Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Will Bush Rehabilitate the Baathists?

Al-Zaman [in Arabic] is under the impression that Bush's talks with al-Maliki in Amman will aim in part at politically rehabilitating members of the Baath Party. The "Debaathification Commission" of Ahmad Chalabi (who anyway lives in London) will be abolished, it says. Discussions will be held with the neo-Baathist leadership (grouped politically as the al-`Awdah or Return Party) of the armed resistance. The resistance cells will be offered amnesty if they come in from the cold. Their enemies, the Mahdi Army and the Badr Corps, among the Shiites will be dissolved. And Sheikh Harith al-Dhari, in Amman, will be deployed to make these contacts and concessions, along with reaching out presumably to the Salafi Sunni revivalists, as well.

I am paraphasing the article even though I don't think it sounds plausible. Al-Dhari, a wanted man, is calling on the Arab League to turn against the al-Maliki government. Though Jordanian King Abdullah II is said by al-Hayat to be conducting a furious round of meetings with expatriate Iraqis in Jordan, including al-Dhari, in preparation for Bush's summit on Wednesday. [Link below in Arabic].

And Nuri al-Maliki, head of the al-Da`wa al-Islamiyah Party (Islamic Call [Shiite]) will make all those concessions to the Baathists over his own dead body. (Remember he is already being stoned when he goes to Sadr City; what do you think the Shiite masses will do to him if he kisses and makes up with the remnants of the Baath officer corps?)

On the other hand, I have long argued that the neo-Baathist and Baathist-cum-Salafi guerrilla movements are the central political actors in Sunni Iraq, and something like the process described by al-Zaman will have sooner or later to be attempted.

This political negotiation with the Sunni Arab guerrillas would be one point of involving Syria, since elements of the Syrian Baath might still have credibility with the `Awdah Party, which is reportedly strong along the Syrian border.

Likewise, President Jalal Talabani's discussions in Tehran may be aimed at convincing them to help convince the Shiite militias to lay down their arms. Since the major Shiite militia is the Sadr Movement's Mahdi Army, though, and since a lot of Sadrists don't like or trust Iran, I'm not sure that is going to work. And, Time magazine is reporting that VP Richard Bruce Cheney and NSC adviser Stephen Hadley oppose greater Iranian involvement, according to al-Hayat (I'm traveling and don't have time to look up the English.)

This process sounds so muddled because Washington is flailing around without the slightest idea of what could be done, practically speaking, in Iraq, according to Time: "Several officials who are in touch with commission members said that with violence appearing to spiral out of control in Iraq, the group has been flummoxed about finding a solution. "There's complete bewilderment as to what to do," one official said. "They're very frustrated. They can't come up with anything. For the last couple months, they've been thrashing around, calling people, trying to find ideas."

The real reason for the muddle is, as I said yesterday, that the Bush administration has not defined a realistic and achievable set of military goals in Iraq. Its original political goal of establishing a unified Iraq with a pro-US government that would let oil contracts on a favorable basis for Houston, would ally with Israel, and would form a springboard for further US pressure on Iran and Syria, is completely unrealistic. Cheney's inability to let go of those objectives is the biggest problem we have in Iraq. Move on.

More from Reuters on Monday's death toll in Iraq (excerpts):


' FALLUJA - A U.S. F16 warplane crashed northwest of Baghdad with one pilot on board, the U.S. military said. A spokeswoman said she had no information on the fate of the pilot or the cause of the crash. Residents said they saw the pilot eject but that he was killed, and television footage filmed by a local journalist appeared to show the pilot dead near the crash site. . .

BAGHDAD - Baghdad police retrieved 39 bodies in the 24 hours to Monday evening, most apparently victims of death squads and kidnap gangs, an Interior Ministry source said . . .

BAGHDAD - An Interior Ministry source said five people were killed and at least eight wounded during a U.S. raid in Husainiya, a mainly Shi'ite area on the northern outskirts of Baghdad. . .

BAGHDAD - Three mortar rounds landed on a residential district, killing three people and wounding 15 in Baghdad's southeastern Diyala Bridge area, an Interior Ministry source said.

TAL AFAR - Clashes erupted between gunmen and police during the night, killing three policemen and one gunman in Tal Afar, about 420 km (260 miles) north of Baghdad, police said. . .

'


For the implications of the crash and some challenging comments on the situation in Iraq, see EBW's posting at Wampum.

Then there is this item: "BASRA - France's Defence Ministry said a French intelligence officer was killed by a local militia during an inspection at a checkpoint in Basra on Nov. 21." What is that all about?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pledged Monday to help with Iraq's security problems:

'"The Iranian nation and government will definitely stand beside their brother, Iraq, and any help the government and nation of Iran can give to strengthen security in Iraq will be given . . . We have no limitation for cooperation in any field . . . '


On the other hand, ISNA reports that his cooperation is premised on a US withdrawal:

' "You said you wanted to bring forth freedom but from the moment you got to Iraq, over 150 thousand people were killed and you are stuck in a quagmire where can never get out of it by any means. Iran is ready to help and save you on the condition that you resume behaving in a just manner and avoid bullying and invading. Return to your own country and stop the occupying, because in the persistence of such methods lies nothing but loss and misery for you," declared Ahmadinejad.

"Today the nations of the world have become awake and there is no point in isolating and deterring countries from their path of progress. Such attempts no longer have a way in the world. Come and be friends of the nations. You came here under the pretext of confronting Saddam and weapons of mass destruction, but in truth you had come here to take over the oil of the region," he concluded. '


I suspect that the hardliners in Iran are signalling that the price of their help in dissolving the Shiite militias will be a US pledge to withdraw militarily from Iraq. That would in my view be a pretty good bargain assuming the Iranians could deliver. Personally, I doubt that they could. Washington's tendency to code the Iraqi Shiites as cat's paws of the Iranians does injustice to the strong strain of Iraqi Arab nationalism in its Shiism.

