Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Monday, January 22, 2007

Sadrists Rejoin Government
Talabani: US Should Talk directly to Syria


Reuters reports on political violence in Iraq on Sunday. Two more US troops were killed, and the death toll in al-Anbar for Saturday was revised up to 5. In Baghdad, "A bomb killed at least six people and wounded 15 when it destroyed a minibus in Karrada, in central Baghdad . . ." McClatchy reports that 29 bodies were found in Baghdad on Sunday. US troops arrested a member of the Salahuddin Provincial Council, a chief of the Dulaim tribe. The Dulaim are a large and important tribe. I don't think they are going to like this. US troops at the same time raided the house of a member of the Association Of Muslim Scholars.

AP reports that US military intelligence has convinced Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that the Mahdi Army of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr contains groups acting as death squads, and that al-Maliki's support for it is isolating him in the (largely Sunni) Arab world.

Muqtada and his followers lie low in times when they are under direct military pressure, which is why the Sadrists in parliament and the cabinet have gone back to work and stopped their boycott of the al-Maliki government, and are storing their arms in their closets. But what happens a year from now when they can come back out?

Iraqi President Jalal Talibani is calling on the US to talk to the government of Bashar al-Asad in Syria. Good geopolitical strategy would be to detach al-Asad from Iran. All it would take would be, as a new friend pointed out to me this weekend, a demilitarization of the Golan Heights and its return to Syria. (Well, there'd probably have to be movement on the issue of the Palestinians, too, but Golan is the key). But see Joe Biden's quote below.

CSM writes on new counter-insurgency efforts by US in Iraq. The article points out that such efforts depend on good intelligence on the enemy. I'm not sure how we are going to get that.

In the US, the Democrats are warning Bush not to ignore their objections to his Iraq policies. Senator Joe Biden rejected VP Richard Bruce Cheney's allegation that Democratic opposition is emboldening Bin Laden [a McCarthyite smear technique, or maybe it is time to attribute the technique to Goebbels as is only right]. Biden said that Bin Laden is not now the issue, but if Bush goes on like this, he may become an issue, adding,

"The issue is there's a civil war...That's what we have. That's what the president has to deal with. And he's doing it the exact wrong way. And he's not listening to his military... To his old secretaries of state... To his old friends. He's not listening to anybody but Cheney, and Cheney is dead-wrong. . ."


Zaid al-Ali argues for US withdrawal from Iraq.

Steven Silberman of Wired Magazine is reporting that the treatment and evacuation medical facilities for treating US troops injured in Iraq have become infected with an opportunistic bacterium, acinetobacter baumanii, that under intense exposure to antibiotics has evolved to become immune to them. The Pentagon initially suggested that the pathogen was in the soil in Iraq, but an investigation showed that actually they were picking it up in the hospitals to which they were evacuated. While this bacterium largely preys on the already-weak and ailing, it isn't good news that we've evolved it to be untreatable.

Here's the link to the Wired piece.

A US officer who gave his soldiers in Iraq (they say) the impression that they should not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, leading to the murder of 4 Iraq men (one 70 years old), has been punished with . . . a reprimand.

This Bloomberg wire service report is about how historians will view the Bush administration. The consensus appears to be that he'll be ranked toward the bottom of presidents. The only contrary views the reporter seems to have been able to elicit are not from historians but rightwing political figures. I think the domestic failures will bulk larger than this article incidents, especially the New Orleans fiasco, the gutting of government science, and the opposition to efforts to reduce global warming. That last one will really, really bother historians in the future. They like their archives dry and above the water line.

8 Comments:

At 8:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Professor Cole, please allow me this once to grossly exceed the length of "one or two paragraphs" suggested in your Comment Rules. This is urgently important.

