument that authoritarian government breeds radicalism is either untrue or only partial. It is the daily perception of a great historical wrong done to a Middle Eastern people, the Palestinians, that radicalizes people in the region (and not just Muslims).

Back to Iraq. The US military is considering withdrawing from Anbar province! I think this is all that they can do. As I said Monday, there is not a military mission that can obviously be achieved by keeping our troops there any longer. The argument could be made that the attempt to subdue al-Anbar province has been a major radicalizing factor for not only the province itself but for Sunni Arab Iraq in general. The destruction of Fallujah, which is nevertheless still not secure, was a negative turning point in the guerrilla war. The Iraqi troops of the Nuri al-Maliki government will have to keep order or learn to compromise with al-Anbar, one or the other.
Money quote:


' "If we are not going to do a better job doing what we are doing out [in al-Anbar], what's the point of having them out there?" said a senior military official. '


UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is offering to host a United Nations-sponsored conference of Iraqi parties and their neighbors. The idea is modeled on the relatively successful 2001 Bonn conference on Afghanistan. This is the most help the UN has offered in a long time. It is a long shot, but the offer should certainly be accepted.

Sunni Arab guerrillas killed three Fort Hood soldiers.

Two contract service providers to the US military, one a driver and the other a security man, were killed by guerrillas in Iraq.

US troops took fire from guerrillas in Ramadi, then attacked their safe house, which appears to have actually been a family domicile. They may have winged a guerrilla, but they mainly killed 5 girls and women and an unidentified man. It is said that this sort of firefight happens almost daily in Ramadi. I guess we only get a report on casualties where an attempt is being made to head off a public relations disaster.

Police found 50 torture victims of the Iraqi civil war in Baghdad and Baquba.

Reuters reports other civil war violence on Tuesday, including a mortar attack on the Sunni Arab district of Baghdad, Ghazaliyah that wounded two dozen persons.

5 Comments:

At 12:21 AM, Blogger Arnold Evans said...

If I remember correctly, Thomas Jefferson described US slavery as like riding on the back of a tiger. You don't want to be there, but you can't let go.

Israel is similar. Israel can offer land for peace, and give the Palestinians a contiguous territory to form a state, but the people of that state will still have justified grievances. Grievances would include at least the refugees and also water rights. There is then no way to stop the Palestinians from building their contiguous state in the West Bank and Gaza into fortified zones like Southern Lebanon. All of Israel's neighbors would want to help, even if prevented from doing so by unpopular dictatorships. This desire to help would translate into unstoppable smuggling and quasi-legal support for those Palestinians who still want to end Zionism as an active political movement.

Israel, instead of offering land for peace, can continue to try to crush the Palestinians. That increases the pressure on the unpopular Arabs dictatorships and serious steps in that direction will rightfully make Israel a pariah that Israel's enemies would then be able to blockade or otherwise stifle. The US can, for the time being, afford to keep on friendly terms with the dictators of the strategic oil exporters despite its association with Israel, but if the association with Israel gets more expensive, the US may have to choose one of the other. Brutally crushing the Palestinians would also turn Israel into a place Jews would rather move out of than into.

Keeping the Middle East safe for Israel is an expensive project that the US has taken on at a time when it is a rich empire. The dictators the United States supports (!) and the opponents of the democratic movements that the United States is forced to expend resources to thwart (!) are happy to see the US spend its imperial capital this way, as are Israelis. But losses in Iraq are bringing us closer to the day that the US realizes it cannot afford this and abandons Israel for a one-state non-Zionist solution.

 
At 9:44 AM, Blogger Tommy Times said...

Yesterday's article by Ricks & Linzer on the same topic had the quote

As a result, "the potential for economic revival appears to be nonexistent" in Anbar, the report says. The Iraqi government, dominated by Iranian-backed Shiites, has not paid salaries for Anbar officials and Iraqi forces stationed there. Anbar's resources and its ability to impose order are depicted as limited at best.

FUBAR^2.

 
At 11:07 AM, Blogger Murteza ali said...

Is it certain that it was sunni arab guerrillas who killed the 3 soldiers in baghdad? Now shias are starting to adopt the use of ied's albeit not to the same extent as the sunni guerrillas.

The report doesnt say where in baghdad the attack occured. Perhaps close to sadr city?

 
At 11:56 AM, Blogger Dr. Mathews said...

The US military is considering withdrawing from Anbar province! I think this is all that they can do. As I said Monday, there is not a military mission that can obviously be achieved by keeping our troops there any longer.

Plus there is no oil there. ... Which leads me to wonder if the US will throw its full support behind the Shiia and simply carpet-bomb Anbar into oblivion as they did in Viet Nam.

 
At 1:18 PM, Blogger Thomas Boogaart said...

I do not read moving out of Anbar as presaging a US withdrawal. This "redeployment" smells to me like tip-toeing towards the Shia Option. Should we be content that Bush grasps that he needs to change course, or concerned that this is a last ditch option fraught with danger?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home