7 Comments:

At 5:47 AM, Blogger Christiane said...

Resistance to the war seems to grow in the US, but the mainstream media aren't really reporting on it.

On Friday 3th of November, a US citizen imolated himself in Chicago, in order to protest against the Iraq war. But the US media made a blackout over the story which was only mentionned in the back pages of a local newspaper and on a single local radio. You have to wonder when you compare it to the wide echo of other imolations (for instance that of Jan Palach in Tchekoslovaquia at the time of the Praha spring. You can find more info about this tragic act of protest at Indymedia.

Here is Malachi Ritscher's own obituary. It appeared on his ownwebsite. Here you'll find more about Malachi Ritscher's story. And here are more other linkslinks.

 
At 9:21 AM, Blogger John Koch said...

Any rapid US withdrawal would entail, one way or another, devolving power outside the Green Zone to militias or to "security forces" that would soon mutate into sectarian and ethnic tools. The only questions are: 1) whether the subsequent "cleansing" and pacification would be any worse than the present slow motion version; and 2) whether the effective partition would leave behind some sort of central fiscal authority to share oil revenues. Might the answer to both be "yes"? On the other hand, if the US, under whatever label, "stays the course," the horizon seems to bode only more of the same, some last ditch Shock 'n Awe to please the Right, and (come 2009) a neo-Baathist patch-up and leave job.

Concerning the F-16 crash, are sorties and attacks a daily event? Are they now relatively rare? Or has the US media simply ceased to track them?

 
At 9:54 AM, Blogger badger said...

As opposed to the "Bush flailing around" thesis, some people in the region think this (what the Azzaman piece indicates) is part of the a coherent US attempt to reconstitute a regional Sunni alliance ahead of an attack on Iran. I try and summarize the points here

 
At 4:24 PM, Blogger troutsky said...

I believe in the end the Sunnis will end up the scapegoats.The US will announce a departure date and guarantee a safedeparture for all Sunnis for a six month period after which they are on their own. The US will be able to say it did all it could to avoid a bloodbath, Sadr will become prime minister and sign a couple of token oil contracts with US firms, Iran will promise to remain on the sidelines till the US public moves on to the next big thing and Sadaam gets strung up.It's all good. We should have just picked a winner and a loser when we first came in instead of all this pretence at unification,just like we did in Chile and Nicaragua and El Salvador, Philipines,Guatemala, Greece ,Palestine etc..

 
At 4:47 PM, Blogger California Writer said...

Helen,
I think you and Juan are saying the same thing. Juan says that the problem is Dick Cheney still clings to his political goal--a stable pro-U.S. Iraq that gives Houston oil companies oil leases--but that goal is unreachable, so Cheney/Bush haven't agreed on a 2nd reachable political goal. Thus they have a military strategy--once Iraq can defend itself we'll withdraw-- for an unreachable goal. That military strategy can never work.

So can the Baker group convince Bush to adopt a realistic political goan and an accompanying military strategy? We'll have to see. In the meantime the Iraq Civil War continues. By the way NBC TV is now calling it a civil war.

I'm confused because last week I heard Bush's cabinet debating about "unleashing the Shiia" and this week newspapers are talking about Bush taking a position more pro-Sunni. What exactly is Bush doing these days?

 
At 5:56 PM, Blogger cognitorex said...

The piece below, "The Ghost of Arafat" was written almost two years ago, Jan 11, 2005. It called for the US to negotiate a political settlement with an unbeatable foe, the Sunni Iraqi insurgency, which such plan is now emerging. Politicaly, it still sounds like a defeatist and unpatriotic proposal which might go a long way toward explaining why it has not heretofore been mentioned by the press or others.
Although Don Rumsfeld did once say in a press briefing in direct reference to the Sunni insurgents "It's not like you can just pick up the phone and call these guys." I really like that line: "It's not like you can just pick up the phone and call these guys."

"The Ghost of Arafat"

Iraq is now a civil war. We have simply chosen a side. References to Vietnam are tactically correct, but passe politically. The analogies are Israel/Palestine and Northern Ireland.

The ghost of Arafat will appear from the Sunni side and George B. to his enormous bile-choking displeasure will have to deal. Were that it were otherwise but this is written.

Fielding one per cent of the Sunni fighting-age men as active insurgents/freedom fighters with three percent as cadre (40,000) creates a stalemate. They can not dislodge us and our Shia forces nor can we pacify them.

Personally I would find this leader (or group) now and begin the next phase. Offer them administrative control of electric and water reconstruction projects. They create no-kill, no-maim zones, implement the projects, Halliburton yes, Halliburton no, who cares, and we release the money on a quasi 'completion' basis.

This gambit lacks all pride and ego but we do get to stay a while.

Sarge might say "Light em if you got em," for a change.

(created by Craig Johnson)
cognitorex blogspot com

 
At 11:27 AM, Blogger Murteza ali said...

releasing the shia probably means cutting them loose, as in dropping them.

And as for the shia militias being dissolved, yeah it definitely will happen. President Moqtada Sadr, having completed his takeover of baghdad and southern Iraq, will then meld his personal militia into the New Iraq Army. He will install Ibrahim Jafari as his Prime Minister and will reach some deal with the sunnis about oil sharing.

That seems like the best hope for Iraq. Moqtada seems like the only shia who could deal with the sunnis relatively equitably. After the fighting stops that is.

PS. It seems the US dreads this outcome. The end of Al Anbar operations is aimed at boosting the sunni position. Now they have freed up more fighters to help with the siege of Baghdad.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home