Respecting Mr. Bush's legacy you write, "I think the domestic failures will bulk larger than this article incidents, especially the New Orleans fiasco, the gutting of government science, and the opposition to efforts to reduce global warming." This is not the first time that one of the foremost commentators on the results of Bush Administration policies has completely overlooked the worst of the domestic side, and you're in good company. However:

The "War on Terror" is as much a domestic nightmare as it is a foreign policy disaster. American citizens such as Jose Padilla and Donald Vance have been detained at length, with severely restricted access to counsel, and tortured – yes, tortured, see links - as "illegal enemy combatants," a term invented by the Bush Administration and given quasi-legal force by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to strip anyone so labeled of, apparently, almost any rights under any law.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1970084,00.html

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A12FB38550C7B8DDDAB0994DE404482

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/WarOnTerror/unchecked_powers.asp

Under Bush Administration stewardship, Guantanamo Bay became the place Americans jam feeding tubes smeared with the blood and mucus of other "detainees" down the noses of hunger-strikers. It is amazing that there have been at least one hundred of these men courageous enough to so protest. It is not amazing that “dozens” attempted and three of them committed suicide last year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801344.html

http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2006/0221barratt.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5068606.stm

The USA PATRIOT Act, and other legislation and signing statements have done grievous damage, too. The USA PATRIOT Act is the one that, among other things, forces librarians and booksellers "to secretly hand over information about a patron's reading and Internet habits."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64173-2003Apr20¬Found=true

A December 20th signing statement gives Mr. Bush the power to read all domestic mail, effectively at will.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/04/politics/main2330382.shtml

The Attorney General recently declared Habeas Corpus dead in America, declaring "there is no express grant of Habeas in the Constitution... the Constitution doesn't say (that) every citizen is hereby granted or ensured a right to Habeas." Watch a pillar of Anglo-American justice crumble before your own eyes on Youtube:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YIFqYVAOosM

In a 27 November 2006 speech, Newt Gingrich (who has expressed interest in the 2008 Republican nomination for the Presidency) said, "This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous..."

“And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech... This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment…”

http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=3819

Mr. Gingrich is not a member of the current Administration. The problem is that he is a prominent member of his party (former Speaker, possible Presidential contender) and his anti-First Amendment talk was not disowned by those who are.

Dick Cheney has declared the validity of waterboarding "a no-brainer."

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15847918.htm

All of the above represent the *domestic* side of the “Global War on Terror,” and my list is not exhaustive, but I have already far exceeded the space limit of this comment.

My question for the Bush Administration is, how many attacks on US soil, or how many casualties produced on US soil, would it take for you to declare your own interpretation of martial law? You seem already to have done so to a terrifying degree, play on “terror” intended. Given your vicious assault on civil and human rights to date - that is, given your vicious assault on US citizens and on human beings American and otherwise - how far are you now from completely and even formally suspending the force of the entire Constitution, or from suspending, say, the Federal Election Commission and Congress and the Supreme Court? How hard do you think it would be for you, Mr. Cheney, to persuade the necessary elements of your security apparatus to commit further atrocities in the wake of a second or third spectacular terrorist act inside the country?

“The domestic failures will bulk larger,” indeed.

 
At 8:18 AM, Blogger Alamaine said...

"...US troops injured in Iraq have become infected with an opportunistic bacterium, acinetobacter baumanii, that under intense exposure to antibiotics has evolved to become immune to them."

This is ironic in that the military forces were sent to counter another form of opportunistic infection, 'Terroristis al-qaedaeum,' something that was not there to begin with but has since emerged to be a problem and growing immune to the efforts to eradicate it. And, this is on top of 'Insurgenta iraqius' that has also emerged as an increasingly resilient and resistant form of peril to Iraqis, Americans, and others who are deemed opportunistic targets.

Needless to say, there are many aspects of intervention in a foreign country, especially one with as hostile of a natural environment as Iraq that will provide its own form of 'blowback.' We have heard the stories of the sandfly-borne disease, leishmaniasis, as well as other sorts of things that have grown unabated since the "defeat" of Saddam Hussein in the early 1990ies, growing mostly due to the lack of adequate santitation practices and facilities. Even last week, there was a story about the Baghdad sewage overflowing into the streets shin deep.* Despite nearby rivers, deserts in and of themselves do not have a great deal of natural absorption, relying on gravity and terrain to effect drainage, something that tends to spread whatever is spilled on them over a wider area, the flow and rate determined by the surrounding terrain and obstacles.

We already know about the first Gulf warriors' efforts at warding off diseases and various "syndromes" acquired as a result of the exposure to the region itself as well as various technological experiments wrought by the military forces' leaders. Anyone who has lived in a foreign country knows the inherent risks of living in and around the indigenous, those who have built up their own immunities and tolerance to various local bacteria and other environmental factors. It is no wonder that the Americans have established their own styles of restaurants and other facilities vending and dispensing consumables that are safer than what is available on the local economy. We can only wonder what sorts of other "minor" maladies are not being reported, other than the constant dehydration and sunburn due to being out in the elements, constantly taxing the GIs' systems. One positive aspect to the Americans' lack of a hospitable reception is the reduced incidence of venereal diseases but this, again, might be underreported.

Of course, one of the lessons of Vietnam was the bringing back of conditions therefrom that were not beneficial to American (or "Western") society. Aside from the "love bugs" (having nothing to do with vintage VWs), there were the drug problems and Agent Orange that were highlighted. Vietnam is still dealing with the chemical and biological warfare that was waged on it as well as the social problems such as "left behind" GIs' babies who grew up to become outcasts. The woundings, maimings, and killings of people on both sides might make headlines but there are also less dramatic but chronic issues with which people on all sides have to deal, increasing as the years go by, awaiting every kind of denial, either psychological or institutional, imaginable.

Acinetobacter baumanii might be an exotic example of something systemic but it also remains symbolic of the overall situation wrought by an unnecessary intervention in someone else's nation and society. Once again, we are reminded that this go-round was supposed to be quick and easy, almost free in terms of economic and military costs. We are seeing the conflation of science fiction with science fact, the efforts involving "shock and awe" that are meeting Newton's Third Law, "to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." The only real shock has been the awestruck politicians who are repelled by science yet are its casualty leaders.


* http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=57064&SelectRegion=Middle_East&SelectCountry=IRAQ

 
At 8:27 AM, Blogger JHM said...

Exhibit A:

AP reports that US military INTELLIGENCE has convinced Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that the Mahdi Army of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr contains groups acting as death squads, and that al-Maliki's support for it is isolating him in the (largely Sunni) Arab world.

Exhibit B:

CSM writes on new counter-insurgency efforts by US in Iraq. The article points out that such efforts depend on good INTELLIGENCE on the enemy. I'm not sure how we are going to get that.



Both articles are a bit muddled internally, but if we take the summaries at face value, GOP intelligence in neo-Iraq must already be better than the natives' own, so what's not to be sure about?


The Christian Science Monitor muddle is especially interesting. Mr. Grier does indeed write "Intelligence is key," but considering the strategy he apparently foresees, it is not clear why this should be the case:

To hold areas newly cleared of Sunni insurgents or Shiite militias, US and Iraqi troops are likely to be spread among 30 or 40 miniforts, or joint security sites, within the nine Baghdad districts.

and

. . . the efforts of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Tal Afar in northern Iraq in 2005. First, US troops constructed an eight-foot berm around the city, allowing them to control movement in and out. Then they went house to house, fighting back when they met resistance.

If the New Baghdad metropolitan area is to be westbankized, as it were, chopped up into thirty or forty separate boxes on Tel Afar lines, the primary role of intelligence would seem to be deciding who is to be detained when attempting to pass through a checkpoint. No doubt that is important from the standpoint of occupation policy, but is it really "key"? Would not the mere existence of the box-and-checkpoint system do most of the counterinsurgency work, even if the occupiers have only a rather foggy idea of exactly what is inside each box?

East Palestine may not be the best recommendation imaginable for the system, but as I understand, this is essentially how the British won the Boer War, a conflict in which they can have had very little accurate HUMINT about their enemies. The worst feature of the South African model, the concentration camps, would be entirely unnecessary, since in an urban environment everybody is sufficiently concentrated already. Times have changed since 1902, but the biggest change I can think of off-hand is that all the bad guys in all the boxes would be able to communicate with one another using cell phones and the internet. On the other hand, the occupiers will presumably have these same communications to monitor, SIGINT if not HUMINT, and furthermore it is not intuitively obvious that simply preventing large-scale physical coördination would not suffice for counterinsurgency purposes.

I'm just "taking fortresses with my fingertips" like Father Joseph, of course, and perhaps I have missed the true "Key to All Counterinsurgencies" entirely. Mr. Grier informs us

The point is to cut off insurgents from their sources of support within the population, not to kill them,

whereas the box-and-checkpoint scheme merely compartmentalizes bad guys and population alike. Still, it ought to assist the occupiers considerably in their discrimination of goats and sheep that everybody has to more or less stay put. Or so I should think.

==

Leaving out my own amateurisms altogether, am I mistaken in thinking that Mr. Grier's account of the brave new counterinsurgency is a bit incoherent? Intelligence is the only thing actually labeled "key," but quite a number of other items might as well have been. For instance, there is what used to be called the "winning hearts and minds" business that I haven't mentioned at all -- the "civilian dimension, the political, the economic, the social engineering aspects of it" in Mr. Pollack's words.

Hopefully there is some real structure to the brave new counterinsurgency, not just a laundry list of considerations that might be important, with the really key one turning out at the end of the day to be the one that was most neglected.

And hopefully human intelligence is not THE key, because Prof. Cole is quite right to doubt that the militant Republicans are likely to be any good at that on a turf as culturally distant as neo-Iraq is. In regard to the AP article, if poor M. al-Málikí doesn't know certain truths about his own subjects that "US military intelligence" must inform him of, that can only be a matter of his not wishing to (officially) know.

Happy days.

 
At 9:42 AM, Blogger jhgeorge said...

As a first test, why can't we give Baghdad to the Iraqi's to clean up; giving them agreed on marching orders . Is the problem we don't trust them with our permanent facilities in Baghdad?

 
At 10:53 AM, Blogger John Koch said...

Historians usually reach a "consensus" on something only when all the direct participants and witnesses are dead and the living cease to care. Russians who killed eachother over Stalin vs Trotsky now yawn. Athenians versus Spartans? Quaint story. On the other hand, if Huntington is right, Islam and the West may face friction for quite some time. Concentration of oil in a few spots in the Mideast is also a great geological idiosyncracy. Might Bush, like Truman, have led the US into a war with flawed execution and stalemate, but be redeemed by later events? Think of Reagan, who some may revile for domestic policies or international shenanigans and fear-mongering, but whose years coincided with the collapse of the USSR. Events play many tricks. Had Katrina occurred before or after W, the flooding and mismanagement could have been just as bad. Maybe a future Spanish speaking EEUU will see the W years as the watershed era when the GOP recognized that its future was with ethnic inclusion and lasses faire border policies. Globalist may herald the W years as the era when capital and labor mobility vanquished old barriers. Bottom line: history can make heroes of numbskulls and fools of people who think they understand it. Regarding Iraq, W's greatest protection is that no one can simply wish it away, and all prospective successors will have to own it, one way or another. Even an Obama would have to eulogize the sacrifice of the troops and rescue US credibility.

 
At 11:20 AM, Blogger Doctor Snedley said...

You can read my latest debunking of "Professor" Cole's pro-bacterial rantings here: Fighting Them There

Excerpt:
Not good news, is it? Perhaps Dr. Cole would prefer to be fighting these bacterium here in America, rather than over in Iraq; but I for one am proud to see our fighting men taking up yet another front on the War on Terror. And frankly, I’ve never even seen a “bacterium” and I suspect that Professor Cole hasn’t either. But from what I understand, they’re very, very small and our soldiers are very, very big. And they’re probably not even armed. Hardly a worthy adversary. So if this is what it takes to keep America safer, I’m all for it. Too bad Juan Cole can’t say the same thing.

Read More

 
At 6:57 PM, Blogger Doctor Snedley said...

Damn, damn, damn. Here's the correct link to my rebuttal: Fighting Them There

(or if that doesn't work)
http://biobrain.blogspot.com/2007/01/fighting-them-there_22.html

 
At 8:30 PM, Blogger Hans Wall said...

Professor Cole,
Please do us all a favour and keep trolls like doctor snedley off the blog.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home